On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> "J. R. Molloy" wrote:
> >
> > > > If laymen can't understand that they will become obsolete, then it has
> > already
> > > > accomplished more than they ever can.
> > >
> > > Could you please rephrase this? If you mean that Super-AI would make human
> > > intellectual activities largely obsolete, then that may be a major source
> > > of resistance to any such project.
> > > FWP
> >
> > <rephrase mode>
> > AI/SI/TS will accomplish ("in terms which laymen can understand") the
> > obsolescence of lay persons, and in fact it has already made them obsolete due
> > to their inability to understand the process.
> > </rephrase mode>
I don't understand much about the process behind my calculator but I
understand the product.
> > Lay persons will not become a major source of resistance to this project because
> > lay persons, for the most part, don't believe that machines can become truly
> > intelligent. (Ask the lay person on the street if you doubt this.)
> > Lay persons generally scoff at the idea of Artificial Life. They won't believe
> > it until they see it happen. By then, it will be too late to put the genie back
> > in the bottle.
> > I don't recommend that extropians try to persuade the general public that
> > Artificial Life is probable in our lifetime, because as long as they don't
> > believe it's possible, they won't interfere with the project. What they don't
> > know can't hurt us.
>
> So, let us keep the masses ignorant heh? Where have we heard that
> before? So, we can get to the great and wondrous technological Advent if
> only the unwashed never get wind of it? This is a two-edged sword.
> When the masses hear about it they will hear through voices of alarm and
> most-likely uninformed voices calling for our heads and entrails as
> traitors to all humanity. Think about it.
I think it depends on how you approach the public. Nobody is threatened by
the $5 calculator. Everyone thinks it is a useful invention. However, it
surpasses "human equivalency" with respect to arithmetic ability (which is
sometimes in measuring IQ). I don't think the general public is
threatened by chess playing machines which surpass human equivalency
although some human experts are. If you explain that "transhuman" AI as
it is called on the Singularity web site in such terms I expect most
people will see it as a positive contribution to socially beneficial
inventions. Actually I think it is "intellectual workers" who will be most
threatened. The general public would want to know how you propose to keep
it under control if it has mobility and autonomy and genetic algorithms.
FWP
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Machine Psychology:
<http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex/Machine-Psychology.htm>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:57 MDT