ike comments on Morality of Doing Simulations Is Not Coherent [SOLVED, INVALID] - Less Wrong

3 [deleted] 07 June 2016 02:34AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (34)

Comments (34)

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

Comment author: ike 14 June 2016 05:41:27AM 0 points [-]

I never intended to claim otherwise, or even, the whole original point doesn't make sense without this.

I'm not sure how the original post makes sense if you agree. I understood the original point as:

  1. Through some tricks with physics we can "skip" the middle states when simulating
  2. So we can evaluate actions without instantiating those middle states

This seems to imply that our evaluations don't need to take into account middle states. Value is definitely not linear, so you can't do subtraction of the trick states.

This is a problem even if your skip turns out to be possible.

Comment author: SquirrelInHell 14 June 2016 06:27:24AM *  0 points [-]

I understood the original point as:

More or less, and as you said the original point was about the possibility of circumventing the "instantiation of middle states". But if I assumed from the beginning the middle states are not important, it would make no sense to argue that such possibility exists. I saw this as a paradox in which on one hand intuitively, the middle matters, but on the other we can reduce it to something that intuitively seems morally OK (i.e. some unrelated abstract computation).

Your intuition that the middle matters seems to match my current information-theoretic understanding, even if you disagree on what exactly makes it so.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit