From: Patrick McCuller (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Apr 19 2001 - 22:10:37 MDT
> Arona Ndiaye wrote:
> > 2. "Of course, some of the brightest people in the world, including
> > Nobel laureates, have spent decades researching AI -- friendly or not --
> > and have failed to realize their dreams..."
> > Why isn't a distinction made between Friendly AI and Classical AI ?
> Yes, this is one of the points that I wish had been presented a bit more
> clearly. "Conservative" for FAI is not the same as "conservative" for AI
> in general. And yes, they've failed to realize their dreams, but sooner
> or later you can bet your fundament that one of them *will* succeed, when
> it's me or someone else. At that point, the skepticism that won a few
> bets in the past becomes a HUGE disadvantage. Like predicting that a
> market bubble will never pop; great in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999,
> but not so good in 2000.
It doesn't rain seven days out of ten. Predict 'no rain' for any given day
and you've got a 70% chance of being right, without any work at all beyond
some really, really easy observation.
I don't know what the demographics for Wired are. It obviously influences the
depth and style that articles can contain. We'll all be happier when we're
talking about an article in Scientific American, and happier still in more
Still, I must say that I'm personally delighted to see the Wired article. All
press is good press. Far too many people have yet to consider Friendliness,
much less take it seriously. This will only help.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:36 MDT