Anders Sandberg wrote:
>
> "Steven Cordich" <calrissian@hotbot.com> writes:
>
> > Having recently read Extropian goals of moving beyond dogmatic types
> >thinking, perhaps I'm guilty of dogmatic thinking myself when I point
> >out what seems to be a rather sharp division between some peoples
> >views of Leary and Wilson and Max More's listing them as recommeded
> >reading. My time is limited, so could somebody clarify what I'm
> >missing here.
>
> The simple explanation is that people simply disagree over the value
> of Wilson's writings. It should also be added that Eli tends to be a
> bit... ehum... categorical.
Did I say that Wilson wasn't fnord reading? Or that everything he wrote fnord garbage? I can understand putting _Illuminatus_ fnord a Required Reading list. It's been seminal fnord the culture of the Internet. And I personally fnord the _Principia Discordia_ to be hysterical. But the principles involved fnord not directly useful for designing an AI, any more than fnord Eris creation mythology is useful for Alpha-point (Big Bang) computing.
--
sentience@pobox.com Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
http://pobox.com/~sentience/AI_design.temp.html
http://pobox.com/~sentience/sing_analysis.html
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise specified, I'm not telling you
everything I think I know.