YouSaid · the spoken record

Nick Bostrom

lines on the record: 138
first: 2020-03-26
most recent: 2020-03-26
sittings or episodes: 1
sources: podcast

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

“Yeah, or at least get maximized or get a very high score on a wide range of them, even if not literally all. You can always come up with values that are exactly opposed to one another, right? But I think for many values, they are kind of opposed if you place them within a certain dimensionality of your space. Like there are shapes that are kind of that you can't untangle in a given dimensionality, but if you start adding dimensions, then it might in many cases just be that they are easy to pull apart and you could. So we'll see how much space there is for that. But I think that there could be a lot in this context of radical abundance if ever we get to that.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“You might actually start to do some constructive thinking about that. You might have to isolate and distinguish these different kinds of things that might be valuable in different ways. Make sure you can sort of clearly perceive each one of them. And then you can think about how you can combine them.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I mean, like you could imagine somebody getting a lot of happiness from something that they didn't think was meaningful, like mindless, like watching reruns of some television series writing junk food, like maybe some people that gives pleasure, but they wouldn't think it had a lot of meaning. Whereas conversely, something that might be quite loaded with meaning might not be very fun always, like some difficult achievement that really helps a lot of people maybe requires self-sacrifice and hard work. So these things can, I think, come apart, which is something to bear in mind also if you're thinking about these utopia questions.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Well, this would be a distinctive context in which at least some of the constraints would be removed. There's probably still a bit of trade offs in the end. It's just that we should first make sure we at least take advantage of this abundance. So in terms of thinking about this, like, yeah, one should think, I think, in this kind of Frame of mind of generosity and inclusiveness to different value systems and see how far one can get there first. And I think one could do something that would be very good according to many different criteria”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“So that's, yeah, not exactly what I have in mind. Well, although maybe in an indirect way it is, but that if you had a chance to do something that scored well, On several different metrics. Our first instinct should be to do that rather than immediately leap to the thing, ah, which ones of these value systems are we going to screw over. So I think our first, let's first try to do very well by all of them. Then it might be that you can't get 100% of all and you would have to then.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“And then also connected to this large space. Of resources is that it Would be possible, and I think something we should aim for is to do well by the lights of more than one value system that is We wouldn't have to choose only one value criterion and say we're going to do something that scores really high on the metric of, say, hedonism, then it's like... Zero by other criteria, like kind of wireheaded brain synovat. And it's like a lot of pleasure. That's good. But then no beauty, no achievement. Or pick it up. I think to some significant, not unlimited sense, but the significant sense, it would be possible to do very well by many criteria. Like maybe you could get like 98% of the best according to several criteria at the same time given this great expansion of the option space.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Also, it would enable us to do things, including to ourselves, that it would just open up this much larger design space and option space than we have ever had access to in human history. So I think two things follow from that. One is that we probably would need to make a fairly fundamental rethink of what ultimately we value. like think things through more from first principles in the context would be so different from the familiar that we could have just take what we've always been doing and then like oh well we have this cleaning robot that that like cleans the the dishes in the sink and a few other small things and like i think we would have to go back to first principles and things so”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Yeah, I mean, it's a good question and a deep and difficult one. I'm quite interested in it. I don't have all the answers yet, but might never have. But I think there are some different observations one could make. One is if this scenario actually did come to pass, it would open up this vast space of possible modes of being. On one hand, Material and resource constraints would just be like expanded dramatically. So there would be a lot of, a big pie, let's say, right?”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“And if we get systems that have even more general purpose learning ability, it might also trigger an even stronger intuition that they are actually starting to get smart.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Certainly learning ability seems to be an important facet of general intelligence. That you can take some new domain that you haven't seen before and you weren't specifically pre programmed for and then figure out what's going on there and eventually become really good at it. So that's something alpha zero has much more of than deep bluehead. And in fact, I mean, systems like Alpha Zero can learn not just go, but other probably beat deep blue in chess and so forth, right? So you do see this general. And so it matches the intuition. We feel it's more intelligent and it also has more of this general purpose learning ability.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Particularly like texture images that are you have a kind of string, a word string key is obviously superhuman at that, but a vast set of other things it can't even do at all, not just not do well. So you have these current AI systems that are superhuman in some limited domain and then like radically subhuman in all other domains same with a chess like or just a simple computer that can multiply really large numbers right so it's going to have this like one spike of superintelligence and then kind of a zero level of capability across all other cognitive fields”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Well, here it comes to the concept of intelligence and the scale. And what human level means, the kind of vagueness and indeterminacy of those concepts starts to. Dominate how you would answer that question. So say the Google search engine has a very high capacity of a certain kind, like retrieving, remembering and retrieving information.