From: Keith Henson (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Mar 02 2006 - 18:14:27 MST
At 06:55 PM 2/28/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>I know it's tedious, but you aren't SL4 until you appreciate the depth of
"One should not expect the cognitive architectures of evolved organisms to
be "rational" when rationality is defined as adherence to a normative
theory drawn from mathematics or logic. One should expect their cognitive
architectures to be *ecologically rational*: well-designed for solving the
adaptive problems their ancestors faced during their evolutionary history
(Cosmides & Tooby, 1996b; [Tooby & Cosmides.. 19991)."
Rode, C., Cosmides, L., Hell, W., & Tooby, J. (1999). When and why do
people avoid unknown probabilities in decisions under uncertainty? Testing
some predictions from optimal foraging theory. Cognition, 72, 269-304.
>Yes rationality is there, but at a level that just barely shows up when
>measured with precise instruments.
Viewed from the gene's perspective, humans do the right thing most of the time.
>This is important with respect to non-human intelligences, because
>super-rationality, almost as much as superintelligence, is potentially
>overwhelming and because intelligence bootstraping moves a system towards
>rationality. Appreciate how far humans are from rational and you
>appreciate how utterly transformed, and essentially recreated, they would
>be by haphazard bootstrapping.
>Appreciate how formidable rationality is and you see why a highly rational
>infrahuman GAI would still be a massive existential threat.
It's a point I have made perhaps too often.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT