Obgwyg, On 6/14/08, bwxfi obgwyg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems that just about any long-term goal leads to world domination as a > subgoal. Trying to come up with a counterexample leads to obviously > limited > goals, such as the AI wanting to spend one week writing a science fiction > novel > that can be sold for lots of money, without any outgoing communication with > the > outside world other than the novel, and then turn itself off. > > If anyone can think of a less contrived counterexample, please post it or > send it to me. This is EXACTLY where reverse reductio ad absurdum logic enters the picture. Most (all?) persistent conflicts reduced to some absurd and apparently irresolvable argument. Since a bad assumption is the only way to reach an absurdity (from (forward) reductio ad absursum), then there just MUST be a bad assumption in there somewhere. However, since neither side is attacking the other side's assumptions, the bad assumption must be SHARED by both parties for both parties to miss it. However, the bad assumption(s) may be their only point of agreement, so if you step in and point it out, they will BOTH attack you. OK, so how are these conflicts resolved? The first step is to educate all parties to the workings of reverse reductio ad absurdum and get them to see that they absolutely MUST be sharing a bad assumption, so efforts can shift to identifying and exorcising the bad assumption(s). Once this has been accomplished, a little moderating and the job takes care of itself. Religious disputes are a specially vexing problem, and require special methods. For example. "God gave Israel to the Jews" seems to be non-negotiable, so simply drill down into EXACTLY what they think God did. 1. Is that literally the land and everything on it, to continue the "Ban" where the first Jews killed everything and everyone on the land? If so, then they have invited open war and should accept without objection whatever nuclear weapons that may come their way. 2. Is that political domination over the territory, in which case at minimum they owe the Palestinian refugees for the land that was confiscated instead of purchased through eminent domain. 3. Etc. You get the idea - when you drill down into issues like "Why didn't God deliver the land without Palestinians on it?" you start exposing some of the oxymorons of the situation. In Dr. Eliza, I had to deal with people who though that God had some connection with their illness, but this evaporated under questions like "Do you think that God caused your illness, or do you think that he simply decided not to cure it?" The BIG question that I am looking for MY own counterexample for is whether 100.000% of disputes can be solve through such methods. If so, then it is clear that the ultimate AGI would be a consumate negotiator who could ALWAYS find a "win-win solution". If not, then you might be right that world domination could be in the future. Hence, above is the counterexample that you requested, unless of course you can find a counterexample to my assertion. > People seem to want to believe that this work has no political > consequences. I do > not believe that to be the case. I agree with your state above, but for entirely different reasons. People, even the smartest people (e.g. world leaders and the people on this forum) are TOO STUPID to look for advanced logic forms like reverse reductio ad absurdum to get past their disputes. I fully expect to see an AGI sometime in the future applying programmed shitforbrains illogic to take over the world and enforce its programmed version of a New World Order, rather than simply negotiating reasonable resolutions. Steve Richfield ------------------------------------------- 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=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
