rw: methods of short circuiting the sex drive falls into two categories. the first would be controlling sensory input (holodecks/virtual reality and or cyborgs). the second is bypassing the senses and directly messing with the brain itself via implants or genetic manipulation.
the second type is more prone to unintended consequences than the first.
Our drive to do better than our neighbor is a deeply ingrained metric of how we judge ourselves. In essence we recognize that our own assessment is biased and look for cues from others. Eliminating this seems like eliminating past of the foundation of a social species.
I think you’re being remarkably binary about this. I think it more realistic that non-sentient sexdroids will enable healthier relationships. When people get the urge to procreate with fitter partners they can just spend an afternoon in the holodeck. I see what you’re saying as advocating keeping people a little hungry so that they appreciate food more.
I thought a big part of the appeal of the super villain fantasy wasn’t your standard of living but in comparative standard of living. It’s boring if everyone has a volcano lair. People want a doomsday weapon so that they are feared and respected.
an investment earning 2% annual interest for 12,000 years adds up to a googol (10^100) times as much wealth.
no it adds up to a googol of economic units. in all likelihood the actual wealth that the investment represents will stay roughly the same or grow and shrink within fairly small margins.
it seems you conclude with an either/or on subjective experience improvement and brain tinkering. I think it more likely that we will improve our subjective experience up to a certain point of feasibility and then start with the brain tinkering. Some will clock-out by wireheading themselves, but most won’t. Some will be more disposed towards brain tinkering, some will plug themselves into experience machines instead. The average person will do a little of both, trying various brain modifications the way we try drugs today. Will this be dangerous? Well the first people to try a new drug are taking a big risk, but the guinea pigs are a small minority. And they will use experience machines, but most won’t surrender to them, just like most don’t die playing world of warcraft today.
so would you be for or against an AI that inserted us into an experience machine programmed to provide a life of maximum self expression without our knowledge?
the value of this is most easily demonstrated in daydream scenarios. I’m guessing that other people, like me, find themselves going through some of the same fantasies time and time again, whether they be about wealth, sex, prestige or whatever else. A few days ago I banished all these familiar fantasies and spent some time thinking up new ones. Not only was it a wonderfully fun exercise, it seemed to increase my creativity when doing other activities throughout the day.
the difference between reality and this hypothetical scenario is where control resides. I take no issue with the decentralized future roulette we are playing when we have this or that kid with this or that person. all my study of economics and natural selection indicates that such decentralized methods are self-correcting. in this scenario we approach the point where the future cone could have this or that bit snuffed by the decision of a singleton (or a functional equivalent), advocating that this sort of thing be slowed down so that we can weigh the decisions carefully seems prudent. isn’t this sort of the main thrust of the friendly AI debate?
what effect would it have on the point
if rewinding is morally unacceptable (erasing could-have-been sentients) and you have unlimited power to direct the future, does this mean that all the could-have-beens from futures you didn’t select are on your shoulders? This is directly related to another recent post. If I choose a future with less sentients who have a higher standard of living am I responsible for the sentients that would have existed in a future where I chose to let a higher number of them be created? If you’re a utilitarian this is the delicate point. at what point are two sentients with a certain happiness level worth one sentient with a higher happiness level? Does a starving man steal bread to feed his family? This turns into: Should we legitimize stealing from the baker to feed as many poor as we can?
Actually it sounds pretty unlikely to me, considering the laws of thermodynamics as far as I know them.
you can make entropy run in reverse in one area as long as a compensating amount of entropy is generated somewhere within the system. what do you think a refrigerator is? what if the extra entropy that needs to be generated in order to rewind is shunted off to some distant corner of the universe that doesn’t affect the area you are worried about? I’m not talking about literally making time go in reverse. You can achieve what is functionally the same thing by reversing all the atomic reactions within a volume and shunting the entropy generated by the energy you used to do this to some other area.
I think it’s worth noting that truly unlimited power means being able to undo anything. But is it wrong to rewind when things go south? if you rewind far enough you’ll be erasing lives and conjuring up new different ones. Is rewinding back to before an AI explodes into a zillion copies morally equivalent to destroying them in this direction of time? unlimited power is unlimited ability to direct the future. Are the lives on every path you don’t choose “on your shoulders” so to speak?
Or should we be content to have the galaxy be 0.1% eudaimonia and 99.9% cheesecake?
given that the vast majority of possible futures are significantly worse than this, I would be pretty happy with this outcome. but what happens when we’ve filled the universe? much like the board game risk, your attitude towards your so called allies will abruptly change once the two of you are the only ones left.
Peter: if your change of utility functions is of domain rather than degree you can’t calculate the negative utility. the difference in utility between making 25 paperclips a day and 500 a day is a calculable difference for a paperclip maximizing optimization process.
however, if the paperclip optimizer self-modifies and inadvertently changes his utility function to maximizing staples....well you can’t calculate paperclips in terms of staples. This outcome is of infinite negative utility from the perspective of the paperclip maximizer. And vice-versa. Once the utility function has changed to maximizing staples, it would be of infinite negative utility to change back to paperclips from the perspective of the staple maximizing utility.
this defeats the built in time out clause. with a modification that only affects your ability to reach your current utility, you have a measurable output. with a change that changes your utility you are changing the very thing you were using to measure success by.
I know that this isn’t worded very well. I’m sure one of elizer’s posts has done this subject better at some point.
I should have specified a domain change. a modification that varies your utility function by degree has a calculable negative utility.
I think that an empirical approach self modification would quickly become prominent. alter one variable and test it, with a self imposed timeout clause. the problem is that this does not apply to one sort of change: a change in utility function. an inadvertent change of utility function is extremely dangerous, because changing your utility function is of infinite negative utility by the standards of your current utility, and vice-versa.
frelkins: in that vein what if we could flip the switch in the brain that usually only flips when you are sleeping with a new partner? isn’t this half of humanties sex problems gone in one shot? it seems to me that the realm of sex is the one in which it is most obvious that desires shaped by natural selection are not in line with actual happiness and fulfillment.
caledonian: I agree. if we develop some sort of virtual reality that can provide any desire, we’ll just be selecting for people who don’t go in and never come out. If so the future will be populated by people who refuse such self gratification.
what’s more fun? a holodeck that you have complete control over? or a holodeck with built in constraints?
playing god might be fun for awhile, but I think everyone would eventually switch over to programs with built in constraints to challenge themselves. the profession of highest prestige will probably people who write really really good holodeck programs.
yeah, I did. Only because I see political machinations as far more dangerous than the problems happiness studies solve.
as a preference utilitarian I dislike happiness studies. they’re much too easy to use as justification for social engineering schemes.
am I missing something here? What is bad about this scenario? the genie himself said it will only be a few decades before women and men can be reunited if they choose. what’s a few decades?