Re: Augmenting humans is a better way

From: James Higgins (
Date: Thu Aug 02 2001 - 10:15:51 MDT

I have to ask, did you bother to REALLY read my posts? All of the below
quotes are out of context. Your replies to my statements are as if you saw
my text, quoted out of context as below, and replied in kind.

At 05:51 AM 8/2/2001 +0200, you wrote:
>Quoting James Higgins:
> >>
>But it becomes a really fine line beyond the very basics as to what
>is moral and what isn't
> >>
>You said abolutely nothing in that sentence. Where is there not a fine line
>? That is what makes us human, good or bad, that is the way it is. Same
>(very fine line) applies to what is dangerous, good, bad, sexy, groovy
>etc... which is why X persons die every day. *smile*

I think you just made my point for me, thanks.

>P.S. If you aren't the solution, you're the problem. Who's side are you on ?

Excuse me?

At 06:01 AM 8/2/2001 +0200, you wrote:
>Quoting James Higgins:
> >>
>As for Real AI, when someone gets one working then we can talk.
> >>
>The whole point is to do the talking before and get it 'right'. "then we can
>talk" is a pipe dream if whoever creates the 1st Real AI gets it wrong,
>which is likely to happen as long as ppl have the attitude that you do have
>about it. I can understand that you are not conviced. What I cannot grasp
>are your 'technical', 'architectural', 'design' etc... reasons.
>Just saying it won't happen for whatever reason is sweet but that's all it
>is =)

The context here was talking about time lines for AI
development. Certainly many people have ideas on how to develop Real AI,
but they are different and some/many of them may not work. And thus, while
we can estimate how much time any of them may take, we can not estimate how
long it will take until we have the first running Real AI. This discussion
has been concluded and I do not wish to reopen it, I state this here for
clarification only.

> >>
>The fact is that no one knows what Real AI is going to require
> >>
>Did you really read FAI ? Did you read all of the material on Low Beyond ?
>Did you read the SL4 archives ? If you did (****and understood it****) and
>still believe the sentence above, well... either nothing will ever convince
>you or your understanding of intelligence is quite different from the
>understanding most people have of it on this list. Should it be the 2nd
>case, please enlighten us =)

Can you or anyone else guarantee me 100% that Eli's plans for Real AI will
work? Simply implement his design and bingo we have Real AI? Sounds nice,
but others have thought the same but did not succeed. I'm not saying he
won't succeed, I'm just saying it would be irresponsible to hang our hopes
on any one (or even several) possible solutions since all solutions to date
have failed.

> >>
>. As for destructive technologies, nothing. My personal belief
>is that either super intelligence will promote friendliness or we're doomed.
> >>
>We are doomed already. SIAI is the exit as far as certain persons are
>concerned. =)

I agree that we are most likely doomed if we don't develop an SI, or at
least a very smart AI that can help us develop FTL travel, space
colonization, etc. Just some of the reasons I support SI
development. However, I still feel that if SIs are not inherently friendly
(to at least a reasonable degree) then we are probably doomed anyway.

At 07:10 AM 8/2/2001 +0200, you wrote:
>Greetings to each and everyone =)
>Quoting James Higgins:
> >>
>I don't have to examine the Webmind design or code because no one can in
>fact define exactly what Real AI is.
> >>
>Oh, oh, oh !! But you can define exactly how my brains work ? Where is what
>etc... If not, where would RNIs be safer, faster, better than SIAI, Fai or
>whatever ? You seem to be pretty closed-minded on the whole issue. I can
>feel you biased but I do not know why. _yet_ =)

You really didn't read my posts, did you? I NEVER SAID, ANYWHERE that RNIs
were going to be faster, cheaper, better, or any such thing. I was
pointing out that the argument that RNIs would definitely arrive after AI
is an unsupportable argument! There is not enough fact known about the
exact development of either in order to create a realistic future time line.

And I take that as a serious insult, by the way. Calling someone
closed-minded is very rude.

> >>
>Given a fully functioning General AI, the availability of strong nanotech,
>and that this AI has access to nanotech (I find this VERY unlikely), then
>yes. But what fool is going to give a seed AI access to nanotech? And
>this still requires a functioning General AI that we still have no idea how
>to build.
> >>
>The same type of fool that believe that fully intelligent (same level as
>FAI, self optimizing, etc....) RNIs will be here before SIAI or that RNIs
>are more/less advanced. They are both far away, with pros and cons.
>Which fruit is more a fruit than the other one ? The orange or the pear ?
>None, they both are fruits, period.
>Will all due respect, to me, you and that fool, do look
>quite similar. Go take that Vision interface, come here and make it work on
>my shattered knee caps =), then we'll talk =) By then FAI will be all over
>the place =)

Ok, I'm done replying to your posts. If your not going to bother reading
my posts thoroughly enough to make intelligent replies, but instead just
reply to insult me what is the point. The only thing your doing is
lowering the quality of this list with pointless bantering tripe in order
to insult me. If you wish to continue this behavior please take this to
one of the thousands of pointless lists that exist out there.

Thank you,
James Higgins

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT