Re: "friendly" humans?

From: Lawrence Foard (
Date: Fri Jan 02 2004 - 15:37:44 MST

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> There is no definition of "The Good", so it would be rather difficult
> to transfer the desire to do it to a creature when we can't really
> determine what "it" is ourselves.
> (I strongly argue that there is no such thing as "the good" outside of
> the context of a subjective set of desires on the part of one desirer,
> but that's another story.)

Actually the second paragraph is very important. A 'Good' AI would have to
be one thats sufficiently human to share human desires. What we consider
pain and suffering is just a certain set of nerve impulses in a certain
configuration. There is nothing universal about this that implies that
this pattern of nerve firing is 'Bad'.

You might be able to make a general statement. That which an organism
acts so as to continue experiencing is good, that which an organism seeks
to avoid is bad. But it has some problems already.

Of course that tells you that heroin is good and work is bad. So your AI
goes and ships everyone off to the "work free drug place" after making
some adjustments to there opiate systems so they never gain a tolerance,
or die from massive doses of all the best drugs a super smart being can
whip up ]:)

 Laughter-Confusion, Pleasure-Pain, Happyness-Sadness, Excitement-Fear,
 Love-Hate, etc. The true primary emotions, a modifier makes each into two.
 This modifier is acceptance/unacceptance. Let go, surrender, accept...
  Be a counter terrorist perpetrate random senseless acts of kindness

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:43 MDT