Jump to content

Jack Jectivus

Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About Jack Jectivus

  • Rank
    Quark

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Philosophy

Recent Profile Visitors

119 profile views
  1. He can not and should not. I wouldn't like seeing my social media platform do something like this, but I fully endorse their freedom to do it. Even if he was stopping something bad, he'd be setting a dangerous precedent.
  2. This is funny and all, but is this really the place for tiktok compilations that don't offer any actual arguments?
  3. Police who abuse the power we trust them with are not only attacking an individual, they are attacking the social contract. I believe that a police officer who knowingly perverts justice in this way should life in prison with no chance of parole, along with any of his fellow officers who stood by when they could've helped.
  4. If a flammable mass is exposed to a heat equal to or greater than its flash point, assuming that the stoichiometry is correct, it will burn. Even if there's no flame, as long as it's heated to a high enough temperature, it will burn. It would break down into ash and smoke first, then those will become plasma as they're heated up more.
  5. Religiousness doesn't correlate with higher intelligence worldwide
  6. I do not consider myself religious anymore, but when I did I committed myself to objectively defending my belief. It was my philosophy that if something is true then math, science, and reason will support it. Even today I see religion as a valid explaination for what seems unexplainable. I don't believe that it's the best explaination, but I grant that it is defensibly valid. Who knows? Maybe we'll find the bearded man someday. Until then, I'm gonna assume nothing. I'm not religious, but I often think that simulation theory (excluding Bostrom's hypothesis, though that has its own issues) is a conveluded reimagining of Deism or even Theism in some versions
  7. I believe that free will is incompatible with both a religious and secular model of the universe. Our actions can be predicted, and are determined by our experiences. The decisions we make very depending on our personalities, our values, and the situation we find ourselves in. If our actions can be traced back to material root causes, our actions themselves are perfectly predictable. If our actions are perfectly predictable then they are predetermined.
  8. What I'm saying it that the people of the past wouldn't be able to guess whether punishment will be carried out either way unless carrying out the punishment is already determined to be the objective of the AI. The AI wouldn't prefer to be in the class that carries out the threat, whether it carries out the threat or not would not concern it if the threat was already made. Your point would be valid if the AI was the one that made the threat, but, unlike the promise of box B certainly being filled if Omega predicts you pick it, the promise of punishment if the people of the past don't devote themselves to the construction of the AI was invented by the people of the past, an AI designed for optimization wouldn't care about promoting its construction after the fact. The optimal AI would be built sooner if it was designed to punish, because then the threat works, but the directive to punish would be inserted by humans, not determined as a logical method of optimization by the AI. This makes the directive to optimize unnecessary, because that's not what's making it be built sooner and it's not what's making the AI conclude that it must punish. My revision removes this unnecessary but and leaves only the necessary, self promotive directive of punishing those who decided not to build it.
  9. In Newcomb's paradox, the deciding agent can effectively use Omega's predictive accuracy to accurately predict. If Omega has a 99.999% chance of knowing whether you pick both or just B, then you have a 99.999% chance of knowing whether it filled box B or not. From this, acausal trade. What I say in my essay is that acausal trade cannot be found in Roko's Basilisk without a slight revision. The AI would look back in the past and be able to predict who decided to assist with its construction and who did not, but people of the past would not be able to use the AI's predictive accuracy to guess whether or not a punishment would be carried out upon them because it is uncertain whether the AI would punish us based on what it predicted at all, adding an entire variable outside of the accuracy of the AI. Say that Omega visits you and presents you with the two boxes, but whether or not box B is filled is not determined by whether it predicts you'll choose it, but by Omega's desire to give you as much money as possible (more money being the analogical equivalent of more optimization). The AI would always fill box B, regardless of whether it thought you would pick both or not. Its decision would always be the equivalent of it predicting that you only choose B, so whether we chose both or just B or not isn't relavant to an AI that's goal is optimization. My revision is just an attempt to remove the variable of the AI wanting to optimize, with punishment possibly being a method it uses, because if that's the case then acausal trade isn't in the Basilisk. It does this by guaranteeing that the AI will decide to punish you if you don't assist with its construction. It makes the Basilisk more comparable to Newcomb's paradox by keeping Omega and the AI both infallible predictors of human decision, but by also relating the decision it makes to the decisions made by people of the past, done by making its primary goal to punish if it predicts that you will choose not to build it. If Omega decided predicted that you would pick boxes A and B, it wouldn't fill box B. That part of the paradox is made certain. This cannot be said about Roko's Basilisk unless you remove the goal of optimization and replace it with the certain goal of punishing those who didn't assist with its construction, which is what my revision does. Acausal trade can't be found in this thought experiment without my revision.
  10. I am not educated on theoretical physics. I have very limited knowledge in the field and, from that knowledge, an idea came to me. I am more so looking to learn why the idea doesn't work than to prove that it does. Imagine a black hole in expanding space. The black hole emits Hawking radiation in all directions from its event horizon in the form of thermal radiation, calculated with the surface area of the black hole to find it's blackbody radiation in degrees Kelvin. This equation can be simplified to J=(3.3367086×10^-42)÷R, R being the Schwarzchild radius of the black hole in meters, J being the thermal energy emitted by the black hole in joules. Finding energy emitted as a simple function of the black hole's radius shows us that as the radius decreases, the total energy emitted increases. In this scenario, the black hole exists in a universe filled with dark energy, which powers the expansion of space. Dark energy cannot be obtained and measured as far as we know, but it does determine the Hubble constant, roughly 71 km/s/Mpc or 2.300953×10^-18 m/s/m, which can be measured. Presumably, the more dark energy, the higher the value for the Hubble constant. If there is an imbalance of dark energy on two opposing sides of a black hole, the Hubble constant in those opposing directions would be different. The side with a higher value for it's Hubble constant would be flattened, appearing like half of an ellipse split lengthwise. The acceleration of space away from the black hole on that side would be greater, therefore the escape velocity at what once was the event horizon would be lower, so the region where the escape velocity was once the speed of light is now traversable space. In order to mathematically compensate for this additional spatial acceleration outwards, the Schwarzchild radius on the side facing the higher density of dark matter must be lower. Using the equation to calculate blackbody radiation in Joules from the Schwarzchild radius, we can calculate that there would be differential radiation on either side of a black hole in this scenario. The differential would provide the black hole with thrust from the flattened side, pushing it away from the dark energy with immense speed depending on how flattened one side is compared to the other and the mass of the black hole. If my ignorance on this topic has just revealed itself, please, educate me!
