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, that you're kind of a typical or randomly sampled. Now, in the case of the Doomsday argument, it seems to lead to what intuitively we think is the wrong conclusion, or at least many people have this reaction, that there's got to be something fishy about this argument. Because from very, very weak premises, it gets this very striking implication that we have almost no chance of reaching size 200 trillion humans in the future. And how could we possibly get there just by reflecting on when we were born? It seems you would need sophisticated arguments about the impossibility of space colonization, blah, blah. So one might be tempted to reject this key assumption. I call it the self-sampling assumption. The idea that you should reason as if you were a random sample from all observers or in some reference class. However, it turns out that in other domains, it looks like we need something like this.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“So, what it kind of crucially relies on the Doomsday argument is the idea that you should reason as if you were a random sample from the set of all humans that will ever have existed. Have that assumption, then I think the rest kind of follows. The question then is why should you make that assumption? In fact, you know you're 100 billion. So where do you get this prior? And then there is like a literature on that with different ways of supporting that assumption.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Now, if they're going to be 200 trillion, you would be remarkably early. What are the chances out of these 200 trillion human that you should be human number one hundred billion? That seems it would have a much lower conditional probability. And so analogously to how in the Ern case you thought after finding this low numbered random sample, you updated it in favor of the earn having few balls. Similarly, in this case, you should update in favor of the human species having a lower total number of members, that is doomed soon.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“We would each have a number in this. I mean, obviously the exact number would depend on where you started counting, like which ancestors was human enough to count as human. But those are not really important. They are relatively few of the. So, yeah, so you're roughly 100 billion. Now, if they're only going to be 200 billion in total, that's a perfectly unremarkable number. You're somewhere in the middle, right? Run of the mill human, completely unsurprising.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Human number of one hundred billion, you know, give or take. That's like roughly how many people have been born before you.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“So to simplify, let's suppose we only consider two hypotheses, either maybe 200 billion humans in total or 200 trillion humans in total. It could fill in more hypothesis, but it doesn't change the principle here. So it's easiest to see if we just consider these two. So you start with some prior based on ordinary empirical ideas about threats to civilization and so forth, and maybe you say it's a 5% chance that we will go extinct by the time there will have been 200 billion only. You're kind of optimistic, let's say. You think probably we'll make it through colonized universe. But then according to this doomsday argument, you should think of your own birth rank as a random sample. So your birth rank is your sequence in the position. Of all humans Ever existed, and it turns out you're about”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“So that's strong evidence for the tan ball hypothesis. Like, it's a lot more likely that you would get such a low numbered ball if they're on the 10 balls in the end. Like it's in fact 10% then, right? Than if there are a million balls, it would be very unlikely you would get number seven. You perform a Bayesian update, and if your prior was fifty fifty that it was the Temple Earn, you become virtually certain after finding the random sample was seven, that it only has 10 balls in it. So in the case of the Earns, this is uncontroversial, just elementary probability theory. The Doomsday argument. Says that you should reason in a similar way with respect to different hypotheses about how many balls there will be in the urn of humanity, as it were, how many humans there will ever be by the time we go extinct”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Yeah, so maybe it's easiest to explain via an analogy to sampling from urns. So imagine you have a big Didn't even have two urns in front of you, and they have balls in them that have numbers. The two urns look the same, but inside one there are 10 balls. Ball number one, two, three up to ball number 10 And then in the other urn, you have a million balls numbered one to a million. And somebody puts one of these urns. And ask you to guess what's the chance it's the $10. And you say 50 50, I can't tell which earn it is. But then you're allowed to reach in and pick a ball at random from the urn. And let's suppose you find that it's ball number seven.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Now, I should say most people probably think at the end of the day there is something wrong with this doomsday argument that it doesn't really hold. It's like there's something wrong with it, but it's proved hard to say exactly what is wrong with it. And different people have different accounts. My own view is it seems inconclusive. And I can say what the argument is. Yeah, that would be good.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“That's a big and interesting topic in its own right anthropics. But the doomsday argument is this really first discovered by Brandon Carter, who was a theoretical physicist and then developed by philosopher John Leslie. I think it might have been discovered initially in the 70s or 80s. And Leslie wrote this book, I think, in 1996. And there are some other versions as well by Richard Gott, who's a physicist, but let's focus on the Carter Leslie version. It's an argument that we have systematically underestimated the probability that Humanity will go extinct soon.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“There is a connection in that they both involve an application of entropic reasoning that is reasoning about these kind of indexical But the assumption you need in the case of the simulation argument. Is much weaker than the assumption you need to make the doomsday argument go through.