From: The Baileys (nanotech@cwix.com)
Date: Tue Jan 12 1999 - 05:13:29 MST
>If mortal life is totally meaningless, it would be logical to
>exterminate them for their spare atoms. Mortals, knowing this, will
>refuse to create Singularities. If mortals could bargain with the
>Singularity, it would obviously be to the Singularity's advantage to set
>aside a quadrillionth of computing power for Permutation-City-style
>accomodations, in return for existing at all. But we can't bargain with
>the Singularity until after we've created it and our hold is gone.
>Bearing this in mind, how can you bind the Singularity to the bargain?
>What is the Singularity's logical course of action?
Until the Singularity encounters an atom-shortage, what is the motivation to
go out of its way, allocating any computation time, to determine the optimal
way to exterminate all sentient life? If a Singularity is efficient on
every level then the only time it will bother to destroy humans is when they
somehow conflict with the Singularity's objectives.
>
>Bonus question one: Suppose you have a time machine that can ONLY
>convey the information as to whether or not the Singularity will happen.
> If you change your plans as a result of the indicator, it resends.
>This is one bit of information and thus can be modulated to convey
>messages from the future. How do you negotiate?
I'm not sure I understand this question. The time machine exists in the
pre-Singularity period otherwise its information is useless. However, how
can such information be useful in negotiating with a Singularity when the
Singularity does not exist? The more effective machine would send back
information about whether humans will still exist at some distant point in
time. This machine would evidence the fidelity of the Singularity to the
bargain. However, such a machine would only ensure survival to that distant
point in time and not beyond.
>
>Bonus question two: In both cases above, it is necessary to plausibly
>threaten not to create a Singularity. The only other option, in the
>long run, is exterminating the human race. This has to be able to
>plausibly happen, either as a logical consequence or as an alternate
>future. How do you force yourself to destroy the Earth?
Since the motivation to not create a Singularity is to preserve the
continued existence of humans, this option seems unacceptable. We could
probably slay all child molesters by nuking the entire planet but we'd also
kill all the children (and everyone else) also. The marginal benefit of the
action does not outweight the marginal cost.
The clear truth is that humans can not protect themselves from quantitative
SIs and definitely not qualitative SIs. The only hope for human minds is to
be an integral part of such entities.
Doug Bailey
doug.bailey@ey.com
nanotech@cwix.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:02:47 MST