"J. R. Molloy" wrote:
>
> Samantha Atkins sniffs,
>
> > Uh, excuse me, but that attitude is just as bad as that of any
> > eschatologically minded fundie.
>
> Yeah, it's just as "bad" because you define "bad" according to the belief system
> installed in you by the establishment and your own biology.
>
> > Those "fundies and fanatics" think a lot like you.
>
> I'd ask you for details of your method of insuring world peace and friendly AI,
> but apparently that method hasn't worked very well, from what I've heard of
> current global events. If there's something worse than lunatic fundies it's
> probably people who can't see the difference between reason and religiosity.
> Your self-righteous attitude is not appropriate. Thanks anyway.
>
> The question for me has now changed from why AI would want to be friendly, to
> *who* it would be friendly toward. As far as I'm concerned, the friendliest
> thing AI could do would be to let homicidal fanatics do their damnedest, thereby
> ridding the world of contentious characters. Justify your moralism or Sayonara
> Samantha.
>
> Why wouldn't friendly AI leave fundies in the dust?
>
> --J. R.
>
> "There is no difference between someone who eats too little and
> sees Heaven and someone who drinks too much and sees snakes."
> -- Bertrand Russell
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:39:28 MDT