= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanielLC comments on A resolution to the Doomsday Argument. - 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 (86)
If I were doing it, I'd save computing power by only simulating the people who would program the AI. I don't think I'm going to do that, so it doesn't apply to me. Eliezer doesn't accept the Doomsday Argument, or at least uses a decision theory that makes it irrelevant, so it wouldn't apply to him.
Well, for a start, I don't think that the builders would want to be the only people in their world. And recall that this only serves to produce new humans, because simply making all existing humans immortal solves the DA as well. I think it would be more efficient to fully populate the simulation.
What is this decision theory? I haven't read the Sequences yet, sorry.
That's not the kind of question to be answered in a paragraph. But the label for Eliezers theory is Timeless Decision Theory (TDT).
How exactly does it make it 'irrelevant?' I haven't been able to find a single reference to the DA.
I disagree. An appreciable number of people might be the ones designing the AI, but they won't spend an appreciable portion of their lives doing it.
I'm not sure I understand. If existing humans became immortal, but no more humans were created, then it removes the need for a future extinction to explain the number of humans that will ever exist.
It's not about the number of humans. It's about the number of observer-moments. Imagine if you were the only human ever. If you're only twenty years old, it's unlikely that you'd live to be a billion. You're not going to just happen to be in one of the first twenty years.
What does that mean, "You're not going to just happen to be in one of the first twenty years"? There are people who have survived more than one billion seconds past their twenty first birthdays. And each one, at one point, was within twenty second of their twenty first birthday. What would you say to someone whose twenty first birthday was less than twenty seconds ago who says "I'm not going to just happen to be in the first twenty seconds"?
Yes, but at many more points they were not.
I'd tell them that they're even less likely to hallucinate evidence that suggests they are.
Every day, at some point it's noon, to the second. If you looked at your watch and it had a second hand, and it was noon to the second, you'd still find that a pretty big coincidence, wouldn't you?