From: Marc Geddes (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jul 14 2005 - 22:59:18 MDT
--- Ben Goertzel <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Marc Geddes wrote:
> > Iím positing that an unfriendly AI cannot
> > past a certain point (i.e itís intelligence level
> > be limited by itís degree of unfriendliness). I
> > that only a friendly ai can undergo unlimited
> > recursive self-improvement.
> I find this to be a most improbable statement...
You find it 'improbable', Robin finds it 'lunatic' and
M.Wilson thinks I'm 'merely engaging in wishful
thinking' This is great! :D It shows that my theory
is actually crazy enough to be true.
Niels Bohr Quote:
> I am curious, however, how you are construing the
> sense of "Friendly" here.
I define a 'friendly' AI as one that respects volition
(seeks harmonious relationships with other sentients)
and is growth oriented (always seeks to better itself
subject to the volition-respecting restraint).
> For instance, what about a superhuman AI whose goal
> is to advance science,
> math and technology as far as possible?
> What fundamental limits on self-improvement do you
> think such an AI is going
> to encounter?
> Can you please outline your argument, using this
> science-focused AI as an
I'll try. Let me first use a bit of maths notation to
loosely define what I was actually suggesting.
Let's call this: 'The Geddes Conjecture'
--- The Geddes conjecture in maths terms: Function Intelligence (Predictions) = Big Oh [ Function Friendliness (Utilities) ] Intelligence I loosey define as the ability to make accurate prediction and friendliness I loosely defined above as utilities which tend to promote volition and growth (self-betterment). A graph of the intelligence function would have IQ along one axis, and a set of all predictions made (mapped to a single point) on the other axis (the graph gives the implied IQ for a given set of predictions). A graph of the friendliness function would have some suitable measure of volition/growth along one axis, and the set of utilities of the goal system (mapped to a point) along the other axis (the graph gives the implied level of friendliness for a given set of utilities). The Geddes conjecture then states that I think the intelligence level of any sentient is bounded (in the limit) by the level of friendliness of that sentient. --- Now in the case of the example you gave, an AI whose goal is to advance science, math and technology as far as possible, it seems to me that such an AI might actually become friendly in the long-run (but it wouldn't be friendly to start with!) Because advancing science requires an ever increasing ability to make accurate predictions, and according to the Geddes conjecture, this would require adding utilities for respecting volition. How could unfriendly utilities be limiting the predictive ability? The answer I think, is that growth is somehow connected to respecting volition. The process of interacting with other sentients in a harmonious way actually helps us to grow (become better people ourselves). So I think growth is a *moving towards* altruism. This sounds vaguely plausible. As an observed human fact it does seem like learning to harmoniously interact with others in some sense makes us 'more than we are' (expands our circle of being). Let me try to give another reason for a link between friendly utilities and intelligence. What *use* is morality? If it doesn't have some sort of innate use to us, it's not clear why we couldn't simply dispense with the concept altogether. So surely we should assume that being moral is connected with our own well-being somehow. That being the case, a link between friendly utilities and getting smarter sounds vaguely plausible. Note that 'harmonious relationships' (gettiing along with others) is analogous to 'health' (which consists of internal mental and physical states of a sentient functioing harmoniously). There's an analogy between the social and personal sphere. Could there be something more here than just analogy? Perhaps hurting others adversely affects mental health in general? Note that as an observed fact, evil people do tend to suffer from mental instability more than decent folks. This are admittedly all rather weak sounding arguments, buyt they are suggestive none the less. They do I think, move my conjecture from being 'ludicrous' to being 'vaguely plausible' > > I might agree that there are limits to the > intelligence of an AI embodying a > classic human notion of "evil", if only because once > a system becomes smart > enough, it may inevitably understand how idiotic > this human notion of "evil" > is. The emotional complexes underlying human evil > and destructiveness may > well be tied to limitations in intelligence. > > However, as Eli has ably pointed out over the years > (following in the > footsteps of many prior futurists and sf authors), > there are many ways for a > superhuman AI's goal system to threaten human life, > even if that AI has no > "evil" in it. > > -- Ben G > > > > I don't think 'evil' is an active agency like 'friendliness' is. I define evil simply to be an absence of friendliness in a sentient. If a superhuman AI threatens human life, it's evil by my definition. --- 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