I think that we as a community need to get off our butts and start
building consensus as to what even the barest framework of friendliness
is. I think that we've seen more than enough proof that no one here can
go on for more than twenty lines without numerous people objecting
vociferously to their idea of friendliness (and just wait til you start
trying to include Leon Kass, your average fundamentalist Christian or
your average fundamentalist Muslim). But you've gone off and invented a
magical system which will solve all of these problems by determining what
we would define as friendly if we were "better" (and are now looking for
a way to mathematically guarantee that such a system will work
correctly).
A reasonably low common denominator feature would be a human self image,
with empathy. Starting with mirror neurons and a human baby environment
would
be a good first step.
So . . . . it's your contention that humans are friendly?
Leon Kass is empathic yet he strongly violates many of my notions of
friendliness just as I'm sure that I violate many of his.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eugen Leitl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Two draft papers: AI and existential risk; heuristics and
biases
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
