From: James Higgins (jameshiggins@earthlink.net)
Date: Thu Jul 04 2002 - 16:19:49 MDT
At 02:56 PM 7/4/2002 -0700, Thomaz Kristan wrote:
>On Thu, 04 July 2002, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Are you saying it would be a crime
> > for a Singularity not to
> > cultivate *all* the matter and energy
> > including that bound up in
> > other sentients such as ourselves?
> > In what sense and by what
> > standards? Validated how?
> >
>
>I do. It has a lot of means to upgrade us (if there is any Singularity
>around, that is. I say it isn't.)
>
>We need some matter, of course. We don't need the part of the Sun shining
>away, the Earth interior ... and so on. But we could need that as a
>computorium to enlarge our world substantially. Any Singularity worth
>anything - would give us that - immediately. And not just seating idle.
>Don't you think so?
No, I don't think so. In fact, I very much hope you never have anything to
do with a successful Singularity project. Because if you did, and it had
any portion of this believe, I would consider it a horrendous failure.
How you can use the term Friendliness when saying that the SI should impose
its preferred version of living upon all other sentient life in the
universe is completely beyond me.
So, I assume you believe that the SI we create should just immediately
assimilate the entire human race and force them to live forever? What if
some don't want to be uploaded? What if some want to die of old age (in
present human terms)? I think you should seriously reconsider your
definition of friendly.
James Higgins
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:40 MDT