Robert Coyote wrote:
>
> I belive many of the assertions on this thread are dangerously
> anthropomorphic projections, it may be that the answer to the question "What
> does AI want?" is incomprehensible.
I don't have to anthromorphize an <insert Something Really Bad here,
such as a 100 km space rock impacting the top of your skull/two
vagrant neutron star deciding on fusing Somewhere Under Your Bed>
to infer it's going to make me very dead, whether with our without
lots of spectacular pyrotechnics.
What is it with you people, are you just generically unreasonable,
or do you habitually let your kids play russian roulette; or
soccer on a minefield?
I do not care what the AIs want, as long as they're something
really big, fast, powerful, and growing exponentially, and having
-- even unbiased -- agendas of their own. And they will be that, very
soon, if they're subject to evolutionary constraints. Which seems
about the only bit of prejudice I have.
I don't even have to be absolutely 100.1% positive about it, as
long as I think there's a nonnegligable probability of Ragnar0k,
I just think it's a monumentally bad idea to attempt. Billie Joy
is right on the money on this one. Relinquishment, shmerlinquishment,
just hold the horses until we're ready.
Is it too much too ask?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:01 MDT