From: Keith Henson (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Jun 18 2006 - 17:43:24 MDT
At 08:21 PM 6/18/2006 +0000, you wrote:
>Concept is pretty simple. You develop really powerful analytical/debugging
>applications that can display the entire contents of the AI mind in
>tractable and useful visual representations and extrapolations into future
>states of the mind.
This *might* work, but my feeling is it would be harder, maybe a *lot*
harder than designing the AI in the first place.
>Let the AI 'sleep' (i.e. down-time) long enough to periodically analyze
>the entire contents of the mind. The point in the analysis is to isolate
>areas of potential risk/danger and either directly modify/secure these
>areas, or to instruct the AI via it's communication channel with the
>programmers (and obviously check up on the AI's obediance).
>Theoertically, the only window for danger would be in the period it is
>awake and thinking. It would need to come to several conclusions
>simultaneously that all affirmed some non-Friendly behavior, and develop
>that intention into a non-Friendly action before it went to sleep.
>A strategy to combat this possibility would be to develop dynamic
>diaognostic software, that could actively monitor the entire range of the
>AI's mental and external actions. A comprehensive security system would
>need to be developed to set alerts, automatic shut downs, security
>warnings, and anything abnormal or potentially remarkeable.
>The point of implementing this strategy is to allow a non-verifiably
>Friendly AGI to help the programmers and mathematicians developing
>Friendliness theory in a relatively safe and reliable manner.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT