A genie who considers removing the dimension of time from the universe as not changing the universe is playing so dirty that it doesn’t matter what I say or don’t say, and the game is pointless. I know you want this to be a loophole, but I just don’t think it is.
That is more or less the tactic by which Captain Kirk defeated any number of evil computers. Should be a cinch with a stupid genie. Asking for a stone that he can’t lift should help keep him distracted, as well.
Is a genie omnipotent by definition? Why couldn’t it make a stone it couldn’t lift? What if he set himself inside a stone? Clearly he’d be unable to lift it then.
Except it is possible that P=NP. I don’t happen to believe so but there are some plausible reasons to believe that it is so. That’s why I revised the first one, it might be loopholey to say that I wish for something to be true that might not be possible.
The same is true for NFLT. There’s a distinct split in scholars as to whether this is true of not. It is suspected that there cannot be an optimal algorithm for all search spaces, but nobody has proven it for sure.
I guess I could modify it to:
“I wish to know a proof for the truth or falsity of the statement ‘all problems that can be verified in polynomial time can be solved in polynomial time’.”
“I wish to know a proof for the truth or falsity of the statement ‘there exists a single algorithm that is optimal for all search spaces’.”
If either is true, then a proof would probably include an algorithm or at least be suggestive of one. Either way, it would be a very cool thing to know for humanity. It would be a good thing if P=NP, although it would result in a strange universe. And an universally optimal search algorithm would be AWESOME for so many scientific applications. It would revolutionize science and make a lot of things potentially possible that are impractical right now.
Nothing that consumes food ever eats again, because to do so would be cruel to the organism that is the food, even if the food is a lettuce leaf, it has life, and depriving it of life is (the genie rules) cruel to some small degree. Nobody walks anywhere lest they cruelly end the life of an earwig by trampling on it. Most beings have no choice but to stay very still and starve quietly to death.
That’s not what it means to “act out of cruelty.” Cruelty entails taking pleasure in causing pain, and acting out of cruelty entails acting with cruelty as the motive.
The genie could interpret it uncharitably, of course–but that would be an act of cruelty.
I just think there’s way too many loopholes there. To me, as a genie, I would set up a society that is based on naked utilitarianism, pragmatism, and self-interest. All decisions would be based on that reasoning. No intentional acts of malice, no cruelty, no sadism. Just business. You’re 85 and your end-of-life care costs society more than it helps? Off you go. The greater good is you dying. Nothing malicious. Nothing cruel (in the genie’s opinion). Nothing sadistic about it. The intent is for the well being of the rest of the flock. Or, wait, you have money? OK. Maybe now it’s worth keeping you alive, because your economic input can be used to help others. It’s cold, but I believe it follows your wish, unless you want to say that is “acting out of cruelty,” which it absolutely is not, in my opinion. It’s acting out of a cold, indifferent sense of utilitarianism.
Those aren’t other changes. All those comply (in my opinion) with not acting out of malice, cruelty, or sadism. None of those have to do with ulitilarianism, pragmatism, or self-interest. I can kill something or someone without being malicious, cruel, or sadistic. When an eagle kills its prey, is it doing any of these? When territorial fights happen among animals, is it for any of those reasons?
It’s interesting that cruelty is defined as intentionally causing suffering, and yet it is not uncommon to hear nature described as being cruel, or indeed a cold wind or frost being described as cruel. The trouble with this whole thing is that, being evil, the genie is going to use any loophole available, semantic or otherwise.
When you say that it’s not a change to set up a whole new structure for society, I don’t even know how to address that. But it’s also a silly little game and this back and forth isn’t especially fun, so I’ll bow out.
Unfortunately, i don’t think the current structure is particularly different from what I proposed. My angle would be to try more positive motivations rather than proscriptions, but jackass genie will find its way around that, too.
What about people who do terrible things out of fear or anger or hatred? They may not take any pleasure out of the pain they’re inflicting so the genie would leave them untouched.
Ten million people play the lottery, picking numbers as usual, but somehow, they all end up with the same numbers on their tickets? Clearly, someone hacked the system to change those numbers, and the most likely culprit is the guy with the winning ticket babbling about genies.
This, on the other hand, argues that something genuinely supernatural happened. Maybe nobody buys your “genie” explanation, but that’s clearly not something a human could have engineered. Good chance you avoid any jail time in this scenario.
Maybe not jail, but something huge and unusual and unexplainable happened, with you at the beneficial epicentre of it. I feel that you’re not going to be just left to go about your business as normal; you’ll be detained, questioned (“Yes yes, a genie. You said. But what did you really do? We have all the time in the world to keep asking you.”), examined, scrutinised… probed.
Or maybe people close to you are kidnapped one by one, and all the ransom demands add up to twice the amount of money you won. Like, four different kidnappers each demanding half of your winnings.