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“A little bit like, say, the scientific community as a whole, if you think of that as a mind, it's a little bit of metaphor, but I mean, obviously, it's going to be way more capacious than any individual. So in some sense, there is this mind-like thing already out there that's just vastly more intelligent than any individual is. And we think, okay, that's you just accept that as a fact.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Face to face with face, but I mean, that's an open question what would happen in a kind of post-human world, like how much day-to-day would these superintelligences be involved in the lives of ordinary? You could imagine in some scenario where it would be more like a background thing that would help protect against some things, but you wouldn't there wouldn't be this intrusive kind of like making you feel bad by making clever jokes on your expert. Like there's like all sorts of things that maybe in the human context would feel awkward about that. You don't want to be the dumbest kid in your class. Everybody picks it. Like a lot of those things maybe you need to abstract away from if you're thinking about this context where we have infrastructure that is in some sense beyond any or all humans.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I think yes, a lot. I think it would be a small. I mean, I think they're already a lot of things out there that are, I mean, certainly if you think the universe is big, there's going to be other civilizations that already have super intelligences or that just naturally have brains the size of beach balls and are like completely leaving us in the dust.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“They're losing control, I think, is not a given that would happen. Now, you asked how it makes me feel like, I mean, to some extent, I've lived with this for so long since as long as I can remember being an adult or even a teenager, it seemed to me obvious that at some point AI will succeed.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I don't think the latter follows. That is, you could imagine, and in fact this is what a number of people are working towards, making sure that we could ultimately project higher levels of problem solving ability while still making sure that they are aligned, like they are in the service of human values.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Yeah, that seems, I mean, as much as any of these things can be obvious, given we've never had one, people have different views, more people have different views. It's like there's some degree of uncertainty that always remains for any big futuristic philosophical grand question that just we realize humans are fallible, especially about these things. But it does seem, as far as I'm judging things based on my own impressions, it seems very unlikely that there would be a ceiling at or near human cognitive capacity.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Yeah, I think we don't know how explosive it will be. I think from what it's worth, it seems fairly likely to me that at some point I will be some intelligence explosion, like some period of time where progress in AI becomes extremely rapid. Roughly in the area where you might say it's kind of human-ish equivalent in core cognitive faculties that the concept of human equivalent starts to break down when you look too closely at it but And just how expulsive does something have to be for it to be called an Intelligence exposure? Like, does it have to be like overnight, literally, or a few years? But overall, I guess if you plotted the opinions of different people in the world, I guess I would be somewhat more probability towards the intelligence exposure scenario than probably the average AI researcher, I guess.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Coordination that is not automatically achieved just by having more technical capability. But anything that's not of that sort, I think you just get like an enormous boost with this kind of cognitive technology once it goes all the way. Now again, that doesn't mean I'm like thinking, oh, People don't recognize what's possible with current technology, and sometimes things get overhyped. But I mean, those are perfectly consistent views to hold. The ultimate potential being enormous. And then it's a very different question of how far are we from that or what can we do with near-term technology.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Especially artificial general intelligence is really the ultimate general purpose technology. So it's not that there's just one problem, this one area where it will have a big impact. But if and when it succeeds, it will really apply across the board in all fields where human creativity and intelligence and problem solving is useful, which is pretty much all fields, right? it would do is give us a lot more control over nature It wouldn't automatically solve the problems that arise from conflict between humans, fundamentally political problems. Some subset of those might go away if you just had more resources and cooler tech, but some subset would require”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Yeah, I mean, I guess it's a little hard to articulate because it seems obvious that the world has a lot of problems as it currently stands. And it's hard to think of any one of those which it wouldn't be useful to have a friendly aligned superintelligence working on.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“What are the distinctions? Well, it's a blurr distinction. But say the things I wrote about in this book, Superintelligence. Long term, things people are worrying about today with, I don't know, algorithmic discrimination or even things self-driving cars and drones and stuff more near term. And then, of course, you could embed in some medium term where they kind of overlap and the one evolves into the other. But I don't know. I think both, yeah, the issues somewhat different depending on which of these contexts.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Well, I mean, super intense. So, I get because I tend to Also, want to distinguish these two different contexts of thinking about AI and AI impact, the kind of near term and long-term, if you want, both of which I think are legitimate things to think about and people should discuss both of them, but they are different and they often get mixed up. And then I get confusion. Like I think you get simultaneously maybe an overhyping of the near term and then under hyping of the long term. So I think as long as we keep them apart, we can have like two good conversations or we can mix them together and have one bad conversation. Can you clear?”