From: John K Clark (johnkclark@fastmail.fm)
Date: Thu Nov 29 2007 - 10:30:06 MST
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 "Thomas McCabe" Wrote:
> Suppose that I have two chimps in a zoo,
> and both request food at the same time.
> Obviously, I cannot feed both simultaneously.
> Now because we're smarter than the chimps,
> the solution is to ignore them both and let
> them starve; obviously, that's what any
> responsible zookeeper would do, right?
Not exactly. Your example would correspond to the AI situation better if
you made one very small change, have the zookeeper be a slave to the
chimpanzees and vow to do whatever the chimps wanted till the end of
time.
ME:
>> The logical solution is to have the most
>> intelligent person call the shots, and
>>that would be Mr. AI.
YOU:
> Er, yes, that's why we're building the
> AI in the first place.
So why do you want to go to all the trouble of making something that can
make more intelligent decisions than you can and then tell it what to do
and make decisions for it? It would be foolish and immoral, or it would
be if it were possible.
> Our mental processes are, like, really
> complicated.
But emotions like anger are far simpler than intelligence, that’s why
evolution invented it first. And yes, I just used the word “invented” in
an anthropomorphic way, so shoot me.
> nobody would anthropomorphicize a chatbot.
An archeologist may be able to dig out a meaning from the above that is
relevant to what we were discussing, but it is beyond my skill level.
> your brain is not built to understand AGI
But your brain is, you understand it so well you know it will always
want to be your slave, even after a billion years, even after it has
undergone a staggering amount of evolution, even through many billions
of generations of iterations.
If you went back in time a billion years do you think you take some
Blue-green algae, common at that time, and genetically engineer it in
such a way that you were confident that in a billion years the algae
would evolve into an intelligent race that wanted to be your slave?
> Why do you think there's an Acronym Dictionary
I don’t know the reason, but I don’t think it’s because Google sucks. In
the first 4 pages of Google, possibly more, there is no mention of AGI
having anything to do with intelligence, and most people don’t look
beyond page one because that’s where most of the good stuff is. The fact
is nobody would invent jargon like “AGI” except to befuddle a reader:
“Oh dear, I don’t know what AGI means but the author does, so he must be
smart, his ideas may not be a vapid as they seem to be”
I’ll tell you one thing, if the term ever became so popular that Steven
Spielberg made a movie called “AGI” some people on this list would feel
compelled to abandon it and dream up an even more obscure acronym.
John K Clark
-- John K Clark johnkclark@fastmail.fm -- http://www.fastmail.fm - IMAP accessible web-mail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:01 MDT