Re: No AI for Nano/No Nano for copyloads

From: Robin Hanson (
Date: Wed Jul 19 2000 - 07:12:14 MDT

Emlyn (onetel) wrote:
>I'll say if the destructive scan procedure is 10% likely to work, I'm in
>(given that I'm a corpsicle). I'd like to say a higher number, but I think
>I'm likely to be outcompeted. I'm not quite willing to go lower, although I
>suspect I might still be too conservative.
>When you pick a particular chance for success, you are betting that all the
>prior experiments, done before that level of sophistication is reached, will
>fail. At the 90% chance level, I think you are almost a dead certainty (ooh)
>to miss the first wave. Big critter cloning is like this currently, is it
>not; many failures, very few successes? Dolly is a really lucky gambler.

I was toying with putting together a simple game theory model of who went
how low in this probability, as a function of preferences over having
lots of copies. It would be a cute problem, but I just don't have the time
now - perhaps another day.

Robin Hanson
Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030
703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:53 MDT