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Well, I mean, they might have different if you think of there being a lot of different planets and some subset of them have life and then some subset of those get intolerant life and some of those maybe eventually start creating simulations, they might get started at quite different times, like maybe on some planet it takes a billion years longer before you get monkeys or before you get even bacteria than on another planet So this might happen kind of at different cosmological epochs”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“However long it takes, I guess, for a universe to produce an intelligent civilization that then attains the technology to run some ancestor simulations.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“That set up. So, yeah, so I call it the bland principle of indifference, which is that in cases like this, when you have to, I guess, sets of observers. One of which is much larger than the other. And you can't, from any internal evidence you have, tell which set you belong to, you should assign a probability that's proportional to the size of these sets so that if they're 10 times more simulated people with your kinds of experiences, you would be 10 times more likely to be one of those.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“What you get to if you accept alternative three first is there would be more. Simulated people with our kinds of experiences than non simulated ones. Like if you look at the world as a whole. The end of time message where you just count it up That would be more simulated ones than non simulated ones. There is an extra step to get from that. If you assume that, suppose for the sake of the argument that that's true, how do you get from that to the statement we are probably in a simulation? So here you are introducing an indexical statement. This person right now is in a simulation. There are all these other people. Not that they're in simulations and some that are not in the simulation. But what probability should you have that you yourself is one of the simulated ones”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Yeah, so it might be that the greatest impact of individuals is not at technical maturity or very far down. It might be earlier on when there are different tracks civilization could go down. Maybe the population is smaller, things still haven't settled out. If you count indirect effects, that Those could be bigger than the direct effects that people have later on.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Fumbling through the universe. But if almost inevitably on route to attaining the ability to create many ancestry simulations, you do have this cognitive enhancement or advice from superintelligences or you yourself. And maybe there's like this additional set of considerations coming into view. And yesterday, it's obvious that the thing that makes sense is to do X. Whereas right now, it seems, oh, you could X, Y, or Z and different people will do different things. And we are kind of random in that sense.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“So then it could turn out that there are a lot of Instrumental goals that would drop out of the picture and be replaced by other instrumental goals because we could now serve some of these final goals in more direct ways. And who knows how all of that shakes out Civilizations reflect on that and converge on different attractors and so on and so forth. And that could be new instrumental Considerations that come into view as well that we are just oblivious to that would maybe have a strong shaping effect on actions, like very strong reasons to do something or not to do something. Then we just don't realize they are there because we are so dumb.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“If you want to experience pleasure and happiness, you might have to do a whole host of things in the external world to try to get into the stage, into the mental state where you experience pleasure. People get some pleasure from eating great food. Well, they can just turn that on. They have to kind of actually go to a nice restaurant and then they have to make money. So there's like all this kind of activity that maybe arises from the fact that we are trying to ultimately produce mental states, but the only way to do that is by a whole host of complicated activities in the external world. Now, at some level of technical development, I think we'll become autopotent in the sense of gaining direct ability to choose our own internal configuration and enough knowledge and insight to be able to actually do that in a meaningful way.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“It doesn't seem that implausible that once you take this leap. Technical maturity. I mean, I think it involves creating. Machine superintelligence possibly that would be sort of on the path for basically all civilizations maybe before they are able to create large numbers of ancestor simulations that possibly could be one of these things that quite radically changes the orientation of what a civilization is in fact optimizing for. There are other things as well. At the moment we Have not perfect control over our own being, our own mental states, our own experiences are not under our direct control. So for example,”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Well, not necessarily. I think the second alternative. Which has to do with the motivations and interest Technological mature civilizations. I think there is much we don't understand about that.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Yes, I think thou there will be a large residual of uncertainty that we'll just have to acknowledge. And I think that's true for most of these big picture questions that we might wonder about. It's just we are small, short-lived, small brained, cognitively very limited humans with little evidence. And it's amazing we can figure out as much as we can really about the cosmos.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Yeah, yeah. I mean, it could interact with the second by alternative, like if the thing that replaced us with either more likely or less likely than we would be to have an interest in creating ancestor simulations That could affect probabilities. But yeah, to a first order, if we all just die, then we won't produce any simulations because we are dead. But if we all die and get replaced by some other intelligent thing that then gets to technological maturity, the question remains, of course, if not that thing then use some of its resources to do this stuff”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Incidentally, so in some of my other work, I mean, on machine superintelligence, like pointed some existential risks related to sort of superintelligent AI and how we must make sure To handle that wisely and carefully, it's not the right kind of existential catastrophe to make First alternative true though. Like it might be bad for us if the future lost a lot of value as a result of it being shaped by some process that optimized for some completely non-human value. Even if we got killed by machine superintelligencies, that machine superintelligence might still attain technical maturity.