Suppose they don’t? I have at least one that AFAICT doesn’t do anything worse than take researchers/resources away from AI alignment in most bad-ends and even in the worst case scenario “just” generates a paperclipper anyway. Which, to be clear, is bad, but not any worse than the current timeline.
(Namely, actual literal time travel and outcome pumps. There is some reason to believe that an outcome pump with a sufficiently short time horizon is easier to safely get hypercompute out of than an AGI, and that a “time machine” that moves an electron back a microsecond is at least energetically within bounds of near-term technology.
You are welcome to complain that time travel is completely incoherent if you like; I’m not exactly convinced myself. But so far, the laws of physics have avoided actually banning CTCs outright.)
a “time machine” that moves an electron back a microsecond is at least energetically within bounds of near-term technology.
Do you have a pointer for this? Traversable wormholes tend to require massive amounts of energy[1] (as in, amounts of energy that are easier to state in c^2 units).
There is some reason to believe that an outcome pump with a sufficiently short time horizon is easier to safely get hypercompute out of than an AGI, and that a “time machine” that moves an electron back a microsecond [...]
Note: this isn’t strictly hypercompute. Finite speed of light means that you can only address a finite number of bits within a fixed time, and your critical path is limited by the timescale of the CTC.
That being said, figuring out the final state of a 1TB-state-vector[2] FSM would itself be very useful. Just not strictly hypercomputation.
Suppose they don’t? I have at least one that AFAICT doesn’t do anything worse than take researchers/resources away from AI alignment in most bad-ends and even in the worst case scenario “just” generates a paperclipper anyway. Which, to be clear, is bad, but not any worse than the current timeline.
(Namely, actual literal time travel and outcome pumps. There is some reason to believe that an outcome pump with a sufficiently short time horizon is easier to safely get hypercompute out of than an AGI, and that a “time machine” that moves an electron back a microsecond is at least energetically within bounds of near-term technology.
You are welcome to complain that time travel is completely incoherent if you like; I’m not exactly convinced myself. But so far, the laws of physics have avoided actually banning CTCs outright.)
Do you have a pointer for this? Traversable wormholes tend to require massive amounts of energy[1] (as in, amounts of energy that are easier to state in c^2 units).
Note: this isn’t strictly hypercompute. Finite speed of light means that you can only address a finite number of bits within a fixed time, and your critical path is limited by the timescale of the CTC.
That being said, figuring out the final state of a 1TB-state-vector[2] FSM would itself be very useful. Just not strictly hypercomputation.
Or negative energy density. Or massive amounts of negative energy density.
Ballpark. Roundtrip to 1TB of RAM in 1us is doable.