From: James Higgins (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Mar 22 2001 - 08:17:03 MST
At 03:10 PM 3/21/2001 -0500, Eliezer S. Yudkowski wrote:
>Gordon Worley wrote:
> > Such a situation would be dangerous because an un Friendly SI could
> > slip thorough and do something horrible, because all that there would
> > be to stop ver are Friendly SIs who wouldn't hurt a fly in VR. It is
> > going to take un Friendly SIs to stop un Friendly SIs who manage to
> > escape the control of a Sysop.
>This seems to me like a totally wacky idea. Friendly SIs should be just
>as good at chess, or battle tactics, as unFriendly ones. A Friendly SI
>has no evolutionary history of going to war for the wrong reasons; ve has
>no need to practice nonviolence when battle strategy is required. I'd
>expect a Friendly SI and an unFriendly SI to look equally inedible to an
So, are you saying that the Friendly SI could get into a 'war' with an
unFriendly one? How could an SI be perfectly Friendly and capable of
violence? I find this very hard to believe. If nothing else, the Friendly
SI would be limited in its actions (collateral damage, avoid excessively
devastating attacks, etc). In a perfectly even match the individual with
the least restrictions usually wins.
And if the Friendly AI is capable of all this, I'm not so sure how
perfectly friendly it would actually be itself.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:36 MDT