From: Gordon Worley (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Dec 13 2000 - 16:11:22 MST
At 2:26 PM -0800 12/13/2000, Durant Schoon wrote:
> > An overthrow might not be bad, depending on what level it happens.
>The problem is this: You are the King. How do ensure that your subjects
>never depose you? Ever. And in this case, yes, an overthrow would
>be bad. You would disappear.
>I might be reading too much into Eliezer's reply, but his solution
>sounds to me like: "You can't trust any smart subjects, so don't have
>any. Only create dumb automotons to follow out your orders exactly
>(the details of which, you have considered extremely carefully)."
Maybe this is an issue of how our brains work, or at least how I
would like them to work, and then how that can be applied to
transhuman and beyond intelligences. The metaphors are getting
cofusing (at least to me), so I'm going to forego them. According to
you (or at least as I understand what you've written), in the mind
there is an intelligence that is you, and you are it. Then, there
are subintelligences created that have been given the task of doing
things that the main intelligence doesn't have time for. Having
spent some more time thinking about it, I think that the goals of the
main intelligence result in the creation of dumb processes (but not
automata) that do things like hardware control (wet or dry, depending
on the level of transcendance) and that there is no need to spawn
more intelligent processes (even dumb ones) unless the main
intelligence wants 'children' (this seems like the best way for an AI
to get kids, if ve even wants them), taking care of all the hard work
as subprocesses in the main intelligence, so that there are no goal
conflicts (or no more than exist in the average humans who have
failed to find their way to this list ;-)).
To sum up, don't create intelligent processes with root access unless
they are root (oops, that's two Unix metaphors in one day), and all
will be fine. To go back to original metaphor, only the king is the
king, even if the king has multiple facets, so long as not even the
viceroy can wear the crown.
Having written this post, I may be 'me too'ing Eliezer (or at least
Eliezer through Durant), but I didn't get what I've written out of
his post, so maybe other people didn't, either.
-- Gordon Worley http://www.rbisland.cx/ mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org PGP: C462 FA84 B811 3501 9010 20D2 6EF3 77F7 BBD3 B003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:35 MDT