Re: [agi] Walker Lake

[Matt Mahoney]

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 
To: agi 
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  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

Re: [agi] Walker Lake

[Matt Mahoney]

Samantha Atkins wrote:
>> No it hasn't. People want public surveillance.
> Guess I am not people then. 

Then why are you posting your response to a public forum instead of replying by 
encrypted private email? People want their words to be available to the world.

> I don't think the global brain needs to know exactly how often I have sex or 
>with whom or in what varieties.  Do you?  

A home surveillance system needs to know who is in your house and whether they 
belong there. If it is intelligent then it will know that you prefer not to 
have 
video of you having sex broadcast on the internet. At the same time, it has to 
recognize what you are doing.

Public surveillance is less objectionable because it will be two-way and can't 
be abused. If someone searches for information about you, then you get a 
notification of who it was and what they learned. I describe how this works 
in http://mattmahoney.net/agi2.html

> No humans will control it and it is not going to be that expensive.

Humans will eventually lose control of anything that is smarter than them. But 
we should delay that as long as possible by making the required threshold the 
organized intelligence of all humanity, and make that organization as efficient 
as possible. The cost is on the order of $1 quadrillion because the knowledge 
that AGI needs is mostly in billions of human brains and there is no quick way 
to extract it.

 -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com





From: Samantha Atkins 
To: agi 
Sent: Tue, August 3, 2010 6:49:34 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] Walker Lake

Matt Mahoney 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?
>
>
>> 1984 has truly arrived.
>
>
>No it hasn't. People want public surveillance. 
Guess I am not people then.  Actually I think surveillance is inevitable given 
current and all but certain future tech.  However, I recognize that human 
beings 
today, and especially their governments, are not remotely ready for it.   To be 
ready for it at the very least the State would have to consider a great number 
of things none of its business to attempt to legislate for or against.  As it 
is 
with the current incredible number of arcane laws on the books it would be very 
easy to see the already ridiculously large prison population of the US double.  
 
Also, please note that full surveillance means no successful rebellion no 
matter 
how bad the powers that be become and how ineffectual the means that let remain 
legal are to change things.  Ever. 



It is also necessary for AGI. In order for machines to do what you want, they 
have to know what you know. 

It is not necessary to have every waking moment surveilled in order to have AGI 
know what we want. 



In order for a global brain to use that knowledge, it has to be public. 
I don't think the global brain needs to know exactly how often I have sex or 
with whom or in what varieties.  Do you?  



AGI has to be a global brain because it is too expensive to build any other 
way, 
and because it would be too dangerous ifthe whole world didn't control it.
No humans will control it and it is not going to be that expensive.

- samantha


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

Re: [agi] Walker Lake

[Steve Richfield]

Matt,

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 4:56 AM, tintner michael wrote:

> I totally agree that surveillance will become ever more massive - because
> it has v. positive as well as negative benefits. But people will find ways
> of resisting and evading it - they always do. And it's interesting to
> speculate how - perhaps erver more detailed "public identities" -  (more and
> more facts about you becoming public knowledge) - will be matched by
> proliferating "personas",  (people taking on false identities on the net) -
> or by "black spots" (times when you're allowed to switch off from the net
> and surveillance) - or no doubt by other means.
>

The government is now going to borderline insane methods to close on some of
this. To illustrate:

I now live in a large home with a secure fence and remotely controlled gate,
which sits atop a high bluff which is on the same property. To provide some
separation of mail by subject and recipient, I decided to plant another
mailbox with a made-up address. I put a paper in it advising the mailman
(actually a woman) to activate the box, and put the flag up. The next day,
junk mail started to arrive, and it was clearly working.

Fast forward a year to the Census. No Census forms arrived in my new
mailbox. However, after the last investigator asking for information about
the main address was sent packing without any information, one evening yet
another Census investigator arrived asking about my made-up address. He said
that Google showed it as being on the steep part of the bluff. I simply said
that it didn't exist, and he left. The next morning there was a helicopter
hovering over the bluff examining it very carefully.

Apparently, they have given up on tracking personas, but NOT on tracking
properties. They must be going absolutely insane over the ~100K families
living in RVs.

Having "lived on wheels" for ~16 years in the past, I have observed the
continuous ratcheting up of regulations to "control" this population.
Dealing with this required a day or two of legal research every year or so.
My officially issued WA driver's license still says "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION"
and "Not a resident or citizen of WA state" on it. I can't imagine someone
just starting out figuring out all that is necessary to navigate the legal
labyrinth.

