Re: [SL4] Employment vs. Singularity
From: Samantha Atkins (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Aug 22 2000 - 09:36:12 MDT
"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote:
> Samantha wrote:
> > If, just as a for instance I don't know how to get to, if every person
> > had a decent living wage and all the physical necessities taken care of
> > (a la cheap nano-tech matter assemblers for instance), then every person
> > can be quite busily employed - doing exactly what they themselves find
> > most meaningful and interesting regardless of whether they are getting a
> > conventional paycheck for it. Personally I would have a hell of a lot
> > more to do than watching TV if I no longer had to work for someone else
> > for a living. I have more things to do and explore and work on than I
> > could finish in a hundred lifetimes of such 'pointless empty leisure'.
> How about if everyone who wished was uploaded and had a decent amount of
> computing power - at least a billion trillion brainpower, say?
YEAH. That's what I'm talking about! Heading out toward unlimited
where bean-counting and chasing of dollars makes utterly no sense. And
some of that senselessness may be in the way of us getting there quickly
Sign me up!
> This scenario is basically the minimum SingInst is aiming for. With
> luck, we won't see any major effects on the economy from any prehuman
> AIs that reach the market before this point. (With less luck, there are
> a few economic tweaks that could stabilize things; but that whole
> scenario can ideally be avoided.)
Interesting. What do you mean to designate as "prehuman AI"?
Pre-augmented human AI? What do you believe is essential in stabilizing
the economy and what can and should change and why?
> You seem to be visualizing a slow, gradual, planetwide scenario. The
> Slow Singularity model has all kinds of potential for ultratech
> disaster, which is one reason why the SingInst model consists of one AI
> in a research lab reaching the point of true self-enhancement and taking
> off from there. The marketable AIs before that point will hopefully be
> too dumb to have any major effect on the economy.
Not particularly slow but definitely having a few stages quite
noticeably different from now before we get to the full SingInst model.
I hope there are a few stages along the way for the simple reason that
even pro-Singularity people are not imho generally well equipped for
such a leap in a single go. On the other hand, my time grows shorter
daily and I am quite anxious to be on with it.
I do not believe in a single AI in a research lab being a viable model.
No matter how brilliant any one team is I don't for an instance believe
they can go the whole way. Nor do I believe that one and only one such
AI is remotely likely or desirable. I don't think you can get there in
one jump even in the AI world (perhaps especially in the AI world). I
think you will need an interacting mass of AIs bumping up against the
world, us and each other before they bloom into full AI power. And I
think several of the self-enhancement capabilities will grow out of
things needed in the economic sphere. For instance, I think
self-modifying, self-improving and self-writing software will grow
fairly directly out of the dearth of programming skills and the
increasing complexity and criticality of our software systems.
> About the friendly AI thing: Complex issue; we think we know how to
> handle it; no, it doesn't involve Asimov Laws or gratitude to creators
> or anything else anthropomorphic; yes, given everything we know about,
> it should work; no, success isn't certain; yes, we're pretty sure the AI
> scenario offers the best available probability of survival for the human
Is the AI the cosmic guardian and caretaker or do we become one with it
or do we become it or some mixture of these and other possibilities?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Thu May 23 2013 - 04:00:19 MDT