--- Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 01/07/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Why do you assume that "win at any cost" is the > > > default around which > > > you need to work? > > > > Because it corresponds to the behavior of the > vast, > > vast majority of possible AGI systems. Is there a > > single AGI design now in existence which wouldn't > wipe > > us all out in order to achieve some goal? > > If its goal is "achieve x using whatever means > necessary" and x is > "win at chess using only the formal rules of chess", > then it would > fail if it won by using some means extraneous to the > formal rules of > chess, just as surely as it would fail due to losing > to a superior > opponent.
Uh... it kinda doesn't matter if a human would judge it a "failure" or "cheating" if the relevant human is dead. Why should the AGI care about human judgment? - Tom > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > > ----- > 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/?&; > ____________________________________________________________________________________ TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/ ----- 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
