From: James Higgins (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jul 28 2001 - 15:54:34 MDT
At 05:05 PM 7/28/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>At 12:41 PM -0700 7/28/01, James Higgins wrote:
>>The 1984 bit is the Sysop who, essentially, controls everything. I
>>understand how this is supposed to work ideally, but note the "supposed
>>to" and "ideally".
>Oh, that. Yes, we have discussed it quite a bit. Well, luckily, the
>Sysop scenario is just what Eli and a few of us think will likely happen
>post Singularity given Friendly AI. Friendly AI stands completely on it's
>own from the Sysop, it's just that the Sysop for some of us is a practical
>means of controlling the abuse of power (and even the accidental abuse of
>power). The reality is probably that something other than the Sysop as we
>see it now will actually happen, though it will probably share similar
>features (i.e. some other system for the enforcement of morals).
Exactly, I don't want a system that enforces morals. My morals may not be
your morals, so who's do we choose? I get REALLY TOUCHY when people try to
push their morals on me. I believe no one has the right to define morals
for anyone other than themselves. Now, I do agree that certain basic
tenants must be enforced. Individuals should not be allowed to murder each
other. But it becomes a really fine line beyond the very basics as to what
is moral and what isn't.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 20 2013 - 04:00:21 MDT