Steve Richfield wrote: > Disaster scenarios aside, what would YOU have YOUR AGI do to navigate this >future?
It won't be my AGI. If it were, I would be a despot and billions of people would suffer, just like if any other person ruled the world with absolute power. We will be much better off if everyone has a voice, and we have an AGI that makes that voice available to everyone else. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com ________________________________ From: Steve Richfield <steve.richfi...@gmail.com> To: agi <agi@v2.listbox.com> Sent: Mon, August 2, 2010 10:03:27 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Walker Lake Matt, On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Matt Mahoney <matmaho...@yahoo.com> wrote: Steve Richfield wrote: >> How about an international ban on the deployment of all unmanned and >> automated >>weapons? > >How about a ban on suicide bombers to level the playing field? Of course we already have that. Unfortunately, one begets the other. Hence, we seem to have a choice, neither or both. I vote for neither. > >> 1984 has truly arrived. > > >No it hasn't. People want public surveillance. I'm not sure what you mean by "public" surveillance. Monitoring private phone calls? Monitoring otherwise unused web cams? Monitoring your output when you use the toilet? Where, if anywhere, do YOU draw the line? It is also necessary for AGI. In order for machines to do what you want, they have to know what you know. Unfortunately, knowing everything, any use of this information will either be to my benefit, or my detriment. Do you foresee any way to limit use to only beneficial use? BTW, decades ago I developed the plan of, when my kids got in some sort of trouble in school or elsewhere, to represent their interests as well as possible, regardless of whether I agreed with them or not. This worked EXTREMELY well for me, and for several other families who have tried this. The point is that to successfully represent their interests, I had to know what was happening. Potential embarrassment and explainability limited the kids' actions. I wonder if the same would work for AGIs? In order for a global brain to use that knowledge, it has to be public. Again, where do you draw the line between public and private? AGI has to be a global brain because it is too expensive to build any other way, and because it would be too dangerous if the whole world didn't control it. I'm not sure what you mean by "control". Here is the BIG question in my own mind, that I have asked in various ways, so far without any recognizable answer: There are plainly lots of things wrong with our society. We got here by doing what we wanted, and by having our representatives do what we wanted them to do. Clearly some social re-engineering is in our future, if we are to thrive in the foreseeable future. All changes are resisted by some, and I suspect that some needed changes will be resisted by most, and perhaps nearly everyone. Disaster scenarios aside, what would YOU have YOUR AGI do to navigate this future? To help guide your answer, I see that the various proposed systems of "ethics" would prevent breaking the eggs needed to make a good futuristic omelet. I suspect that completely democratic systems have run their course. Against this is "letting AGI loose" has its own unfathomable hazards. I've been hanging around here for quite a while, and I don't yet see any "success path" to work toward. I'm on your side in that any successful AGI would have to have the information and the POWER to succeed, akin to Colossus, the Forbin Project, which I personally see as more of a success story than a horror scenario. Absent that, AGIs will only add to our present problems. What is the "success path" that you see? Steve agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
