From: Michael Roy Ames (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun May 30 2004 - 16:49:58 MDT
Mark Waser, you wrote,
> Also, there's always the fact that you really can't
> have only one, monstrous yet fully-integrated mind.
> The cost of maintaining consistency across a mind
> scales with size/complexity. Beyond a certain size
> point, all you'll be doing is maintaining consistency.
If the entire mind is to maintain complete consistency for each and every
decision, then you are almost certainly correct. However, full consistency
may not be necessary to increase intelligence. I suspect there are
trade-offs that can be made, and I am currently not smart enough to guess
what short-cuts a monstrous mind might come up with.
> You will always have non-integrated parts (also known
> as individuals) [snip]
You will have non-integrated parts *if* that is how you build the mind.
> Also, it is entirely incorrect to dismiss a conclusion
> because the reasoning process that arrived at it is
How then do you propose to judge conclusions, or answers, that have not yet
been verified against reality but that on which we need to rely?
> It's one hour before the destruction of the human race.
> I have twenty doors - nineteen take 50 minutes to
> traverse and come back, one leads to the total
> invulnerability of human beings in 25 minutes. Do I
> want one runner or twenty?
An FAI simply forks twenty processes to do the job. FAI != human.
> You lost me at "one AI cares only about paperclips,
> while the other cares only about staples". They both
> care about friendliness. [snip]
Yep, you missed the argument. The AIs being describe were unfriendly.
Re-read it again without *any* assumptions other than that the AIs have the
goals as given: paperclips or staples.
> I don't believe that there is anything that a single
> individual can do that is so far ahead of the curve
> that it can't be explained in a reasonable amount of
Believe it or not there is plenty! I cannot explain any of half a dozen
subjects I know well to some members of my own work-peer-group so that they
could understand it, and I'm not even 'ahead of the curve'. The audience
might simply lack the terminology and concepts needed the understand the
information "in a reasonable amount of time".
> [snip] Science isn't magic. Science, by definition,
> is reproducible.
AI theory is not like Physics equations. You can't write it down on a
single sheet of letterhead. A good example might be Ben's own Novamente
documentation - it is huge! Are you expecting FAI documentation to be any
> [snip] normally I wait to use those words until we
> both can point to one pretty low-level fact that is the
> linch-pin of both our arguments on which we disagree.
> I don't think that the community is anywhere near that
> point on one FAI versus many.
Perhaps this is the crux of the problem, that you are expecting a low-level
fact but are being presented with a high-level assessment. I don't know
about the 'community', but perhaps this reformulation might help...
It is knowably more difficult to design a set of independent social beings
that tend as a group to constrain their growth and development along a
Friendly trajectory, than to design a singleton to do the same.
There is knowably more risk in failing to get a 6 when rolling a dice
multiple times, instead of one time - even when the dice is loaded.
Redundancy is a good thing in certain situations. It would be very often
true that a group of three humans could address a challenging problem
together much more effectly than a single person, even if they each all have
a Pocket Armagedon (TM), unless one (or more) of them was an intelligent
Michael Roy Ames
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:47 MDT