On 10/24/07, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Every speculation on this board about the nature of future AGI's has been > pure fantasy. Even those which try to dress themselves up in some semblance > of scientific reasoning. All this speculation, for example, about the > friendliness and emotions of future AGI's has been non-sense - and often > from surprisingly intelligent people. > > Why? Because until we have a machine that even begins to qualify as an AGI - > that has the LEAST higher adaptivity - until IOW AGI's EXIST- we can't begin > seriously to predict how they will evolve, let alone whether they will "take > off." And until we've seen a machine that actually has functioning emotions > and what purpose they serve, ditto we can't predict their future emotions.
We can't predict *exactly* what an AGI will do, but we can point out a few obvious possibilities, like the AGI destroying the human species. > So how can you cure yourself if you have this apparently incorrigible need > to produce speculative fantasies with no scientific basis in reality > whatsoever? > > I suggest : first speculate about the following: > > what will be the next stage of HUMAN evolution? What will be the next > significant advance in the form of the human species - as significant, say, > as the advance from apes, or - ok - some earlier form like Neanderthals? Evolution is obsolete. A decade is not even a single clock tick of evolutionary time. A decade is an *eternity* in software- ten years ago, HTML was The Latest Hot New Thing that most people had just started to use. > Hey, if you are prepared to speculate about fabulous future AGI's, > predicting that relatively small evolutionary advance shouldn't be too hard. > But I suggest that if you do think about future human evolution your mind > will start clamming up. Why? Because you will have a sense of physical/ > evolutionary constraints (unlike AGI where people seem to have zero sense of > technological constraints), - an implicit recognition that any future human > form will have to evolve from the present form - and to make predictions, > you will have to explain how. AGIs do not follow the same constraints as evolved organisms, because AGIs are not evolved- they are designed by us. If we want to scrap the architecture and start over, we can. If evolution wants to scrap the architecture- sorry, no luck, it's already in place and you're stuck with it. > And you will know that anything you say may > only serve to make an ass of yourself. So any prediction you make will have > to have SOME basis in reality and not just in science fiction. The same > should be true here. > > > > > > ----- > 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/?&; > - Tom ----- 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=57199801-5d2c4e
