Correct me - my impression of discussions here is that this group seems to be
focussed exclusively on the future development of a superAGI - and that is
always considered to be a *computer*.
However, there is still no sign of that ever happening - of a disembodied
computer achieving true
Hello,
The only known creatures that dominate or consciously enforce a way of
living on others are biological in origin. So long as AGI is contained
within non-biological or solid state non-robotic hardware, it will have
unlimited intellectual pursuits without worry from human observers. Once the
At 01:53 PM 1/25/2008, you wrote:
On Jan 25, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote:
The idea of useless technology is developed in wearables more than
in bioart. Steve's perspective is more political than artistic in
regards to uselessness, don't you think? My paper which includes
On Saturday 26 January 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
Why does discussion never (unless I've missed something - in which
case apologies) focus on the more realistic future
threats/possibilities - future artificial species as opposed to
future computer simulations?
This is bias in the community.
The reason biowarfare has failed so far is mostly a lack of good delivery
mechanisms: there are loads of pathogens that will kill people, but no one
has yet figured out how to deliver them effectively ... they die in the
sun,
disperse in the wind, drown in the water, whatever
Biowarfare
On Jan 26, 2008 8:57 PM, Bryan Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 26 January 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
Why does discussion never (unless I've missed something - in which
case apologies) focus on the more realistic future
threats/possibilities - future artificial species as
Quoting Natasha Vita-More [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At 01:53 PM 1/25/2008, you wrote:
On Jan 25, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote
and Samantha Atkins wrote
The idea of useless technology is developed in wearables more than
in bioart. Steve's perspective is more political than artistic
On Saturday 26 January 2008, Vladimir Nesov wrote:
I guess limitation of biological substrate are too strict, and there
is not much to hope for from this side. Maybe we'd be able to
construct a genetically engineered scientist with huge brain that
will develop AGI, before cracking this problem
Gudrun: I am an artist who is interested in science, in utopia and seemingly
impossible
projects. I also came across a lot of artists with OC traits. ...
The OCAP, actually the obsessive compulsive 'arctificial' project ..
These new OCA entities ... are afraid, and bound to rituals and unwant
ed
On Jan 26, 2008 8:50 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Correct me - my impression of discussions here is that this group seems to
be focussed exclusively on the future development of a superAGI - and that
is always considered to be a *computer*.
However, there is still no sign of
On Saturday 26 January 2008, Samantha Atkins wrote:
Perhaps you (or someone) need to make a sufficient case that
potential treat/promise is as great in that area. There is
certainly room for more than one highly focused organization so there
is no need to argue that the Singularity
On Jan 26, 2008 9:07 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom:A computer is not disembodied any more than you are. Silicon, as a
substrate, is fully equivalent to biological neurons in terms of
theoretical problem-solving ability.
See http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/tom/?p=19 for a more
Mike,
I certainly would like to see discussion of how species generally may be
artificially altered, (including how brains and therefore intelligence may
be altered) - and I'm disappointed, more particularly, that Natasha and any
other transhumanists haven't put forward some half-way
On Jan 26, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Mike Tintner wrote:
Gudrun: I am an artist who is interested in science, in utopia and
seemingly
impossible
projects. I also came across a lot of artists with OC traits. ...
The OCAP, actually the obsessive compulsive 'arctificial' project ..
These new OCA
On Jan 26, 2008, at 3:59 PM, Mike Tintner wrote:
Ben,
Thanks for reply. I think though that Samantha may be more
representative - i.e. most here simply aren't interested in non-
computer alternatives. Which is fine.
The Singularity Institute exists for one purpose. That I point that
On Jan 26, 2008, at 6:07 PM, Mike Tintner wrote:
Tom:A computer is not disembodied any more than you are. Silicon,
as a
substrate, is fully equivalent to biological neurons in terms of
theoretical problem-solving ability.
You've been fooled by the puppet. It doesn't work without the
16 matches
Mail list logo
