Perhaps I’m dense, but the obvious bits seem interesting. If resources are limited, each copy would end up sharing a smaller fraction of the same pool. If there is some fidelity loss in the copying, copies may have conflicting objectives. The risk of a duplicate becoming a rival seems non-trivial. If there a significant cost/damage to the original in the copying process, perhaps most would not.
MOR’s horcruxing process seems different than canon, and the differences between what is required by the author’s narrative, by what actually happens in biology, or by what would hypothetically happen in really-real reality given some future copying process seem non-obvious.
ETA: It seems like Toby’s comment uses “is” to prove “ought”, and extending that to cover future mind copying does the same.
Perhaps I’m dense, but the obvious bits seem interesting.
You’re not dense; they are interesting. It was Darwin’s great discovery! And you’re right to suggest that under certain conditions (such as limited resources and poor fidelity) they would not.
It seems like Toby’s comment uses “is” to prove “ought”
I certainly didn’t intend to say anything about ‘ought’. Maybe it’s bad that most beings with the ability to copy themselves do so; then how can we stop it? (Perhaps we should limit resources and interfere with the fidelity!)
My posts was fuzzily asking a couple things: one about what Voldemort in MOR would/should/did do, where I read your answer as that we should look to the natural world, and a more general one about beings in general, where it is obvious that they do indeed copy themselves.
In the biological world, resources are limited, and we’re in competition with fairly evenly matched competitors. AI-wise, I don’t see how we could effectively limit the resources or interfere with the fidelity for a sufficiently advanced AI.
Back to the particular example of horcruxes in MOR, It seems like the costs and perhaps fidelity are significantly different than canon (Bacon’s diary?), and I wonder if that will have interesting implications.
In which case change ‘do’ to ‘would’ in Toby’s comment, keeping reasoning the same.
Perhaps I’m dense, but the obvious bits seem interesting. If resources are limited, each copy would end up sharing a smaller fraction of the same pool. If there is some fidelity loss in the copying, copies may have conflicting objectives. The risk of a duplicate becoming a rival seems non-trivial. If there a significant cost/damage to the original in the copying process, perhaps most would not.
MOR’s horcruxing process seems different than canon, and the differences between what is required by the author’s narrative, by what actually happens in biology, or by what would hypothetically happen in really-real reality given some future copying process seem non-obvious.
ETA: It seems like Toby’s comment uses “is” to prove “ought”, and extending that to cover future mind copying does the same.
You’re not dense; they are interesting. It was Darwin’s great discovery! And you’re right to suggest that under certain conditions (such as limited resources and poor fidelity) they would not.
I certainly didn’t intend to say anything about ‘ought’. Maybe it’s bad that most beings with the ability to copy themselves do so; then how can we stop it? (Perhaps we should limit resources and interfere with the fidelity!)
My posts was fuzzily asking a couple things: one about what Voldemort in MOR would/should/did do, where I read your answer as that we should look to the natural world, and a more general one about beings in general, where it is obvious that they do indeed copy themselves.
In the biological world, resources are limited, and we’re in competition with fairly evenly matched competitors. AI-wise, I don’t see how we could effectively limit the resources or interfere with the fidelity for a sufficiently advanced AI.
Back to the particular example of horcruxes in MOR, It seems like the costs and perhaps fidelity are significantly different than canon (Bacon’s diary?), and I wonder if that will have interesting implications.
He does not.