Objective observers care only about the type of a person and whether it's
instantiated, not about the fate of its instances (because, frankly, they're not
aware of the difference between the type and an instance). But since I know
better,
I would be sad about dead instances. The point is whether
On 04/07/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That definition isn't accurate, because it doesn't
match what we intuitively see as 'death'. 'Death' is
actually fairly easy to define, compared to "good" or
even "truth"; I would define it as the permanent
destruction of a large portion of the i
That definition isn't accurate, because it doesn't
match what we intuitively see as 'death'. 'Death' is
actually fairly easy to define, compared to "good" or
even "truth"; I would define it as the permanent
destruction of a large portion of the information that
makes up a sentient being's mind.
-
On 04/07/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Using that definition, everyone would die at an age of
a few months, because the brain's matter is regularly
replaced by new organic chemicals.
I know that, which is why I asked the question. It's easy enough to
give a precise and objective def
--- Sergey Novitsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Governments do not have a history of realizing the
> >power of technology before it comes on the market.
>
> But this was not so with nuclear weapons...
It was the physicists who first became aware of the
power of nukes, and the physicists had t
Governments do not have a history of realizing the
power of technology before it comes on the market.
But this was not so with nuclear weapons...
And with AGI, it's about something that has the potential to overthrow the
world order (or at least the order within a single country).
Would not the
Using that definition, everyone would die at an age of
a few months, because the brain's matter is regularly
replaced by new organic chemicals.
- Tom
--- Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 30/06/07, Heartland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Objective observers care only abo
--- "Sergey A. Novitsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >>
> >>Are these questions, statement, opinions, sound
> bites or what? It seem a
> >>bit of a stew.
> Yes. A bit of everything indeed. Thanks for noting
> the incoherency.
>
> >>> * As it already happened with nuclear
> weapons, there ma
On 30/06/07, Heartland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Objective observers care only about the type of a person and whether it's
intantiated, not about the fate of its instances (because, frankly, they're not
aware of the difference between the type and an instance). But since I know
better,
I would
>>
>>Are these questions, statement, opinions, sound bites or what? It seem a
>>bit of a stew.
Yes. A bit of everything indeed. Thanks for noting the incoherency.
>>> * As it already happened with nuclear weapons, there may be
>>> treaties constraining AI development.
>>>
>>
>>Well we ha
10 matches
Mail list logo
