SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Daniel Vallstrom

Publications and source records attributed to Daniel Vallstrom.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Cooperative Evolutionary Pressure and Diminishing Returns Might Explain the Fermi Paradox: On What Super-AIs Are Like

With an evolutionary approach, the basis of morality can be explained as adaptations to problems of cooperation. With 'evolution' taken in a broad sense, AIs that satisfy the conditions for evolution to apply will be subject to the same cooperative evolutionary pressure as biological entities. Here the adaptiveness of increased cooperation as material safety and wealth increase is discussed -- for humans, for other societies, and for AIs. Diminishing beneficial returns from increased access to material resources also suggests the possibility that, on the whole, there will be no incentive to for instance colonize entire galaxies, thus providing a possible explanation of the Fermi paradox, wondering where everybody is. It is further argued that old societies could engender and eventually give way to super-AIs, since it is likely that super-AIs are feasible, and fitter. Closing is an aside on effective ways for morals and goals to affect life and society, emphasizing environments, cultures, and laws, and exemplified by how to eat. 'Diminishing returns' is defined, as less than roots, the inverse of infeasibility. It is also noted that there can be no exponential colonization or reproduction, for mathematical reasons, as each entity takes up a certain amount of space. Appended are an algorithm for colonizing for example a galaxy quickly, models of the evolution of cooperation and fairness under diminishing returns, and software for simulating signaling development.

physics.soc-ph

A logical treatment of noise: Solving The Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever and its generalizations

Raymond Smullyan came up with a puzzle that George Boolos called The Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever.[1] The puzzle has truthful, lying, and random gods who answer yes or no questions with words that we don't know the meaning of. The challenge is to figure out which type each god is. The puzzle has attracted some general attention -- for example, one popular presentation of the puzzle has been viewed 10 million times.[2] Various "top-down" solutions to the puzzle have been developed.[1,3] We present a systematic bottom-up approach to the puzzle and its generalization. We prove that an n gods puzzle is solvable if and only if the random gods are less than the non-random gods, for arbitrary cardinals. We develop a solution using 4.15 questions on average to the 5 gods variant with 2 random and 3 lying gods. We introduce an algorithm and an implementation for finding solutions to the generalized problem, together with upper bounds. Finally, we note that random gods act like noisy sources, which provides a connection to fault-tolerant computing.

math.GM