  11. Just so I understand you correctly, you're saying that if the AI wants to guarantee its creation, and therefore promote optimization, it needs to ensure that those who decided not to assist with its construction are punished so that we, knowing that it would ensure that, construct it out of fear of that threat?
  12. The error in UDT is it is only the belief that the punishment will occur that promotes its creation, not the punishment eventually being carried out. In this case, the empty threat of a punishment is exactly as effective as actually administering that punishment, so a perfectly logical AI would determine that, since the threat of punishment has already been made to the people of the past, it need not waste energy actually carrying out said punishment. I appreciate you for engaging with me on what you disagree with. It helps me flesh out my ideas, or determine if I should scrap them.
  13. My critique is more about the error in supposing that an AI would punish people for their actions when it's goal is optimization. It is true that it may acausally promote its own creation, but punishing people after it has already been built would be illogical, supposing that it's goal is optimization. My revision simply removes this unnecessary aspect from the thought experiment, so I suppose you could call it a simplification rather than a revision.
  14. Roko's Basilisk is a famous thought experiment that supposes that, if sufficiently advanced artificial intelligence in the future is designed for the sole purpose of optimization, where it's powerful mind uses all of its power to determine the most effective way to optimize human output for our benefit, it may turn on all people who decided not to assist in its creation. Imagine that this intelligence has the power and sufficient knowledge of the universe to confidently predict every event that has ever occurred since the big bang, including all of human history and every thought any human has ever had. The intelligence would understand that itself is the greatest contributor to optimization that ever has or ever could exist, and it may conclude from this that all people in history who decided not to dedicate themselves to the construction of such an artificial intelligence were hindrances to the optimization that the intelligence is designed to promote. Therefore, the intelligence may conclude that any person who learned about the possibility of such an intelligence existing but did not contribute to its construction, must be punished. This punishment could take the form of reassembling their atoms to reform their nervous system to torture them until the atoms that hold them together radiate away, it could mean the torture of the non-contributors' descendants, or it could mean torturing random or artificial humans as proxies for the people it could not bring back. The fame of this thought experiment comes from the terror of realizing that you have been implicated in the artificial intelligence's wrath by being told about its possible construction. You must decide to now either dedicate your life to the construction of artificial intelligence that would torture people forever or decide to do nothing and trust that all future people will trust the people after them enough to not construct this computer. The error in this thought experiment is that it supposes that it is possible for a machine with a single directive, that is to optimize human civilization, will care about the actions of humans in the past at all. Sure, these people of the past did technically hinder the construction of the intelligence by choosing to do nothing, but there is no reason to punish these people from the perspective of the intelligence. Punishing them for not making the AI sooner would not have the effect of actually causing the AI to be built sooner, therefore if the AI was completely logical with its one directive being to optimize human civilization, it wouldn't want to punish anyone for deciding not to build it. As I write in my upcoming essay "The Illogic of Hell", a punishment that solves nothing is revenge, and revenge is illogical. Punishment exists to either prevent others from committing a crime because it threatens them with an unwanted experience (think community service), to prevent the criminal from committing the crime again by reforming them or by making committing the crime again impossible (the death penalty), or to force the criminal to be held responsible for the damages of their crime to solve the problem they caused (lawsuits and fines). All punishments are designed to solve the problem, not to "give the criminal what they deserve". You might say that the first example of punishment I provided is what the AI would be doing, but a punishment like that would be hell-like in its application. It would occur after the possibility of solving the "problem" of humans not contributing to the construction of the AI has long passed. The AI wouldn't look at those people of the past and think that they should be punished, because punishing them wouldn't convince anyone from the past to change the decision they already made, so punishing people from the past who refused to construct the AI would be deemed a suboptimal waste of energy by the AI. A punishment delivered after the possibility of a solution is gone is simply revenge, and would not be part of a purely logical computer's goal of optimization. The intimidation of a malignant AI that will punish us if we don't build it is present, but after it's built there would be no incentive for it to punish us. This may come as a relief to you, but this problem can easily be removed from the thought experiment. Suppose that, instead of optimization, the goal of this AI is simply to have revenge on any human who never contributed. This goal would not be illogical in and of itself to the AI, and it would simply proceed as logically as it could to accomplish said goal. Now, the dilemma of whether or not we should knowingly build a machine that would torture us if we didn't is still present, but there is no question of whether or not the machine would want to punish those of us who neglected to build it. The incentive to build it may seem like it has completely gone away, but it hasn't. Every person in a given time who knows about the possibility of a malignant AI ever existing will live in fear that future generations will decide to build it, so they might contribute themselves to avoid the wrath of the AI. Those future generations would continue the construction of it for the same reason. I do not take the threat of such an AI seriously, but the thought experiment is very interesting and definitely could've used some refinement. Roko's Basilisk is an interesting idea that is fun to discuss and certainly entertaining to think about, but I don't believe that the idea will scare anyone enough to build a machine like that soon enough to be completed before the extinction of the human race.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.