From: Samantha Atkins (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Apr 26 2008 - 02:27:49 MDT
Tim Freeman wrote:
> From: "Nick Tarleton" <email@example.com>
>> My point is that the goal system of an FAI is not arbitrary - it's
>> tightly constrained by our current values and the values implicit in
>> the changes we would make to ourselves, and can't be arbitrarily
>> tinkered with to resolve paradoxes without serious thought.
> It seems to me that some essential features of the FAI are arbitrary.
> The most important arbitrary feature I can see, for the purpose of
> getting a political consensus to build the thing, is who benefits.
I don't see any point in waiting for a political consensus. A few hours
checking out current politics worldwide should be sufficient to show
that humanity and human politics is utterly incapable of understanding
and making a rational democratic decision on such a subject.
> The set of entities that benefit might be all presently-existing
> humans, or it might be some smaller set of human individuals, or it
> might be all mammals, or one of many other possible choices. Does
> anyone see a strategy for bringing rationality to bear on this
What decision? We are building something many orders of magnitude more
intellectually capable than ourselves and hopefully it will not eat our
face. It is a bit odd to being worrying about what primates or other
biological creatures it will benefit as if we are likely to have much
reasonable control over that. It is certainly a con job to sell it to
the public and claim tax expropriations to build it on such a basis of
being for the benefit of the "taxpayers" or some other popular target
requiring spending gobs of other people's money.
> Otherwise it's arbitrary and there will probably be a
> tedious and depressing political battle over it.
We don't have time for this, do we?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT