From: Gordon Worley (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Sep 24 2002 - 05:39:25 MDT
On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 02:55 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Gordon Worley wrote:
>> On Monday, September 23, 2002, at 05:42 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>>> I don't think the transition guide is the problem. What may be *if*
>>> we get to Singularity and *if* it is Friendly is not what I am most
>>> concerned about today or in the immediate future.
>> If there is no Singularity and there is no Friendly AI then humans are
>> as good as dead.
> I very much disagree with Singularity or nothing statements. Would you
> lay down and die if Friendly AI was somehow shown to be impossible in
> say, the next 40 years? It has been well argued that Singularity is
> the *best* option. But that doesn't mean it is the *only* option.
I wouldn't lay down and die. Rather, I'd try to find another solution,
hopefully one that is just as safe or safer. Alas, I can't think of
anything that I think would actually work besides the Singularity that
will solve the problem of humans blowing themselves up; all other
solutions that I know of merely delay the destruction of humanity a
little while longer.
>> The kind of changes that you want to see are only partially achievable
>> at best. Making the populace more Rational is not merely a memetic
>> battle; you have to get people to actually fix their minds on their
>> own. Even then there is only so much fixing that can be done.
> Sufficient partial acheivement is all that is required in order to keep
> us from destroying one another and keep us moving toward a better
> world. I don't call what is needed making the populace more
> [capital-R] Rational though.
I disagree. If you win only partial achievement, one crazy out in the
desert can still do a lot of damage. You may keep humans from dying
this year, but next year when the crazies release Super Smallpox and 95%
of the population dies, that looks like failure to me.
>> Maybe you'll figure out how to succeed where Jesus and Siddhartha and
>> Ghandi failed. More likely you won't.
> They did not in any sense *fail*.
I'm not saying that the sum of their efforts failed. I'm saying that
their efforts to fundamentally reshape society to end death and
destruction failed. Sure they helped inspire a few more people to be
nice, but it only takes one not nice person to blow up the planet.
-- Gordon Worley "Man will become better when http://www.rbisland.cx/ you show him what he is like." email@example.com --Anton Chekhov PGP: 0xBBD3B003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 19 2013 - 04:00:47 MDT