From: Philip Sutton (Philip.Sutton@green-innovations.asn.au)
Date: Fri Feb 20 2004 - 12:04:47 MST
It seems like we now are understanding each other fairly clearly on
some of the key issues. Phewwww!!!
I largely agree with how you've sketched out the issues ....
> IF launching a Transcension of type Y is the best strategy according
> to Ethical System E ......etc. etc. etc...
I agree that *technically* we cannot guarantee anything into the long
distant future (infinite) but I think what we can do is show that we are
bending-over-backwards to get things right and that we can
demonstrate *strong* achievements with AGI friendliness and that there
are other large benefits that will be *widely shared* if the change
We/humans are used to this level of assurance - because its the best
we ever get on anything.
What I'm saying above is close to but NOT the same as your point (b):
> b) [Try to] convince people that the risk is acceptable given the
> rewards and the other risks at play
The key difference is that to the rewards I think we need to add a really
strong risk reduction strategy and evidence that this strategy is being
put into effect and that it is delivering useful results.
> I think you made a lot of wrong points in your response to my essay
OK what are they? I'm never going to learn anything if you deny me
detailed feedback. I'm doubly keen to know where I'm wrong because I
put a lot of effort into trying not to be wrong! :)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:45 MDT