Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Arthur comments on Nonperson Predicates - Less Wrong

29 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 27 December 2008 01:47AM

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

Comments (175)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Arthur 27 December 2008 05:00:09AM -1 points [-]

Let me see if I've got this right. So we've got these points in some multi-dimensional space, perhaps dimensions like complexity, physicality, intelligence, similarity to existing humans, etc. And you're asking for a boundary function that defines some of these points as "persons," and some as "not persons." Where's the hard part? I can come up with any function I want. What is it that it's supposed to match that makes finding the right one so difficult?

Comment author: Peterdjones 21 January 2013 02:50:17PM *  1 point [-]

The problem embeds the Hard Problem of Consciousness. If simulated people are just zombies with no qualia, there is no harm in simulating them.

ETA: The other problem is edge cases. Also known to be hard. It's pretty much chat the abortion and animal rights debates are about.

Comment author: MugaSofer 22 January 2013 02:51:25PM 0 points [-]

Where's the hard part? I can come up with any function I want. What is it that it's supposed to match that makes finding the right one so difficult?

I assume it's supposed to match, or at least protect, your own extrapolated preferences.