From: Luke (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Oct 12 2009 - 21:34:13 MDT
@Tom: thank you for clarifying that for me. I'll keep that goal in mind
when formulating future communications. I was indeed trying to just clean
up the conversation, then made quick reference to a political situation, and
then I got completely caught up in the tangent.
@Peter: thanks for giving me a word for that which I was trying to
describe. Having the proper lexicon is vital to framing challenges and
getting things done. "arguments as soldiers" - I like it.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Thomas Buckner <email@example.com>wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Eric Burton <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: email@example.com
> Sent: Mon, October 12, 2009 12:10:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [sl4] greetings
> >> I've been reading the recent marathon discussion of constraining robots
> >> be our friends. All I have to add is this: conversation can serve more
> >> functions than the defense of two mega-points. The assumption of a
> >> bilateral split between "what I'm saying" and "what you're saying" is
> >> basically completely erroneous. In buddhism this error is known as
> >> caught up in "I", which does not in reality exist. In logic, it borders
> >> ad-hominem reasoning, in a slightly varied form, essentially saying "if
> >> can get you on one point, I've got you on all of them." Our American
> >> situation with the two parties and how any issue has to have a Party_A
> >> response which must be different than the Party_B response has
> >> trained us all to habitually lump ALL of a person's points into "that
> >> person's argument", and hence get caught in devoting too much time to
> >> belaboring tiny points, just to have the satisfaction of putting a chink
> >> somewhere, anywhere, in their armor.
> >> Create good filtering processes, and the rest is gravy.
> I read this and I'm still confused. Would you rather have a
> three-party system like in Canada, or the UK?
> Eric B
> One of the points you'll have to grasp quickly in the sl4 forum is that
> political parties are exactly the sort of thing that would become obsolete
> overnight in the event of a successful AGI/Singularity. Or an unsuccessful
> one, if you know what I mean. This is why such discussions get sniped by the
> moderator. The whole sl4 forum is meant to further ideas about how to make
> sure the AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) is Friendly, i.e. that it
> doesn't do badly by us, even unintentionally. It's an insanely hard problem
> and some very smart people disagree about the best approach.
> Tom Buckner
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:04 MDT