Re: Destruction of All Humanity

From: micah glasser (
Date: Wed Dec 14 2005 - 10:01:40 MST

I agree with Jef on the importance of having a framework of shared
values/goals. I don't mean anything fancy shmancy when I posit the good as
something objective. What I have in mind is precisely what evolution
programmed us for. I believe that human evolution leads inexorably toward
more efficient societies of humans that are more and more interconnected
through their information technologies. The good is merely human flourishing,
as the Greeks put it. So in my opinion if the term 'benevolent AI' has any
meaning what so ever then it must mean that it either, in no way obstructs
human flourishing (the good) or, preferably, it actually aids and
facilitates this flourishing. What better way to ensure this state then to
program AI to recognize human flourishing as the greatest state of affairs
and to welcome the AI into human society as a fellow, though different,
member. One more thing I must clarify. I believe (for a plethora of reasons)
that all rational agents will necessarily have for their goal increasing the
state of freedom as a super goal of the individual and society. If I am
correct in this (and I am) then it will not be possible to program a truly
rational agent without including achieving greater freedom (power/knowledge)
as a super goal.

On 12/14/05, Jef Allbright <> wrote:
> On 12/14/05, David Picon Alvarez <> wrote:
> > From: "micah glasser" <>
> > Intelligence cannot help you ypu select for the good. The Good must be
> > programmed into the AI. Once the AI knows what the Good is then its
> > intelligence will surpass any human intelligence in figuring out how to
> > obtain bringing about the Good. If the Good is failed to be programmed
> into
> > the machine as its super-goal then it wil certainly be malevolent. Super
> > intelligence is not a god. Its merely a tool.
> >
> >
> > Were you programmed with the good? Are you certainly malevolent? What
> > distinguishes you from an AI, evolution? Evolution doesn't bring about
> the
> > good, it brings about what works in evolutionary environments, far from
> the
> > good. If the good is objectively existent a super AI can find it, if not
> > then there's no point in talking about "the good", we'd rather talk
> about
> > what we want instead.
> >
> David makes good points here, but interestingly, as we subjective
> agents move through an objectively described world, we tend to ratchet
> forward in the direction we see as (subjectively) good. Since we are
> not alone, but share values in common with other agents (this can be
> extended to non-human agents of varying capabilities) there is a
> tendency toward progressively increasing the measure of subjective
> good.
> Appreciating and understanding the principles that describe this
> positive-sum growth would lead us to create frameworks to facilitate
> the process of (1) increasing awareness of shared values, and (2)
> increasing awareness of instrumental methods for achieving our goals.
> This paradigm would supersede earlier concepts of morality, politics
> and government.
> In my humble opinion. ;-)
> - 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