I write this month to condemn the inventor of the electronic seeing eye
toilet. Yes, that's right, I'm talking toilets here, doo-doo-stuff, some of
which I hopefully won't step in myself over the next few paragraphs. I know
there must be more substantive and less objectionable topics to bring
(If you don't have time to read all this, scroll down to the
questions.)
I'm writing an article on the role of intelligent systems in the
field of International Relations (IR). Why IR? Because in today's
(and more so in tomorrow's) world the majority of national policies
is influenced by foreign
The only real attempt that I know of was that of Von Neumann and games
theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann. It was in fact Von
Neumann who first suggested things like Prisoner's dilemma. This *games*
approach led to the
MADhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
Ian Parker wrote
Then define your political objectives. No holes, no ambiguity, no
forgotten cases. Or does the AGI ask for our feedback during mission?
If yes, down to what detail?
With Matt's ideas it does exactly that.
How does it know when to ask? You give it rules, but those rules can
Ian Parker wrote
games theory
It produced many studies, many strategies, but they weren't used that
much in the daily business. It's used more as a general guide.
And in times of crisis they preferred to rely on gut feelings. E.g.,
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War
How do you
