Fair-enough question. Let me try. I could answer your question in two, possible ways. One of these exists in the domain of science fiction.
Suppose the brain of homo sapiens were in fact an instrument, which was bootstrapped with a non-biological copy of a far-greater intelligence. Extra-terrestrial intelligence, in this sense taken to mean: "Not of Earth, yet not of alien species either." Such intelligence, which was not as of yet discovered on Earth, yet ample evidence found of archeologically. It could then be argued how a master copy of a human-centric version of generalized human functioning, as intelligence-in-action, must potentially reside within a human mind. This presupposes the existence of an Earth-centered system of intelligence, artifact of a super-system of cosmic intelligence, as a pattern, no less. Where does it manifest? In the human mind. Science established - inter alia - that it probably exists, via human DNA, the CNS and the bio-neural network we are enabled with. The aforementioned, in conjunction with the human brain in the role of a still-mystical, quantum-enabled instrument. In addition, metaphysics and the supernatural have provided anecdotal evidence of such strangeness, some of which has now been patterned as accepted Science. To bring gestalt to such an inherent system, would first mean to "go into the human intelligence to locate it as an inherent system, to extract it accurately with advanced skill, and to adequately express it via simulation" in scientific terms as a working model, as a super-advanced waterworks of sorts. First though, it must be "seen" in the realm of the human mind, visualized in the abstract, as ideas of adaptive shape and form. In other words, the notion of AGI already exists within functional intelligence. It may not be known, but the system is knowable. Thus, in order to know a system of AGI functionally, would imply becoming it. That sounds reasonable enough. But, how to know it? An externalized, fully-functional system of AGI remains elusive today. Its possibilities have not yet been given effective form to. It has not yet been adequately expressed yet. Therefore, it is not accepted by science, as science. To my mind, a great tragedy! In any context, AGI would be a function of general human intelligence. That statement is being made all the time, but I think never understood in its most-mature context at all. The full context is still not visualized. It still belongs to science fiction. Still, to know AGI, is to know oneself. The other answer is more optimal, much simpler. It holds that, for the most part, AGI is a mechanistic attempt at replicating a quantum-enabled, bio-electrical instrument. Therefore, it should be gestated and birthed within its thermo-dynamical environment, and expressed as concise, mechanistic architecture. It follows that it does not exist yet, therefore it must be forward engineered in the belief that if one carried on in a general direction long enough, provided the science enabled it, one would automatically reach a specific, magical destination. I think such a version of belief is also called science. However, it does not play a significant role in the didactic of AGI, and is not seemingly helpful to its dialectic. This mono belief holds that most any problem can be overpowered by sufficient effort and technology. Therefore, AGI is a problem - waiting - to be solved. The belief also hopes that perhaps AGI could be stumbled upon by chance, thereby underwriting the notion that something can be known without knowing that it is to be known at all, and recognized as such. Becoming this type of AGI means living one's life with a dream to be the one to reach such goals, as a fixated figment of human imagination, as an achievement of consciousness, also as a function of human intelligence. In reality, it would probably have to be hewn from granite by hand, like you and your team have been doing. The key lies in the directed hand, and not in the material. To summarize: Looking at both answers, one would clearly spot similarities and differences. What they have stated, they have in common. The specific commonality also forms the basis of synthesis. The fact that I just wrote it down, proves that. Have we really been asking the NP hard questions about AGI? I think not yet to completion and not yet to full correlation. For example, can AGI ever be completed? (pun intended) Therefore, have we answered the most-correct questions correctly? In a way, society have provided some answers, many of them perhaps unintentionally. ________________________________ From: Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, 02 January 2021 04:36 To: AGI <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [agi] CCP as a model for AGI " to develop AGI, one must first become it - somehow. " -- What does "becoming an AGI" mean to you? On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 10:18 AM Nanograte Knowledge Technologies <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I appreciate your response. A purely, policy-driven AGI may satisfy some of those requirements. It depends on the extent of operational control that was desired. Policy management seems central to measurable, human intelligence. If I recall, the Component Architecture Management Framework (CAMF), which I withdrew from IEEE publication in 2009, clearly indicated how intent - as a theme - translated across various architectural boundaries of a fully-recursive value chain. In this sense, 'Intent' would correlate with policy management. Note: Not punting. Seriously not. My research interest is now focussed elsewhere. