These questions, although important, have little to do
with the feasibility of FAI. I think we can all agree
that the space of possible universe configurations
without sentient life of *any kind* is vastly larger
than the space of possible configurations with
sentient life, and designing an AGI to
--- Samantha Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jun 21, 2007, at 8:14 AM, Tom McCabe wrote:
>
> >
> > We can't "know it" in the sense of a mathematical
> > proof, but it is a trivial observation that out of
> the
> > bazillions of possible ways to configure matter,
> only
> > a ridiculou
I think I am missing something on this discussion of friendliness. We seem to
tacitly assume we know what it means to be friendly. For example, we assume
that an AGI that does not destroy the human race is more friendly than one
that does. We also want an AGI to obey our commands, cure disease,
On 6/22/07, Charles D Hixson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dividing things into us vs. them, and calling those that side with us
friendly seems to be instinctually human, but I don't think that it's a
universal. Even then, we are likely to ignore birds, ants that are
outside, and other things that
On Jun 21, 2007, at 8:14 AM, Tom McCabe wrote:
We can't "know it" in the sense of a mathematical
proof, but it is a trivial observation that out of the
bazillions of possible ways to configure matter, only
a ridiculously tiny fraction are Friendly, and so it
is highly unlikely that a selected
