From: Stuart Armstrong (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jun 30 2008 - 11:01:12 MDT
> Let me rehash what I think I've been hearing. You're claiming that the
> mere possibility of a small cost provided by anyone therefore
> necessitates some sort of either ai or governing system to impose
> greater force on everyone else to level the playing field as it were?
Basically yes. If threatning people to get their ressources is a
successful strategy, then those who persue it will become more and
more powerful - until the cost is no longer small, and the villain is
able to demand, with devastating threats, pretty much anything they
want. Or, alternatively, the only productive industry becomes
threatning people for their ressources...
> Is that what this was getting at? I've lost track of how this 'small
> cost' is done away with by a government -- you can just as easily
> consider the ai or the government as a damaging entity who does you
> harm in one way or another.
The cost (small and large) is done away by the government because the
government offers the possibility of retatilation on anyone threatning
or using violence - so they don't do it. And of course the AI or
government can become a highly damaging entity; that's why the present
model is to have a liberal democracy with strongish property rights
and individual rights. This seems to be the best model so far in
practice, for enforcing contracts, maintaining law, and causing the
minimum of suffering to the population. There might be superior models
after a singularity, but I still don't see how you can do without the
basic outline of a government.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:03 MDT