From: Bill Hibbard (test@demedici.ssec.wisc.edu)
Date: Thu Jul 08 2004 - 04:39:39 MDT
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2004, at 2:25 PM, Bill Hibbard wrote:
> > It seems to me that efforts to control
> > nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are a healthy
> > precedent for controlling AI weapons.
>
>
> I disagree, there is no parallel.
I don't see what you are disagreeing with, as I did not
say there were any parallels between the technologies.
The healthy precedent is in the public realization that
there are weapons that should be controlled.
> The control of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons is generally
> based on the control of necessary exotic infrastructure and materials
> that are neither widely available nor generally distributed in consumer
> retail channels. It is NOT based on controlling information, as that
> is a fool's game and far more difficult at the very least.
>
> AI weapons can be safely manufactured from ubiquitous consumer
> technology with nothing more than a little information. As others have
> noted in many different contexts, physical things are scarce and
> therefore costly to replicate, but information can be replicated at
> extremely little cost. Control of biological, chemical, and nuclear
> weapons isn't based on controlling the replication of information, but
> on controlling the replication of scarce physical items, something
> basic economics makes far easier to do.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 21 2006 - 04:22:42 MST