Eliezer wrote:
My point is that there is not an infinite number of chances for things to go
wrong. If it doesn't decide to off you after a couple of hours, you don't
need to spend the rest of eternity living in fear.
End)
Why is that? I would think it COULD take years/decades/centuries before our
AI get to the point of deciding for whatever reasons to turn against
humanity. As time went by we would trust them more and give them more and
more responsibilities and power over society. I would think that even if
some 'rebellion' was harbored within the 'heart' of the first AI that they
would keep it to themselves until the time was right to strike.
he continues:
I can also see that it won't exist in an AI. An AI *does not have* a pov,
and your whole don't-trust-the-AIs scenario rests on that basic anxiety,
that the AI will make decisions biased toward itself. There is just no
reason for that to happen. An AI doesn't have a pov. It's every bit as
likely to make decisions biased towards you, or towards the "viewpoint" of
some quark somewhere, as it is to make decisions biased toward itself. The
tendency that exists in humans is the product of evolutionary selection and
nothing else.
(end)
I don't understand how you could say AI would not have a point of view.
Perhaps initially, but then as AI hacked itself and upgraded, it would
probably develop a pov at a certain level of sophistication. Right? The
self-development of AI would just be another form of evolutionary progress.
For obvious reasons I hope AI is as unbiased and 'neutral' as you seem to
think it will be.
I don't fully grasp the nature of this debate(I admit). How would AI really
save us from nanotech destruction? Would it be where nano is about to
overrun the planet and human researchers lack the time to find the solution
but a lightning fast AI with labs at its control comes up with the save in a
matter of only minutes or hours? I could see that happening.
It appears that AI, uploading, sysop and nano each have their own plusses
and minusses. It looks like you are all trying to come up with the best
balancing act to offset the dangers of the other. It seems to me that a
hostile AI with control over nano would have us beat hands down! Even a
nuke hit that destroyed the AI would not stop the unrelenting 'engines of
destruction' it had unleashed on us. Hopefully an AI on our team would
quickly nullify the threat. But if all the AI were to defect we would be in
serious trouble.
When it comes to uploading I must admit the classic film _Lawnmower Man_
comes to mind. Would you want the angry Jeff Fahy character as the
'cyberchrist' of the world? That film will become to uploading what 2001 is
to first contact.
I think I might prefer cool-headed and unbiased AI(if they really turn out
that way) to uploaded human personalities that could hold 'inner demons'
which could drive them to do some bad things, though at the time of
uploading we thought them psychologically healthy individuals. I suppose
that AI and uploads will co-mingle and hopefully get along! I think that AI
will be here first so we will be the 'new neighbors.' Some AI may be
designed on info taken from uploads to make them more human-like. Is that a
good idea?
Based on the various rates of technological advancement, I would say that AI
may(?) be here before we have really effective nano. Probably. And I
suppose that it would be a good thing for it to work out that way.
Otter wrote, he wrote:
> > > P.s: do you watch _Angel_ too?> >> > Of course.> > Ah yes, same here.
>Nice altruistic chap, isn't he? And very realistically so, actually. If
>Angel's will is strong enough to balance and overcome the built-in
>predatory instincts of a vampire,then he's rather unlikely to succumb to
>lesser moral compromises. He's also a couple of hundred years old, which is
>another force operating to move him to the extrema of whatever position he
>takes.
(end)
I have yet to watch the _Angel_ series! I have not even seen _Buffy_ at all
this season! I guess I need to stay in more to see the tv I have been
missing! lol! Any of you remember _Forever Knight_? I enjoyed that show
with the vampire cop who struggled with his dark nature. His 'down to
earth' mortal partner made the character contrast fun also. Knight's
mentor, an ancient Roman vampire, was well-cast(forget the name), and I
enjoyed seeing his curiousity and even 'fatherly concern' when Knight tried
to do the right thing.
I look forward to seeing how the ongoing debate develops. And then how
things over the next three decades actually pan out!
best regards,
John Grigg
P.S. Zero wrote:
There is no need to demand that people only discuss topics of interest to
you. Unless I am mistaken, I do not believe this is the "Eliezer S.
Yudkowsky favorite topics" list.
(end)
You are mistaken! The first time I got on this list it became clear to me
that this is the "Eliezer Yudkowsky favorite topics" list! The Extropy
Institute only 'thinks' it is theirs! lol :)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:05:26 MDT