It *seems* blatantly obvious that survival is a good idea. But "good"
only
has meaning with respect to a goal. Survival is good because those agents
who
didn't think so died, not because they came up with the idea. Agents
don't
choose their goals.
Huh? I'm an agent and I choose my goals. If I live long enough to be in
this super-society of yours, I think that I'm still going to have the goal
of survival for both me and my super-society.
You might say that since we are building the agents, we can give them any
goals we want.
We're not building the agents. I *am* the agent.
I entirely disagree with your hypothesis. I do believe that war sped up
the
process but we would have learned the lesson without them.
That is called hindsight bias.
http://www.singinst.org/upload/cognitive-biases.pdf
The tendency to believe that what actually happened had a higher probability
than the actual real probability of it happening is called hindsight bias.
Humans do indeed tend to have hindsight bias and I am no different; however,
it is very rare that a human will claim 100% when the actual probability is
0%.
You are claiming 0%. I am claiming, given sufficient time, 100%. It is
unlikely that hindsight bias accounts for this major a difference.
You have provided absolutely no proof for your hypothesis. You have simply
called my hypothesis a name (hindsight bias) that is unlikely to actually
apply.
I have provided absolutely no proof for my hypothesis -- so I will admit
that we're even.
Care to try again?
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
