I'm not in favor of a dominant, rational mind without mechanisms towards equilibrium. Any action may be rationalized, even genocide.
Agreed, AGI should generally benefit human populations at large. That could already be said for robotics. Even though humans only see AGI as powerful resources to exploit like they do robots, AGI should be different though. AGI should benefit communities, but not in the sense of warring against each other, but in the sense of collectively following a base standard of values towards the survival of human communities. To idealize any such objectives would guarantee eventual failure. For example, suppose an AGI was manufactured to protect the oceans. Would it sink whaling ships to do so, or march upstream to detect industrial polluters and neutralize the source? To many, such actions would seem rational. However, what if AGI mistook a passenger freighter (old school possibility for migrants) for a whaler, or destroyed a human-waste disposal plant that was testing a new bio-degradable method of water-based treatment? Would AGI have to learn at the cost of human communities? If it were bootstrapped and the learning proved inadequate, or insufficient, would the bootstrappers be held accountable? Only the usual megalogoth human communities (superpower governments and industrial giants) would dare industrialize AGI, because they would have armies of soldiers and lawyers and politicians to defend them against retaliating human communities when things go wrong. These, and other, rational problems would prevent AGI from achieving its theoretical potential. Ironically, that would make AGI more human than anyone would probably be willing to admit to. In most cases, human potential is constrained by environmental factors. Seems the rationality of humans would copy that DNA into AGI products as functions. Wouldn't it be cheaper, or most rational to simply invest in the optimization of human potential? ________________________________ From: WriterOfMinds <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, 09 November 2019 03:27 To: AGI <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [agi] Against Legg's 2007 definition of intelligence Requirements for AGI. 1. To automate human labor so we don't have to work. 2. To provide a platform for uploading our minds so we don't have to die. 3. To create Kardashev level I, II, and III civilizations, controlling the Earth, Sun, and galaxy respectively. Okay; now we know what Matt wants. All I really want is an example of the Rational Other to interact with and relate to. For me, the act of creation is its own sufficient reward; if my digital image-bearer happens to achieve anything that practically benefits me or civilization, that's a bonus. My particular goal would seem to imply three broad requirements: 1. AGI shall be rational/sapient. (I bet we could have lots of fun defining these words too.) 2. AGI shall be communicative. 3. AGI shall be inclined to cordial relationships with humans. A robotic body with human-equivalent sensorimotor capabilities is not strictly necessary for any of these. 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/T6cada473e1abac06-Mf817402fca55c3af8fd67306> ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T6cada473e1abac06-Mfee0f1fb5dd1e17263c1e3b4 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
