You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Pentashagon comments on Friendly AI and the limits of computational epistemology - Less Wrong Discussion

18 Post author: Mitchell_Porter 08 August 2012 01:16PM

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

Comments (146)

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

Comment author: Pentashagon 10 August 2012 06:36:15PM *  2 points [-]

You could say the same of anyone who has ever died, for some sense of "valid" ... This, and similar waterfall-type arguments lead me to suspect that we haven't satisfactorily defined what it means for something to "happen."

It depends on the natural laws the person lived under. The next "valid" state of a dead person is decomposition. I don't find the waterfall argument compelling because the information necessary to specify the mappings is more complex than the computed function itself.