On 02/07/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It would be vastly easier for a properly programmed AGI to decipher what we meant that it would be for humans. The question is- why would the AGI want to decipher what human mean, as opposed to the other 2^1,000,000,000 things it could be doing? It would be vastly easier for me to build a cheesecake than it would be for a chimp, however, this does not mean I spend my day running a cheesecake factory. Realize that, for a random AGI, deciphering what humans mean is not a different kind of problem than factoring a large number. Why even bother?
If it's possible to design an AI that can think at all and maintain coherent goals over time, then why would you design it to choose random goals? Surely the sensible thing is to design it to do what I say and what I mean, to inform me of the consequences of its actions as far as it can predict them, to be truthful, and so on. Maybe it would still kill us all through some oversight (on our part and on the part of the large numbers of other AI's all trying to do the same thing, and keep an eye on each other), but then if a small number of key people go psychotic simultaneously, they could also kill us all with nuclear weapons. There are no absolute guarantees, but I don't see why an AI with power should act more erratically than a human with power. -- 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/?member_id=4007604&user_secret=7d7fb4d8