Imagine the following which happens often to those who are unprepared: You
are driving along on a nice sunny day and a policeman pulls you over. He
asks for your driver's license and asks where you live. You give him your
license and indicate that you live in the RV that you are now driving. He
points out that your license was issued in a different state, and since you
now live in an RV that is distant from that state, your driver's license is
no longer valid. Also, your vehicle license is no longer valid, unless it is
from a state like Nevada that doesn't require residency as a precondition
for registration. He then VERY CAREFULLY inspects your vehicle and finds
that a tail light has burnt out. Oops, we'll have to red-tag this vehicle as
being unsafe! If you were unlucky enough to be stopped in Nevada, you would
probably be arrested for some minor traffic offense, as I once was. Then, a
tow truck arrives and tows your "unsafe" (because of the bad tail light)
and/or "abandoned" (because you are now in jail) vehicle away. When you go
to recover it, you discover that they want more money than you have, because
they charged thousands of dollars in towing and storage fees, plus there is
no way to correct its legal shortcomings to get it out of the lockup, and
they won't release it until it is 100% legal by THEIR standards. Storage
fees quickly mount up to a hopeless fortune, and they sell your home. There
are some small towns that support themselves partly in this manner. If you
live in an RV, you absolutely MUST take action against such things because
various variants are quite common, e.g. have a driver's license that isn't
automatically invalid anywhere, never drive your RV anywhere alone, have the
title SO messed up (e.g. with unsatisfied liens) that it is nearly
impossible to navigate the paperwork to seize it, don't own an RV that is
worth enough to employ lawyers to overcome the challenges that you have
placed in their way, etc.

Akin to Richard's proposal of having a hyper-complex network of constraints
to control an AGI, various governments have already developed hyper-complex
constraint networks to control people. After all, that is how our supposedly
"free" society works. Just take a week or so and read the motor vehicle code
for your state. Ain't freedom just wonderful?!

Having been through this, I hereby soundly reject your assertion that people
can overcome an AGI-controlled society. Sure, a few might manage, but to
overcome something like a central controlling government, it would take a
massive coordinated effort, and there is NO WAY that, with future technology
in the hands of a central controlling government, that this would ever be
even di

Re: [agi] Walker Lake

[tintner michael]

Samantha: please note that full surveillance means no successful rebellion
no matter how bad the powers that be become and how ineffectual the means
that let remain legal are to change things.  Ever

I totally agree that surveillance will become ever more massive - because it
has v. positive as well as negative benefits. But people will find ways of
resisting and evading it - they always do. And it's interesting to speculate
how - perhaps erver more detailed "public identities" -  (more and more
facts about you becoming public knowledge) - will be matched by
proliferating "personas",  (people taking on false identities on the net) -
or by "black spots" (times when you're allowed to switch off from the net
and surveillance) - or no doubt by other means.



---
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

Re: [agi] Walker Lake

[Samantha Atkins]

Matt Mahoney 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?


> 1984 has truly arrived.

No it hasn't. People want public surveillance.


Guess I am not people then.  Actually I think surveillance is inevitable 
given current and all but certain future tech.  However, I recognize 
that human beings today, and especially their governments, are not 
remotely ready for it.   To be ready for it at the very least the State 
would have to consider a great number of things none of its business to 
attempt to legislate for or against.  As it is with the current 
incredible number of arcane laws on the books it would be very easy to 
see the already ridiculously large prison population of the US double.   
Also, please note that full surveillance means no successful rebellion 
no matter how bad the powers that be become and how ineffectual the 
means that let remain legal are to change things.  Ever.


It is also necessary for AGI. In order for machines to do what you 
want, they have to know what you know.


It is not necessary to have every waking moment surveilled in order to 
have AGI know what we want.



In order for a global brain to use that knowledge, it has to be public.


I don't think the global brain needs to know exactly how often I have 
sex or with whom or in what varieties.  Do you? 

AGI has to be a global brain because it is too expensive to build any 
other way, and because it would be too dangerous ifthe whole world 
didn't control it.


No humans will control it and it is not going to be that expensive.

- samantha




---
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

Re: [agi] Walker Lake

[Steve Richfield]

Matt,

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Matt Mahoney  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: 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

Re: [agi] Walker Lake

[Matt Mahoney]

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?

