[Link] SMBC on choosing your simulations carefully
post by RolfAndreassen · 2012-06-06T17:41:58.133Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 14 commentsI'm increasingly impressed by the power of Zach Wiener's comic to demonstrate in a few images why hard problems are hard. It would be a vast task, but perhaps it would be useful to create an index of such problem-demonstrating comics to add to the Wiki, giving us something to point newbies at which would be less intimidating than formal Sequence postings. I get the impression that a common hurdle is just to get people to accept that problems of AI (and simulation, ethics, what have you) are actually difficult.
14 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by Dolores1984 · 2012-06-06T22:10:28.864Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It might well be possible to commission Wiener to illustrate the Sequences.
Replies from: DanielVarga, shminux↑ comment by DanielVarga · 2012-06-07T00:47:57.042Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I am a great fan of both guys, but I don't think Weiner's bitterness goes well with Yudkowsky's pathos.
Replies from: Dolores1984, wedrifid↑ comment by Dolores1984 · 2012-06-07T01:17:18.414Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm not sure if I'd qualify Weiner as bitter. His comics tend to be pessimistic, sure, but a lot of that is the rule of funny. Comedy is about human pain.
↑ comment by wedrifid · 2012-06-07T04:40:04.207Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm not sure if I'd qualify Weiner as bitter. His comics tend to be pessimistic, sure, but a lot of that is the rule of funny. Comedy is about human pain.
Weiner talks about things that may make other people bitter and so those other people may expect him to be bitter because he acknowledges those bad things. Instead I see Weiner see the world as it is, exaggerate it for the sake of satire and then delight in it. You don't need rose coloured glasses to be content.
comment by wedrifid · 2012-06-07T00:33:25.835Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
SMBC on choosing your simulations carefully
More specifically, on when to simulate, not what. The error is in considering the simulation chip a reason to not care about death.
Replies from: Emile↑ comment by Emile · 2012-06-07T13:48:37.792Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The error is in considering the simulation chip a reason to not care about death.
In the comic, the woman is arguing that the chip is a reason to not care about death as a way to disarm a threat. Modifying your preferences for game theoretic reasons can be a very sensible thing to do.
Replies from: RolfAndreassen, wedrifid↑ comment by RolfAndreassen · 2012-06-07T16:15:37.820Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Fair enough, but the point seems to be that the woman didn't modify her preferences sufficiently, or didn't fully think through the modifications - in effect, she was bluffing, even if perhaps she didn't realise it.
↑ comment by wedrifid · 2012-06-07T22:44:10.834Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In the comic, the woman is arguing that the chip is a reason to not care about death as a way to disarm a threat. Modifying your preferences for game theoretic reasons can be a very sensible thing to do.
It can be. It wasn't this time. It resulted in her death.
comment by shminux · 2012-06-06T18:10:21.696Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
My first thought: people chipped liked that would have so much more incentive to suicide in case of trouble. My second thought: chipped people would care a lot less about living a safe and healthy lifestyle, since they get to live out the rest of their normal life span in the chip-world matrix.
Replies from: DanielLCcomment by Dr_Manhattan · 2012-06-06T20:19:29.718Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
choosing your simulations carefully
For long form (and quite pleasant) for of this argument, see Inception http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1375666/ .
comment by DanielLC · 2012-06-07T00:02:20.332Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
What's wrong with that simulation?
Replies from: tgb↑ comment by tgb · 2012-06-07T01:00:56.939Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Lack of blood splatters, apparently. All good simulations need blood splatters.