From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Fri Dec 04 1998 - 13:51:36 MST
Sigh. I seem to be getting sloppy. Second oops in a row.
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
>
> True. Perhaps I should say opinion-independent rather than
> observer-dependent. Given the number of strange games physics plays with
^independent
> observers, this is certainly possible. But evolution is absolutely dependent
> on the observing gene, since it's a differential competition; and unless I see
> some excellent evidence, I'm not going to seriously consider the possibility
> that our particular type of observer-independence translates exactly into
^dependence
> reality. What I mean by observer-independence is really more like
> "independent of our brand of observer-dependence". There are various
> interesting scenarios here. But I don't see an observer-dependence scenario
> of plausibility comparable to observer-independence which contributes a large
> anti-Singularity factor.
The above sentence is supposed to parse:
But I don't see an observer-dependence scenario (of plausibility comparable to
observer-independence) which contributes a large anti-Singularity factor.
--
sentience@pobox.com Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
http://pobox.com/~sentience/AI_design.temp.html
http://pobox.com/~sentience/sing_analysis.html
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise specified, I'm not telling you
everything I think I know.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:54 MST