Since consciousness seems useful for all these different species, in a convergent-evolution pattern even across very different brain architectures (mammals vs birds), then I believe we should expect it to be useful in our homonid-simulator-trained model. If so, we should be able to measure this difference to a next-token-predictor trained on an equivalent number of tokens of a dataset of, for instance, math problems.

What do you mean by difference here? Increase in performance due to consciousness? Or differences in functions?

I'm not sure we could measure this difference. It seems very likely to me that consciousness evolved before, say, language and complex agency. But complex language and complex agency might not require consciousness, and may capture all of the benefits that would be captured by consciousness, so consciousness wouldn't result in greater performance.

However, it could be that

1. humans do not consistently have complex language and complex agency, and humans with agency are fallible as agents, so consciousness in most humans is still useful to us as a species (or to our genes),
2. building complex language and complex agency on top of consciousness is the locally cheapest way to build them, so consciousness would still be useful to us, or
3. we reached a local maximum in terms of genetic fitness, or evolutionary pressures are too weak on us now, and it's not really possible to evolve away consciousness while preserving complex language and complex agency. So consciousness isn't useful to us, but can't be practically gotten rid of without loss in fitness.

Some other possibilities:

1. The adaptive value of consciousness is really just to give us certain motivations, e.g. finding our internal processing mysterious, nonphysical or interesting makes it seem special to us, and this makes us
   1. value sensations for their own sake, so seek sensations and engage in sensory play, which may help us learn more about ourselves or the world (according to Nicholas Humphrey, as discussed here, here and here),
   2. value our lives more and work harder to prevent early death, and/or
   3. develop spiritual or moral beliefs and adaptive associated practices,
2. Consciousness is just the illusion of the phenomenality of what's introspectively accessible to us. Furthermore, we might incorrectly believe in its phenomenality just because of the fact that much of the processing we have introspective access to is wired in and its causes are not introspectively accessible, but instead cognitively impenetrable. The full illusion could be a special case of humans incorrectly using supernatural explanations for unexplained but interesting and subjectively important or profound phenomena.

Sorry for the late response.

If people change their own preferences by repetition and practice, then they usually have a preference to do that. So it can be in their own best interests, for preferences they already have.

I could have a preference to change your preferences, and that could matter in the same way, but I don’t think I should say it's in your best interests (at least not for the thought experiment in this post). It could be in my best interests, or for whatever other goal I have (possibly altruistic).

In my view, identity preservation is vague and degreed, a matter of how much you inherit from your past "self", specifically how much of your memories and other dispositions.

Someone could fail to report a unique precise prior (and one that's consistent with their other beliefs and priors across contexts) for any of the following reasons, which seem worth distinguishing:

1. There is no unique precise prior that can represent their state of knowledge.
2. There is a unique precise prior that represents their state of knowledge, but they don't have or use it, even approximately.
3. There is a unique precise prior that represents their state of knowledge, but, in practice, they can only report (precise or imprecise) approximations of it (not just computing decimal places for a real number,  but also which things go into the prior could differ by approximation). Hypothetically, in the limit of resources spent on computing its values, the approximations would converge to this unique precise prior.

I'd be inclined to treat all three cases like imprecise probabilities, e.g. I wouldn't permanently commit to a prior I wrote down to the exclusion of all other priors over the same events/possibilities.

Harsanyi's theorem has also been generalized in various ways without the rationality axioms; see McCarthy et al., 2020 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmateco.2020.01.001. But it still assumes something similar to but weaker than the independence axiom, which in my view is hard to motivate separately.

Why do you believe AMD and Google make better hardware than Nvidia?

If bounded below, you can just shift up to make it positive. But the geometric expected utility order is not preserved under shifts.

Violating the Continuity Axiom is bad because it allows you to be money pumped.

Violations of continuity aren't really vulnerable to proper/standard money pumps. The author calls it "arbitrarily close to pure exploitation" but that's not pure exploitation. It's only really compelling if you assume a weaker version of continuity in the first place, but you can just deny that.

I think transitivity (+independence of irrelevant alternatives) and countable independence (or the countable sure-thing principle) are enough to avoid money pumps, and I expect give a kind of expected utility maximization form (combining McCarthy et al., 2019 and Russell & Isaacs, 2021).

Against the requirement of completeness (or the specific money pump argument for it by Gustafsson in your link), see Thornley here.

To be clear, countable independence implies your utilities are "bounded" in a sense, but possibly lexicographic. See Russell & Isaacs, 2021.

Even if we instead assume that by ‘unconditional’, people mean something like ‘resilient to most conditions that might come up for a pair of humans’, my impression is that this is still too rare to warrant being the main point on the love-conditionality scale that we recognize.

I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't that rare for parents for their children. Barring their children doing horrible things (which is rare), I'd guess most parents would love their children unconditionally, or at least claim to. Most would tolerate bad but not horrible. And many will still love children who do horrible things. Partly this could be out of their sense of responsibility as a parent or attachment to the past.

I suspect such unconditional love between romantic partners and friends is rarer, though, and a concept of mid-conditional love like yours could be more useful there.

Maybe I’m out of the loop regarding the great loves going on around me, but my guess is that love is extremely rarely unconditional. Or at least if it is, then it is either very broadly applied or somewhat confused or strange: if you love me unconditionally, presumably you love everything else as well, since it is only conditions that separate me from the worms.

I would think totally unconditional love for a specific individual is allowed to be conditional on facts necessary to preserve their personal identity, which could be vague/fuzzy. If your partner asks you if you'd still love them if they were a worm and you do love them totally unconditionally, the answer should be yes, assuming they could really be a worm, at least logically. This wouldn't require you to love all worms. But you could also deny the hypothesis if they couldn't be a worm, even logically, in case a worm can't inherit their identity from a human.

That being said, I'd also guess that love is very rarely totally unconditional in this way. I think very few would continue to love someone who tortures them and others they care about. I wouldn't be surprised if many people (>0.1%, maybe even >1% of people) would continue to love someone after that person turned into a worm, assuming they believed their partner's identity would be preserved.