From: Richard Loosemore (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Oct 17 2005 - 12:03:07 MDT
Chris Capel wrote:
> To be clear, these are your comments and not a quote? You want to
> discuss this with the list?
> On 10/16/05, Woody Long <email@example.com> wrote:
>>Some points --
>>1. "Humanoid intelligence requires humanoid interactions with the world" --
>>MIT Cog Project website
> Granted, but SL4 isn't really interested in humanoid intelligence. The
> position of the SIAI and many on this list, if I may speak for them,
> is that strictly humanoid intelligence would not likely be
> Friendly--it would be terribly dangerous under recursive
> self-modification, and likely lead to an existential catastrophe.
> Friendly AI is probably not going to end up being anything close to
You do not speak for the entire SL4 list, unless or until I (at least)
unsubscribe from it.
As far as I am concerned, the widespread (is it really widespread?) SL4
assumption that "strictly humanoid intelligence would not likely be
Friendly ...[etc.]" is based on a puerile understanding of, and contempt
of, the mechanics of human intelligence.
Whereof you disdain not to understand, thereof you should not speak.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 18 2013 - 04:00:47 MDT