From: Keith Henson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu May 20 2004 - 22:11:47 MDT
At 09:50 PM 19/05/04 -0700, you wrote:
>On May 17, 2004, at 8:50 PM, Keith Henson wrote:
>>The most fundamental actions a person can take involves reproduction.
>>I am personally *extremely* uncomfortable because the logic and my
>>personal feelings are in deep conflict. If there is unlimited
>>reproduction or even replication in a limited environment, eventually the
>>population is reduced to extreme material poverty. They just don't have
>>enough atoms available.
>What does logic or your feelings have to do with it? We are fast
>developing the ability to reprogram ourselves.
Without the utmost caution, that way lies oblivion.
>We need not be bound by any supposed past evolutionary imperative that no
>longer serves what we choose to do next. Reading EP and understanding it
>should not lead to believing we are not increasingly free to re-write that
You really should read Minsky's society of mind on this topic. Being able
to change your deepest desires on a whim is not a power to be used lightly.
>It sometimes seems to me that even SL4 folks aren't fully cognizant of the
>degree of incredible pending freedom.
And after you have removed your basic drives just what are you going to do
with that "freedom"?
>>Now, with our memes shaped by a number generations of relative plenty, we
>>think that killing off the neighboring tribe's males and taking their
>>resources and women is double-plus-ungood. But if it comes down to
>>strong restrictions on breeding or an occasional bout of slaughter and be
>>slaughtered, which do you pick? The simplest math will tell you the
>>human race will be forced to picking one or the other, either by our own
>>volition or that imposed by an AI.
>It quite obviously comes down to no such thing unless we are foolish
>enough or simply too slow to grasp and exercise the potentials now before
>us. Why waste valuable time attempting to choose between two obviously
>inferior positions in the space of all possibilities?
>>(My personal preference is the third way, leave for the far side of the
>>galaxy and let others figure out what to do.)
>This is also an overly limited and limiting choice in my opinion.
Do you have specific ideas of what to do?
>>>Keith, when you wrote: "...understanding these [Ev.Psyc.] matters might be
>>>essential to providing the environment in which friendly AI can be
>>>-- Sort of. It is not the environment that will be improved, but the
>>>accuracy of the FAI's human-cognition model.
>>I wasn't clear as to what I meant. AI research requires considerable
>>technologic support. An environment that because of massive resource
>>wars lacked computers and even food for the researchers would not be
>>conducive to much progress.
>Even without improving the human creatures and even without AI or MNT,
>there is no need for a resource war, especially in energy.
Certainly. 30 years ago I was working on solar power satellites, one of
the few ways that will solve the energy crisis. The problem is not "need
for a resource war," but getting one like it or not. As I put it recently,
stone age psychological traits pulling on
> It is more likely we will wreck our economies (as we are doing a fine
> job of in the US) and act so belligerently as to bring on a war of most
> other countries against the US. But it will not be over resources per
> se although that may be the most apparent "explanation".
>>>It is very important that an
>>>FAI understand the ways in which human think so that it can better model the
>>>future, and better understand the human-generated data that will be
>>>presented to it. It is not enough for an FAI to determine that Johnny
>>>behaves with an approximation to Bayesian rationality 82.6% of the time.
>>>FAI needs to know what Johnny is mentally doing the other 17.4%, and why,
>>>and in what situations his cognition is likely to switch between modes.
>The implicit assumption that humans will remain relatively static must
>also be overcome.
As I put it on another thread:
"It is a dire and depressing business to realize that genes optimized in
the stone age to cope with periodic privation of hunter gatherers are now
pulling strings attached to nukes."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 18 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT