RE: SIAI's flawed friendliness analysis

From: Rafal Smigrodzki (
Date: Wed May 21 2003 - 16:57:25 MDT

Ben wrote:
> Rafal wrote:
>> Now, of course if you are familiar with the way research progresses,
>> you know that the power of public research comes from the lack of
>> bureaucratic regulation and the reliance on peer review,
>> collaboration and public disclosure. This is why AI's from this
>> program would be better than AI's built in little closeted groups,
>> and since only peer-reviewed programs (as opposed to
>> bureaucrat-reviewed ones) would be funded, there would be the best
>> balance between safety and efficiency.
> Rafal, you have some solid and valid points here, but you should also
> recall that the track record of heavily government-funded AI research
> is not very good.

### Yes, I might be influenced by the importance of public spending in
biomedical research.

> What I think will happen is this. A maverick group (unfunded or
> minorly funded by the gov't) will make a big breakthrough that
> clearly gets us halfway or more to real AGI. Then the government
> will wise up -- because the mainstream of AI researchers and their
> representatives in gov't are not stupid or poorly-intentioned, just
> sometimes inflexible and biased -- and start funding the breakthrough
> approach and other approaches like it.
### I agree.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:42 MDT