From: Marc Geddes (marc_geddes@yahoo.co.nz)
Date: Thu Jul 14 2005 - 02:45:47 MDT
--- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
wrote:
>
> If you are positing both what I said above *AND*
> that the universal
> morality in question happens to be one that *you*
> would find
> "friendly", even though you believe yourself to be
> below the "must
> be in line with universal morality" boundary, well,
> that's beyond
> a simple crazy idea into anthropocentrism of the
> worst kind.
>
> I support your decision not to debate this, firmly.
> When you've got
> math, let us know.
>
> -Robin
>
> --
> http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ ***
> http://www.lojban.org/
> Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their
> Grate!"
> Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute -
> http://intelligence.org/
>
Um.. I have no idea what you’re going on about here.
I never claimed to know what the ‘Universal Morality’
was. I only posited that *some* UM existed. So no, I
certainly don’t claim that the UM will look anything
like a morality I like (or even be comprehensible to
me).
Also, my theory is a bit more subtle than what was
said. ‘Friendliness’ is not something which is ‘all
or nothing’. So I’m not saying there’s some sort of
*fixed* boundary on intelligence for the unfriendly
ai’s. The boundary will differ for each ai depending
on it’s *degree* of friendliness. The more friendly
the ai in question is, the longer it would take to hit
it's practical intelligence ceiling.
Finally, I should clarify that I think it is the
*rate* or *process* of *getting smarter and acting in
the world* that is linked to morality, *not*
intelligence per se. Intelligence is not linked to
the *content* of morality (the goals/beliefs), it is
linked to the *structure* of morality (the process of
acting).
You could have an ultra-smart unfriendly, but it would
have great difficulty getting smarter or acting in the
world (suffering from instability and intractability
problems). The probability of a stable, tractable
goal system declines for an unfriendly the smarter it
is. That’s what I’m positing. Hopefully that
clarifies. I’ll make that my last post (I’d exceeded
the posting limit I just remembered).
--- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --- Please visit my web-site: Mathematics, Mind and Matter http://www.riemannai.org/ --- Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:51 MDT