EY: I don't multiply tiny probabilities by huge impacts. I also don't get tiny probabilities by putting myself into inescapable reference classes, for this is the sort of reasoning that would screw over planets that actually were in trouble if everyone thought like that.
But isn't the latter exactly what you are doing with Pascal's wager? Underestimating the existence of God's probability so that you may retreat back to 'tiny probability'?
What does "to reason" mean?
Getting there.
Again, define "to trust".
Computers can deceive, they just need to programmed to (which is not hard). (I remember reading an article about computers strategically lying (or something similar) a while ago, but unfortunately I can't find it again)
(Although, it's very possible that a computer with sufficient reasoning power would just exhibit "trust" and "deception" (and self-replicate), because they enabled it to achieve its goals more efficiently.)
5lessdazed
Trust is one of the top four strengths they're missing?
No, it is simply that LW has covered these issues and considers them solved* and so downvotes/ignores people asserting otherwise.
*the weight of evidence points towards evolution, and every point proposed by proponents of creationism and ID has been refuted (do you have a distinctly novel and original argument for creationism/ID? If you don't, then you are wasting your time).
Can people who believe in a God that benevolently created us and looks over us even come to consider the possibility of existential dangers or a human-steered Singularity? Frankly, if they are creationists, I think they are largely irrelevant to a Singularity discussion until they shed such beliefs.
The theory of evolution allows us to reduce the huge complexity of biology to simple starting conditions with a relatively simple set of rules. Regardless of whether we have to allegedly have to add exceptions to our theory to explain missing links, the information of those exceptions is small compared to the huge amount of the complexity of biology we can explain with evolution.
Creationism and ID add MORE complexity while deliberately avoiding paying us back that complexity with predictions and furthermore assume the existence of an entire (possibly human-like) intelligent agent without suggesting any reduction of this agent to simple starting conditions.
But isn't the latter exactly what you are doing with Pascal's wager? Underestimating the existence of God's probability so that you may retreat back to 'tiny probability'?