From: Bryan Bishop (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jun 26 2008 - 15:12:17 MDT
On Thursday 26 June 2008, Stuart Armstrong wrote:
> >> Personality may be pop psychology, but it's not a concept devoid
> >> of information. It's useful in assigning certain people to certain
> >> jobs,
> > It /is/ devoid of information. It's folk psych. You need to be
> > addressing the basis of the brain and what allows the variation
> > that is allowed (or not allowed) by the architectures and such, not
> > going the other way around.
> It is useful information. I use it all the time when deciding which
> friends to invite to which events; so far, it's track record is good,
> certainly better than random guessing. Hence it contains information.
That sounds like a biased metric.
> >> for instance. Assuming the AI could not just brute force the
> >> problem and predict everyone's actions in every circumstances
> >> (chaos would probably forbid this), then the AI would have to rely
> >> on some simplified model that gives it enough information to make
> >> decisions.
> > Make what decisions? I suspect you are going back to the idea of a
> > dictatorship of an ai? I don't understand. :-/ More on this below.
> No needed to be a dictator; any interaction needs some information
> about the being interacted with.
I was rather questioning all of the silly Holy Ai scenarios on the list,
not the point about information and models.
> > Looks like you're assuming a spectrum with democracy and
> > dictatorship at two opposite ends of the line.
> Linguistically, and in most societies, they are. Hence to get people
> thinking that the best gov "might not be a democracy! really!", is to
> say "it might be a dictatorship!".
> > My stick is bigger than yours? That's the best we can come up with?
> Yep. Depressing, really.
How is it that you are certain that it is the best that we can do ?
By 'we' I refer to everyone on sl4.org.
> > No, it could be no government at all. Have you considered that
> > these technologies are liberating ? That they don't force us to
> > rely on governments? That they allow us to live our lives without
> > the restrictions that governments used to be there to help face up
> > to? etc.
> I still fail to see how some people are going to be disuaded from
> using violence (or, more likely, the threat of violence), unless by
No, disuasion is not the point. Let's engineer the problems out of the
system, the problems that violent tactics are exploiting.
> some semi-organised grouping that can resort to greater violence, or
> some dramatic reprogramming of the human condition. It's not the most
> people are bad; it's that "bad" people get ahead.
I'm not sure how dramatic a change it would be to start having organ
farms or nightly backups etc.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:03 MDT