Philosophy

accept as a premise that games are less fulfilling if you beat them using a cheat code. stronger claim: they aren’t worth playing at all if you use a cheat code.

now, if life is a game and if AGI is a cheat code, then life’s not worth playing with AGI. if this is wrong, which premise is wrong and why?

Design and software at Apple. Also into AI, philosophy of mind, ethics.

the first premise is mostly true, until it's a console command for fixing/modding/exploring the game. which is the same with AGI, we'll gain cheaper creative divergence, and meanwhile what's already explored will become abundant & less "of a grind".

𝖒𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆𝖙𝖚𝖒 𝖆𝖉 𝖆𝖘𝖙𝖗𝖆

it's kind of a big deal in games that self-evident masters of a game mode should explore the limits of that mode (e.g. speedruns/handicaps).

it's like glitching through maps, physics can still be an underlying game.