Richard, Thank you for your response. I have read your other posts and understand what 'the story' is so to speak. I understand where you are coming from and when I talk about evolution therioes this is not to throw a 'stick in the wheel' so to speak, it is to think with a universal mind. From my view point I want to know what the ultimate goal is...I understand quite clearly that if you 'give a dog a bone' with regards to AGI's that is all it will have however I battle to understand the point. You say...advanced technology...in what sense..is this AGI going to help me think quicker ? Is this AGI going to reap massive benefits for my company ? Is this AGI going to be my best friend ? Is this AGI purely going to be a soldier ? Is this AGI going to help me understand logic ? Do you see where I am going with this ? I understand technology and I understand moving at a fast past, what I do not understand is the benefit ? Perhaps you and AI live in the Science Fiction world and it's not the other way round ?? Candice > Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:14:05 -0400> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: > singularity@v2.listbox.com> Subject: Re: [singularity] QUESTION> > candice > schuster wrote:> > Ok Richard, let's talk about your scenario...define 'Mad', > 'Irrational' > > and 'Improbable scenario' ?> > > > Let's look at some of > Charles Darwin's and Richard Dawkins theories as > > some examples in this > improbable scenario. Ever heard of a Meme ? or > > the Memetic Theory ? I > would like to say that based on these and the > > very probable scenario of > AI combined with cognitive thought processes > > the chances of 'survival of > the fittest' starts to look very rosy > > indeed. Remember it's one > Superpower against another, whether that be > > man against man or country > against country.> > > > Furthermore you need to look at the bigger > picture...the ultimate goal > > here is as A. Yost mentioned, dollar signs > and Super Power for the > > organisations involved. > > > > Candice> > Yup, > know all about memes.> > Suppose that the first AGI is completely friendly > (grant me that > assumption), and that it is encouraged to quickly > self-improve until it > can think at a thousand times human speed.> > It > says: "In order to ensure that the world stays safe, I need to take > action > now to modify all the other AGI projects on the planet, to make > sure that > they all have exactly the same motivation system that I have, > and to ensure > that no further developments in the future will lead to > any unfriendly, > malevolent systems. I have the technology to do this > quietly, and > peacefully, without harming the knowledge of these other > systems (to the > extent that they have knowledge or self-awareness at > all). Would you like > me to go ahead and do this?"> > If you say "yes", nothing much will appear to > happen, but from that > point on all the rest of the AGI systems in the world > will act, in > effect, as one large friendly system.> > Now, here is the > response to your specific question: from that point > on, there is not one, > single aspect of evolutionary systems that applies > any more. There are no > darwinian pressures, no gene reassortment, no > meme propagation, no > commercial pressures, no genotype/phenotype > distinctions, nothing. Every > single aspect of the huge mechanism that > we call "evolution" or "survival > of the fittest" does not apply. All of > that stuff that has been going on > with the bits of DNA competing with > one another to make higher and higher > organisms to serves their needs -- > all completely and utterly irrelevant to > the further development of AGI > systems.> > So, you can cite evolutionary > pressures, but you have to be very precise > about what context your are > imagining them to be operating in: after > the first AGI is created, it all > becomes irrelevant.> > Before the first AGI is created, there are still some > pressures, but I > have given some reasons (in a separate post) why we coould > still be in a > situation where most of those pressures are either nullified > or simply > will not have any time to operate.> > Granted, there are > assumptions in this scenario .... but we should be > talking about those > assumptions explicitly, and in enormous detail, > rather than trying to shoot > down ideas about the future by simply citing > the pressures of evolution or > commercial competition. When we discuss > the underlying details we determine > whether or not any of those > "evolutionary" considerations even have a > chance of playing a role, so > we cannot shoot down the arguments by using > the idea of evolution as a > weapon.> > > > Richard Loosemore.> > > P.S. > Sorry that I seemed so testy last night: should have been more > diplomatic > to both yourself and A Yost. I had just spent a few days > going over basic > arguments that are decades old, for the Nth time, for > the benefit of people > who had not seen them before, and the shear > pointlessness of the effort > just started to me.> > -----> 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/?&; _________________________________________________________________ Celeb spotting – Play CelebMashup and win cool prizes https://www.celebmashup.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&id_secret=56766367-b2a4aa
