Edit: presumably there’s an answer already discussed that I’m not aware of, probably common to all games where Omega creates N copies of you. (Since so many of them have been discussed here.) Can someone please point me to it?
I’m having difficulties ignoring the inherent value of having N copies of you created. The scenario assumes that the copies go on existing after the game, and that they each have the same amount of utilons as the original (instead of a division of some kind).
For suppose the copies are short lived: Omega destroys them after the game. (Human-like agents will be deterred by the negative utility of having N-1 copies created just to experience death.) Then every copy effectively decides for itself, because its siblings won’t get to keep their utilons for long, and the strategy “play game iff room is green” is valid.
Now suppose the copies are long lived. It’s very likely that creating them has significant utility value.
For goals on which the N copies can cooperate (e.g. building paperclips or acquiring knowledge), the total resources available (and so utility) will have increased, often linearly (N times), sometimes a lot more. An AI might decide to pool all resources / computing power and destroy N-1 copies immediately after the game is played.
For goals on which the copies compete (e.g. property and identity), utility will be much reduced by increased competition.
In the absence of any common or contested goals, all copies will probably profit from trade and specialization.
The utility outcome of having N copies created probably far outweighs the game stakes, and certainly can’t be ignored.
Um, you get copied N times regardless of your choice, so the utility of being copied shouldn’t factor into your choice. I’m afraid I don’t understand your objection.
Edit: presumably there’s an answer already discussed that I’m not aware of, probably common to all games where Omega creates N copies of you. (Since so many of them have been discussed here.) Can someone please point me to it?
I’m having difficulties ignoring the inherent value of having N copies of you created. The scenario assumes that the copies go on existing after the game, and that they each have the same amount of utilons as the original (instead of a division of some kind).
For suppose the copies are short lived: Omega destroys them after the game. (Human-like agents will be deterred by the negative utility of having N-1 copies created just to experience death.) Then every copy effectively decides for itself, because its siblings won’t get to keep their utilons for long, and the strategy “play game iff room is green” is valid.
Now suppose the copies are long lived. It’s very likely that creating them has significant utility value.
For goals on which the N copies can cooperate (e.g. building paperclips or acquiring knowledge), the total resources available (and so utility) will have increased, often linearly (N times), sometimes a lot more. An AI might decide to pool all resources / computing power and destroy N-1 copies immediately after the game is played.
For goals on which the copies compete (e.g. property and identity), utility will be much reduced by increased competition.
In the absence of any common or contested goals, all copies will probably profit from trade and specialization.
The utility outcome of having N copies created probably far outweighs the game stakes, and certainly can’t be ignored.
Um, you get copied N times regardless of your choice, so the utility of being copied shouldn’t factor into your choice. I’m afraid I don’t understand your objection.