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

DanielLC comments on Computation Hazards - Less Wrong Discussion

13 Post author: Alex_Altair 13 June 2012 09:49PM

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

Comments (57)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: DanielLC 14 June 2012 06:09:15AM 2 points [-]

Some algorithms are obviously not people.

I disagree. I don't think sentience is all-or-nothing. Given that, I'd expect that it would be almost impossible (in the mathematical one-in-infinity sense) for a given system to have exactly zero sentience. Some algorithms are just not very much people. Some algorithms will produce less sentience in a thousand years than you will in a microsecond.

Comment author: Alex_Altair 14 June 2012 06:18:39AM 0 points [-]

I don't think sentience is all-or-nothing.

Fascinating! I can imagine this being true. So maybe I should say, "Some algorithms are obviously not in the utility function of pretty much anybody.". But then again, I don't think "people" means "sentience". I don't care about simulating rocks, whether or not they have 0.001 sentience.