= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Strange7 comments on Counterfactual resiliency test for non-causal models - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (78)
If there were dramatically more domesticable species available, that would imply differences in evolutionary history as well, and the abundant resources available to civilization would accelerate subsequent technological development as well. Many of your proposed counterfactuals seem to have the same flaw, implying exponential growth with slightly different coefficients rather than a completely broken model.
Making the zebra more like the horse, or making hippos like Indian elephants, does not seem to require massive surgery in evolution.
That's a valid point, and could be analysed further.
Different coefficients and starting times is enough to break Robin's model. And for Kurzweil's model, I can wipe out the whole human species at critical moments, and still be inside it.
Making the zebra more like the horse wouldn't make it a more attractive species to domesticate unless it provided what early humans were looking for better than horses did, in which case we'd be talking about making the horse more like the zebra right now. More domesticable species would have to mean species which fill different niches, for a wider range of possible specializations.