Anna Taylor wrote:
On, Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 10:11 R. Loosemore wrote:
What I have in mind here is the objection (that I know
some people will raise) that it might harbor some deep-seated animosity
such as an association between human beings in general and something
'bad' that happened to it when it was growing up ... we would easily be
able to catch something like that if we had a trapdoor on the
motivational system.
I'm not clear what you meant, could you rephrase?
I understood, what I have in mind is a trapdoor of the motivational
system:)
Do you think motivation is a key factor that generates
singularity-level events?
Am I understanding properly?
Just curious
Anna:)
Anna,
The word "trapdoor" is a reference to trapdoor algorithms that allow
computers to be spied upon: I meant it in a similar sense, that the AI
would be built in such a way that we could (in the development stages)
spy on what was happening in the motivational system to find out whether
the AI was developing any nasty intentions.
The purpose of the essay was to establish that this alternative approach
to creating a "friendly" AI would be both viable and (potentially)
extremely stable. It is a very different approach to the one currently
thought to be the only method, which is to prove properties of the AI's
goal system mathematically .... a task that many consider impossible.
By suggesting this alternative I am saying that mathematical proof may
be impossible, but guarantees of very strong kind may well be possible.
As you probably know, many people (including me) are extremely concerned
that AI be developed safely.
Hope that helps,
Richard Loosemore
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
