From: Ben Goertzel (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Jun 23 2002 - 16:39:45 MDT
Anyway, this nitpicking about the plausibility of dates on which time travel
might be invented, is beside the point of my original post on this topic.
The point of the original post was simply that "apparently dead" might not
mean "permanently dead." Could be we'll all be resurrected
Riverworld-style, or inside some giant future computer, or whatever... using
some as-yet unforeseeable future technology.
And the point of *that* point was, simply to give another piece of evidence
that: A delayed Singularity leading to a human-friendly superhuman AGI, is
probably better than a quicker Singularity leading to a human-indifferent
AGI. In spite of the potentially large cost of many deaths during the
-- Ben G
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 4:33 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: How hard a Singularity?
> I consider all human judgments regarding
> significantly-post-Singularity reality to be basically arbitrary
> and meaningless.
> Thus, I'm not going to put hardly any thought at all into
> conjecturing about that phase of history -- unless I'm in a
> speculative-fiction-writing mode ;)
> I agree, you can make better arguments for time travel being
> discovered in 2050 or 200023 than 2023, but so what? These
> arguments in my view are only marginally better, because all
> extrapolations into the significantly-post-Singularity phase are
> so incredibly uncertain.
> Which of course makes this whole business very very difficult to
> deal with, as we're talking about trying to engineer or nudge the
> NEARLY ABSOLUTELY UNKNOWABLE in a favorable direction ;)
> -- Ben G
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf
> > Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
> > Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 4:08 PM
> > To: email@example.com
> > Subject: Re: How hard a Singularity?
> > Ben Goertzel wrote:
> > >
> > > Ok, suppose that an expedition sent to a nearby star gives
> the AI info
> > > about rare elements, and suppose this info is the key needed
> to create
> > > faster-than-light travel, which then enables the AI to travel to the
> > > galactic core, which then allows it to travel in time...
> > Exactly, Ben. What *looks* like a statement "about as plausible as any
> > other", time travel in 2123, turns out to require an incredibly
> > concatenation of events to come into being. So why did you say
> > 2123 rather
> > than 2023+15sec or 200023 (to allow for a round-trip to a
> distant stellar
> > object?) Because you're used to science fiction stories that
> > postulate time
> > travel coming into being around a hundred years in the future.
> > WRONG PRIORS.
> > > Yeah, it seems an unlikely series of events. But how good can we
> > > possibly be at estimating probabilities about
> post-singularity events?
> > > Obstacles may arise which we simply cannot forese now.
> > Look, when you say 2123, I am perfectly justified in assuming that the
> > foundations of this statement lie in science-fictional convention about
> > "when time machines get invented", rather than the incredibly
> > overcomplex description needed to actually place time travel on
> > the order of
> > 100 years in the future (much too long to be a theoretical
> > problem that can
> > be solved within the solar system, much too short to cover any
> > interesting
> > spatial differences). If you'd been thinkin' about it you woulda said
> > either 2023 or 200023.
> > --
> > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://intelligence.org/
> > Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:39 MDT