On 10/27/07, Stefan Pernar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/27/07, Aleksei Riikonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> You seem to have a need to personally give a final answer to "What is
>> 'good'?" -- an answer to what moral rules the universe should be
>> governed by. If you think that your answer is better than what the
>> "surveying" process that CEV is would produce, I think your attitude
>> amounts to delusions of grandeur.
>
> I do not want to get into a mud slinging contest with you. Sorry for for
> pissing you off - not my intention. To bring the discussion back on a more
> fruitful path, may I suggest you point out fallacies in my writings (
> www.jame5.com). I think name calling is counter productive.
The first fallacy one runs into there is this: "The question what
friendliness means however existed before all of those problems, is a
separate one and needs to be answered before the creation of a
friendly AI can be attempted."
It's not at all necessary to answer this question before the creation
of a friendly AI can be attempted. This problem, "choosing something
nice to do with the AI" (which you here referred to as "what
friendliness means"), number 2 in the enumeration of the separate
problems on the CEV page, can be handled in the way I've repeatedly
described to you. There's no need to try to come up with a final
answer to this while we as humans are as limited in intelligence and
knowledge as we currently are.
>> I find it obvious that whatever answer you give, it isn't better than
>> the answer the smarter and more knowledgeable humans, who are surveyed
>> in the CEV process, would give. I find it infinitely more preferable
>> to find out what they would say ("they" would include wiser versions
>> of you and me), instead of taking whatever the current you says as the
>> final answer to this question that all the smartest human philosophers
>> have tried to solve for all of human history, without coming up with
>> an answer that could be considered to settle the issue.
>
> I hope you would take a look at my suggested theory before dismissing it.
> Would be more than happy to engage in a discussion with you based on mutual
> respect.
I have looked at your writing a bit, but actually there isn't real
point in me doing so, unless you really claim it is a *smarter*
conclusion than to which the "humans surveyed in the CEV process"
would arrive. And how could you claim to be able to present a smarter
conclusion, than one produced by people smarter than us, that have a
lot more knowledge than us, that knowledge including all that you have
written?
Even if I accepted that you are the brightest philosopher who has ever
lived, and have come up with a solution that has eluded all that have
come before, don't you see that the humans surveyed by CEV would be
aware of what you have written, and would come to the same conclusion
if it really is that smart? How then could your proposal be better
than CEV, when CEV would result in the exact same thing?
--
Aleksei Riikonen - http://www.iki.fi/aleksei
-----
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=58083242-c0df3a
