From: Samantha Atkins (sjatkins@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Feb 01 2009 - 20:21:50 MST
Johnicholas Hines wrote:
>> On 1/16/09, Aleksei Riikonen <aleksei@iki.fi> wrote:
>>
>>> Since the risks associated with uploaded faster-thinking humans are
>>> relatively easy to understand and explain to decision-makers, wouldn't
>>> it be good if uploads happened before de novo AGI, on the risks of
>>> which it is much easier to find disagreement among somewhat smart
>>> individuals?
>>>
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Petter Wingren-Rasmussen
> <petterwr@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree with you in theory, but I dont think its possible to halt the
>> development of AGI if the possibility for that presents itself before human
>> uploads.
>>
>
> There are more than one kind of risk. I would rate the risk of tragic
> exploitation of the faster-thinking humans as higher than the risk of
> tragic exploitation of de novo AGI. The key word being "tragic". Large
> numbers of really nice people working hard for small rewards,
> inegalitarian principles systematically built into the physics of the
> ems world. This seems moderately likely and significantly more tragic
> than de novo AGI.
>
> Johnicholas
>
Exactly what would be competent to keep faster thinking humans under its
thumb? What is to prevent them taking their brain power elsewhere or
selling their talents for a much better price? The owner of the
substrate rules? What keeps that owner in business if in competition
with smarter/faster intelligences? What keeps another would be owner
from buying them out if they prove too harsh and thus get less than
stellar results form the uploads? A body can be enslaved. It is much
more difficult to enslave a mind and still get full productivity from it.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:03 MDT