From: David Picon Alvarez (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Dec 13 2005 - 08:15:21 MST
I don't have time to reply to this in detail, but:
From: "Phillip Huggan" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> I notice an analogy between AGI ideas and the evolution of government.
We have democracy, this resembles CV. However, Collective Volition can be
improved upon. Eliezer's CV essay remarks that no one should be at the
mercy of another's arbitrary beliefs. If you make people more like they'd
like to be, I think you are magnifying the bad in people too. Regardless,
freedom and free-will are really at our core. Having an AGI enforce a
simple Charter of Rights and Freedoms would ensure none of us are impinged
upon, instead of damning the minority. The CV essay states that no one is
in a wise enough position to make normative judgements about such things,
but this is simply not true. There are plenty of people employed in social
sciences who don't do much of value. But some of their products include
very well thought out documents. One of the few books I've kept with me
through my moves is titled "The Human Rights Reader". Also "The Canada
Charter of Rights and Freedom!
> http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/ is being used as a model in many
developing nations. Obviously this is not an optimal goal system, but I
think it is an improvement to CV. I don't know how difficult it would be to
program an AGI to implement such a charter while still preserving or
effecting/accelerating the many types of progress we seem to have open to us
in the absence of AGI. Earth is bountiful enough that there aren't any
tough ethical zero-sum dillemnas where an AGI actually would have to take
essential-for-charter physical resources from one judged inferior person and
give to another judged superior person, at least until just before the end
of the universe.
1.If such a charter of rights is what people would want if they were smarter
and friendlier, CEV would select for it, so CEV includes as a possible
outcome such a charter of rights.
2. A superhuman AI or RPOP or call it what you will is going to be able to
work things out to a much more significant level of refinement than any
human political philosopher, and imposing the limitations of human political
philosophers would be akin to enforcing speed limits designed for cars to
spaceships. If you're so sure the charter is perfect, or near perfect, then
there's no problem, CEV will find that's the right mode of organizing
things. But I doubt it is. Note that Eliezer says "arbitrary beliefs", that
arbitrary has meaning there.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:54 MDT