From: William Pearson (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Mar 25 2008 - 02:12:24 MDT
On 25/03/2008, J. Andrew Rogers <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 2008, at 4:44 PM, William Pearson wrote:
> > On 24/03/2008, J. Andrew Rogers <email@example.com> wrote:
> >> At which
> >> point, you have AI and the Powers That Be are a day late.
> > Not all intelligent systems go FOOM*. Therefore it is likely that not
> > all artificial intelligence system will go FOOM. So if you happen to
> > be have insights into an AI design that you think will not go FOOM
> > directly or unilaterally, your scenario is unhelpful.
> Non sequitur. And in any case, I do not assume a FOOM scenario;
> indeed, I have a history of arguing quite the opposite. It does not
> invalidate my original point, which was that nobody will be paying
> attention until such a time that tripping over it is unavoidable
> unless you put a lot of effort toward attracting attention. This
> argument is not dependent on the speed of the scenario, though outcome
> distributions do vary a bit with scenario speed.
I'm missing something then, what do you think will make the
government, "a day late" if someone apart from them creates AI? A day
behind perhaps, but if you aren't expecting a discontinuity, then what
exactly makes them late?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT