Then state the base principles or the algorithm that generates them, without ambiguity and without appealing to common sense. Otherwise I have to believe
they are complex too.

Existence proof to disprove your "I have to believe . . . . "

1.  Magically collect all members of the species.
2.  Magically fully inform them of all relevant details.
3. Magically force them to select moral/ethical/friendly, neutral, or immoral/unethical/unfriendly. 4. If 50% or less select immoral/unethical/unfriendly, then it's friendly. If >50% select immoral/unethical/unfriendly, then it's unfriendly.

Simple.  Unambiguous.  Impossible to implement.  (And not my proposal)

----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Mahoney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 7:26 PM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] Religion-free technical content


--- Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'll repeat again since you don't seem to be paying attention to what I'm
saying -- "The determination of whether a given action is friendly or
ethical or not is certainly complicated but the base principles are actually
pretty darn simple."

Then state the base principles or the algorithm that generates them, without ambiguity and without appealing to common sense. Otherwise I have to believe
they are complex too.


-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-----
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=8660244&id_secret=50329295-47e942

Reply via email to