Wouldn't you say the objectivity is limiting choice by limiting perception?
Pat McKown On 8/5/07, Samantha Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/26/07, Robert Wensman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > What worries me is that the founder of this company subscribes to the > > philosophy of Objectivism, and the implications this might have for the > > company's possibility at achieving friendly AI. I do not know about the > rest > > of their team, but some of them use the word "rational" a lot, which could > > be a hint. > > > > > You do not wish the AGI to be rational? :-) Seriously, if you knew Peter > even lightly you would know he is in no way of the ilk of the worst of > those who may call themselves "objectivist". He is imminently sensible, > ethical and committed. Your remark also imho displays a very shallow notion > of objectivist philosophy . > > I am well aware of that Ayn Rand, the founder of Objectivism, uses slightly > > non-standard meaning when using words like "selfishness" and "altruism", > but > > her main point is that altruism is the source of all evil in the world, > and > > selfishness ought to be the main virtue of all mankind. Instead of > altruism > > she often also uses the word "selflessness" which better explains her > > seemingly odd position. What she essentially means is that all evil of the > > world stems from people who "give up their values, and their self" and > > thereby become mindless evildoers that respect others as little as they > > respect themselves. While this psychological statement in isolation could > be > > worth noting, and might help understand some collective madness, > especially > > from the last century, I still feel her philosophy is dangerous because > she > > mixes up her very specific concept of "selflessness" with the > > commonly understood concept of altruism, in the sense of valuing the well > > being and happiness of others. Is this mix-up accidental or intended? In > her > > novel The Fountainhead you even get the impression that she doesn't think > it > > is possible to combine altruism with creativity and originality, as all > > "altruistic" characters of her book are incompetent copycats who just > > imitate others. > > > > If you had actually read her works on this subject, especially in this case > "The Virtue of Selfishness" I think you would have no problem like the > above. > > > > Her view of the world also seems to completely ignore another category of > > potential evil-doers: Selfish people who just do not see any problem with > > using whatever means they see fit, including violence, to achieve their > > goals. People who just do not see there is "any problem" in killing or > > torturing others. Why does she ignore this group of people, because she > does > > not think they exist? > > > > OK. You obviously have no real knowledge of objectivism. > > > > So because this philosophy is controversial, it raises some interesting > > questions about Adaptive AI's plans for friendly AI. *What values > > an objectivist would give to an AGI seems like a complete paradox to me? * > Would > > he make an AGI that is only obedient to its master and creator, or would > he > > make an AGI system that to only cares about protecting and sustaining the > > life of itself? But in the first case, the AGI would truly become a > > selfless, and therefore evil soul in Ayn Rands very meaning, an evil soul > > that is also super intelligent. > > > > > If you actually understood objectivism you would undestand that reason, > intelligence and ability are seen as virtues and real objectivists deeply > desire to see their increase regardless of whether that manifestation is in > themselves or others. It is not remotely about being King of the Hill or > some such nonsense. It is not at all clear whether a real AGI would be > selfless. You are btw mistaken that selflessness per se is the essence of > evil in objectivism. > > > On the other hand I cannot understand what selfish interest the objectivist > > AGI designer could find in creating a selfish super intelligent AGI system > > that would likely become a superior competitor? Maybe such an AGI system > > would decide, much like the fictionous Skynet, that the humans is the most > > imminent threat to its survival, and make us its enemy? > > > > Objectivists welcome superior ability as all profit from greater > intelligence and productive ability in the world. That an AGI may turn > against us is as much of a concern for an objectivist as anyone else. > > > > > I bet a strong enough AGI system could kill us even without the use > > of offensive violence in the sense Ayn Rand uses the word. I guess it just > > needs to obtain exclusive legal ownership on all the land that we need to > > live on, on all the food we need to eat, and on all the air we need to > > breathe. Then it could just kill us in self-defence because we trespass on > > its property. I know even Ayn Rand sees no moral problem in using > defensive > > violence to defend material property that is being stolen. > > > > Again, you do not know what you are talking about. > > > - samantha > > ----- > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&id_secret=28732320-36ff57
