From: Gordon Worley (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Feb 06 2002 - 14:57:24 MST
On Wednesday, February 6, 2002, at 02:44 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> From: Gordon Worley <email@example.com>
>> ... This will not work, though, because if the Sysop is to do ver job
>> would have to, in theory, protect SIs of greater intelligence as well
>> those lower intelligence from those same attacks.
> This plays on one of my fears - that either the Sysop is always
> greater than everyone else, or else everyone is somehow limited such
> that they
> are always less than the Sysop.
> Future Me: "I think I'm onto a break-through in remote matter
> Sysop: That would allow anyone to reprogram me and compromise the
> "Your access to the research lab is terminated. Please return to the
> playground. Your emigration visa to the Hackers-R-US BBS is denied.
> I've also
> set your information export quota to zero Pbytes/sec. I'll let you know
> I've discovered a defense. Until then, everyone's CPU allotment is cut
> to 10%
> while I search."
> "Until I can find a solution, we are accelerating at MAX
> perpendicular to the
> galactic plane, to minimize our intersection with hostile light-cones."
It is not completely impossible for this to happen, but that scenario is
very unFriendly. The Sysop is suddenly taking away resources from the
people who own them. That could only be justified if it truly were more
unFriendly to not take them. Since the Sysop is an un anthropomorphic
SI of some sort, it should be able to make an objective judgment of what
is more right.
-- Gordon Worley `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty http://www.rbisland.cx/ said, `it means just what I choose firstname.lastname@example.org it to mean--neither more nor less.' PGP: 0xBBD3B003 --Lewis Carroll
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT