On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 3:30:43 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Sep 2016, at 17:09, PGC wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 6:59:19 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I think that the genuine value are universal, we share them with alien
>> and "sup
On 20 Sep 2016, at 17:09, PGC wrote:
On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 6:59:19 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
I think that the genuine value are universal, we share them with alien
and "super-intelligence" normally.
I like your expression "super-intelligent slave", it shows immediately
On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 6:59:19 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>
> I think that the genuine value are universal, we share them with alien
> and "super-intelligence" normally.
>
> I like your expression "super-intelligent slave", it shows immediately
> the contradiction (and
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> personal survival would certainly be a goal for any
>
> brain
>>
>> even if it isn't guaranteed the permanent #1 position.
>
>
>
What about suicide?
What about it?
John K Clark
>
>
>
>
--
You received this messag
On 17 Sep 2016, at 23:32, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 Telmo Menezes wrote:
> it is not so clear to me that it has no intelligence.
It leads to better and better designs,
If Evolution has intelligence it sure doesn't have much, despite
the resources of the entire planet
On 18 Sep 2016, at 15:57, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Quentin Anciaux
wrote:
I think what he meant is 'Je marie ma nièce', I'm going to my niece
wedding...
I think Brent knows :)
I think Quentin knows :)
Bruno
Le 17 sept. 2016 9:59 PM, "Brent Meeker" a
the democracy is sick, and that the separations of powers leak,
all prize and non-prize get "political" to some degree.
Bruno
Much thanks.
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list
Sent: Sat, Sep 17, 2016 4:11 am
Subject: Re: Non-Evolutionary Superintell
On 18 Sep 2016, at 00:10, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I think what he meant is 'Je marie ma nièce', I'm going to my niece
wedding...
I think you know that Brent figured out that.
Of course I was "only" going to my niece wedding.
And I guess marrying a niece (or nephew) is illegal.
But the eut
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> I think what he meant is 'Je marie ma nièce', I'm going to my niece
> wedding...
I think Brent knows :)
>
>
> Le 17 sept. 2016 9:59 PM, "Brent Meeker" a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/17/2016 12:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> I will loo
On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 11:32 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>>
>> >
>> it is not so clear to me that it has no intelligence. It
>> leads to better and better designs,
>
>
> If Evolution has intelligence it sure doesn't have much, despite the
> resources of t
I think what he meant is 'Je marie ma nièce', I'm going to my niece
wedding...
Le 17 sept. 2016 9:59 PM, "Brent Meeker" a écrit :
>
>
> On 9/17/2016 12:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> I will look at it next week, as I am marry my niece today, and it is a
>> busy week-end and beginning of week.
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 Telmo Menezes wrote:
> >
> it is not so clear to me that it has no intelligence. It
>
> leads to better and better designs,
If Evolution has intelligence it sure doesn't have much, despite the
resources of the entire planet at its disposal Evolution was incredibly
On 9/17/2016 12:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I will look at it next week, as I am marry my niece today, and it is a
busy week-end and beginning of week.
Is that legal in Belgium?
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To
ing-list
Sent: Fri, Sep 16, 2016 9:41 am
Subject: Re: Non-Evolutionary Superintelligences Do Nothing, Eventually
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:52 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List
wrote:
>
> Yes. Meditation to me feels like an attempt to gain control over
> biology. Or perhaps just
ubject: Re: Non-Evolutionary Superintelligences Do Nothing,
Eventually
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:52 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List
wrote:
>
> Yes. Meditation to me feels like an attempt to gain control over
> biology. Or perhaps just to make biology shut up for a second.
>
>
On 16 Sep 2016, at 16:03, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 15 Sep 2016, at 09:52, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 13 Sep 2016, at 11:47, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 3:00 AM,
lt;>t -> ~[]<>t).
Bruno
-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes
To: everything-list
Sent: Thu, Sep 15, 2016 3:52 am
Subject: Re: Non-Evolutionary Superintelligences Do Nothing,
Eventually
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 13 Sep 2016
so I am aware that I post on the email group, amongst intellectual
greats.
-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes
To: everything-list
Sent: Fri, Sep 16, 2016 9:41 am
Subject: Re: Non-Evolutionary Superintelligences Do Nothing, Eventually
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:52 PM, spudboy10
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 15 Sep 2016, at 09:52, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13 Sep 2016, at 11:47, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>>
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 3:00 AM, John Clark
wrote:
>
>>
onary Superintelligences Do Nothing, Eventually
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:20 AM, John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> >
>> In my "designed superintelligence" scenario, the entity is confronted
>>
>> w
>> ith
: Thu, Sep 15, 2016 3:52 am
> Subject: Re: Non-Evolutionary Superintelligences Do Nothing, Eventually
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> On 13 Sep 2016, at 11:47, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 3:00 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:20 AM, John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> >
>> In my "designed superintelligence" scenario, the entity is confronted
>>
>> w
>> ith a protection mechanism that was conceived by a lesser
>> intelligence.
>
>
> Yes, the most recent iterati
On 15 Sep 2016, at 09:52, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 13 Sep 2016, at 11:47, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 3:00 AM, John Clark
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 Telmo Menezes wrote:
We know that humans are capable of choo
, and using the cerebrum to do this. .
-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes
To: everything-list
Sent: Thu, Sep 15, 2016 3:52 am
Subject: Re: Non-Evolutionary Superintelligences Do Nothing, Eventually
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 13 Sep 2016, at 1
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 13 Sep 2016, at 11:47, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 3:00 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>>
>
We know that humans are capable of choosing self-destruction. It is
>
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> In my "designed superintelligence" scenario, the entity is confronted
>
> w
> ith a protection mechanism that was conceived by a lesser
> intelligence.
Yes, the most recent iteration of the Jupiter Brain was designed by
something that was
On 13 Sep 2016, at 11:47, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 3:00 AM, John Clark
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 Telmo Menezes wrote:
We know that humans are capable of choosing self-destruction. It is
also obvious that most don't
I would argue that given the proper circumstan
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 3:00 AM, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> >
>> We know that humans are capable of choosing self-destruction. It is
>> also obvious that most don't
>
>
> I would argue that given the proper circumstances anybody would choose self
> destruc
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 1:15 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 9/12/2016 3:00 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Brent Meeker
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/12/2016 8:50 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Brent Meeker
wrote:
>
>>>
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> We know that humans are capable of choosing self-destruction. It is
> also obvious that most don't
I would argue that given the proper circumstances anybody would choose
self destruction.
I just saw a documentary about 911, it showed people
On 9/12/2016 3:00 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 9/12/2016 8:50 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Brent Meeker
wrote:
On 9/11/2016 4:07 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Brent,
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Brent Me
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> I also agree with the JKC that the superintelligence cannot model
>
> itself and predict its actions in the long term. On the other hand,
>
> I'm sure it can predict the outcome of it's next action.
If the machine can predict its next a
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 9/12/2016 8:50 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Brent Meeker
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/11/2016 4:07 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Brent,
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Brent Meeker
>
On 9/12/2016 8:50 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 9/11/2016 4:07 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Brent,
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Brent Meeker
wrote:
Good paper.
Thanks!
Many of the thoughts I've had about the subject too. But I
thi
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Telmo Menezes
wrote:
> >
>> >
>> The paper clip scenario could only happen in a intelligence that had a
>> top
>>
>> goal that was fixed and inflexible. Humans have no such goal, not even the
>>
>> goal of self preservation, and there is a reason Evol
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 9/11/2016 4:07 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> Hi Brent,
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Brent Meeker
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Good paper.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>> Many of the thoughts I've had about the subject too. But I
>>> think your u
ng-list
> Sent: Sun, Sep 11, 2016 7:07 am
> Subject: Re: Non-Evolutionary Superintelligences Do Nothing, Eventually
>
> Hi Brent,
>
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>> Good paper.
>
> Thanks!
>
>> Many of the thoughts I've had abou
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 5:15 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 7:07 AM, Telmo Menezes
> wrote:
>
>> >
>> That is one type of worry. The other (e.g.: the "paper clip" scenario)
>
>
> The paper clip scenario could only happen in a intelligence that had a top
> goal that was fixed and
On 9/11/2016 4:07 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Brent,
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
Good paper.
Thanks!
Many of the thoughts I've had about the subject too. But I
think your use of persistence is misleading. There are different ways to
persist. Bacteria persist, m
On 10 Sep 2016, at 19:14, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Telmo Menezes
wrote:
> published this working paper on arxiv, same title as this
email: http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02009
Criticisms most welcome!
This may have some bearing on what you're saying, mor
olutionary Superintelligences Do Nothing, Eventually
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 7:07 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
That is one type of worry. The other (e.g.: the "paper clip" scenario)
The paper clip scenario could only happen in a intelligence that had a top
goal that was fixed and inf
Re: Non-Evolutionary Superintelligences Do Nothing, Eventually
Hi Brent,
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> Good paper.
Thanks!
> Many of the thoughts I've had about the subject too. But I
> think your use of persistence is misleading. There are different ways to
>
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 7:07 AM, Telmo Menezes
wrote:
>
> That is one type of worry. The other (e.g.: the "paper clip" scenario)
The paper clip scenario could only happen in a intelligence that had a top
goal that was fixed and inflexible. Humans have no such goal, not even the
goal of self
Hi Brent,
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> Good paper.
Thanks!
> Many of the thoughts I've had about the subject too. But I
> think your use of persistence is misleading. There are different ways to
> persist. Bacteria persist, mountains persist - but very differently.
Hi John,
Thanks, it does have bearing on what I'm saying. Both your letter and
Juergen's paper made me think about issues of self-referentiality that
I might have sweeped under the rug too much.
My argument is quite blunt, but this is also why I think it's
powerful. Of course, it does not help us
Good paper. Many of the thoughts I've had about the subject too. But I
think your use of persistence is misleading. There are different ways
to persist. Bacteria persist, mountains persist - but very
differently. The AI that people worry about is one that modifies it's
utility function to
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Telmo Menezes
wrote:
>
> published this working paper on arxiv, same title as this email:
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02009
>
>
> Criticisms most welcome!
*This may have some bearing on what you're saying, more than twenty years
ago on May 13
Hi everyone,
I published this working paper on arxiv, same title as this email:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02009
Criticisms most welcome!
Best,
Telmo.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop r
48 matches
Mail list logo
