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 great by putting others down?
That's not an argument. That rapid environmental changes are dangerous is an argument. You need an argument to refute that argument. > >Dude, I-current wouldn't trust me a picometer if I was much, much > >smarter. Neither should you. > > People are suspicious of outsiders, including superintelligence. This We don't have to suspect that evolutionary dynamics is full of extinctions, we *know* it. If you think you can sustainably strip darwinian regime I'd like to see an argument how you propose to do that. > is nothing new. So superintelligence will have to prove itself out in > the real world. I think people who have a good chance of precipitating a hard takeoff runaway are dangerous, and need watching. As long as people are bipedal primates, the dynamics should be s l o w. Slowing things down is a hard problem, but this doesn't mean we shouldn't try. > >Or we ourselves will evaporate, together with a few cm of Earth regolith. > >Sorry, I'd rather not take the chances. > > If AI is likely to come first, as I believe, then it's in our best > interests to make it as friendly as possible. Not dismiss the problem How do you define friendly? I keep asking this question, and I keep asking it for a very good reason. Once you give me your definition, I will explain the reasons. > because we're suspicious of all AI. I'm not dismissing it because I'm suspicious, I'm dismissing it because people who keep repeating the 'friendly friendly friendly' mantra are dangerously deluded, and need a reality check. > >I'm sorry, I'm not religious. Try the next door down the hall. > > All I said was that superintelligence could be wiser and more > charismatic than human beings. If you disagree, you must believe that Wise and charismatic are always relative. I don't believe that *you* can make superintelligences which are are wise and charismatic against bipedal primates. (The *you* includes anyone who walks on two legs, not just Michael A.). I'm also not interested in repeated assertions. I'm interested in how you can make it so, spelled out formally. Your first step is describing 'friendly' in a formal system, constructively. Your second step is using that constructive definition as a source of development constraints. Your third step is building an open-ended supercritical seed which utilizes results from your third step, asserting insertion into the 'friendly' behaviour space region target, while maintaining a sufficient fitness delta to anything else which is not you. (While you're at that, I could use an answer to P=NP, too -- shouldn't take you more than a minute). If you can make a good case even for the first step, I'm willing to listen. If you can't make even that first step, I continue to point and laugh. You can continue to pout, but this doesn't make your case any stronger. > humans are the wisest and most charismatic possible beings in the Do you understand the difference between kinetic and thermodynamic reaction control? I'm only interested in kinetic bottlenecks, because it's the only one that counts. > universe. Who's the religious one here? Who's being the Copernicus > and who's being the Church? The universe does not revolve around > humans. We do not have the monopoly on morality or cleverness. This > is Transhumanism 101. This is not arguments. This is waffle. (I agree that humanity is a random achor, but I happen to be a member of that set, and as long as I and my kids are that, I can't help about that particular bias. If we all are dead the point is moot anyway). > >Why the animal chauvinism, sheep? You've never met an intelligent human, > >so why are you judging them? Oh, wait... > > This is bullying rhetoric, and it's uncalled for. And if calling > someone on being a bully makes me a wuss, so be it. I see I'm being misunderstood. My point was that iterated interactions between very asymmetrical players have no measurable payoffs for the bigger player. Because of this the biosphere only gives, and the humans only take. With bigger players than us, we only get a chance to see how the receiving end of habitat destruction looks like. It's not personal, but it still kills fine. When you've got your points one, two and three done, let me know. I'm the first person to admit I don't know everything. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE ----- 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/?member_id=4007604&user_secret=7d7fb4d8
