Coding something like http://ai.neocities.org/FirstWorkingAGI.html almost every day, I often feel guilty about it. People from many nations are coming to look at the AI Minds that I code in Perl, In JavaScript and in Forth. The ghost.pl AI thinks in both English and Russian, so doubt gnaws at me that I may be helping the colossal Russian Bear to take over the world with ASI/AGI.
http://old.reddit.com/r/ControlProblem/comments/9lad7u/comments_on_leibnizs_law_ideas_about_formalizing/e75au7y -- shows how sophisticated the AGI has now become. Please absolve me from ethical remorse. -ATM On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:18 AM Steve Richfield via AGI < [email protected]> wrote: > We seem to be inadvertently empowering some VERY wrong people. > > If you haven't noticed, a significant fraction of the population now > believes AGI is already here in a BIG way - not the way people here are > working toward, but in ways depicted in movies, etc. This appears to be > leading in some BAD directions. > > In replacing God with fake AGI, there is some significant collateral > damage, like Buddhism and other ethics-based beliefs. This is now twisting > our society in some strange ways - just look at prime time TV now FULL of > crime drama shows that clearly present the proposition that might makes > right. > > Some well-meaning people on this forum have inadvertently contributed to > this with crazy-optimistic predictions that unbridled AGI was about to > emerge. > > I once made the rounds speaking at various colleges explaining how it was > physically impossible to shoot down sub-orbital warheads between their > launch and re-entry phases, to stop the crazy spending on SDI. Time has > proven me 100% correct, but time has also proven that the goal of SDI was > to bankrupt Russia and NOT to shoot down warheads. Somewhere in Russia, my > counterpart was probably saying the same things and being ignored - or > worse. In short, I was right, but fortunately I failed to get my message to > be generally accepted. > > My point here is that correctness and social benefit often have > little/nothing to do with each other. Hence, we all need to do some > self-examination to see whether we are the social equivalent of 3-year-olds > with loaded guns. > > I see NOTHING good coming from publicly promoting full AGI at this time. > However, it might be possible to reframe the discussion for everyone's > benefit, e.g. by dissecting the AGI concept enough to be able to identify > which parts are socially responsible to discuss in public, and which parts > will only further twist our society, once the screenwriters get hold of > them. > > In short, I think we should be attending to the ethics of our > not-yet-a-profession. I would start with something like "AGI appears to be > as potentially dangerous as cold fusion" and show surely-safe paths > forward. It is one thing to have an intelligent problem solver, and quite > another to arm a problem solver to enforce its (final?) solutions. > > So, is anyone here interested in discussing ethics? > > Steve > *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery > options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T992b9674ba947ee9-M08d84f95b1fd75fbe6c176e1> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T992b9674ba947ee9-Mfdb3b3731802934376e0d563 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
