From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jul 14 2005 - 13:17:00 MDT
Russell Wallace wrote:
> I think paperclips are an excellent way to summarize two key points:
> - Intelligence (in the operational sense of ability to come up with
> effective plans in the service of some goal system) and wisdom (in the
> sense of having goals we would recognize as wise) are completely
> different things.
I disagree that they are completely different. Human-ish wisdom requires
human-ish intelligence. You can't have a moral debate without the ability to
debate. The fallacy is in presuming that the ability to optimize a star
system requires moral complexity, that is, that intelligence implies what
humans would call wisdom in the domain of morality; as far as I can tell, you
can have a simple constant utility function that does not invoke difficult
computation, let alone intelligent debate.
> I think the danger is larger scale and longer term: that evolution
> will lead the universe out of the region of state space that contains
> sentience, and into the region that contains an optimal
> self-replicator. The ancestors could have been AIs, uploaded humans,
> genetically engineered transhumans or plain biologically evolved
> transhumans (the last being in my opinion the least likely, since
> biological evolution is slow; but it would get the job done if given
> enough time), but the end result is a future light cone full of
> optimal self-replicators and empty of people.
See the past SL4 discussion with the subject line "Darwinian dynamics unlikely
to apply to superintelligence".
-- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 24 2013 - 04:00:49 MDT