Hi,
I
don't see that you've made a convincing argument that a society of AI's is safer
than an individual AI. Certainly among human societies, the only analogue
we have, society-level violence and madness seems even MORE common than
individual-level violence and madness. Often societies can make
intrinsically peaceful humans turn violent, through social pressure, it
seems. Yeah, you can try to influence an AGI society not to go that way,
but you can also influence an individual AGI mind not to go that
way...
And: A
society of AGI's that frequently engages in mind-merges with each other is
neither a society nor an individual, it's something inbetween, a new kind of
mind. This is an exciting prospect which has been discussed before... but
it doesn't seem to me to solve the Friendliness problem.
-- Ben
G
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Philip Sutton
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 9:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [agi] One super-smart AGI vs more, dumber AGIs???Ben,> would you rather have one person with an IQ of 200, or 4 people with> IQ's of 50? Ten computers of intelligence N, or one computer with> intelligence 10*N ? Sure, the intelligence of the ten computers of> intelligence N will be a little smarter than N, all together, because> of cooperative effects.... But how much more? You can say that true> intelligence can only develop thru socialization with peers -- but> why? How do you know that will be true for AI's as well as humans?> I'm not so sure....I don't think we are faced with an either or situation in the case of AGIs. I think AGIs will be able to create pooled intelligence with an efficiency that far exceeds what humans can accomplish by group-work.I can see no reason why a community of AGIs wouldn't be able to link brains and pool some of the computing power of the platforms that each one manages - so by agreement with a groups of AGIs, one AGI might be given the right to use some of the computer hardware that is normally used by the other AGIs. This of course is the idea behind the United Devices grid computing.Plus the efficiency and potency of what can be passed between AGI minds is likely to be significantly greater than what can be passed between human minds.And as with humans, pooling brains with several different perspectives and specialisations is likely to yield significant gains in intelligence over the simple sum of the parts.So my guess is that the pursuit of the "safety in numbers" strategy is not likely to result in a very large penalty in lost intelligence.And even if their was a large intelligence loss due to dividing up the available computing power bewteen multiple AGIs, I'd rather have less AGI intelligence, that was much safer, than more intellegence that was much less safe.Cheers, Philip
