Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs
It seems straightforward to me. The current you falling off the cliff faces death: The final termination of its consciousness. But it has an heir that may carry on for it. It's kind of like leaving the family business to your son. . . .
Bill Stoddard
|
Hmm, I guess that works. The backup is qualitatively more similar and reliable than a normal human heir, but for the purpose of tracking self-awareness loops, it's "I am dying, someone similar to me will step in" in both cases.
Oooh. A difference is on the other end. A son thinks "my father got himself killed", but if the restored backup is notified right away of what happened, it may think "I got myself killed." Technically inaccurate, yet natural. Father and son are different people, but the dead 'me' is everything I am and more, apart from the few moments I've had since restoration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTim
I think you might be selling LAIs short. IMHO, an LAI may not have as deep a worldview (world-simulation?) as an SAI, but it's a qualitative difference more than a quantitative one. An LAI is the equivalent of a human being with a sheltered upbringing, and possibly a moderate learning disability.
Remember, unlike an NAI, an LAI can buy off most of its disadvantages. That tells me they can change their worldview.
|
Well, I think the argument works, whether you want to draw the line below SAI, LAI, or NAI. Point is, you argue with something to (a) learn new information from it, (b) change its mind, (c) change the mind of spectators, (d) learn from the exercise of expressing your thoughts, or (e) sheer entertainment. The absence of "anyone at home" or more specifically, an entity that can change its mind (i.e. learn from you) is certainly a valid argument for breaking off, though such absence needn't require breaking off if other reasons are at play.