Re: SIAI's flawed friendliness analysis

From: Bill Hibbard (
Date: Fri May 23 2003 - 10:17:22 MDT

On Wed, 21 May 2003, Samantha wrote:

> On Tuesday 20 May 2003 02:18 pm, Bill Hibbard wrote:
> > Pointing out the difficulties does not justify not even
> > trying. Independent development of AI will be unsafe. A
> > political process is not guaranteed to solve the problem,
> > but it is necessary to at least try to stop humans who
> > will purposely build unsafe AIs for their own imagined
> > benefit.
> Actually, why your proposal will not work at all has been pointed out
> by several persons over multiple emails You continue to insist that
> it must be done anyway without refuting the arguments that your plan
> is unworkable. What is the point?

No, all that have been pointed out are difficulties,
which I admit. The point is that on the big issues
like the singularity, there are always difficulties.
The point that I made from the beginning is that the
SIAI analysis says the problem of people and
institutions who have motives to build unsafe AIs
can be solved without using the force of law. I

> . . .
> > It really comes down to who you trust. I favor a broad
> > political process because I trust the general public more
> > than any individual or small group. Of course, democratic
> > goverement does enlist the help of experts on technical
> > questions, but ultimate authority is with the public.
> > When you say "AI would be incomprehensible to the vast
> > majority of persons involved in the political process"
> > I think you are not giving them enough credit. Democratic
> > politics have managed to cope with some pretty complex
> > and difficult problems.
> >
> Trusting the general public in such an area rather speaks for itself
> as does a belief that the real authority is or should be in the hands
> of the public at large. The vast majority in the US believe in
> demons, can't find Iraq (Brazil, India, Russia(!), etc.) on a world
> map, read less than one non-fiction book in their lives after
> schooling, barely understand simple algebra and so on. Your faith
> in them is touching but the masses really do no deserve this sort of
> credit. Failure to understand this or any other unpleasant facts
> will not serve us.

Thanks for being so clear about that. This is a pretty
basic difference in our attitudes, and there is probably
no point in trying to resolve it.


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