= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RomeoStevens comments on If interventions changing population size are cheap, they may be the best option independent of your population ethics - 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
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Comments (19)
When i check my intuitions I seem to value simple minds less, and more complex minds more, robustly across the range of complexity in minds we observe. It does feel weird to try to imagine stretching this scale to include things more complex than me, but it feels weirder to make current humans the cutoff if that makes sense.
When I check for which minds I seem to appreciate among the minds we observe it seems those minds that have larger surface area are worth more. Extrapolating this is weird and it is unlikely that the human mind is the apex of surface area possible. But I am pretty sure that having a larger surface area would not be sufficient to make me care more. However it seems it would be more probable / there would be more resources to have something worthwhile with it, provided that it is not "wasted". I don't have a clear handle on what the "good" produced is but just having several acres of neurotissue around is not the finished stage.