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Well, I mean, I guess maybe to take one step back, so I should emphasize that I also think there's this huge positive potential from machine intelligence, including superintelligence. I want to stress that because some of my writing has focused on what can go wrong. And when I wrote the book Superintelligence at that point, I felt there was a kind of neglect of what would happen if AI succeeds and in particular a need to get a more granular understanding of where the pitfalls are so we can avoid. I think that since the book came out in 2014, there has been a much wider recognition of that and a number of research groups are now actually working on developing, say, AI alignment techniques and so on and so forth. So I'd like, yeah, I think now it's important to Make sure we bring back onto the table the upside as well.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Be very strong, even if it has a limited. Set of act traitors if it can type text on the screen or something like that, that would be, I think, ample.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I mean, digital only is perfectly fine, I think. I mean, it's physical in the sense that obviously the computers and the memories are physical.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“So if we talk about general superintelligence, it would be much faster learner be able to reason much better plans that are more effective at achieving its goals, say, in a wide range of complex, challenging environments.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Super intelligence. So, yeah, that would be like something that was much more of that general cognitive capacity than we humans have.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Yeah, I tend not to get too stuck with the definitional question. I mean, the common sense understand it, like the ability to solve complex problems, to learn from experience. Some combination of things like that.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“But we are close to this about what the last three digits are. So we are still completely clueless about whether the number is odd or even and therefore whether we should go north or go south. I feel that's an analogy, but I feel we're somewhat in that predicament. We know a lot about the universe. We've come maybe more than half of the way there to kind of fully understand it, but the parts we're missing are plausibly ones that could completely change the overall upshot of the thing, including change our overall view about what the scheme of priorities should be or which strategic direction would make sense to pursue.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Might be hope for someone. Wait, I think we understand some aspects of it, but how much good is that if there's like one key aspect that changes the significance of all the other aspects? So we understand maybe seven out of ten key insights that you need, but the answer actually varies completely depending on what number 8, 9, and 10 insight is. It's like whether you want to So pause that the big task were to guess whether a certain number was odd or even, like a 10 digit number. And if it's even, the best thing for you to do in life is to go north. And if it's odd, the best thing for you to go south. Now we are in a situation where maybe through our science and philosophy we figured out what the first seven digits are. So we have a lot of information, right? Most of it we figured out.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I might understand some aspects of it. I mean, it's a level of it's kind of levels of explanation, like degrees to which you can understand. So does your dog understand what it is to be human? Well, it's got some idea. Like humans are these physical objects that move around and do things. And like a normal human would have a deeper understanding of what it is to be a human. And maybe some very experienced psychologists or great novelists might understand a little bit more about what it is to be human. And maybe super intelligentists could see right through your soul. So similarly, I do think That we are quite limited in our ability to understand all of the relevant aspects of the larger context that we exist in”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Yeah, I mean, I think it connects to the question of what's inside the simulation in that if you had views about the craters of the simulation, it might help you make predictions about what kind of simulation it is, what might happen, what happens after the simulation if there is some after, but also like the kind of setup. So these two questions would be quite closely intertwined”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“RPR Donald Trump or if you are Bill Gates or you're like Some particularly distinctive character. You might think that that add, I mean, if you just think of yourself. Into the shoes, right? It's got to be like an extra reason to think of.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“It seems like maybe there would be more interest in simulating the lives of very unusual and remarkable people. So if you consider not just a simulations where all of human history or the whole of human civilization are simulated, but also other kinds of simulations which only include some subset of people. In those simulations that only include a subset, it might be more likely that they would include subsets of people with unusually interesting or consequential life.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I mean, you might have a better. I think why it's of interest, I think it seems fairly obvious why to the extent that one think the argument is credible, why it would be of interest, if it's correct, tell us something very important about the world in a one way or the other, whichever of the three alternatives for a simulation that seems like arguably one of the most fundamental discoveries, right? Now, interestingly, in the case of somebody like Elon, so there's like the standard arguments for why you might want to take the simulation hypothesis seriously, the simulation argument, right? In the case of if you are actually Elon Musk, let's say, there's kind of an additional reason in that what are the chances you would be Elon Musk.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“That could then be uncertainty as to which level we are at. As you remarked also, all the computations performed A simulation within a simulation also have to be expanded at the level of the simulation. The computer in basement reality where all these simulations with the simulations with the simulations are taking place. Like that computer ultimately it's CPU or whatever it is like that has to power this whole tower, right? So. There is a finite compute power in basement reality that would impose a limit to how tall this tower can be. And if each level kind of imposes a large extra overhead, you might think maybe the tower would not be very tall, that most people would be low down in the tower.