From: James Higgins (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jun 28 2002 - 21:16:46 MDT
At 06:53 PM 6/28/2002 -0600, you wrote:
> > > Does this indicate that there will be no fail safe system in
> > place until
> > > after your AGI system has been conscious and running for awhile?
> > SIAI is planning to make a small grant to the Novamente project
> > which will
> > pay them to do this immediately instead of in the indefinite future.
>This is true... and many thanks to SIAI for this (very very) small grant
>(whose very small size is possible due to the willingness of our Brazilian
>implementation team to work for slave labor rates... since they want a
>thinking machine as badly as I do...)
>However, this initial failsafe mechanism will involve a very crude way of
>gauging "intelligence increase" and hence will be of limited utility. The
>real work is in measuring intelligence increase in a way flexible enough to
>"expect the unexpected", not in simply writing the code to shut things down
>then an appropriate "intelligence increase" trigger condition is reached
>(which is what we'll be doing shortly with this very small SIAI grant)...
>Left on our own, we would have waited to write the "failsafe mechanism"
>mechanics code until we had what we considered a good "intelligence increase
>measure," which will be sometime in 2003 if things go as planned. Creating
>the intelligence increase measure is an order of magnitude more work than
>writing the failsafe mechanism code...
> -- ben g
You know, I hate to be picky here, but isn't the shutdown code without the
trigger mechanism virtually useless? Do you at least plan to put in some
basic trigger mechanisms as I suggesting in another post or will this
simply be "window dressing" as you put it?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:39 MDT