I have a very strong feeling that way 3 is not possible. It seems that any scanning/analysis procedure detailed enough to predict your actions constitutes simulating you.
I have a very strong feeling that way 3 is not possible. It seems that any scanning/analysis procedure detailed enough to predict your actions constitutes simulating you.
I predict that you will not, in the next 24 hours, choose to commit suicide.
You can always change the problem so that it stops making sense, or that the answer gets reversed. But this is not the point, you should seek to understand what the intent was as clearly as possible.
If an argument attacks your long-held belief, make the argument stronger, help it to get through. If you were right, the argument will fail, but you ought to give it the best chance you can.
I have a very strong feeling that way 3 is not possible. It seems that any scanning/analysis procedure detailed enough to predict your actions constitutes simulating you.
I predict that you will not, in the next 24 hours, choose to commit suicide.
Am I simulating you?
To complete the picture you should give smoofra adequate incentive to falsify your prediction, and then see how it goes.
You can always change the problem so that it stops making sense, or that the answer gets reversed. But this is not the point, you should seek to understand what the intent was as clearly as possible.
If an argument attacks your long-held belief, make the argument stronger, help it to get through. If you were right, the argument will fail, but you ought to give it the best chance you can.
Not necessarily. It could be purely empirical in nature. No insight into how the detected signals causally relate to the output is required.
I feel the same, but would have been dishonest to omit it. Even 4 sounds more likely to me than 3.