Re: Donaldson, Tegmark and AGI

From: Russell Wallace (
Date: Sun Aug 13 2006 - 08:45:51 MDT

On 8/13/06, BillK <> wrote:
> You might mean well, but unfortunately what you are doing meets the
> definition of a troll.

Not so.

(v.) (1) To deliberately post derogatory or inflammatory comments to a
> community forum, chat room, newsgroup and/or a blog in order to bait
> other users into responding.

Had that been my purpose, it would indeed be trolling. However:

1) I was not deliberately being inflammatory; I knew it would occur as a
side effect, but I do not know any non-inflammatory way to make the points
that needed to be made. If I did, I would have used it.

2) I did not post in order to bait other users into responding. I posted
because certain things needed to be said. I didn't expect it to endear me to
people who hold the belief systems I'm criticizing, but (assuming you think
I'm wrong) postulate for the sake of argument that I were right -
considering the stakes, would it not then be better to speak up than keep

I therefore meet neither criterion.

There are millions of groups out there and plenty of them will provide
> views opposing AI.

I do not oppose AI - on the contrary, as I said, I think we're going to need
it. I disagree with certain propositions about AI, and with approaches
derived from those propositions.

But it is not the done thing to go on a Coca-Cola
> group and post that Pepsi is really better. :)

It is however the done thing to - taking a real example - go on a space
group and post that an Orion drive would not reduce the cost of launching
things to orbit, and conventional rockets are really better. (To post that
spaceflight is pointless would be another thing - but I do not believe AGI
is pointless; that's why I'm here.)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:57 MDT