Re: On the dangers of AI

From: Brian Atkins (
Date: Wed Aug 17 2005 - 12:50:03 MDT

Richard Loosemore wrote:
> Brian,
> I am going to address your larger issue in a more general post, but I
> have to point out one thing, for clarification:
> Brian Atkins wrote:
>> Richard Loosemore wrote:
>>> If you assume that it only has the not-very-introspective human-level
>>> understanding of its motivation, then this is anthropomorphism,
>>> surely? (It's a bit of a turnabout, for sure, since anthropomorphism
>>> usually means accidentally assuming too much intelligence in an
>>> inanimate object, whereas here we got caught assuming too little in a
>>> superintelligence!)
>> Here you are incorrect because virtually everyone on this list assumes
>> as a given that a superintelligence will indeed have full access to,
>> and likely full understanding of, its own "mind code".
> Misunderstanding: My argument was that Peter implicitly assumed the AI
> would not understand itself.
> I wasn't, of course, making that claim myself.

I realize that you don't claim that; it was your assumption put in Peter's mough
that is what my comment was directed at. You misinterpreted Peter's intent in my
opinion, although Peter can pipe up if I'm wrong.

Brian Atkins
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:51 MDT