Re: [agi] What should we do to be prepared?

Hi Again I stress that I am not saying we should try to stop development (I do not think we can) But what is wrong with thinking about the possible outcomes and try to be prepared? To try to affect the development and stear it in better directions to take smaller steps to wherever we are going.

[agi] AGI-08 in the news...

http://www.memphisdailynews.com/Editorial/StoryLead.aspx?id=101671 --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription:

Re: [agi] What should we do to be prepared?

On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 2:46 AM, rg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anthony: Do not sociopaths understand the rules and the justice system ? Two responses come to mind. Both will be unsatisfactory probably, but oh well... 1. There's a difference between understanding rules and the justice system

Re: [agi] What should we do to be prepared?

rg wrote: Hi Is anyone discussing what to do in the future when we have made AGIs? I thought that was part of why the singularity institute was made ? Note, that I am not saying we should not make them! Because someone will regardless of what we decide. I am asking for what should do to

Re: [agi] would anyone want to use a commonsense KB?

On 3/5/08, david cash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my opinion, instead of having to cherry-pick desirable and undesirable traits in an unconscious AGI entity, that we, of course, wish to have consciousness and cognitive abilites like reasoning, deductive and inductive logic comprehension skills,

Re: [agi] What should we do to be prepared?

--- rg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt: Why will an AGI be friendly ? The question only makes sense if you can define friendliness, which we can't. Initially I believe that a distributed AGI will do what we want it to do because it will evolve in a competitive, hostile environment that rewards

Re: [agi] What should we do to be prepared?

Matt Mahoney wrote: --- rg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt: Why will an AGI be friendly ? The question only makes sense if you can define friendliness, which we can't. Wrong. *You* cannot define friendliness for reasons of your own. Others cmay well be able to do so. It would be fine to

Re: [agi] What should we do to be prepared?

ok see my responses below.. Matt Mahoney wrote: --- rg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt: Why will an AGI be friendly ? The question only makes sense if you can define friendliness, which we can't. We could say behavior that is acceptable in our society then.. In your mail you

Re: [agi] What should we do to be prepared?

--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Friendliness, briefly, is a situation in which the motivations of the AGI are locked into a state of empathy with the human race as a whole. Which is fine as long as there is a sharp line dividing human from non-human. When that line goes away,

Re: [agi] would anyone want to use a commonsense KB?

On 3/4/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But the question is whether the internal knowledge representation of the AGI needs to allow ambiguities, or should we use an ambiguity-free representation. It seems that the latter choice is better. An excellent point. But what if the

Re: [agi] What should we do to be prepared?

Hi You said friendliness was AGIs locked in empathy towards mankind. How can you make them feel this? How did we humans get empathy? Is it not very likely that we have empathy because it turned out to be an advantage during our evolution ensuring the survival of groups of humans. So if an AGI

Re: [agi] What should we do to be prepared?

--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Mahoney wrote: --- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Friendliness, briefly, is a situation in which the motivations of the AGI are locked into a state of empathy with the human race as a whole. Which is fine as long as

Re: [agi] What should we do to be prepared?

--- rg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ok see my responses below.. Matt Mahoney wrote: --- rg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt: Why will an AGI be friendly ? The question only makes sense if you can define friendliness, which we can't. We could say behavior that is

Re: [agi] What should we do to be prepared?

--- rg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt: Why will an AGI be friendly ? The question only makes sense if you can define friendliness, which we can't. Why Matt, thank you for such a wonderful opening . . . . :-) Friendliness *CAN* be defined. Furthermore, it is my contention that

Re: [agi] would anyone want to use a commonsense KB?

On 3/4/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rather, I think the right goal is to create an AGI that, in each context, can be as ambiguous as it wants/needs to be in its representation of a given piece of information. Ambiguity allows compactness, and can be very valuable in this regard.

Re: [agi] What should we do to be prepared?

On 03/05/2008 12:36 PM,, Mark Waser wrote: snip... The obvious initial starting point is to explicitly recognize that the point of Friendliness is that we wish to prevent the extinction of the *human race* and/or to prevent many other horrible nasty things that would make *us* unhappy.

Re: [agi] What should we do to be prepared?

rg wrote: Hi I made some responses below. Richard Loosemore wrote: rg wrote: Hi Is anyone discussing what to do in the future when we have made AGIs? I thought that was part of why the singularity institute was made ? Note, that I am not saying we should not make them! Because someone will

Re: [agi] What should we do to be prepared?

1. How will the AI determine what is in the set of horrible nasty thing[s] that would make *us* unhappy? I guess this is related to how you will define the attractor precisely. 2. Preventing the extinction of the human race is pretty clear today, but *human race* will become increasingly