From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat May 18 2002 - 01:39:42 MDT
Wei Dai wrote:
>>It is futile to attempt to take on anything with robust nanotech
>>that has had enough time to develop berserker-bots. The only
>>way I could imagine attempting a a takeover of a berserker
>>prepared civilization would be if you can generate and direct
>>moderately large black holes. And then the contents of the
>>system isn't much good to you.
>>
>
> I guess you're assuming that there will always be weapons for which no
> defense is possible, the equivalent of today's nuclear missiles. I think
> in that case all of the MBrains will want to be in stealth mode (envelop
> your star in a shell and dump waste heat into a black hole) and hide from
> each other. Occasional violence will break out when one MBrain finds
> another without being detected itself. It can then safely kill the other
> one and take over its resources. The victim's berserker-bots won't know
> where to seek revenge.
I would like to entertain the possibility that MBrains and other
less powerfully brained sentients can think of better ways to
exist than in fear and mutual hostility for the rest of
eternity. If that is all we have to look forward to then I am
afraid I hardly see the point. I just hope that some existing
MBrains aren't watching these communications to see if the
humans will possibly be reasonable neighbors or not. Judging
from a lot of the projections here they might well get the wrong
impression.
>
>>If robust nanotech develops and people disperse through the
>>solar system relatively rapidly, and we have some means
>>for collectively enforcing space based property rights
>>(courts everyone respects?) I don't think there is any
>>competition except in the virtual realm.
>>
>
Forget it. In a super-abundant scenario much of what you want
property rights for is passe. Why project a 19th century
viewpoint on the entire universe and all our possibilities? Why
go out of your way to impose old models on entirely new situations?
> If I want to convert some iron into carbon, I will still want to trade
> with someone who wants to convert carbon into iron, instead of transmuting
> the elements myself. So at least there will be competitive markets in raw
> materials.
>
Or you simply cooperate symbiotically for this deal with no
concept of a competive market even being required.
> Perhaps all SI's will converge to the same set of technologies, so there
> will be no comparative advantages in physical manufacturing, but I see no
> reason to assume that. I think it's possible that there will still be
> competitive markets in manufactured goods post-Singularity.
>
There could be but it isn't the only or necessarily the best
possibility.
>
>>There its much
>>easier to give up your virtual property (CPU cycles) if
>>someone else has a better use for them than you happen
>>to have right now.
>>
>
> That depends on whether there's an efficient way to do general computation
> with encrypted data, otherwise you're going to want physical control over
> your computational substrate. Without that technology you will
> leak information to your competitors when you farm out your computing
> jobs.
>
Assuming again that distrust predominates? Assuming again that
we set up as competitors forever and can't think of anything else?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:11 MST