From: Nick Tarleton (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Nov 29 2008 - 16:16:53 MST
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Charles Hixson
> You are assuming that an AGI will be modeled on human motivations, etc. I
> find this highly suspect. My expectation is that it will model human
> motivations only sufficiently to understand us, and to explain itself to us
> in terms that we can accept. As for resources... the surface of a planet is
> not an optimal location for machines. Not unless they are designed to use
> liquid water as an essential component. Asteroids have a lot to reccommend
> themselves, including constant access to sunlight for power. Other moons
> without atmospheres also have potential. Mercury has lots of power
> available, just not continually unless you transfer it down from orbit.
> Etc. Luna isn't a very good choice, as it doesn't have any real advantages
> except a lack of air, and the rocks are rather low in mass, which indicates
> that metals will be hard to come by. (People have come up with all sorts of
> schemes to extract them, but mainly because Luna is close to Earth.)
> My expectation is that an AGI will stick around Earth only if it really
> likes being around people. (Of course, it might leave, and then return
> after it had mined out the rest of the more easily accessible solar system.)
Sounds like you're assuming human motivations, namely, satisficing as
opposed to maximizing. I would expect all matter and energy to be maximally
exploited under most simple goal systems.
> One could, of course, design an AGI to want to kill people, but I think
> only a person would come up with that as a goal.
Resources aside, killing agents that might compete with you (including by
building another AGI with different goals) is a convergent subgoal.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 24 2013 - 04:01:09 MDT