> > In Novamente, this skeptical attitude has two aspects: > > > > 1) very high level schemata that must be taught not programmed > > 2) some basic parameter settings that will statistically tend > to incline the > > system toward skepticism of its own conclusions [but you can't > turn the dial > > too far in the skeptical direction either...] > > That's for skepticism about facts. I agree you get that for free with > general intelligence. If *all* questions of morality, means and ends and > ultimate goals, were reducible to facts and deducible by logic or > observation, then the issue would end right there. That was my position > 1996-2000. Is this your current position?
Not exactly, no... that is not my current position. For example: Of course, there is no logical way to deduce that killing chimpanzees is morally worse than killing fleas, from no assumptions. If one assumes that killing humans is morally bad, then from this assumption, reasoning (probabilistic analogical reasoning, for instance) leads one to conclude that killing chimpanzees is morally worse than killing fleas... My view is fairly subtle, and has progressed a bit since I wrote "Thoughts on AI Morality." I don't have time to write a long e-mail on it today, but I will do so tomorrow. I think that will be better than writing something hasty and hard-to-understand right now. Ben ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
