wedrifid comments on Guardians of the Gene Pool - Less Wrong

25 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 16 December 2007 08:08PM

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

Comments (73)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: pnrjulius 11 June 2012 01:33:51AM 2 points [-]

Not necessarily, because there's no law saying that AIs have to die. This changes the evolutionary calculus significantly; you don't need to reproduce if you can just keep existing and expand your power over the cosmos.

But you're right, insofar as AIs that rapidly self-destruct and never reproduce are not going to stick around long. (I think this is actually a tautology, but it's a tautology with the character of a mathematical theorem---definitely true, but not obvious or trivial.)

It's also worth considering that there are different constraints between NIs and AIs though. NIs have to change gradually, piece by piece, gene by gene. AIs can be radically overhauled in a single generation. This gives them access to places on the fitness landscape that we could never reach---even places that are in fact evolutionarily stable once you get there.

Comment author: wedrifid 11 June 2012 01:46:12AM 0 points [-]

you don't need to reproduce if you can just keep existing and expand your power over the cosmos.

Apart from the practical lightspeed limitations. You do need to reproduce or in some other way split yourself into space-separated parts if you wish to expand your power over a sufficient distance.

Comment author: stcredzero 13 June 2012 04:48:20AM 0 points [-]

One of our mind children might read this someday and think, "Distance? What a quaint idea!"