= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Gunnar_Zarncke comments on A rational approach to the issue of permanent death-prevention - 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 (28)
Creation and Collection might also be interleaved. You might incrementally create a copy and sync it with your brain.
Actually I have already created four copies with 50% fidelity of hardware and I hope to approach >30% of software fidelity over the next decades for a total of 40% fidelity. These inexact copies jointly approximate my brain to >85% (assuming software fidelity is also independent) which is deeply satisfactory for me. I don't think technology will reach these levels anytime soon (i.e. during my lifetime).
Upvoted for cuteness.
However, my understanding is that technology has already reached the level of making copies with ~100% of hardware fidelity.
We know how to make ~100% copies of software sure, but hardware? I don't think we can do single-material solid copies with an accurracy with much more than µm resolution.
We can 'copy' (clone) a lot of life-forms. So you might mean that kind of hardware copy. I don't know the mutation rate of animal cloning and it is probably good enough to call it ~100% on the DNA-level. But the resulting phenotype often contains errors that make it questionable to call the result a 100% copy.
I would hazard that cloning comes a lot closer to 100% fidelity than a child comes to 50% fidelity. In any case, one cannot transfer their self to clones or children with our current means - I doubt one can even convey 1%.
That entierely depends on how to measure this.