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

51–60 of 78 posts

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#51

Post by gjm11 »

yters wrote: post #8
mad44 wrote: post #5

Lately I have read a lot about the singularity, and I am very confused why people are for this concept. Extending life through brain simulation, nanomachines support, and personality uploads does not sound like you will be still "alive". Does that make me a vitalist? A luddite I am not. It is easy to debate for hours about the feasibility of singularity. I understand the accelerated returns and all, but I think that…

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."

It was Allan Konigsberg, not Samuel Clemens.

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#52

Post by zupatol »

gjm11 wrote: post #22
nandemo wrote: post #16

Granted, it's painful to lose a dear one. But there are so many wrong things with this article, it's difficult to know where to start. Angry at the "way-things-are"? Does that even make sense? It feels like he's saying "everyone is dying, and what is the government doing?!" "When Michael Wilson heard the news, he said: 'We shall have to work faster.' " I mean, can one really say that seriously , outside of a poor SF…

It makes sense to (at least) the extent that you have grounds for thinking that the-way-things-are can be changed, which Eliezer does. In any case, he's describing how he feels, and it's not obviously wrong to feel "angry enough to do X" just because X is impossible. What exactly is your objection? That EY et al think death can be more or less completely abolished, and that's obviously wrong, so they're probably bein…

"Angry at the way things are" is like saying things are not as they should be because someone fucked up. But who is responsible for how the world is? The creator?

Having this kind of anger is like believing in God.

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#53

Post by Prrometheus »

mixmax wrote: post #7
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…

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

The Malthusians have had egg of their face for the better part of two centuries now. Maybe one of these days they will be right.

Still a pretty bad record overall, though.

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#54

Post by gjm11 »

zupatol wrote: post #44
zupatol wrote: post #26

If people stop dying, won't other people have to stop getting born? I'm just reading something by Schopenhauer on death, and he thinks it doesn't make sense to fear it. Here is a better summary than I could write: http://darwiniana.com/2006/04/23/schopenhauer-on-death/

I read that again and I'm not sure that summary helps a lot. I'll just write about what I've read turned into in my mind, where it merged with my own experience and other things I've read. Schopenhauer's main point is that death doesn't exist because time is not real. This is not very comforting unless you can imagine what it means that time is not real. I can't. He does point out that there is no rational reason to…

Of course there's a rational reason to avoid death (and hence, to consider death as something to avoid -- which, yes, is not at all the same thing as fearing it). Aren't there a whole lot of things you want to do? Well, if you die now then you won't get to do any of them. If you've achieved everything you want to in life, then perhaps you no longer have any reason to avoid death. Most people haven't.

But, actually, I think you'd have reason even then to avoid death, if like most people you instinctively hate or fear it. It's rational to pursue things you like and avoid things you dislike, if anything's rational at all.

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#55

Post by greendestiny »

gjm11 wrote: post #35
pfedor wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Then why does he say as an atheist its basically the only thing that makes life bearable. I don't think he has a realistic 'just make it safe' attitude at all.

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#56

Post by ramchip »

Hexstream wrote: post #45

Fight the moonlight, drama queen. Death is not the problem, ego is. His sense of entitlement is baffling. Why does he want to be some sort of immortal god if he's an atheist? I'm all for the progress of science toward a much, much longer life but demanding immortality right now ... is quite over the top.

Fight the moonlight, drama queen. Falling is not the problem, ego is. His sense of entitlement is baffling. Why does he want to be some sort of flying god if he's a human?

I'm all for the progress of science toward winged machines but demanding flight right now... is quite over the top.

(Edit: I do understand how someone could be surprised by his sense of entitlement. I don't see, however, how it follows that we should not at least try just because the problems sounds really, really hard. Humans had never flown, but that doesn't mean humans will never fly. Same goes for many things, including death.)

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#57

Post by bd »

yters wrote: post #8
mad44 wrote: post #5

Lately I have read a lot about the singularity, and I am very confused why people are for this concept. Extending life through brain simulation, nanomachines support, and personality uploads does not sound like you will be still "alive". Does that make me a vitalist? A luddite I am not. It is easy to debate for hours about the feasibility of singularity. I understand the accelerated returns and all, but I think that…

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."

And what if somebody was slowly replacing your real neurons with artificial ones?

Start with one chip-neuron, finish with the whole artificial brain. In all steps of the process your "self" being preserved.

Credit goes to Stanislaw Lem "Do you exist Mr Jones?"

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#58

Post by Eliezer »

zupatol wrote: post #46
kirse wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment was similar to one I was going to make... It's interesting to see that man still seeks that feeling of meaning (in life) and hope (after death) even when they do not believe in a God/afterlife. How does one find value in life when - in the long run - their entire existence will be forgotten and their species just a blip on the timeline of Evolution? If you think about it, on the infinite (or even extreme…

3) Finding value in what you're doing right now. Life should be like running a profitable business, which you know will not last forever. The point of your business is giving a value to your customers today. Eventually a competing business will cater better to your customers' needs and put you out of business. This doesn't take away the value you've given your customers, nor the money you made. Going one step further…

Yeah, I think I'll stick with that "Get out of Earth" one, but thanks for the suggestion.

"On a grand scale we simply want to save the world, so obviously we're just letting ourselves in for a lot of disappointment and we're doomed to failure since we didn't pick some cheap-ass two-bit goal like collecting all the Garbage Pail Kids cards." -- http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/answers/rants/X0044_Subject...

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#59

Post by Eliezer »

mattmaroon wrote: post #43

At the bottom update, he proposes that standard procedure should be to cryogenically freeze unknown corpses. I as a taxpayer do not want to shoulder this burden. As time goes on, the expense of keeping unknown corpses frozen continually increases as they pile up.

The per capita expense of keeping a thousand frozen heads in a pool of liquid nitrogen is essentially negligible. You wouldn't notice it as a budget item. If it really bugs you, fund it yourself through private philanthropy. But out of all the things that government was ever proposed to do, this would be the most cost-effective in the history of time - even I, a libertarian, draw the line at not doing this. Cryonics is cheap, people are crazy.

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#60

Post by nandemo »

ramchip wrote: post #56
Hexstream wrote: post #45

Fight the moonlight, drama queen. Death is not the problem, ego is. His sense of entitlement is baffling. Why does he want to be some sort of immortal god if he's an atheist? I'm all for the progress of science toward a much, much longer life but demanding immortality right now ... is quite over the top.

Fight the moonlight, drama queen. Falling is not the problem, ego is. His sense of entitlement is baffling. Why does he want to be some sort of flying god if he's a human? I'm all for the progress of science toward winged machines but demanding flight right now... is quite over the top. (Edit: I do understand how someone could be surprised by his sense of entitlement. I don't see, however, how it follows that we shou…

Your parody (?) doesn't work. For one, as far I as know there was never a group of "flightists" crying over the fate of non-flying humanity, blaming God or Mother Nature, talking about foolish non-flightists...

There's a big difference. Avoiding death is not merely a hard technical problem. It's a moral and existential issue. If some people became immortal, imagine the whole lot of new ethical, existential problems we would have.

Post reply on HN