Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Nick_Tarleton comments on Hedging our Bets: The Case for Pursuing Whole Brain Emulation to Safeguard Humanity's Future - Less Wrong

11 Post author: inklesspen 01 March 2010 02:32AM

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

Comments (244)

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

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 03 March 2010 06:58:10PM 0 points [-]

The point about the complexity of human value is that any small variation will result in a valueless world.

s/is/isn't/ ?

Comment author: LucasSloan 03 March 2010 07:00:35PM 1 point [-]

Fairly small changes would result is boring, valueless futures.

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 03 March 2010 07:08:48PM *  1 point [-]

Okay, the structure of that sentence and the next ("the point is.... the point is....") made me think you might have made a typo. (I'm still a little confused, since I don't see how small changes are relevant to anything Tim Tyler mentioned.)

I strongly doubt that literally any small change would result in a literally valueless world.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 03 March 2010 10:41:34PM *  0 points [-]

I strongly doubt that literally any small change would result in a literally valueless world.

People who suggest that a given change in preference isn't going to be significant are usually talking about changes that are morally fatal.

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 03 March 2010 10:47:30PM 0 points [-]

This is probably true; I'm talking about the literal universally quantified statement.

Comment author: JGWeissman 03 March 2010 07:37:59PM 0 points [-]

I would have cited Value is Fragile to support this point.

Comment author: LucasSloan 03 March 2010 07:40:09PM 0 points [-]

That's also good.