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.

Kaj_Sotala comments on Open thread, Oct. 13 - Oct. 19, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: MrMind 13 October 2014 08:17AM

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

Comments (355)

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

Comment author: garabik 17 October 2014 08:56:47AM 2 points [-]

That increases other (personal) risks. However, it answers the original question - though not quite correctly, it does not quite minimize the risk of infection - if you accept increasing other risks as a price for decreasing Ebola-risk, there are (much) more dangerous places to go camping, with (much) less Ebola risk (e.g. abandoned underground salt mine). If you accept increasing other risks beyond any reasonable limits, then the answer (which you might very well get from an optimizing AI) is very simple - shoot yourself. Future risk of Ebola infection - zero :-)