= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on What would an ultra-intelligent machine make of the great filter? - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (10)
You are stating "I think ultra-intelligent machine will believe X", but this simply means that you believe X, so why the talk about ultra-intelligent machines? It serves no purpose.
(It looks like LW version of the "All reasonable/rational/Scottish people believe X" dark side rhetoric is "Ultra-intelligent machines will believe X".)
(b) is counterfactual today. Nobody can calculate how many nearby star systems should have given birth to star faring civilizations - since nobody knows p(origin of life). We can't even make life from plausible inorganic materials yet. We are clueless - and thus highly uncertain.
OK. I think that if an ultra-intelligent AI determines that (a), (b) and (c) are correct then the zoo hypothesis is probably the solution to Fermi's paradox. I think this last sentence "serves a purpose" because (a), (b) and (c) seem somewhat reasonable and thus after reading my post a reader would give a higher weight to the zoo hypothesis being true.
So you are using the ultra-intelligent AI as a kind of Omega, then? To establish that (a), (b), and (c) are definitely true?