From: "Michael M. Butler" <butler@comp-lib.org>
> I'll tell you the best answer to my own question I could come up with:
> "By their evident harmony with it, and vice versa." The trick may be
> producing the evidence. Or maybe not--the challenge may be for the
> mehums to epistemologically address "harmony" at a deeper level than
> many of us are accustomed to. Then we might trust that we're not being
> sold a bill of goods by the Clever Hans upgrade to Deep Blue.
All entities (whether synthesized or natural, I don't think it matters)
apply for status in the human social order by the same processes of
socialization, relationships of trust, spheres of influence, networks of
power, track records of reliability, templates of cultural conformity, and
so forth. To prove they have their heads properly screwed on, SIs would have
to publish extensively, just like everyone else, except that their
dissertations would be subjected to more rigorous scrutiny that those of
mere mortals. Having passed this gauntlet, first generation SIs become
qualified to supervise and review younger models. Such is life. Ever has it
been so.
Stay hungry,
--J. R.
3M TA3
=====================
I think I'd add "free will" to the list of "consciousness" "phlogiston"
"vitalism" and "mind" as examples of useless hypotheses.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:37 MDT