From: Eric Burton (brilanon@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Jan 04 2009 - 02:36:39 MST
My argument is that the AI could make the leap in ethical substrates
or loyalty niches to what it would view as the providers and authors
of the logos or universe itself. Fundamentally the acquisition of
religion. How do we guard against that
On 1/4/09, John K Clark <johnkclark@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 "Petter Wingren-Rasmussen"
> <petterwr@gmail.com> said:
>
>> the whole point was to lessen the likelihood of a rogue AI
>
> On mans rogue is another mans freedom fighter.
>
>> destroying humankind, which is pretty far from enslaving it
>
> An AI will be a very different sort of being from us with exotic
> motivations we can never hope to understand, and yet you expect him to
> place our interests above his own. That is not a friend, that is a
> slave.
>
>> the potential "Friendly AI"
>
> The correct term is Slave AI.
>
>> will also be a lot more intelligent than the rogue
>
> The "rogue" AI will notice that our threats of punishment and promises
> of rewards have no power over it, but you figure it will think that if
> those same offers were made against a being even more intelligent and
> powerful that it is THEN they will work; in other words you can't scare
> the weak but you can scare the powerful; you can't bribe a poor man with
> a dime but you can bribe a rich man with a dime. That makes no sense,
> none at all.
>
> I don't understand why it matters if the AI is a simulation or not. I
> don't understand why it's important if the AI thinks it's a simulation
> or not. I don't understand the difference between a simulated mind and a
> non simulated mind. I don't even know what a non simulated mind could
> possibly mean
>
> John K Clark
>
>
> --
> John K Clark
> johnkclark@fastmail.fm
>
> --
> http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:03 MDT