Armok_GoB comments on Torture vs Dust Specks Yet Again - Less Wrong

-2 Post author: sentientplatypus 20 August 2013 12:06PM

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

Comments (54)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Armok_GoB 20 August 2013 11:20:39PM 0 points [-]

Your specific examples of Eliezer, me, or my best (and N best, until 4) friend(s) are contributing to the friendly AI problem, which has way, way bigger number of average affected beings than a mere 3^^^3. If you somehow remove those considerations (maybe by the entity making the offer increasing someone else's ability to contribute to an equal degree), or instead mention any family member or fifth+ best friend, then my obvious snap judgement is of coarse I'd chose the torture/death, without hesitation, and am confused and disturbed by how anyone could answer otherwise.

I'm planing on possibly doing much worse things to myself if it becomes necessary, which it might. Or to other people if I can figure out eliezers ethical injunction stuff well enough to safely make exceptions and that information tells me to.

Comment author: gjm 20 August 2013 11:51:06PM 7 points [-]

the friendly AI problem, which has way, way bigger number of average affected beings than a mere 3^^^3.

?????????

Comment author: MugaSofer 21 August 2013 03:38:19PM -2 points [-]

Well, assuming they exist, in order to be dustspecked ...

Comment author: somervta 21 August 2013 01:24:50AM 5 points [-]

Might wanna do a SAN check there - you just claimed that in real life, FAI would affect a way way bigger number than 3^^^3. If that wasn't a typo, then you don't seem to know what that number is.

Comment author: wanderingsoul 21 August 2013 04:23:05AM *  1 point [-]

I agree with you a lot, but would still like to raise a counterpoint. To illustrate the problem with mathematical calculations involving truly big numbers though, what would you regard as the probability that some contortion of this universe's laws allows for literally infinite computation? I don't give it a particularly high probability at all, but I couldn't in any honesty assign it one anywhere near 1/3^^^3. The naive expected number of minds FAI affects (effects?) doesn't even converge in that case, which at least for me is a little problematic

Comment author: somervta 21 August 2013 04:59:25AM 0 points [-]

Yes, if he had said "I think there is a small-but-reasonable probability that FAI could affect way way more than 3^^^3 people", I wouldn't have had a problem with that (modulo certain things about how big that probability is).

Comment author: polarix 21 August 2013 02:57:56PM 0 points [-]

Well, small-but-reasonable times infinite equals infinite. Which is indeed way, way bigger than 3^^^3.

Comment author: Armok_GoB 21 August 2013 02:59:26PM 0 points [-]

That's what I DID say, "average", and my reasoning is roughly the the same as wanderingsouls, except I don't consider it to be any kind of problem. The omega point, triggered inflation creating child universes, many other things we haven't even thought about... I'd estimate the probability that FAI will find practically infinite computational power around 10% or so.

And yea if I had chosen the working myself I'd probably have chosen something a bit more humble that I actually can comprehend, like a gogolplex, but 3^^^3 is the standard "incomprehensibly large number" used here, and I'm just using it to mean "would be infinite if we could assume transfinite induction".

Comment author: somervta 22 August 2013 09:15:09AM 1 point [-]

Ack! Sorry, I must have missed the 'average'. Retracted.