Wow, I didn’t expect to see any submissions so quickly! Thanks Dave!
A couple questions:
The satellites would be ~micron thick solar cells plus CPUs, and would require a small fraction of the matter in the solar system.
Do you have calculations to justify this claim?
Do you expect that computer consciousness would be net positive? Why?
You talk about preserving natural life as a good thing. Are you at all concerned about wild-animal suffering?
More generally, alternate foods is an interesting idea that I hadn’t heard before, and it looks neglected among EAs (I don’t know if there’s much research being done on it but from what you say it sounds like there’s not). I’d be happy to see what you publish on alternate food interventions.
Thanks for the questions and thanks for the opportunity to post!
See link for calculations on mass requirements. They estimate that a chunk of Mercury could envelop the sun in a few years using self replicating nanotechnology. But then to get maximum computation power, you would want to use the waste heat from a shell near the sun to power another shell further out (Matrioshka Brains). We actually already have “solar” cells that work with lower temperature radiation. Making many of these shells would require a lot more mass, but it would still be feasible.
I think that computer consciousnesses could be much happier than humans. However, they could be much less happy. So I think this is important to work on, though I am optimistic overall.
My reference to reducing animal suffering in galactic colonization and ancestor simulations includes concern about wild animal suffering. I am just less concerned about the wild animal suffering that is going on now because it is much smaller quantities. However, I will note that there may be low-cost ways of reducing wild animal suffering without compromising biodiversity, by just keeping fewer number of organisms per species. For instance, there are huge number of copepods (a type of invertebrate) over large areas of the ocean. However, if we fertilize the oceans, we can have food chain that goes directly from algae to fish. This would reduce the amount of agricultural land required, probably increasing wild animal suffering on land, but it might be a win overall. This could be justified even in non-catastrophe times, but fertilizing the oceans is one of my alternate foods if there is some sunlight remaining.
Yes, very few people are working on alternate foods now. So that means the marginal impact of additional work is very high.
Wow, I didn’t expect to see any submissions so quickly! Thanks Dave!
A couple questions:
Do you have calculations to justify this claim?
Do you expect that computer consciousness would be net positive? Why?
You talk about preserving natural life as a good thing. Are you at all concerned about wild-animal suffering?
More generally, alternate foods is an interesting idea that I hadn’t heard before, and it looks neglected among EAs (I don’t know if there’s much research being done on it but from what you say it sounds like there’s not). I’d be happy to see what you publish on alternate food interventions.
Thanks for the questions and thanks for the opportunity to post! See link for calculations on mass requirements. They estimate that a chunk of Mercury could envelop the sun in a few years using self replicating nanotechnology. But then to get maximum computation power, you would want to use the waste heat from a shell near the sun to power another shell further out (Matrioshka Brains). We actually already have “solar” cells that work with lower temperature radiation. Making many of these shells would require a lot more mass, but it would still be feasible.
I think that computer consciousnesses could be much happier than humans. However, they could be much less happy. So I think this is important to work on, though I am optimistic overall.
My reference to reducing animal suffering in galactic colonization and ancestor simulations includes concern about wild animal suffering. I am just less concerned about the wild animal suffering that is going on now because it is much smaller quantities. However, I will note that there may be low-cost ways of reducing wild animal suffering without compromising biodiversity, by just keeping fewer number of organisms per species. For instance, there are huge number of copepods (a type of invertebrate) over large areas of the ocean. However, if we fertilize the oceans, we can have food chain that goes directly from algae to fish. This would reduce the amount of agricultural land required, probably increasing wild animal suffering on land, but it might be a win overall. This could be justified even in non-catastrophe times, but fertilizing the oceans is one of my alternate foods if there is some sunlight remaining.
Yes, very few people are working on alternate foods now. So that means the marginal impact of additional work is very high.