From: Tim Duyzer (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jun 04 2005 - 11:30:00 MDT
A better hypothesis would suggest not whether the current US President
wasn't democratically elected but whether the other guy was really any
different. Difference of choice is what makes a democracy, not choice alone.
As for goverment control over AI - impossible; that's the whole point of
creating friendly AI, because you wouldn't be able to keep a handle on an
unfriendly one anyways. But control over AI research? Not in the present
environment and I can't see significant changes to that happening before the
Singularity's projected ETA (barring gray goo or other worldwide disaster).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Waser (home)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: A disclaimer - I am *not* a Singularitarian
>>> The US government *is* democratically elected, and believing otherwise
>>> is primarily the domain of people with tinfoil headgear.
> The 2004 exit poll statistics from Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida tend to
> indicate otherwise with all three being several sigmas out of whack with
> the "vote results." Given that other countries find exit polls accurate
> enough to call elections, that there is no paper audit trail to validate
> the "vote results", and that the leading maker of voting machines
> (Dieboldt) has said that he will do anything to get Bush re-elected, it
> seems a very reasonable question as to whether the President (you know,
> the head of the US government and the person who appoints a large portion
> of the executive and judicial branches) was indeed democratically elected.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "J. Andrew Rogers" <email@example.com>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 11:15 AM
> Subject: Re: A disclaimer - I am *not* a Singularitarian
>> Tom Buckner wrote:
>>> However, if you actually believe what you are
>>> saying right now, and are not saying it under
>>> duress (are you?) then you are a fool.
>> I have to say that the part about turning AI over to the government --
>> ANY government --
>> shows a strange disconnect from reality.
>>> The United
>>> States government is no longer democratically
>>> elected, and 'working within the system' has in
>>> the last generation only worked for those who
>>> were subverting it, and they don't care about
>>> future generations.
>> The US government *is* democratically elected, and believing otherwise is
>> primarily the
>> domain of people with tinfoil headgear. Newsflash: this is what
>> democracy looks like. Your
>> emotional attachment to the word "democracy" do not allow you to redefine
>> the word merely
>> because you do not like the consequences of having real democracy. You
>> also apparently
>> forget that the reason the US was originally a Republic was specifically
>> to avoid these
>> inevitable problems with Democracy, but the country has slowly been
>> converted to a
>> Democracy over the last two centuries with much vigorous applause from
>> ideological nitwits.
>> You call Marc Geddes a fool, but being right for the wrong reasons is
>> just as bad. I would
>> not give any government AI, but whether it is democratic or not has no
>> meaningful impact on
>> the outcome of such a decision.
>> j. andrew rogers
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 19 2013 - 04:01:09 MDT