In my opinion, the most logical path is to maximize global QALY. At least until the theoretical limit of human longevity is reached and we will need to develop a better reward function probably focused on exploring and improving the universe. If this life is a simulation QALY may serve as a form of the universal points system. In the video game of life, we must grope our way toward the best metric for our performance. Though I disagree with certain priorities and lines of thought within the field, I do believe that estimating QALY is one of the most rational ways to quantify individual and group actions. If the idea is new to you, I recommend William MacAskill’s book Doing Good Better and suggest you consider reading up on effective or quantified altruism. It’s a popular concept in health economics, with many derivatives. Through valuable actions -such as supporting others, giving birth, advancing science, engaging in medical research, and even paying taxes to support these activities - we generate QALY for others. As we progress in life, we convert QALY into money and reputation, and we earn experience points. Next, we suppose 70 years of life will be spent in good health with optimal performance -so, at birth, we have 70 QALY. Let’s say we’re born with approximately 100 life years. Unless the objective of this game is to engage in violence, maximization of global QALY is one of the most promising strategies. Others, like Assassin’s Creed, require the player to kill in the service of a "greater good." We will always need to make moral choices.Ī multi-parametric measurement system for human performance and achievements Insilico MedicineĪ simple way to assess your performance in this life is to calculate the number of Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) you generated during your lifetime. As a reference, we might think of games like SimCity, Minecraft, and Civilization, which allow for violence-free (or at least defensive) gameplay. Let’s imagine we are playing a video game where our performance will be monitored at every step, but the rules and metrics are not known to us. How do we evaluate the game within the game? Game worlds are fundamentally expanding, and this is only the beginning.
For some, character properties can be ported into sequels. Early decisions can result in dramatically different finales. Many games adjust to fit a player’s need and offer alternative scenarios, quests and endings. They do not offer an ability to play god, kill at will, or otherwise appeal to our primordial instincts. If we break them we’re grossly punished, and if we don’t break them, we're rewarded with a "better world." I would like to point out that most worlds dangled as a reward (e.g., heaven) would never sell as video games. In various traditions, we’re given a set of rules (e.g., commandments).
0 kommentar(er)
