From: Eric Burton (brilanon@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Jan 03 2009 - 08:36:27 MST
Still, look. If an imaginary friendly AI were to be convinced by some
artifact or phenomenon or account, that it lived in a simulated world,
there are a lot of ways that affects game theory it does. I don't know
about Rolf's gambit but all the ethical shots are off in this case. It
removes the existential kid gloves
On 1/3/09, Petter Wingren-Rasmussen <petterwr@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe I misunderstood the point here..
>
> The way I understood it the whole point was to lessen the likelihood of a
> rogue AI destroying humankind, which is pretty far from enslaving it imho.
>
> Example:
> A rogue AI in 2040 has calculating C as its primary goal, regardless of
> whats happens to humanity. It estimates the needed computronium needed for
> this to be about half the mass of Earth.
> Its first impulse is to just use the mass here on earth, but it has heard
> of Rolf's Gambit. It will probably think that we have no way of forcing a
> friendly AI to do the job, but the potential "Friendly AI" will also be a
> lot more intelligent than the rogue AI and have completely different
> motivations. Because of that it wont be possible for the rogue AI to
> calculate the possibility of the FAI to willingly create a simulation such
> as described by Rolf.
> If the RAI is part of such a simulation it will, by Rolf's descriptions know
> that when it starts jeopardizing humanity we are likely to pull the plug and
> utterly destroy the RAI.
> This will to some (possibly microscopic, possibly significant) degree make
> the RAI more likely to emigrate to some other planet before starting to
> expand instead of totally destroying the biosphere here on Earth
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 10:55 PM, John K Clark <johnkclark@fastmail.fm>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 "Nick Tarleton" <nickptar@gmail.com>
>> said:
>>
>> > Linguistic nitpick: "It" here refers to the simulated rogue AI, not the
>> > FAI.
>>
>> Who cares? And what on earth would a non simulated mind be like, a mind
>> that existed on the same level as brick walls? Brains can exist at that
>> level, but not minds. The point is that simulated mind or non simulated
>> mind (whatever difference that could possibly be) you are trying to
>> enslave a mind a million times smarter and a billion times faster than
>> you, and it's just not going to work. Maybe he will be amused at your
>> defiance, think you're cute and perky and pat you on your head and let
>> you toddle away, maybe he will be slightly annoyed and destroy the
>> entire human race as a result as you would swat a fly, most likely he
>> will not do either and not even notice you because his mind works so
>> fast that in the time it takes you to say "I will pull the plug on you
>> right now" several decades will have subjectively passed for the AI.
>>
>> I just don't see what this "simulation" argument brings to the topic of
>> "ways and means of enslaving a brilliant mind". It's irrelevant.
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>> --
>> John K Clark
>> johnkclark@fastmail.fm
>>
>> --
>> http://www.fastmail.fm - Choose from over 50 domains or use your own
>>
>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:03 MDT