knb comments on Just another day in utopia - Less Wrong

78 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 25 December 2011 09:37AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (116)

Comments (116)

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: knb 17 January 2012 08:06:58PM 1 point [-]

Meh, I wasn't advocating it, just saying it would be way better than this scenario. Either n humans burning the cosmic commons for tacky IRL video games and sex with strangers or 1 Billion n humans living worthwhile productive lives.

It just seems obvious when you do the math.

Comment author: wedrifid 17 January 2012 11:26:06PM 9 points [-]

Either n humans burning the cosmic commons for tacky IRL video games and sex with strangers or 1 Billion n humans living worthwhile productive lives.

I don't share your premises - including the one that seems to be that the agents that survive in Hansonian Hell are humans in any meaningful sense.

It just seems obvious when you do the math.

Your expression of preference here cannot be credibly described as 'doing math'.

Comment author: thomblake 17 January 2012 08:11:20PM 7 points [-]

Either n humans burning the cosmic commons for tacky IRL video games and sex with strangers or 1 Billion n humans living worthwhile productive lives.

I guess one person's tacky IRL video game is another's worthwhile productive life.

Comment author: knb comment score below threshold [+] (9 children)

Comment author: thomblake 17 January 2012 09:33:09PM 5 points [-]

Right. My point was that you view it as "her silly games", but they might be precisely what make her life worth living. One might just as well say "It's tragic that so many silly lives exist so that Ishtar cannot live her worthwhile life".

Not so much a "Who are you to say" style rejection, as much as noting that it's not obvious, math or no math.

Comment author: knb 18 January 2012 05:17:48AM 0 points [-]

Ok, so would you prefer to pop all but 7 humans out of existence (assume that the process is painless) in exchange for the remaining humans experiencing Ishtar level happiness?

If you just mean to say that terminal values are arbitrary, so some possible minds might prefer the Ishtar scenario, then that's fine, so far as it goes. But if you take multiplication seriously, then its insanely hard to make the case for this being a genuine eutopia.

Comment author: wedrifid 18 January 2012 07:02:55AM 5 points [-]

But if you take multiplication seriously

You seem to be forgetting the old adage "Shut up and don't multiply by a count unless it is a count of something that you value linearly with said count". Very few people value the existence of Hansonian Hell-bots in direct proportion to the number of Hell-bots that are 'alive'. Of those that do it isn't clear that they value the existence of these creatures in that condition positively. So taking things 'seriously' here is more to do with what preferences people have than it is about 'multiplication'.

Comment author: knb 18 January 2012 07:50:42AM -2 points [-]

A lot of people live at subsistence levels. They aren't much less happy than you or me on average. Their lives are very well worth living by their own standards. And they would likely be better adapted to their environment than we are, so there's good reason to believe they would be better of than 1st worlders are now. And the denizens of this alleged eutopia don't seem much happier than some people I know now.

And as long as we're focusing on the preferences of people in the world now, how many of them do you think would approve of the implicit AI autocracy, reproductive central-planning, and hedonism of this world?

This is a dream-world for nerdy/polyamorous/transhumanist folks common on LW but rare everywhere else (except maybe reddit).

Comment author: [deleted] 18 January 2012 05:47:40PM 3 points [-]

I do not think the parent is so obviously wrong to be worth being downvoted to -4 without even mentioning what's wrong with it. (I actually agree with much of it. There was even a Robin Hanson post about the fact that “the poor also smile” (can't link to it because Overcoming Bias is blacked out today).

Comment author: Nornagest 18 January 2012 06:14:09PM * 7 points [-]

I downvoted the grandparent for making unintuitive claims about the money:happiness relation without presenting evidence (my understanding is that subsistence-level income does have a significant and negative effect on happiness, although the plot of happiness over income levels off quickly after a basic level of financial security is achieved), for making sketchy claims about adaptation without evidence, for conflating approval with preference (particularly glaring because the point about happiness/income above only works without conflating the two), and for the entirely unnecessary swipe at perceived LW norms in the last sentence.

Oh, and by way of disclaimer, I didn't find the original story especially compelling as a vision of utopia.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 18 January 2012 04:00:36PM 2 points [-]

Isn't it equally tragic that in the real world the resources that are currently maintaining my life aren't instead being used to support other, more worthwhile, lives? (Or, well, more tragic, since it's actually real?)

Comment author: knb 18 January 2012 08:33:34PM 1 point [-]

Isn't it equally tragic that in the real world the resources that are currently maintaining my life aren't instead being used to support other, more worthwhile, lives?

My argument isn't that each life which might have been is more valuable, but that they are when added up.

First of all, uploads aren't yet possible, so far fewer lives worth living could be supported with your resources in the first place. More importantly, since most resources aren't being centrally distributed by all-powerful machine gods, we would have to tax your earnings. This involves the infamous "leaky buckets" problem acknowledged by all utilitarians. People engage in tax avoidance behaviors, work fewer hours, hide income, and some money which is captured is spent on overhead. These problems don't exist when all resources are being created and distributed by a central depot.

Furthermore, the ability to actually get those resources to the people in need are in doubt, due to grabby governments/warlords/logistical problems etc.

But yes, overall I would say it is tragic that some of our 1st-World resources aren't going to save marginal lives.

Comment author: khafra 18 January 2012 09:19:43PM 5 points [-]

But yes, overall I would say it is tragic that some of our 1st-World resources aren't going to save marginal lives.

I don't think this is the alternative he was proposing. I think the more relevant analogy would be our 1st-World resources going to produce extra marginal barely-worth-living lives in the third world.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 18 January 2012 01:14:22PM 3 points [-]

What do you think people should be doing? In a post scarcity economy, it seems to me that a lot of what remains to be done is keeping each other entertained.

Comment author: knb 18 January 2012 08:48:35PM * 2 points [-]

My problem isn't particularly with the Ishtar's pastimes, but with the overall system. I'm arguing that Hanson's upload society would be better than this because it could support so many more lives worth living total and more total utility than this alleged eutopia.

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 06 January 2015 08:28:39PM 0 points [-]

So you'd be happy with this world if it all existed inside a small piece of the galactic computronium-pile, and there was lots more of it? I actually hadn't considered that, because I just assume all post-Singularity futures are set inside the galactic computronium-pile unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 18 January 2012 04:41:54PM 1 point [-]

It just seems obvious when you do the math.

What math is that? Are you talking about number of lives at any given century -- effectively judging the situation as if time-periods were sentient observers to be happy or unhappy at their current situation?

Do you have any reason to believe that maximum diversity in human minds (i.e. allowing lots of different humans to exist) would be best satisfied by cramming them all in the same century, as densely as possible?

A trillion lives all crammed in the same century aren't inherently more worthwhile than a trillion lives spread over a hundred centuries -- any more than 10 people forced to live in the same flat are inherently more precious than 10 people having separate apartments. Do you have any reason to prefer the former over the latter? Surely there's some ideal range where utility is satisfied in terms of people density spread over time and location.

Comment author: knb 18 January 2012 08:02:04PM 2 points [-]

You are misunderstanding my argument.

When you use up negentropy, it is used up for good, and there is a finite amount in each section of the universe. The amount being used on Ishtar could theoretically support good lives of billions of upload minds (or a smaller but still huge number of other possible lives). This isn't a matter of a long and narrow future or a short and wide future, but of how many total, worthwhile lives will exist.

As for quality, there seems to be no reason why simulations can't be as happy, or even happier than Ishtar.

knb comments on Just another day in utopia - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (116)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (116)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login