Re: Augmenting humans is a better way

From: Arona Ndiaye (
Date: Thu Aug 02 2001 - 10:51:29 MDT

No one ever thought the same as Eli, you seem to feed some kind of confusion
between classical AI and FAI =)
Discussion is closed, fine by me. I wanted you to feel how annoying it is
when someone quotes you out of context which you repeatedly did with Brian.
It was not my intention to insult you. *sincere apologies*
 Take care =)
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Higgins" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: Augmenting humans is a better way

> I have to ask, did you bother to REALLY read my posts? All of the below
> quotes are out of context. Your replies to my statements are as if you
> my text, quoted out of context as below, and replied in kind.
> At 05:51 AM 8/2/2001 +0200, you wrote:
> >Quoting James Higgins:
> >
> > >>
> >But it becomes a really fine line beyond the very basics as to what
> >is moral and what isn't
> > >>
> >
> >You said abolutely nothing in that sentence. Where is there not a fine
> >? That is what makes us human, good or bad, that is the way it is. Same
> >(very fine line) applies to what is dangerous, good, bad, sexy, groovy
> >etc... which is why X persons die every day. *smile*
> I think you just made my point for me, thanks.
> >P.S. If you aren't the solution, you're the problem. Who's side are you
on ?
> Excuse me?
> At 06:01 AM 8/2/2001 +0200, you wrote:
> >Quoting James Higgins:
> >
> > >>
> >As for Real AI, when someone gets one working then we can talk.
> > >>
> >
> >The whole point is to do the talking before and get it 'right'. "then we
> >talk" is a pipe dream if whoever creates the 1st Real AI gets it wrong,
> >which is likely to happen as long as ppl have the attitude that you do
> >about it. I can understand that you are not conviced. What I cannot grasp
> >are your 'technical', 'architectural', 'design' etc... reasons.
> >Just saying it won't happen for whatever reason is sweet but that's all
> >is =)
> The context here was talking about time lines for AI
> development. Certainly many people have ideas on how to develop Real AI,
> but they are different and some/many of them may not work. And thus,
> we can estimate how much time any of them may take, we can not estimate
> long it will take until we have the first running Real AI. This
> has been concluded and I do not wish to reopen it, I state this here for
> clarification only.
> > >>
> >The fact is that no one knows what Real AI is going to require
> > >>
> >
> >*cough*
> >Did you really read FAI ? Did you read all of the material on Low Beyond
> >Did you read the SL4 archives ? If you did (****and understood it****)
> >still believe the sentence above, well... either nothing will ever
> >you or your understanding of intelligence is quite different from the
> >understanding most people have of it on this list. Should it be the 2nd
> >case, please enlighten us =)
> Can you or anyone else guarantee me 100% that Eli's plans for Real AI will
> work? Simply implement his design and bingo we have Real AI? Sounds
> but others have thought the same but did not succeed. I'm not saying he
> won't succeed, I'm just saying it would be irresponsible to hang our hopes
> on any one (or even several) possible solutions since all solutions to
> have failed.
> > >>
> >. As for destructive technologies, nothing. My personal belief
> >is that either super intelligence will promote friendliness or we're
> > >>
> >
> >We are doomed already. SIAI is the exit as far as certain persons are
> >concerned. =)
> I agree that we are most likely doomed if we don't develop an SI, or at
> least a very smart AI that can help us develop FTL travel, space
> colonization, etc. Just some of the reasons I support SI
> development. However, I still feel that if SIs are not inherently
> (to at least a reasonable degree) then we are probably doomed anyway.
> At 07:10 AM 8/2/2001 +0200, you wrote:
> >Greetings to each and everyone =)
> >
> >Quoting James Higgins:
> >
> > >>
> >I don't have to examine the Webmind design or code because no one can in
> >fact define exactly what Real AI is.
> > >>
> >
> >Oh, oh, oh !! But you can define exactly how my brains work ? Where is
> >etc... If not, where would RNIs be safer, faster, better than SIAI, Fai
> >whatever ? You seem to be pretty closed-minded on the whole issue. I can
> >feel you biased but I do not know why. _yet_ =)
> You really didn't read my posts, did you? I NEVER SAID, ANYWHERE that
> were going to be faster, cheaper, better, or any such thing. I was
> pointing out that the argument that RNIs would definitely arrive after AI
> is an unsupportable argument! There is not enough fact known about the
> exact development of either in order to create a realistic future time
> And I take that as a serious insult, by the way. Calling someone
> closed-minded is very rude.
> > >>
> >Given a fully functioning General AI, the availability of strong
> >and that this AI has access to nanotech (I find this VERY unlikely), then
> >yes. But what fool is going to give a seed AI access to nanotech? And
> >this still requires a functioning General AI that we still have no idea
> >to build.
> > >>
> >
> >The same type of fool that believe that fully intelligent (same level as
> >FAI, self optimizing, etc....) RNIs will be here before SIAI or that RNIs
> >are more/less advanced. They are both far away, with pros and cons.
> >Which fruit is more a fruit than the other one ? The orange or the pear ?
> >None, they both are fruits, period.
> >Will all due respect, to me, you and that fool, do look
> >quite similar. Go take that Vision interface, come here and make it work
> >my shattered knee caps =), then we'll talk =) By then FAI will be all
> >the place =)
> Ok, I'm done replying to your posts. If your not going to bother reading
> my posts thoroughly enough to make intelligent replies, but instead just
> reply to insult me what is the point. The only thing your doing is
> lowering the quality of this list with pointless bantering tripe in order
> to insult me. If you wish to continue this behavior please take this to
> one of the thousands of pointless lists that exist out there.
> Thank you,
> James Higgins

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT