Robin Hanson wrote:
> On 10/2/2000, - samantha wrote:
> > > From a sufficiently removed
> > > perspective, replacing the human race with an intelligence vastly more
> > > aware, more perceptive, more intelligent and more conscious may not be
> > > entirely evil. I don't say it should happen, but it is something to
> > > consider in evaluating the morality of this outcome.
> >You can only evaluate a morality within a framework allowing valuing.
> >What framework allows you to step completely outside of humanity and
> >value this as a non-evil possibility?
> I thought Hal did a good job of describing such a framework. Actually,
> any framework which values things in terms other than whether they have
> human DNA allows for the possibility of preferring AIs to humans.
That is a mis-characterization of my question and false from the point
of view of what types of beings we are. Why should humans prefer AIs to
humans (assuming for a second it is an either/or, which I don't
believe). What benefit is their for human beings (who/what we are) in
this? Are we stepping into some place or value system where we are not
and trying to value our non-existence from this non-place?
> only way to avoid this issue is to stack the deck and declare that only
> humans count.
The only way to avoid what issue? Since we are human beings human
beings count quite centrally in our deliberations and must. Do you
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:15 MDT