From: micah glasser (micahglasser@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Dec 13 2005 - 22:58:10 MST
Let me clarify on my comments about the categorical imeperative. Of course
the CI does not constitute a goal system in and of itself. What I am
proposing is that personal freedom be the highest attainable goal. If this
is the goal and it is left unchecked then any intelligence would quickly
learn to impose its will on others. And in the case of a super intelligence
this would be a disaster. However, if the descsion making network were built
around a CI then the AI would continuously act to advance its own knowledge
and power (to increase personal freedom) as part of its goal system but
would never act in a way that would obviously interfere with the free will
of another. In this manner it could fulfill all of its potential with out
coming into conflict with any other rational agent.On 12/14/05, Jef
Allbright <jef@jefallbright.net > wrote:
>
> On 12/13/05, Tennessee Leeuwenburg < tennessee@tennessee.id.au> wrote:
> > Jef Allbright wrote:
> >
> > >On 12/13/05, Michael Vassar <michaelvassar@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>The same confusion relates to the discussion of the categorical
> imperative.
> > >>The categorical imperative simply makes no sense for an AI. It
> doesn't tell
> > >>the AI what to want universally done. Rational entities WILL do what
> their
> > >>goal system tells them to do. They don't need "ethics" in the human
> sense
> > >>of rules countering other inclinations. What they need is
> inclinations
> > >>compatible with ours.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >Let me see if I can understand what you're saying here. Do you mean
> > >that to the extent an agent is rational, it will naturally use all of
> > >its instrumental knowledge to promote its own goals and from its point
> > >of view there would be no question that such action is good?
> > >
> > >If this is true, then would it also see increasing its objective
> > >knowledge in support of its goals as rational and inherently good
> > >(from its point of view?)
> > >
> > >If I'm still understanding the implications of what you said, would
> > >this also mean that cooperation with other like-minded agents, to the
> > >extent that this increased the promotion of its own goals, would be
> > >rational and good (from its point of view?)
> > >
> > >If this makes sense, then I think you may be on to an effective and
> > >rational way of looking at decision-making about "right" and "wrong"
> > >that avoids much of the contradiction of conventional views of
> > >morality.
> > >
> > >- Jef
> > >
> > >
> > Perhaps I can simplify this argument.
> >
> > The Categorical Imperative theory is an "is" not an "ought".
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -T
> >
>
> Huh? Thanks for playing.
>
> Would you like to comment on the questions I posed to Michael?
>
> - Jef
>
-- I swear upon the alter of God, eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:54 MDT