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Yeah, pretty much. I mean, strictly speaking, it's not true. I mean, that could be two different existential risk and every civilization, you know, one or the other. But none of them kills more than 50%.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“So that means if we get closer and closer to actually reaching technological maturity. There's less and less distance left where we could go extinct before we are there Therefore, the probability that we will reach increases as we get closer. And that would make it less likely to be true that almost all civilizations at our current stage failed to get there. Like we would have this, the one case we'd started ourselves would be very close to getting there. That would be strong evidence that it's not so hard to get to technological maturity. So to the extent that we feel we are moving nearer to technological maturity, would tend to reduce the probability of the first alternative and increase the probability of the other two. It doesn't need to be a monotonic change. If every once in a while some new threat comes into view, some bad new thing you could do with some novel technology, for example, you know, that could change our probabilities in the other direction.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“If it's the case that almost all civilizations at our current stage of technological maturity fail, at our current stage of technological development fail to reach maturity That would give us very strong reason for thinking we will fail to reach technical maturity.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Certainly in general terms, if you think anything that increases or reduces the probability of one of these, we tend to slush probability around on the other. So if one becomes less probable like the other would have to, because it's got to add up to one So if we consider the first hypothesis, the first alternative that there's this filter that makes it so that virtually no civilization reaches technological maturity. In particular, our own civilization. If that's true, then it's very unlikely that we would reach technological maturity because if almost no civilization at our stage does it, then it's unlikely that we do it. So”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“So, I'd expect by the time that could make these fully realistic simulations of human history with human brains in there, like before that, they got to that stage. They would have figured out how to create machine super intelligence or maybe biological enhancements of their own brains if there were biological creatures to start with.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Yeah, strictly speaking, it would not be necessary to have superintelligence in order to have, say, the technology to make these simulations, ancestor simulations or other kinds of simulations. Matter of fact, I think If we are in a simulation, it would most likely be one built by a civilization that had superintelligence. It certainly would help a lot. I mean, you could build more efficient, larger scale structures if you had super intelligence. I also think that if you had the technology to build these simulations, that's like a very advanced technology. It seems kind of easier to get technology to super intelligence.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“For various reasons that are less than watertight arguments. But when you can sort of, for example, if you look at animals and And even within humans, there seems to be Einstein versus random person, like it's not just that Einstein was a little bit faster. But how long would it take a normal person to invent general relativity? It's like, it's not 20% longer than it took Einstein or something like that. It's like, I don't know whether they would do it at all or it would take millions of years or some totally bizarre.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Yeah, I'm not sure. I thought that we might. No, I mean, so there are different dimensions of intelligence. A simple one is just speed. Like if you can solve the same challenge faster in some sense. So, there, I think we have very strong evidence for thinking that you could have a computer in this universe that would be much faster than the human brain and therefore have speed super intelligence, like be completely superior, maybe a million times faster. Then maybe there are other ways in which you could be smarter as well, more qualitative ways, right? The concepts are a little bit less clear cut, so it's harder to make a very crisp neat, firmly logical argument for why there could be qualitative superintelligence as opposed to just things that were faster. Although I still think it's very plausible.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Of these reasons we alluded to earlier in terms of Designs we already have for computers that would be faster by many orders of magnitude than the human brain.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Relatively simply, which also is relevant for the simulation argument. And in terms of thinking about how realistic would a virtual reality model have to be in order for the simulated creature not to notice that anything was awry. Well, just think of our own humble brains during the wee hours of the night when we are dreaming many times, well, dreams are very immersive, but often you also don't realize that you're in a dream. And that's produced by simple primitive three pound lumps of neural matter effortlessly. So if a simple brain like this can create a virtual reality that seems pretty real to us, then how much easier would it be for a super intelligent civilization with planetary sized computers optimized over the eons to create a Realistic environment for you to interact with.