> 1984 has truly arrived.

No it hasn't. People want public surveillance. It is also necessary for AGI. In 
order for machines to do what you want, they have to know what you know. In 
order for a global brain to use that knowledge, it has to be public. 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.

-- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com





From: Steve Richfield 
To: agi 
Sent: Mon, August 2, 2010 10:40:20 AM
Subject: [agi] Walker Lake

Sometime when you are flying between the northwest US to/from Las Vegas, look 
out your window as you fly over Walker Lake in eastern Nevada. At the south end 
you will see a system of roads leading to tiny buildings, all surrounded by 
military security. From what I have been able to figure out, you will find the 
U.S. arsenal of chemical and biological weapons housed there. No, we are not 
now 
making these weapons, but neither are we disposing of them.

Similarly, there has been discussion of developing advanced military technology 
using AGI and other computer-related methods. I believe that these efforts are 
fundamentally anti-democratic, as they allow a small number of people to 
control 
a large number of people. Gone are the days when people voted with their 
swords. 
We now have the best government that money can buy monitoring our every email, 
including this one, to identify anyone resisting such efforts. 1984 has truly 
arrived. This can only lead to a horrible end to freedom, with AGIs doing their 
part and more.

Like chemical and biological weapons, unmanned and automated weapons should be 
BANNED. Unfortunately, doing so would provide a window of opportunity for 
others 
to deploy them. However, if we make these and stick them in yet another 
building 
at the south end of Walker Lake, we would be ready in case other nations deploy 
such weapons.

How about an international ban on the deployment of all unmanned and automated 
weapons? The U.S. won't now even agree to ban land mines. At least this would 
restore SOME relationship between popular support and military might. Doesn't 
it 
sound "ethical" to insist that a human being decide when to end another human 
being's life? Doesn't it sound "fair" to require the decision maker to be in 
harm's way, especially when the person being killed is in or around their own 
home? Doesn't it sound unethical to add to the present situation? When deployed 
on a large scale, aren't these WMDs?
 
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

Re: [agi] Walker Lake

[Steve Richfield]

Matt,

I grant you your points, but they miss the my point. Where is this
ultimately leading - to a superpower with the ability to kill its opponents
without any risk to itself. This may be GREAT so long as you agree with and
live under that superpower, but how about when things change for the worse?
What if we get another Bush who lies to congress and wages unprovoked war
with other nations, only next time with vast armies of robots ala *The Clone
Wars*? Sure the kill rate will be almost perfect. Sure we can more
accurately kill their heads of government without killing so many civilians
along the way.

How about when you flee future U.S. tyranny, and your new destination
becomes valued by the U.S. enough to send a bunch of robots in to seize it.
Your last thought could be of the U.S. robot that is killing YOU. Oops, too
late to reconsider where this is all going.

Note in passing that our standard of living has been gradually declining as
the wealth of the world is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. Note in
passing that the unemployment situation is looking bleaker and bleaker, with
no prospect for improvement in sight. Do you REALLY want to concentrate SO
much power in the hands of SUCH a dysfunctional government? If this doesn't
work out well, what would be the options for improvement? This appears to be
a one-way street with no exit.

Steve
=
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:

>  Steve:How about an international ban on the deployment of all unmanned
> and automated weapons?
>
> You might as well ask for a ban on war (or, perhaps, aggression). I
> strongly recommend reading the SciAm July 2010 issue on robotic warfare. The
> US already operates from memory somewhere between 13,000 and 20,000 unmanned
> weapons. "Unmanned war" (obviously with some but ever less human
> supervision)  IS the future of war.
>
> If you used a little lateral thinking, you'd realise that this may well be
> a v.g. thing - let robots kill each other rather than humans - whoever's
> robots win, wins the war. It would be interesting to compare Afghan./Vietnam
> - I imagine the kill count is considerably down (but correct me) - *because*
> of superior, more automated technology.
>*agi* | Archives 
>  | 
> ModifyYour 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

Re: [agi] Walker Lake

[Russell Wallace]

I don't often request list moderation, but if this kind of off-topic spam
and clueless trolling doesn't call for it, nothing does, so: I hereby
request that a moderator take appropriate action.

