Samantha,
I tend to agree with you that CEV is not a currently
directly useful train of thought...
But there is the possibility that -- like many
other not-necessarily-realistic thought experiments --
it stimulates thinking in different
directions that a stricter adherence-to-realism
might now.
And, it still seems to me that Pernar does not
actually understand the
content of CEV, which is why this dialogue has kept
going on so long without really leading to anything
interesting...
-- Ben
On 10/27/07, Samantha Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 27, 2007, at 1:55 AM, Aleksei Riikonen wrote:
>
> > 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 find it very credible to simply claim that the CEV answer
> will be significantly better. Yeah you can argue it "by construction"
> simply because the entire thing is made up to by definition be the
> very best at this particular job. But that it is achievable and will
> be best is not provable. As long as it is not then calling anyone's
> opinion that they or some other human or group of human's could do
> better "delusions of grandeur" is not justified.
>
> >>>
> > 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."
> >
>
> What is "friendly"? That is a good question. However it is not
> exactly at all crisp.
>
> > 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?
>
> This is a bit of a long con. These "people smarter than us" are
> totally hypothetical. Here in the real world right now I think we
> darn well better come up with the best notion of "friendliness" we can
> and steer toward that. That very much includes not shutting people
> down for attempting to make some hopefully relevant suggestions. What
> we do now with our limited intelligence (but of necessity all the
> intelligence we can work with) determines whether there ever will be
> greatly smarter humans with or without a CEV. It could well
> determine whether there are any future humans at all. We can't steer
> our course N years ahead of the bit of road right in front of us or
> leave it to our hypothetical betters or to the CEV dream machine.
>
> >
> >
> > 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?
> >
>
> This is mental masturbation. It don't see that it does one whit of
> good. It doesn't give any real sort of guidance for doing that in the
> present that it likely to get us to a better tomorrow.
>
> - samantha
>
> -----
> 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/?&;
>
-----
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=58141076-a9d0e0
