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.

You can critique the premise that life is not a game, but you can’t deny that aspects of life are game-like (eg accumulating money or time; building relationships w loved ones)

I think the biggest flaw is that AGI is not a cheat code, or that there is a difference between infinite games and finite ones

Be specific.     

leonasskau.co.uk //
Hosting /strategy, /geopolitics d33m:mun

If things like prosperity time and love are good, then we owe it to (future) ‘players/descendants/generations’ to IMPROVE try game
Make it more rewarding to play
Make life better to participate in
Make life more worth living (living is the verb you use to play infinite games)

What kinds of challenges remain in this world that make the game rewarding? Aren’t all the stakes gone?