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I guess a data case would be where they can come apart, where you could create the appearance. There being a conscious mind without actually not being another conscious mind. I'm somewhat agnostic exactly where these lines go. I think one observation that makes it plausible Could have very realistic appearances”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Yeah. I mean, I guess there are a few different things. One is how good the interaction is, which might, I mean, if you don't really care about. Like probing hard for whether the thing is conscious, maybe it would be a satisfactory interaction. Whether or not you really thought it was conscious. Now, if you really care about it being How easy would it be to fake it? And you say it sounds But then the question is, would that also mean it's very easy to instantiate consciousness? It's much more widely spread in the world than we have thought it doesn't require a big human brain with 100 billion neurons. All you need is some system that exhibits basic intentionality and can respond and you already have consciousness. In that case, I guess you still have a close coupling.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“So, you think there's a big gap between appearing conscious and being conscious? Is it that you think it's very easy to be conscious?”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Then it starts to become more plausible that the only way to realize this thing in such a way that you would get the right answer from any which angle you probed it would be a way of instantiating it where you also instantiated a conscious mind.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Well, it might be. I mean, I think you can certainly fake if you have a very limited interaction with somebody, you could certainly fake that. If all you have to go on is somebody said hello to you. That's not enough for you to tell whether there was a real person there or a pre recorded message or like a very superficial simulation that has no consciousness. Because that's something easy to fake. We could already fake it now. You can record a voice recording. But if you have a richer set of interactions where you're allowed to ask open-ended questions and probe from different angles that couldn't sort of be, you couldn't give canned answer to all of the possible ways that you could probe it.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Which include experiences of interacting with other people. Without that also generating consciousnesses corresponding to those other people. That is, if you create another entity that you perceive and interact with, that to you looks entirely realistic. Not just when you say hello, they say hello back, but you have a rich interaction many days, deep conversations. Like it might be that the only... Plausible way of implementing that would be one that also has a side effect instantiate this other person in enough detail that you would have a second consciousness there. I think that to some extent an open question.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“But if she's actually implemented, say at a neural level of detail so that she's a fully realized digital mind with the same behavioral repertoire as you have, then very plausibly she would be a conscious person like you are. And then you would what you do in this experience machine would have real consequences for how this other mind felt. So you have to specify which of these experienced machines you're talking about. I think it's not entirely obvious. It will be possible to have an experience machine that gave you a normal set of human experiences.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“But it depends, I think, on how she's implemented in the experience machine. Take one limit case where all she is is a static picture on the wall of photograph. You think, well, I can look at her, right? But that's it. Then you think, well, it doesn't really matter much what happens to that any more than a normal photograph. If you tear it up, right? It means you can't see it anymore, but you haven't harmed the person whose picture you tore up.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“And you think, I wouldn't want to go in there. Well, that tells you something interesting about what you value and what you care about. Then you could say, well, what if you add the fact that there would be other people in there and you would interact with them? Well, it starts to make it more attractive, right? Then you could add in, well, what if you could also have important long-term effects on human history and the world and you could actually do something useful, even though you were in there? makes it maybe even more attractive. Like you could actually have a life that had a purpose and consequences. So as you sort of add more into it, it becomes more similar to the baseline reality that you were comparing it to.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Well, there are versions of the experience machine. So, in fact, you might want to have distinguished different thought experiments, different versions of it. Like in the original thought experiment, maybe it's only you, right”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“No, I mean, I think in the simulation, I think there is a sense, the important sense in which it would all be real. Nevertheless, there is a distinction between inside a simulation and outside a simulation, or in the case of Gnostic start experiment, whether you're in the VAT or outside the VAT. And some of those differences may or may not be important. I mean, that comes down to your values and preferences. So if the If they experience machine only gives you the experience of growing peanuts, but you're the only one in the experienced machines.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I was with you up until the point when you started talking about you should know you can't realize you're alive out of these.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I hope, first of all, that they actually have peanut farms in Peru. I guess we'll get a lot of comments otherwise from Angri.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“No, well, you could. If you wanted to, you could have the experience of farming in Peru. But there wouldn't actually be any peanuts grown.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I guess in this case, it's more a production. In one case, you're floating in a tank with these wires by the super duper neuroscientists plugging into your head, giving you Lex Friedman experiences. In the other, you're actually tilling the soil in Peru, growing peanuts, and then those peanuts are being eaten by other people around the world who buy the exports.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“In this thought experiment, just to make sure we are on the same. So, in this case, the farmer in Peru would not be a virtual reality. That would be the real. Your life, like before this whole experience machine started.”
2020-03-26 · Lex Fridman Podcast · #83 – Nick Bostrom: Simulation and Superintelligence · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source