@willdoingthings that's an awfully specific thing for them to be pointing to
-
-
Replying to @GapOfGods
@tipsfromkatee really? I used multiple complex words but I don't think the concept pointed at is burdensomely detailed on the face of it1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @willdoingthings
@willdoingthings "pantheonic" stands out most1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GapOfGods
@tipsfromkatee sorry, that had unwanted connotations, stupid word choice. I just meant multiple separate, interacting agents...1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @willdoingthings
@willdoingthings why doesn't the most powerful one optimise the others out of existence? that sort of thing seems burdensome.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GapOfGods
@tipsfromkatee Because they're not adversarial (gains from trade), or defense is easier than offense (P vs. NP crypto relevant?)3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @willdoingthings
@willdoingthings there's only gains from trade with what you can't eat1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GapOfGods
@tipsfromkatee Right but I see no obvious reason to expect two foomed AIs (say) to be of such substantially different strength1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @willdoingthings
@willdoingthings long time horizons make permanently defeating the enemy more worth paying short-term costs for2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GapOfGods
@tipsfromkatee interesting. ... potential for coalitions makes this difficult to think about3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@willdoingthings although i admit that the arguments that have been given don't strongly establish this
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.