On 6/8/07, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't have the reference, but I have seen the claim that 90% of the
improvement in health over human history is due to better living conditions,
9% due to vaccination, and 1% due to the rest of medical science. It sounds
about right.
On 08/06/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That would be nice, but unfortunately it's
unrealistic. Just look at what medical science has
done over the past millennium:
1. Totally wiped out smallpox, a huge killer.
2. Effectively wiped out many more diseases, such as
measles, mumps, rube
--- Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 07:24:32AM -0700, Michael
> Anissimov wrote:
>
> > >You've been sounding like a broken record for a
> while. It's because
> > >speed kills. What or who is doing the killing is
> not important.
> >
> > Who needs politeness or r
--- Michael Anissimov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 6/7/07, Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > You've been sounding like a broken record for a
> while. It's because
> > speed kills. What or who is doing the killing is
> not important.
>
> Who needs politeness or respect for your fe
--- Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 05:53:10AM -0700, Michael
> Anissimov wrote:
>
> > If an AI can come up with better ideas for
> improving our lives than we
> > can, then wouldn't it make sense to pay attention
> to it? Why should
>
> You've been sounding li
That would be nice, but unfortunately it's
unrealistic. Just look at what medical science has
done over the past millennium:
1. Totally wiped out smallpox, a huge killer.
2. Effectively wiped out many more diseases, such as
measles, mumps, rubella, typhus, diphtheria, cholera,
tetanus and many oth
On 6/7/07, Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's not an argument. That rapid environmental changes are dangerous
is an argument. You need an argument to refute that argument.
Speed kills most of the time. A fast superintelligence that values
humanity will selectively use chunks of mat
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 07:24:32AM -0700, Michael Anissimov wrote:
> >You've been sounding like a broken record for a while. It's because
> >speed kills. What or who is doing the killing is not important.
>
> Who needs politeness or respect for your fellow man when we can make
> ourselves feel gr
On 6/7/07, Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You've been sounding like a broken record for a while. It's because
speed kills. What or who is doing the killing is not important.
Who needs politeness or respect for your fellow man when we can make
ourselves feel great by putting others down
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 05:53:10AM -0700, Michael Anissimov wrote:
> If an AI can come up with better ideas for improving our lives than we
> can, then wouldn't it make sense to pay attention to it? Why should
You've been sounding like a broken record for a while. It's because
speed kills. What
If an AI can come up with better ideas for improving our lives than we
can, then wouldn't it make sense to pay attention to it? Why should
our leaders be of mere human-level intelligence if they can be much
smarter? If people democratically choose for superintelligences to be
their leaders (whet
We aren't plugged into monkey politics. We can't even
effectively communicate with monkeys. And yet saying
that humans have made changes to monkey civilization
is a huge understatement.
- Tom
--- Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/4/07, Papiewski, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
At 01:45 PM 6/4/2007, John wrote:
I'm going to take a dim/skeptical view of the true potency of
advanced AI here.
If a hypothetical advanced AI comes up with, say, a design for a
working, practical, economical, enviromentally friendly power
source, will it really get anywhere? Or if it say
On 6/4/07, Papiewski, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We already have intelligent **human beings** whose well-reasoned ideas get
no traction in society at large. What makes you think that an AI is going
to fare any better?
I don't.
If the AI isn't plugged into politics I don't see it makin
On 6/4/07, Papiewski, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We already have intelligent *human beings* whose well-reasoned ideas get no
traction in society at large. What makes you think that an AI is going to
fare any better?
There is an implicit assumption here that the AI will have to work
with
--- "Papiewski, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the AI isn't plugged into politics I don't see it making any change
> to human civilization regardless of how smart it might be.
I agree. We build machines to serve us, not to lead us.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This list is s
I'm going to take a dim/skeptical view of the true potency of advanced
AI here.
If a hypothetical advanced AI comes up with, say, a design for a
working, practical, economical, enviromentally friendly power source,
will it really get anywhere? Or if it says one day that the "War on
Drugs" in
17 matches
Mail list logo