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Steve Richfield
wrote:

> Sometime when you are flying between the northwest US to/from Las Vegas,
> look out your window as you fly over Walker Lake in eastern Nevada. At the
> south end you will see a system of roads leading to tiny buildings, all
> surrounded by military security. From what I have been able to figure out,
> you will find the U.S. arsenal of chemical and biological weapons housed
> there. No, we are not now making these weapons, but neither are we disposing
> of them.
>
> Similarly, there has been discussion of developing advanced military
> technology using AGI and other computer-related methods. I believe that
> these efforts are fundamentally anti-democratic, as they allow a small
> number of people to control a large number of people. Gone are the days when
> people voted with their swords. We now have the best government that money
> can buy monitoring our every email, including this one, to identify anyone
> resisting such efforts. 1984 has truly arrived. This can only lead to a
> horrible end to freedom, with AGIs doing their part and more.
>
> Like chemical and biological weapons, unmanned and automated weapons should
> be BANNED. Unfortunately, doing so would provide a window of opportunity for
> others to deploy them. However, if we make these and stick them in yet
> another building at the south end of Walker Lake, we would be ready in case
> other nations deploy such weapons.
>
> How about an international ban on the deployment of all unmanned and
> automated weapons? The U.S. won't now even agree to ban land mines. At least
> this would restore SOME relationship between popular support and military
> might. Doesn't it sound "ethical" to insist that a human being decide when
> to end another human being's life? Doesn't it sound "fair" to require the
> decision maker to be in harm's way, especially when the person being killed
> is in or around their own home? Doesn't it sound unethical to add to the
> present situation? When deployed on a large scale, aren't these WMDs?
>
> Steve
>
>*agi* | Archives 
>  | 
> ModifyYour 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

Re: [agi] Walker Lake

[Mike Tintner]

Steve:How about an international ban on the deployment of all unmanned and 
automated weapons? 

You might as well ask for a ban on war (or, perhaps, aggression). I strongly 
recommend reading the SciAm July 2010 issue on robotic warfare. The US already 
operates from memory somewhere between 13,000 and 20,000 unmanned weapons. 
"Unmanned war" (obviously with some but ever less human supervision)  IS the 
future of war.

If you used a little lateral thinking, you'd realise that this may well be a 
v.g. thing - let robots kill each other rather than humans - whoever's robots 
win, wins the war. It would be interesting to compare Afghan./Vietnam - I 
imagine the kill count is considerably down (but correct me) - *because* of 
superior, more automated technology.


---
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

Re: [agi] Walker Lake

[David Jones]

How about you go to war yourself or send your children. I'd rather send a
robot. It's safer for both the soldier and the people on the ground because
you don't have to shoot first, ask questions later.

And you're right, we shouldn't monitor anyone. We should just allow
terrorists to talk openly to plot attacks on us. After all, I'd rather have
my privacy than my life.

dumb.

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Steve Richfield
wrote:

> Sometime when you are flying between the northwest US to/from Las Vegas,
> look out your window as you fly over Walker Lake in eastern Nevada. At the
> south end you will see a system of roads leading to tiny buildings, all
> surrounded by military security. From what I have been able to figure out,
> you will find the U.S. arsenal of chemical and biological weapons housed
> there. No, we are not now making these weapons, but neither are we disposing
> of them.
>
> Similarly, there has been discussion of developing advanced military
> technology using AGI and other computer-related methods. I believe that
> these efforts are fundamentally anti-democratic, as they allow a small
> number of people to control a large number of people. Gone are the days when
> people voted with their swords. We now have the best government that money
> can buy monitoring our every email, including this one, to identify anyone
> resisting such efforts. 1984 has truly arrived. This can only lead to a
> horrible end to freedom, with AGIs doing their part and more.
>
> Like chemical and biological weapons, unmanned and automated weapons should
> be BANNED. Unfortunately, doing so would provide a window of opportunity for
> others to deploy them. However, if we make these and stick them in yet
> another building at the south end of Walker Lake, we would be ready in case
> other nations deploy such weapons.
>
> How about an international ban on the deployment of all unmanned and
> automated weapons? The U.S. won't now even agree to ban land mines. At least
> this would restore SOME relationship between popular support and military
> might. Doesn't it sound "ethical" to insist that a human being decide when
> to end another human being's life? Doesn't it sound "fair" to require the
> decision maker to be in harm's way, especially when the person being killed
> is in or around their own home? Doesn't it sound unethical to add to the
> present situation? When deployed on a large scale, aren't these WMDs?
>
> Steve
>
>*agi* | Archives 
>  | 
> ModifyYour 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