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“They're like, well, first of all, there's a limited amount of matter you can get your hands off because with the positive cosmological constant, the universe is accelerating. There's like a finite sphere of stuff, even if you travel with the speed of light that you could ever reach. You have a finite amount of stuff And then, if you think there is like a lower limit to the amount of loss you get when you perform an erasure of a computation, or if you think, for example, just matter gradually over cosmological timescales decay, maybe protons decay, other things, and you radiate out gravitational waves. Like there's all kinds of seemingly unavoidable losses that occur. So eventually we'll have something. Like a heat death of the universe or a cold death or whatever.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Is that an obvious kind of all the way to one in reality that would be some ratio? Although maybe a technical mature civilization could run a lot of. Simulations using a small portion of its resources. Probably wouldn't be able to run infinitely money. I mean, if we take, say, the observed, the physics in the observed universe, if we assume that that's also the physics at the level of the simulators, that would be. Limits to the amount of information processing that anyone civilization could perform in its future trajectory.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Certainty that you are simulated, right? If everybody with your experiences is simulated and you know you've got to be one of those, you don't need the probability at all. You just kind of logically conclude it, right? So then as we move. From a case where, say, 90% of everybody simulated, 99%, it should seem plausible that the probability assign should sort of approach one certainty as the fraction approaches the case where everybody Is in a simulation. So, like you wouldn't expect it to be a discrete. Well, if there's one non simulated person, then it's 50-50. But if we move that and it's 100%, like it should kind of other arguments as well one can use to support this blind principle of indifference. Might be”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Yeah. The key point is the methodological assumption you need to make to get the simulation argument to where it wants to go is much weaker and less problematic than the methodological assumption you make to get the doomsday argument to its conclusion. Maybe the doomsday argument is sound or unsound, but you need to make a much stronger and more controversial assumption to make it go through. In the case of the Doomsday argument, sorry, the simulation argument, I guess one... Maybe way intuition pub to support this bland principle of indifference is to consider a sequence of different cases where the fraction of people who are simulated to non-simulated approaches one. So in the limiting case where everybody is simulated. Obviously, you can deduce”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I mean, does it have to be, no, I mean, it may be an easier way of putting it is just like, are you simulated? Are you not simulated? Given this assumption that these two groups of people exist.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“The people in original histories, and B, the people in simulations. So this would be the class of observers that we need, I mean, there are also maybe the simulators, but we can set those aside for this. So the question is, given that class of observers, Small set of original history observers and a large class of simulated observers, which one should you think is you? Where are you amongst this set of observers?”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Individual consciousness. Yeah. I mean, when you say you, but there are a lot of observers in the simulation, in the context of the simulation argument. But they're all the relevant observers would be A.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“So if you think about in the case of the Doomsday argument, it says you should reason as if you were a random sample from all humans that would have lived, even though in fact you know that you're about number 100 billion human and you're alive in the year 2020. Whereas in the case of the simulation argument, it tests that, well, if you actually have no way of telling which one you are, then you should assign this kind of uniform probability.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Would consistent try to figure out what are the legitimate ways of reasoning about these indexical facts when observer selection effects are in play. In other words, developing a theory of anthropics and there are different views of looking at that. And it's a difficult methodological area. But to tie it back to the Simulation argument, the key assumption there, this bland principle of indifference, is much weaker than the self-sampling assumption.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Making sense of these inferences that failure seem correct that we can make various observations and infer what the temperature of the cosmic background is and the fine structure constant and all of this. But it seems that without rolling in some assumption similar to the self-sampling assumption, this inference just doesn't go through. And there are other examples. So there are these scientific contexts where it looks like this kind of anthropic reasoning is needed and makes perfect sense. And yet, in the case of the Dupes argument, it has this weird consequence and people might think there's something wrong with it there. So there's then this project that”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“That corresponds to the other theory because there will be some observers that have hallucinations, so there's a local fluctuation or a statistically anomalous measurement. These things will happen. And if not, subservers make enough different observations, there will be some that sort of by chance make these different ones. And what we would want to say is, well, Many more observers, a larger proportion of the observers will observe as it were the true value. And a few will observe the wrong value. If we think of ourselves as a random sample, we should expect with a volume probability to observe the true value and that will then allow us to conclude that the evidence we actually have is evidence for the theories we think are supported. It kind of done is a way of”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Sampling assumption to make sense of bona fide scientific inferences in contemporary cosmology, for example, you have these multiverse theories. And according to a lot of those, all possible human observations are made. So if you have a sufficiently large universe, you will have a lot of people observing all kinds of different things. So, if you have two competing theories, say about the value of some constant Could be true according to both of these theories that there would be some observers observing the value”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source