>>10887290We're supposing that the universe is selecting for something, and that that something contains us in its linear past. We don't know what that is, but we can make inferences based on every type of death that's been avoided up to now. I can already identify a number of different reasons that I'm alive right now, and am actively working to ensure that new methods of death aren't invented as a result of my actions.
What's relevant here isn't the concept of an asset, but the notion of abstract survival types. You had to live in a world where I didn't create AI, have it weaponized by the military, and lead to your death. Now, you could argue we're both alive because I'd be as likely to die in that world as you would, and my immortality implies yours. That's not really the issue, though. Things that have a shared method of survival will always wind up in the same quantum tangent, per immortality. We'll both wind up in the universe where the physics was similar enough for us to have a conversation about the relevance of AI proliferation to biological life.
There isn't actually any version of you that can't die, the number of universes you simply can't experience only increases with forward time. You can't experience the universe where I made AI and used it to protect myself, but I can. But once I become aware of you, a new mode of survival emerges for you through my awareness, in that I can then create an AI where both of us survive, even if everyone else dies/kill each other using AI.
I can engineer abstract survival types because my index of possible deaths is far larger. It's true that we are assets to each other, but the question is what type of asset. In order to benefit from the other's modes of survival, we each need the other to not commit and abstract quantum suicide for which the other would see a corpse in place of an otherwise functional asset.
