"J. R. Molloy" wrote:
>
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky writes,
>
> > But attracting people to the most important job in the entire world? How much
> > leadership talent do you need for *that*?
>
> You'd need the most talented leadership in the entire world, because the entire
> world is more interested in Olympic games and making money than it is interested
> in the most important job. The most important job appeals only to the most
> intelligent and conscientious brains.
Amen. You first need to convince a sufficient number of people that
your diagnosis of the most important thing really is the most important
and the only hope and that your design is fundamentally sound. This is
not a trivial task and no, not all people of sufficient caliber to be
useful to the work will get it from the first.
For sure the same person[s] doing the design may not be the ones to do
the charisma and necessary explanation and persuasion though.
>
> > My purpose, above all else, is to design the Seed. Other people can
> > persuade. I have to complete the design. If being charismatic requires
> > patterns of thought that interfere with my ability to complete the design, or
> > even if it starts taking up too much time, then forget charismatic. I'll stay
> > in the basement and someone else will be charismatic instead.
>
> If you actually design the Seed, you won't need charisma. The AI Seed will
> decide whether (and what kind of) charisma is needed. As John R. Koza, et al.,
> pointed out in _Genetic progamming and Evolvable Machines_, human-competitive
> genetic programming has produced results which have been patented (p. 124).
> Automatic creation has no need for charisma.
>
False. You first have to get there. A design does not a working system
make. And even after the working system is in place there is a non-zero
amount of time when the active cooperation of others is still needed.
After that there is an even longer period where charisma is needed in
order to sell humanity on whatever decisions the Seed is making. Or is
it planned simply to give humans no choice at all? If so, then I have
to ask again. In what way is this good for or even compatible with the
nature of human beings?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:51 MDT