Hey Calum. Watch it! Pigs are very-very smart. They can sniff out truffles, and corpses from 6 feet under. :-)
I'm so itching to say it, but I won't. NOW can we get some ass into gear? Are we going to use this as a wakeup call, or not? Subject: Re: [agi] AI Protest in Texas From: a...@listbox.com Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 07:48:07 +0000 To: a...@listbox.com Ha! I like the Occupy Coke idea! You may not be a "PR guy" but you surely could be if you wanted to. I thought you believed AGI to be Good News, not a pig in need of better lipstick? Calum On 18 Mar 2015, at 02:21 AM, "Ben Goertzel via AGI" <a...@listbox.com> wrote: On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Robert Levy via AGI <a...@listbox.com> wrote: This is probably an important discussion, independent of the event that prompted it, but it turns out the protest at SXSW was a hoax/ viral marketing campaign staged to promote a new dating site. I wonder what's next.... "Was that a revolution in Russia we just saw, or just a large-scale advertisement for Kalashnikovs??" Will the border between political activity and marketing campaign blur even further? "Occupy your stomach with 'Occupy Cola' ,the true rebel's beverage of choice " ??? ben On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Calum Chace via AGI <a...@listbox.com> wrote: Very well said. (And Pandora's Brain does say it, as it happens...) But the pro-AGI community also needs to convince the public that the AGI we'll get will be a Friendly one. Calum On 17 March 2015 at 15:56, Ben Goertzel via AGI <a...@listbox.com> wrote: A problem is that careful, balanced discussions of difficult issues are boring and don't attract media attention Joel Pitt and I wrote a fairly thoughtful discussion of AGI safety issues a few years ago, http://jetpress.org/v22/goertzel-pitt.htm but of course our thoughts are more complex and nuanced, whereas a tweet from a billionaire comparing AI research to demon-summoning is a lot sexier... IMO, to get media attention sufficient to counteract the media's love of alarmism and doomsaying, the pro-AGI community would need to come forward very aggressively with the message that AGI is important for SAVING AND IMPROVING HUMAN LIVES ... for designing the next generation of medicines, for creating elder-care robots to make old age more livable, for extending healthspan for those who want it, for aiding the invention of new energy sources, for aiding in the fight against physical and cyber terrorism, and so forth.... "Don't worry too much, we'll be careful" is not a convincing counterargument -- a better counterargument to the Musks, Hawkings, Bostroms and Yudkowskys of the world is more like "Hey, I don't want your fear of science fiction bad guys to deny my grandma her life-extending, health-improving medicine and her robot friend, to eliminate my future of virtually unlimited energy and to put me at risk from terrorist attacks...." I.e. "DON'T LET THE LUDDITES KILL YOUR GRANDMA AND TAKE YOUR TOYS AWAY!! EMBRACE AI AND ROBOTS LIKE YOU'VE EMBRACED SMARTPHONES, AC POWER, THE INTERNET AND BIRTH CONTROL PILLS -- AND YOUR LIFE WILL BE BETTER -- " .... OK I'm semi-joking ;) ;p ... but unfortunately I think it's a mistake to overestimate the general public's appetite for rational, balanced discussion and thinking ;p ... When careful nuanced thinking on difficult issues it put out there, it tends to be vigorously ignored... -- Ben On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Benjamin Kapp via AGI <a...@listbox.com> wrote: If you think of governments as an artificial man (as was done by Aristotle and Hobbes amongst others) which is composed of humans who are the muscles (military, police), the intelligence (spys, scientists), the judging and planning (judges, politicians), etc.. In a way the state is a leviathan (a thing which has power to overawe any individual or group of individuals). And in this way AGI (or a super intelligence) already exists. On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Calum Chace via AGI <a...@listbox.com> wrote: Thanks Basile. I agree with Pitrat, although I might dial up the consideration of the downside possibility a touch. Hawking usually gets slightly mis-represented. He said that AGI could be either the best or the worst thing ever to happen to humanity. The "best" bit seems to get missed by both sides of the debate. So, my question is, what is the best way for people who think along these lines to try and steer the public debate on AGI? Alarmism is unhelpful, and hard to avoid. Secrecy won't work. Ben is tackling the issue head-on (as in the video he posted just now), but it's a hard debate to get right. Calum On 17 March 2015 at 11:17, Basile Starynkevitch <bas...@starynkevitch.net> wrote: On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 09:33:22AM +0100, Calum Chace via AGI wrote: > Steve > > I sympathise with your very understandable preference not to be targeted by > anti-AI crazies! > > What do you think is the best way to try and shape the growing public > debate about AGI? Following Bostrom's book, and the comments by Hawking, > Musk and Gates, a fair proportion of the general public is now aware that > AGI might arrive in the medium term, and that it will have a very big > impact. > > Some AI researchers seem to be responding by saying, "Don't worry, it can't > happen for centuries, if ever". No doubt some of them genuinely believe > that, but I wonder whether some are saying it in the (forlorn?) hope the > debate will go away. It won't. In fact I suspect that the new Avengers > movie will kick it up a level. > > Others are saying, "Don't worry, AGI cannot and will not harm humans." To > my mind (and I realise I may be in a small minority here on this) that is > hard to be certain about - as Bostrom demonstrated. > > Yet others are saying, "AI researcher will solve the problem long before > AGI arrives, and it's best not to worry everyone else in the meantime." > That seems a dangerous approach to me. If the public ever feels (rightly > or wrongly) that things have been hidden from them, they will react badly. > > But I do definitely sympathise with the desire not to be targeted by > crazies, or to be vilified by journalists who have half-understood the > situation! > [...] > >> > ------------------------------------------- > >> > AGI > >> > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now [....] I would suggest reading J.Pitrat's december 2014 blog entry on that subject. J.Pitrat is probably not subscribing to that list, i so I am blind-carbon-copying him. http://bootstrappingartificialintelligence.fr/WordPress3/2014/12/not-developing-an-advanced-artificial-intelligence-could-spell-the-end-of-the-human-race/ He is explaining that "Not developing an advanced artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race" and I believe he has a point. Of course AGI researchers should be careful. Regards -- Basile Starynkevitch http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/ -- Regards Calum AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- Regards Calum AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
