From: Samantha Atkins (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jun 27 2002 - 15:34:18 MDT
James Higgins wrote:
> At 01:50 AM 6/27/2002 -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>> Ben Goertzel wrote:
>>> Remember -- in my proposal, this is an *advisory* group anyway, so it
>>> wouldn't have real power over what an AGI's owner does with it....
>>> How then
>>> could it be suicidal?
>> If it had much publicity, honor, clout or power all the above
>> scenarios are distinctly possible given normal human politics. If the
>> world takes it seriously at all it will have all of these and stiff
>> political competition to get on the committee and conflicting
>> agendas. I guarantee that the people (may their black little hearts
>> be praised) and the politicians (whose even blacker hearts are
>> generally damned) will not let the nerd only put super-nerds on a
>> committee such as this.
> For the record, THIS is why I wanted to avoid using the word committee.
> Why would it need publicity? It wouldn't need to be any more publicized
> than SIAI or this mailing list. And who cares if the World takes it
> seriously, the only people who would need to take it seriously are those
> doing SI research.
I think you are contradicting yourself. The committee is needed
because these developments effect everyone and the people will
eventually understand this and wish to insure that the efforts
are reasonably well guided. There is no way it will not be
publicized if it is needed in the first place. And thus the
>> I still don't see how or where you are going to get this greater
>> wisdom or how what you propose will produce a more safe and agreeable
>> outcome. We are talking about the innovation to end all innovations
>> here! We are talking about that which will turn every institution on
>> Earth inside out and change everything forever for humankind. Where,
>> on this earth, will you find the mind or minds who are ready to take
>> on this responsibility and who have the right balance to carry it
>> off. I have doubts that mind exists at all at this time. But if it
>> does exist I don't expect to find it in a committee.
> Actually, I'm not going to even bother to address this point (again)
> because I've done it several times now.
Yes, but imho, not convincingly. Which is why I said "I *still*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:39 MDT