Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

yudkowsky.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 78 posts

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#31

Post by technoguyrob »

ajkirwin wrote: post #12

Am I one of the few people who looks forward to death? To know that there WILL be an end to things is something of a comfort to me. I'd like to live for a time, sure, but even five hundred years might be too long. I'd either get driven insane by the constant bow-shocks of ever advancing culture, or I'd lapse into some kind of boredom-induced stupor. I have my little slice of spacetime, to do with as I wish. I could l…

I'd like to live for a time, sure, but even five hundred years might be too long. I'd either get driven insane by the constant bow-shocks of ever advancing culture, or I'd lapse into some kind of boredom-induced stupor.

It's not wrong either for the rest of us to be curious.

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#32

Post by inklesspen »

pfedor wrote: post #29
gjm11 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Singularity" here doesn't mean "infinite improvement", it means "such a big improvement that, from the point of view of people trying to predict it now, all bets are off". At least, that's how Vinge used the word and I think it's the commonest usage among present-day singularitarians like Yudkowsky.

One thing I never got: sure, it's certainly possible that one day the technology will come into existence that will create beings (be it computers or genetically modified brains or whatever) that will be as superior to humans as we are to ants or rabbits. How on Earth does the singulatarian paradise follow from this premise? Doesn't it seem at least just as likely that those super-intelligent creations will eradicate…

okay, take the phrase "such a big improvement that, from the point of view of people trying to predict it now, all bets are off" and replace "improvement" with "change". The Singularity doesn't have to be good to still happen, unfortunately.

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#33

Post by jonmc12 »

ajkirwin wrote: post #12

Am I one of the few people who looks forward to death? To know that there WILL be an end to things is something of a comfort to me. I'd like to live for a time, sure, but even five hundred years might be too long. I'd either get driven insane by the constant bow-shocks of ever advancing culture, or I'd lapse into some kind of boredom-induced stupor. I have my little slice of spacetime, to do with as I wish. I could l…

Really? Or is that just a coping mechanism to deal with an inevitable reality?

I wake up every morning an evolved version of myself - how could I ever become bored as a result of becoming ancient and wiser?

I want a bigger slice of spacetime. If you were awarded 3 wishes, sure, you could wish for something nice, you could wish to have your wishes vanish.. and that is control. But the ultimate answer to the game is to wish for more wishes - it is the only rational answer that gives you any real control over this wonder.

'The steady decay...' is a disease. If you had a curable disease would you so effortlessly arrive at the same conclusion? Is this characteristic of being human stricken with, say, cholera, that we would lay in bed, slowly dying in pain, with 'no regrets'? No!! we are creatures of survival, of sustainability, of life. We will rise to our feet, or pick up the phone, and find the treatment, and live another day of beautiful human experience.

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#34

Post by time_management »

technoguyrob wrote: post #31
ajkirwin wrote: post #12

Am I one of the few people who looks forward to death? To know that there WILL be an end to things is something of a comfort to me. I'd like to live for a time, sure, but even five hundred years might be too long. I'd either get driven insane by the constant bow-shocks of ever advancing culture, or I'd lapse into some kind of boredom-induced stupor. I have my little slice of spacetime, to do with as I wish. I could l…

I'd like to live for a time, sure, but even five hundred years might be too long. I'd either get driven insane by the constant bow-shocks of ever advancing culture, or I'd lapse into some kind of boredom-induced stupor. It's not wrong either for the rest of us to be curious.

I'm both curious about living for 1000+ years, since no human has ever lived so long before, and about what happens after death. Given the chance for a 1000-year lifespan, I'd readily take it knowing that I will die, Singularity or no, given the very long but finite lifespan of the universe, and taking the long lifespan would allow me to experience both.

Although a "healthy fear" is certainly in order, I don't understand the reflexive hatred of death. I think it's more likely that consciousness is nonphysical and that there is some form of spiritual survival. Ian Stevenson's reincarnation research is pretty solid. (If I'm wrong, I'll never know.)

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#35

Post by gjm11 »

pfedor wrote: post #29
gjm11 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Singularity" here doesn't mean "infinite improvement", it means "such a big improvement that, from the point of view of people trying to predict it now, all bets are off". At least, that's how Vinge used the word and I think it's the commonest usage among present-day singularitarians like Yudkowsky.

One thing I never got: sure, it's certainly possible that one day the technology will come into existence that will create beings (be it computers or genetically modified brains or whatever) that will be as superior to humans as we are to ants or rabbits. How on Earth does the singulatarian paradise follow from this premise? Doesn't it seem at least just as likely that those super-intelligent creations will eradicate…

"Singularity" doesn't entail "paradise" or anything like it. That would be why Eliezer Yudkowsky, the author of the piece linked up at the top there, has dedicated most of his adult life to the question "If we figure out how to make artificial intelligences, what do we need to do to have reasonable confidence that they aren't going to do awful things?".

(It is not at all clear that any answer exists.)

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#37

Post by palish »

Retric wrote: post #9
mixmax wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The singularity won't happen: http://www.maximise.dk/blog/2008/11/why-singularity-may-neve...

There are limits to computation, but nothing prevents computers from achieving human or super human level intelligence. I suspect that 50 years from now we will have human level AI for a wide range of things. We have already passed that point for Chess and one by one other things will fall. What really prevents the singularity is the limits of the physical world. The speed of light is already a problem such that PC r…

"We have already passed that point for Chess..."

No we haven't. Computers play chess by examining all possible outcomes, then choosing the optimal one. That seems to be how humans play chess too. But if you think about it, humans are much more spontaneous than that. We haven't succeeded in coding "spontaneity" yet.

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#38

Post by nokarma »

greendestiny wrote: post #6

This doesn't do anything to dissuade me of the notion that the singularity movement is a religious movement. The comfort of hope in an afterlife and hope in scientific immortality seem quite similar. While research into singularity and anti-aging could be better funded, I'm not sure why we need to 'believe' in these things or make sure we join the correct denominations (transhumanist vs non-transhumanist). Besides, u…

This doesn't do anything to dissuade me of the notion that the space race is a religious movement. The comfort of hope in ascending to Heaven and hope in engineering feats seem quite similar. While research into aeronautics and rocket motors could be better funded, I'm not sure why we need to 'believe' in these things or make sure we join the correct aerospace company.

Besides, unless the universe is infinite we're just arguing about distances. I prefer not to think about death as annihilation because I'm afraid of turning into worm food.

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#39

Post by sharkfish »

sharkfish wrote: post #28
sharkfish wrote: post #15

But then most atheists also succumb to comforting lies, and make excuses for death even less defensible than the outright lies of religion. They flinch away, refuse to confront the horror of a hundred and fifty thousand sentient beings annihilated every day. I would like to think that I, as an atheist, don't have to rationalize the unknown and accept that we just don't have the answers to the "why" of death. I realiz…

Modded down because I'm an atheist, or because I imply that religion is dogma? Just curious.

I was asking a sincere question. Why was THAT modded down?

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#40

Post by hassy »

newsycaccount wrote: post #27
yters wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I similarly don't get the fascination with brain simulation. Say someone told me they had an exact simulation of by brain running, and I was convinced beyond a doubt they were right, would I be fine with dying at that point? No. To paraphrase Samuel Clemens: "I don't want to gain immortality through brain simulation. I want to gain immortality by not dying."

Do you also get concerned that practically every atom in your body now will be replaced by others by next year?

would the atoms get concerned if they were conscious?
Post reply on HN