Assuming individuals receive some finite, above zero amount of utility per unit time, living forever would give infinitely more utility than living for a finite amount of time.
Only if the utility per unit time is constant. And why would we assume that?
Most useful things are subject to diminishing returns. Why should lifespan be an exception? I could even easily imagine that at a certain point, utility turns negative.
Do you ever get bored, or find yourself at a loose end? Do you think that would happen more or less often if your lifespan were longer? Human lifespan (and health in old age) has increased considerably over the last 100 years in the Western world, and that increased lifespan has largely been spent in retirement. Consider how retired people typically spend their time, and ask yourself whether that lifestyle strikes you as appealing. Taking the outside view, why do you think you would use your increased lifespan in any more productive a manner?
Millions long for immortality who don’t know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
“‘Assuming individuals receive some finite, above zero amount of utility per unit time, living forever would give infinitely >more utility than living for a finite amount of time.’
Only if the utility per unit time is constant. ”
You’re right. Edited.
Most useful things are subject to diminishing returns. Why should lifespan be an exception? I could even easily imagine that at a certain point, utility turns negative.
Do you ever get bored, or find yourself at a loose end? Do you think that would happen more or less often if your >lifespan were longer?
I think it would happen much less, if at all, if lifespan was longer, as in the future, one could potentially cure boredom, as preventing boredom sounds much easier than living forever.
Human lifespan (and health in old age) has increased considerably over the last 100 years in the Western world, and >that increased lifespan has largely been spent in retirement. Consider how retired people typically spend their time, >and ask yourself whether that lifestyle strikes you as appealing. Taking the outside view, why do you think you would >use your increased lifespan in any more productive a manner?
As far as I know, the elderly are unproductive because agings has degraded their physical and mental abilities so far that they are no longer very useful in the work force. This wouldn’t happen if aging was cured. Regardless, one wouldn’t need to be productive one AGI’s created.
As long as utility does not turn negative at some point, G0W51′s statement is correct. The degree of utility is irrelevant under an infinite time horizon as total utility will always reach infinity eventually.
There are such things as convergent series. If the maximum utility you can get from each millennium of experience is (e.g.) only 99% that of the previous millennium, then the utility of an infinitely long life is only 100x that of its first millennium.
You’re assuming zero variation to which the phrase diminishing returns, referring to a model of a real world effect, definitely does not imply. At some point, variation exceeds the effect size of convergence in which case the important figure becomes whether the variation is net positive or net negative.
Only if the utility per unit time is constant. And why would we assume that?
Most useful things are subject to diminishing returns. Why should lifespan be an exception? I could even easily imagine that at a certain point, utility turns negative.
Do you ever get bored, or find yourself at a loose end? Do you think that would happen more or less often if your lifespan were longer? Human lifespan (and health in old age) has increased considerably over the last 100 years in the Western world, and that increased lifespan has largely been spent in retirement. Consider how retired people typically spend their time, and ask yourself whether that lifestyle strikes you as appealing. Taking the outside view, why do you think you would use your increased lifespan in any more productive a manner?
Susan Ertz
Most useful things are subject to diminishing returns. Why should lifespan be an exception? I could even easily imagine that at a certain point, utility turns negative.
I highly suggest reading the fun theory sequence.
As long as utility does not turn negative at some point, G0W51′s statement is correct. The degree of utility is irrelevant under an infinite time horizon as total utility will always reach infinity eventually.
There are such things as convergent series. If the maximum utility you can get from each millennium of experience is (e.g.) only 99% that of the previous millennium, then the utility of an infinitely long life is only 100x that of its first millennium.
You’re assuming zero variation to which the phrase diminishing returns, referring to a model of a real world effect, definitely does not imply. At some point, variation exceeds the effect size of convergence in which case the important figure becomes whether the variation is net positive or net negative.