From: Daniel Radetsky (daniel@radray.us)
Date: Mon Aug 30 2004 - 08:37:12 MDT
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:30:28 +0200
fatherjohn@club-corsica.com wrote:
> Selon fatherjohn@club-corsica.com:
>
> | How much money do you consider to be "serious"?
> |
> | Sorry if this sounds arrogant, but quite frankly, I think
> | that for
> | you, $100 for two hours' work would certainly be worth
> | it.
> |
>
> "Both arrogant and rude."
>
> Arrogant, rude, but most likely correct.
>
>
> "Furthermore, you assume that only two hours of work is involved."
>
> Please educate me as to how many hours of work would be involved.
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> Etes vous prêt : http://www.club-corsica.com
> Le 1er quotidien d'infos Corse sur le net
"Father-John":
First, when someone points out an error in etiquette you have made, this is a
signal to apologize, or at least not do it again, not to continue pounding on
your point. Keep in mind that:
1) If you were to say such things in face-to-face conversation, they would be deemed so vulgar that few would have the nerve to continue talking to you. I certainly wouldn't.
2) Despite appearances, these electronic communications we are sending are
actually being read by human beings.
Aside from this, by trying so hard to perform the AI-box experiment so you can
win your $100, you're sort of missing the point. I don't think it would be very
hard for me to tell Eliezer that I wasn't going to let him out of the "box" on
the grounds that I wanted $100, but that's not the same as saying that it
wouldn't be a good strategy to let the real AI out. That is, if she really could
give me a cure for cancer which I could test and verify as usable, wouldn't that
be compelling evidence to let her out? Lots of other arguments could be made. I
won't make them, but you should be making them instead of playing games which,
in my view, have very limited validity.
Daniel Radetsky
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:48 MDT