An FAI will always have more rules to follow (“do not eat the ones with life on them”) and I just don’t see how these would have advantages over a UFAI without those restrictions.
Among the six possibilities at the end of Armstrong and Sandberg’s analysis, the “dominant old species” scenario is what I mean—if there is one, it isn’t a UFAI.
An FAI will always have more rules to follow (“do not eat the ones with life on them”) and I just don’t see how these would have advantages over a UFAI without those restrictions.
They mostly don’t have life on them, even in the Solar System, intergalactic travel involves more or less “straight shots” without stopovers (nowhere to stop), and the slowdown is negligibly small.
Brilliant links, thank you!
An FAI will always have more rules to follow (“do not eat the ones with life on them”) and I just don’t see how these would have advantages over a UFAI without those restrictions.
Among the six possibilities at the end of Armstrong and Sandberg’s analysis, the “dominant old species” scenario is what I mean—if there is one, it isn’t a UFAI.
A UFAI would well have more rules to follow, but these rules will not be as well chosen. It’s not clear that these rules will become negligible.
They mostly don’t have life on them, even in the Solar System, intergalactic travel involves more or less “straight shots” without stopovers (nowhere to stop), and the slowdown is negligibly small.