On a 0-10 scale, 0 being hell, 10 being paradise, how do you rate:
1. Earth as it currently exists?
2. The Age on Em as you describe it?
3. The Age of Em if it ends in human extinction within one objective year?
Inquiring minds want to know!
On a 0-10 scale, 0 being hell, 10 being paradise, how do you rate:
1. Earth as it currently exists?
2. The Age on Em as you describe it?
3. The Age of Em if it ends in human extinction within one objective year?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Jun 14 2016
Robin's answers to my three questions: Let me emphasize yet again that I present myself in the book as an expert on facts, not on values, so my personal values should not be relevant to the quality of my book. The fact that you ask #3 suggests you seek an integral o...
Jun 13 2016
On Marginal Revolution this morning, Tyler Cowen addresses the question "How bad is rent control when housing supply is artificially restricted by law?" He leads with this: Many of you have been asking me about this NYT article on the pressures for rent control in Silicon Valley. If no (or few) new apartment blocks wi...
Jun 13 2016
On a 0-10 scale, 0 being hell, 10 being paradise, how do you rate:1. Earth as it currently exists?2. The Age on Em as you describe it?3. The Age of Em if it ends in human extinction within one objective year?Inquiring minds want to know!
READER COMMENTS
Robin Hanson
Jun 13 2016 at 10:48am
Let me emphasize yet again that I present myself in the book as an expert on facts, not on values, so my personal values should not be relevant to the quality of my book.
The fact that you ask #3 suggests you seek an integral over the value of the entire future. In which case I guess I need to interpret #1 as no age of em or any form of AI ever appearing, and it is hard to interpret “hell” as I don’t know how many people suffer it for how long.
But if 0 is the worst case and 10 is the best case, then humans continuing without any AI until they naturally go extinct is a 2, while making it to the em stage and therefore having a decent chances to continue further is a 5. Biological humans going extinct a year later is 4.9.
Robin Hanson
Jun 13 2016 at 1:23pm
Let me emphasize yet again that I present myself in the book as an expert on facts, not on values, so my personal values should not be relevant to the quality of my book.
The fact that you ask #3 suggests you seek an integral over the value of the entire future. In which case I guess I need to interpret #1 as no age of em or any form of AI ever appearing, and it is hard to interpret “hell” as I don’t know how many people suffer it for how long.
But if 0 is the worst case and 10 is the best case, then humans continuing without any AI until they naturally go extinct is a 2, while making it to the em stage and therefore having a decent chances to continue further is a 5. Biological humans going extinct a year later is 4.9.
Spotted Toad
Jun 13 2016 at 3:24pm
[Comment removed for supplying false email address. Email the webmaster@econlib.org to request restoring your comment privileges. A valid email address is required to post comments on EconLog and EconTalk.–Econlib Ed.]
Comments are closed.