From: Mark Waser (mwaser@cox.net)
Date: Sun May 30 2004 - 07:10:10 MDT
> Having multiple independent AIs with different histories is an already
> acknowledged good idea.
Cool . . . . except that I haven't seen it after hanging around for a while
. . . . and the following questions of the FAQ seem not to acknowledge the
idea AT ALL (quite the converse actually):
Q2.9: Isn't a community [of AIs, of humans] more trustworthy than a single
individual?
The general rule is that if you can do something with a human, or a group
of humans, you can do it with one AI. If you can't do something using one
AI, you can't do it using two AIs.
Q2.7: Won't a community of AIs be more efficient than a single AI?
An anthropomorphic assumption. Humans are nonagglomerative; in fact, we
aren't even telepathic. The bandwidth between two humans is too narrow to
share thoughts and memories, much less share neurons.
<snip>
You can do things with ten humans that currently can't be done by any
single mind on the planet. But when was the last time you took a task away
from one human and gave it to ten chimpanzees? Humans don't come in
different sizes - so if ten small minds are a better use of the same
computing power than one big mind, how would we know?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:47 MDT