From: Samantha (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed May 21 2003 - 01:53:33 MDT
On Monday 19 May 2003 06:03 am, Philip Sutton wrote:
> Samantha said:
> > b) At the current pace of change unaugmented human beings or any
> > conceivable arrangement of such even with the aid of non-AI
> > computers are increasingly unable to make wise and effective
> > decisions. A dangerously capricious world results. It can only
> > be remedied by AI and, to a probable lesser extent, by augmented
> > and mind-linked humans. In short, we are not bright enough to
> > long survive unaided.
> Humans are certainly bright enough - with adequate education - it's
> what we apply our cleverness to or fail to apply it to that causes
> most of the problems. This syndrome might only be made worse if we
> produce super-clever AGIs but fail to develop adequate AGI morality
> and adequate AGI education.
I am sorry but this is cleary false. Human brains only work at a
relatively slow speed and have known limitations in multiple areas.
Human societal/group interactions introduce still other limitations.
An assumption that such can be overcome by education does not wash as
education does not make the human brain run any faster or reduce
human interaction overhead.
In my own field of software engineering I run into the limits of
human brightness/ability quite regularly. I see no evidence in
other fields that similar limits are not present.
> AGIs are not the solution to *this* problem they are just an
> extension of the existing problem.
You do not believe that something with that things several orders of
magnitude faster than you can outperform you and deal successfully
with more complex situations than you or a group of people like you
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:42 MDT