den Otter wrote:
> > Even the most advanced SI doesn't have to be a
> > problem; it would take a huge amount of work
> > to make a SI even the slightest bit dangerous.
>
> I lost your original message to a %$@#&%*
> Netscape error, but I think I got the general
> drift from later responses. I suspect we're
> basically talking about two different things,
> with IMO different "danger" levels. My concerns
> weren't as much about servant AIs turning mean,
> but rather ruthless *people* turning SI trough
> future technology (AI, nanotech, uploading etc.)
Yes, you're right, I misread the message. But other people still disagreed with me, so no loss on my part.
> If (and this is only logical) the abovementioned
> technologies will remain long enough (almost)
> completely within the realm of governments, big
> corporations, criminal organizations and the
> ultrarich for these people to understand and use
> their full potential, we're all screwed.
I doubt (I could be wrong) the military is looking
into the application of AI as weapon itself,
although they certainly will use it for
controlling current weapons and for strategic
planning. If military AI did give one side a
massive advantage (most likely the US) things
would probably have time to even out (the US isn't
known for it's conquering). I think some of the
comments I've made apply here. For instance, would
a corporation use (to coin a term) AI-munitions or
is it more likely to stick within in the realms of
sales and marketing? How many corporations built
nuclear weapons during the arms race?
Uploading is something that is certainly not taken seriously by any of these organisations. Uploading is likely to come as a result of unrelated research and will not be considered as a weapon. I don't think its potential is that obvious. Uploading, despite being the topic of conversation here and in SF, will be largely ignored by most people. I can see uploading being announced on news like cloning - they've managed to simulate a monkey in exact detail on a computer or something. Most people will ask what the point is. A few of us will talk about its potential. There'll be moral outcry, an ethical commission will advice a ban, the US will do it, and everyone else will follow.
And then there's molecular nanotechnology. I've
always been sceptical of a MNT singularity (in the
short run). I've never understood why people think
that after the first assembler there'll be a
sudden outburst of new technology. MNT
dramatically reduces the cost of production and
increases the strength to weight and complexity of
products. You still have design problems and
you're likely to need all those new software
breakthroughs to be able to manage the complexity
of some of the more radical projects. I think the
MNT revolution will be fast, but not so fast that
one dominant power will emerge.
Besides, all these fields are far from being monopolised, if you really think people are going to get screwed just make sure you're the one doing the screwing.
BM