On 10/26/07, Aleksei Riikonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/26/07, Stefan Pernar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In summary one would need to define good first in order to set the CEV > > dynamic in motion, otherwise the AI would not be able to model a better > > me/humanity. > > Present questions to humans, construct models of the answers received. > Nothing infeasible about this.
Yes - that would be feasible for an advanced AI but I don't think that is how CEV is envisioned. In addition it would not guarantee friendliness as, say the views of a religious fundamentalist would be considered just as well as mine or that of the Dalai Lama. How would these very different views be reconciled? In my writings (see www.jame5.com) I solve these issues by defining what 'good' is independent of a particular personal background, birth year or cultural/religious affiliation as those are rather random. Goodness and benevolence should not depend on what year or region of the world you happened to be born in. -- Stefan Pernar 3-E-101 Silver Maple Garden #6 Cai Hong Road, Da Shan Zi Chao Yang District 100015 Beijing P.R. CHINA Mobil: +86 1391 009 1931 Skype: Stefan.Pernar ----- 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=57803390-541d51
