imadabouzu

I'm ok with this, because I guarantee you ~~an accidental medium or copy failure~~ a crypto rug pull on their NFT will still get them in the end. Thanks for playing I guess.

When it comes to cloning or copying, I always have to remind people: at least half of what you are today, is the environment of today. And your clone X time in the future won't and can't have that.

The same thing is likely for these models. Inflate them again 100 years in the future, and maybe they're interesting for inspecting as a historical artifact, but most certainly they wouldn't be used the same way as they had been here and how. It'd just, be something different.

Which would beg the question, why?

I feel like a subset of sci-fi and philosophical meandering really is just increasingly convoluted paths of trying to avoid or come to terms with death as a possibly necessary component of life.

This kind of thing is a fluff piece, meant to be suggestive but ultimately saying nothing at all. There are many reasons to hate Bostrom, just read his words, but this is two philosophers who apparently need attention because they have nothing useful to say. All of Bostrom's points here could be summed up as "don't piss on things, generally speaking."

As for consciousness. Honestly, my brain turns off instantly when someone tries to make any point about consciousness. Seriously though, does anyone actually use the category of "conscious / unconscious" to make any decision?

I don't disrespect the dead (not conscious). I don't bother animals or insects when I have no business with them (conscious maybe not conscious?). I don't treat my furniture or clothes like shit, and am generally pleased they exist. (not conscious). When encountering something new or unusual, I just ask myself, "is it going to bite me?" first. (consciousness is irrelevant) I know some of my actions do harm either directly or indirectly to other things, such as eating, or consuming, or making mistakes, or being. But I don't assume myself a hero or arbiter of moral integrity, I merely acknowledge and do what I can. Again, consciousness kind of irrelevant.

Does anyone run consciousness litmus tests on their friends or associates first before interacting, ever? If so, does it sting?

I'm so happy for appends. ~and edits~

It’s just looking for a God or an afterlife without turning to religion.

Yes. Because they sneered so hard at /other/ things creating and living in their own meaning, the sneer came full circle, and they find themselves in a simulated jail being sneered at by things that sneer at things that create and live in their own meaning.

Basically, they looked in the mirror and sneered.

Oh absolutely! This is the entire delusion collapsing on itself.

Bro, if intelligence is, as the cult claims, fully contained self improvement, --you could never have mattered by definition--. If the system is closed, and you see the point of convergence up ahead... what does it even fucking matter?

This is why Pascal's wager defeats all forms of maximal utilitarianism. Again, if the system is closed around a set of known alternatives, then yes. It doesn't matter anymore. You don't even need intelligence to do this. You can do with sticks and stones by imagining away all the other things.

Yeah, that's a good call out, I do feel the meta is good obsession is ~~borderline~~ definitely cultish.

There's a big difference between a committed scientists doing emperical work on specific mechanisms saying something like "wow, isn't it cool how considering a broader perspective of how unrelated parts work together to create this newly discovered set of specifics?" and someone who is committed anti-institutional saying "see how by me taking your money and offering vague promises of immortal we are all enriched?"

Why so general? The multi-agent dynamical systems theory needed to heal internal conflicts such as auto-immune disorders may not be so different from those needed to heal external conflicts as well, including breakdowns in social and political systems.

This isn't, an answer to the question why so general? This is aspirational philosophical goo. "multi-agent dynamical systems theory" => you mean any theory that takes composite view of a larger system? Like Chemistry? Biology?Physics? Sociology? Economics? "Why so general" may as well be "why so uncommitted?"

I feel bayesian rationalism has basically missed the point of inference and immediately fallen into the regression to the mean trap of "the general answer to any question shouldn't say anything in particular at all."