Re: Friendly Existential Wager

From: James Higgins (
Date: Fri Jun 28 2002 - 15:09:30 MDT

At 04:27 PM 6/28/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>James Higgins wrote:
> > At 03:44 PM 6/28/2002 -0400, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> >>
> >> Actually, my philosophy differs from Ben's in that I think that you
> >> need substantially more advance knowledge, in general, to bring any
> >> kind of AI characteristic into existence, including Friendliness. From
> >> Ben's perspective, this makes me arrogant; from my perspective, Ben's
> >> reliance on emergence
> >
> > No, no, no, no, no. Statements like this make you appear immature. Your
> > belief does NOT make you arrogant. Your unwavering confidence in that
> > belief and inability to concede that others could be correct where you
> > are wrong makes you arrogant.
>My unwavering confidence exists only in your imagination.

Good, I can accept a reality in which I'm personally deluded, deranged, or
such but the human race is, in fact, safe. Of course, that means I would
continue to argue my viewpoint indefinitely...

Luckily, I don't believe that I am deluded or deranged. Thus you may
someday change my mind if you are correct.

>My "inability to concede that others could be correct where I am wrong" is
>phrased in such a way as to evoke a visualization of debate as a social
>game. A better phrasing of this accusation would be "rejection of others'
>ideas because they are others', rather than because negative evidence
>outweighed positive evidence". But in any case that is also your imagination.

My intention was not to evoke a visualization of debate as a social
game. If I did such please consider it a mistake as this is no game.

>If you repeat these accusations indefinitely, it does not make them any
>more true, and I hope that the readers on SL4 will read my writings and
>judge for themselves rather than believing this accusation just because it
>has been repeated often enough.

Well, I at least endeavor to provide new reasons, concepts, arguments, etc.
to support my view. Thus I will not, at least intentionally, repeat a
static argument over and over. Though I do reserve the right to continue
arguing for my point as long as I think doing so has value. Which has a
built-in safe guard in that I have much to do and little time to do it, so
I'll only spend significant time on this while I think it is doing (or has
potential to do) good.

James Higgins

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:39 MDT