Alternately, learn to upload people. Which is still probably going to require nanotech. This way, you’re not dependent on ecosystems because you don’t need anything organic. You can also modify computers to be resistant to radiation more easily than you can people.
If we can’t thrive on a wrecked Earth, the stars aren’t for us.
I admit that a Dyson sphere seems like an arbitrary place to stop, but I think my basic argument stands either way. If any intelligent life was that common, some of it would spread.
And that’s why my conclusion is “that wasn’t made by aliens.”
But that’s just the prior probability. I can still say that we have strong evidence that the probability of a given solar system having intelligent life is much, much lower than one in 150,000.
They’re in that interval, or there isn’t easy space travel.
But that’s a lot of information. It’s a very short interval. Since it’s so unlikely to be in that interval, this is large evidence against easy space travel.
We can argue it’s unlikely, sure
It’s a probabilistic argument. But what isn’t? There’s no argument that allows infinite certainty. At least, I’m pretty sure there isn’t.
According to Wikipedia, in Malaysia sale and importation of sex toys is illegal, but it doesn’t sound like there’s any law against using a vibrator you made yourself.
But if those are aliens, then aliens must be common. And if aliens are common, then there should have been tons of them that got to the space travel point long enough ago to have reached us by now.
But how often does that have to happen? They only looked at about 150,000 stars. There are hundreds of billions in our galaxy alone, and if alien civilization developed even 1% earlier than ours, they’d have had time to colonize the entire Virgo supercluster, so long as they start near the center.
basically a negative income tax for the working poor in the US
That would increase incentive to work for the poor, but decrease the incentive to work hard enough to stop being considered poor. They can’t have the income tax be negative for everyone.
Taxes would increase to pay for the Universal Basic Income. You could do it using the money we currently spend on welfare, but that includes things like medicare. Either we need to keep that, or we need to give them extra money to pay for medical insurance.
Supply of labor could decrease. This is a necessary consequence of any effort to help the poor. But since we already have a welfare system, it’s just a question of which causes labor to decrease less.
MWI doesn’t work that way. Universes are close iff the particles are in about the same place.
The link is broken. You need to escape your underscores. Write it as “[love languages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\\\_Five\\\_Love\\\_Languages)”. That way it wil print as ”love languages”.
I tried it on Ubuntu. The game is practically unplayable. I only see the last line of the text unless I scroll, and most of the bottom box is covered. Is the text supposed to be so huge?
If you’re a psychologist and you care about describing people, change the axioms. If you’re a rationalist and you care about getting things done, change yourself.
I don’t mean you can feasibly program an AI to do that. I just mean that it’s something you can tell a human to do and they’d know what you mean. I’m talking about deontological ethics, not programming a safe AI.
The same reasoning would suggest that bisexuals should only get into same-sex relationships. Would you say that as well?
I disagree with the idea that they can’t have kids. They can adopt. The girl can go to a sperm bank.
Safe AI sounds like it does what you say as long as it isn’t stupid. Friendly AIs are supposed to do whatever’s best.
Once AI exists, in the public, it isn’t containable.
You mean like the knowledge of how it was made is public and anyone can do it? Definitely not. But if you keep it all proprietary it might be possible to contain.
But if we get to AI first, and we figure out how to box it and get it to do useful work, then we can use it to help solve FAI. Maybe.
I suppose what we should do is figure out how to make friendly AI, figure out how to create boxed AI, and then build an AI that’s probably friendly and probably boxed, and it’s more likely that everything won’t go horribly wrong.
You would need some assurance that the AI would not try to manipulate the output.
Manipulate it to do what? The idea behind mine is that the AI only cares about answering the questions you pose it given that it has no inputs and everything operates to spec. I suppose it might try to do things to guarantee that it operates to spec, but it’s supposed to be assuming that.
There’s a difference between creating someone with certain values and altering someone’s values. For one thing, it’s possible to prohibit messing with someone’s values, but you can’t create someone without creating them with values. It’s not like you can create an ideal philosophy student of perfect emptiness.
Kind of reminds me of a discussion of making a utilitarian emblem on felicifia.org. We never really settled on anything, but I think the best one was Σ☺.