Or one could be snarky and succinct and just point out that morality doesn’t need to handle utility monsters any more than biology needs to handle unicorns...
(Yes, this is a serious objection, and I’m fine with Crocker’s Rules since I already admitted I’m being snarky :))
Or one could be snarky and succinct and just point out that morality doesn’t need to handle utility monsters any more than biology needs to handle unicorns...
It’s possible we might find some way to create utility monsters in the future though. For instance, a superorganism of brain emulators might count as a utility monster (it depends on if you think two identical ems are one person or two) because it is able to experience so much more at a time than a normal human, and therefore can use resources much more efficiently.
It’s possible that one day we’ll decide to genetically engineer unicorns. I’d suggest that the challenges of doing so are something we’re simply not prepared to handle yet, because we don’t have enough of a foundation to actually do it.
First, Possibility Space, in pretty much any domain, is by default mind-bogglingly huge. There’s a lot of possible “utility monsters”, and you probably don’t want to over-generalize from one example. Humans are notoriously horrible at handling huge possibility spaces, so it’s probably a good idea to focus on areas where we have a narrow search space.
Second, since we can’t currently build or observe a utility monster, a lot of our assumptions about them are liable to be wrong—just like 10th century assumptions about space travel. Humans are notoriously horrible at “armchair philosophy”, so it seems wise not to engage in it as a general rule.
Third, you seem to be looking at a problem that requires a revolutionary rather than evolutionary insight—it’s not liable to be something you can easily brute force. Look at the path that lead us from Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg. Unless you already have a revolutionary insight, it seems best to focus on more evolutionary, fundamental advances.
Fourth, solving this problem, currently, gets you a very pretty mathematical equation that won’t be useful until we meet or make an actual utility monster. Solving more “real world” approaches seems more likely to yield actual, usable insights.
(Note all these objections can be generalized in to a useful heuristic. But, also note that quite a lot of science wouldn’t have occurred if EVERYONE had followed these rules. There’s a time and a place for an exception, but when you have this much against you, it’s worth considering whether you really think it’s worth your time)
Or one could be snarky and succinct and just point out that morality doesn’t need to handle utility monsters any more than biology needs to handle unicorns...
(Yes, this is a serious objection, and I’m fine with Crocker’s Rules since I already admitted I’m being snarky :))
It’s possible we might find some way to create utility monsters in the future though. For instance, a superorganism of brain emulators might count as a utility monster (it depends on if you think two identical ems are one person or two) because it is able to experience so much more at a time than a normal human, and therefore can use resources much more efficiently.
It’s possible that one day we’ll decide to genetically engineer unicorns. I’d suggest that the challenges of doing so are something we’re simply not prepared to handle yet, because we don’t have enough of a foundation to actually do it.
First, Possibility Space, in pretty much any domain, is by default mind-bogglingly huge. There’s a lot of possible “utility monsters”, and you probably don’t want to over-generalize from one example. Humans are notoriously horrible at handling huge possibility spaces, so it’s probably a good idea to focus on areas where we have a narrow search space.
Second, since we can’t currently build or observe a utility monster, a lot of our assumptions about them are liable to be wrong—just like 10th century assumptions about space travel. Humans are notoriously horrible at “armchair philosophy”, so it seems wise not to engage in it as a general rule.
Third, you seem to be looking at a problem that requires a revolutionary rather than evolutionary insight—it’s not liable to be something you can easily brute force. Look at the path that lead us from Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg. Unless you already have a revolutionary insight, it seems best to focus on more evolutionary, fundamental advances.
Fourth, solving this problem, currently, gets you a very pretty mathematical equation that won’t be useful until we meet or make an actual utility monster. Solving more “real world” approaches seems more likely to yield actual, usable insights.
(Note all these objections can be generalized in to a useful heuristic. But, also note that quite a lot of science wouldn’t have occurred if EVERYONE had followed these rules. There’s a time and a place for an exception, but when you have this much against you, it’s worth considering whether you really think it’s worth your time)