Re: Investing in FAI research: now vs. later

From: Peter C. McCluskey (
Date: Wed Feb 20 2008 - 12:07:43 MST (Rolf Nelson) writes:
>> If you're very confident that that humanity is doomed without FAI, your
>> conclusion is reasonable. But I see no reason for that confidence. Models
>> where a number of different types of AI cooperate to prevent any one AI
>> from conquering the world seem at least as plausible as those that imply
>> we're doomed without FAI.
>Is there a specific model you're talking about? It doesn't matter whether

 JoSH has talked about this kind of model somewhat in Beyond AI, and I've
heard Steve Omohundro mention it. I don't know of anything I'd call a
specific model (but then I haven't seen anything that I'd call a specific
model of FAI).
 There appears to be a serious lack of communication between people who
think we're doomed without FAI and the people who expect a diverse society
of AIs. It appears that the leading advocates of one outcome can't imagine
how anyone could believe the other outcome is possible. This appears to be
a symptom of a serious failure of rationality somewhere. I wish I could
lock the leaders of each side of this schism into a room and not let them
out until they either reached agreement or came up with a clear explanation
of why they disagreed. Presumably part of the disagreement is over the
speed at which AI will take off, but that can't explain the certainty with
which each side appears to dismiss the other.

>the architecture is diverse or monolithic as long as it works, so are you
>bringing this up because you believe a friendly outcome will somehow emerge
>naturally, without anyone have to lift a finger to design friendliness into

 Not necessarily "emerge naturally", and friendly only in a very weak sense
such as not causing human extinction.

Peter McCluskey         | The road to hell is paved with overconfidence| in your good intentions. - Stuart Armstrong

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT