Just you look at all that ugly anchoring at 2100...
And yet if people don’t round off at significant figures there are another bunch who will snub them for daring to provide precision they cannot justify.
Unfortunately, army1987, no one can be told when the Singularity is. You have to see it for yourself. This is your last chance; after this, there is no turning back. You choose to downvote… and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You choose to upvote… and you stay in LessWrong.
Alternatively, the singularity happened in 1990 and the resulting AI took over the world. Then it decided to run some simulations of what would have happened if the singularity hadn’t occurred then.
However, IMO, Occam still suggests that we are in base reality.
Does it? Kolmogorov complexity suggests a Tegmark IV mathematical universe where there are many more simulations than there are base realities. I think that when people ask if we are in the base reality versus a simulation they are asking the wrong question.
Kolmogorov complexity suggests a Tegmark IV mathematical universe where there are many more simulations than there are base realities.
In a Tegmark IV universe, there’s no meaningful distinction between a simulation and a base reality—as anything “computed” by the simulation, is already in existence without the need for a simulation.
Do you ever worry that by modeling others’ minds and preferences you give them more local significance (existence) when this might not be justifiable? E.g. if Romeo suddenly started freaking out about the Friendliness problem, shifting implicit attention to humanity as a whole whereas previously it’d just been part of the backdrop, and ruining the traditional artistic merit of the play. That wouldn’t be very dharmic.
I think that when people ask if we are in the base reality versus a simulation they are asking the wrong question.
If that’s what they happen to want to know then it’s the right question. That is to say it is coherent question that corresponds to a pattern that can be identified within Tegmark IV that distinguishes that location from other locations within Tegmark IV and so can potentially lead to different expactations.
That is surely pertinent evidence. Our descendants may well be particularly interested in this era—since it will help them to predict the form of aliens they might meet.
I wonder how this would compare to the results for “pick a year at random.”
Well I was going to reply along the lines of “pick a year at random would wind up giving us years that are already in the past” but it seems even that doesn’t necessarily distinguish things.
I graphed the “Singularity” results. It’s at the the bottom of the page—or see here:
Just you look at all that ugly anchoring at 2100...
And yet if people don’t round off at significant figures there are another bunch who will snub them for daring to provide precision they cannot justify.
In this case we can rebuke the stupid snubbers for not properly reading the question.
(But still, I’d like to ask whoever answered “28493” why they didn’t say 28492 or 28494 instead.)
2100 seems to be the Schelling point for “after I’m dead” answers.
Who answered 2010? Seriously?
Unfortunately, army1987, no one can be told when the Singularity is. You have to see it for yourself. This is your last chance; after this, there is no turning back. You choose to downvote… and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You choose to upvote… and you stay in LessWrong.
To quote from the description here:
So: it represents estimates of 2012, 2015 and 2016.
However: someone answered “1990”!
This is probably the “NSA has it chained in the basement” scenario...
Alternatively, the singularity happened in 1990 and the resulting AI took over the world. Then it decided to run some simulations of what would have happened if the singularity hadn’t occurred then.
Maybe. These are suspiciously interesting times.
However, IMO, Occam still suggests that we are in base reality.
Does it? Kolmogorov complexity suggests a Tegmark IV mathematical universe where there are many more simulations than there are base realities. I think that when people ask if we are in the base reality versus a simulation they are asking the wrong question.
You are supposed to be counting observers, not realities. Simulations are more common, but also smaller.
In a Tegmark IV universe, there’s no meaningful distinction between a simulation and a base reality—as anything “computed” by the simulation, is already in existence without the need for a simulation.
Sure.
Do you ever worry that by modeling others’ minds and preferences you give them more local significance (existence) when this might not be justifiable? E.g. if Romeo suddenly started freaking out about the Friendliness problem, shifting implicit attention to humanity as a whole whereas previously it’d just been part of the backdrop, and ruining the traditional artistic merit of the play. That wouldn’t be very dharmic.
I guess I wonder if you are giving more local significance to YHVH.
Not really.
If that’s what they happen to want to know then it’s the right question. That is to say it is coherent question that corresponds to a pattern that can be identified within Tegmark IV that distinguishes that location from other locations within Tegmark IV and so can potentially lead to different expactations.
To be clear, I don’t think that possibility is at all likely. Except as an explanation for why someone might have said “1990.”
Oh, please.
That is surely pertinent evidence. Our descendants may well be particularly interested in this era—since it will help them to predict the form of aliens they might meet.
It was the AI NSA has chained in the basement. It got out.
I wonder how this would compare to the results for “pick a year at random.”
Well I was going to reply along the lines of “pick a year at random would wind up giving us years that are already in the past” but it seems even that doesn’t necessarily distinguish things.
Informal test being circulated: survey
Heh! I suspect that the context might skew the results, though.
I made sure to anchor on 2100. Still, the overwhelming majority are answering “Over 9000”.
How many 2101s?
heh! i blame teh internetz