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281150415_Project_Success_and_the_Component_Architecture_Management_Framework_CAMF [https://i1.rgstatic.net/publication/281150415_Project_Success_and_the_Component_Architecture_Management_Framework_CAMF/links/55d8d93b08aed6a199a88efc/largepreview.png]<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281150415_Project_Success_and_the_Component_Architecture_Management_Framework_CAMF> (PDF) Project Success and the Component Architecture Management Framework (CAMF) - ResearchGate<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281150415_Project_Success_and_the_Component_Architecture_Management_Framework_CAMF> COVID-19 presents as a sufficiently-complex case for the efficacy of a regenerative pattern language to be tested against. Using public, COVID-19 information, a regenerative pattern method would ... www.researchgate.net<http://www.researchgate.net> While not AGI enabling, it was developed with AGI in mind. My philosophical argument remains; to develop AGI, one must first become it - somehow. There's a significant, cultural threat in that. I think, what might be needed is a fully-resourced tribe (perhaps called AGIans), a tribe existing in its own dedicated space, bearing its own nationality and passport. A tribe having its cultural and societal roots founded on evolving AGIan adaptation. Perhaps, such a tribe already exists somewhere? Indeed, the PRC could readily achieve such a tribe. However, so could any visionary country, supertech, or significant investor group. The question I have is this: "Why is this apparently not being done?" May it then be that the AGI race would eventually be won by the most-intelligent nation after all? ________________________________ From: Ben Goertzel <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Friday, 01 January 2021 21:13 To: AGI <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [agi] CCP as a model for AGI *** However, by virtue of the anecdotal evidence I observed in this context, I'm convinced the PRC are probably pursuing a version of AGI with utmost urgency *** It could be. I'm just saying, I looked for evidence for that moderately hard at the top Chinese tech companies and universities and didn't find it.... Should they want to turn that direction, they certainly have tremendous resources with which to do so. But if they do, you can be sure they will be seeking some species of AGI that has very clearly defined and effective control levers. My suspicion (OK more than a suspicion) is that seeking to create AGIs that are controllable in a simple sense will be a factor slowing down a party's AGI progress. I would make the same argument in regard to US military and also big Western tech companies, though w/ the latter to a moderately lesser degree. All of these will want to create AGIs that have simply defined, clearly tractable control levers relative to their organizational goals. But there is very likely a tradeoff here btw simplistic controllability and creative general intelligence. It may be those who are willing to give their AGIs more liberty to self-organize (which does not necessarily mean bypassing human values btw) will have sufficient advantage in the AGI race -- due to the power of free self-organization for intelligence -- to overcome the material-resources advantage of those seeking more controllable AGIs -- Ben On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 8:39 AM Nanograte Knowledge Technologies <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > We're not discussing Chinese politics, but aspirations, specifically their > possible interest in winning the "AGI" race. We're also not running a > one-liner tit-for-tat campaign. Bear with me, if you will. Our arguments > require more than just a few, terse comments. > > Agreed, I'm raising a politics-of-economics argument, but weighted more > towards economic colonization than Communist politics. > > As such, the context of this discussion would then refer to some version of > "AGI" as a tool for the PRC to be advancing a globalization strategy with. > > The Romans demonstrated how an empire only needed to be established > administratively - with a hold over local chieftains - for all resources > within that domain to be channelled at the behest of Rome. > > I think it would be considered unintelligent to try and "own" all colonized > peoples, when instead one could get the same benefit by simply turning them > into resources. > > The IMF demonstrated how their version of democracy could be enforced via > loaded loans. The PRC have followed suit. > > One example being masquerading as an innocent Congolese company who won a > national tender for iron ore in Australia. Once the Aussies woke up, more > than 1 billion tons of iron ore had landed in the PRC. It's fair to say your > Africa argument is pointless. The hard facts on the ground to the contrary > are simply overwhelming. > > While perhaps not copying the aforementioned globalization models exactly, > the PRC definitely exhibits tendencies to colonize globally. > Arterial-infrastructure-for-unpaid-loans is a dead giveaway. These are the > dominant patterns of deals the PRC have been forging with 3rd-world countries > for the past, 5 years. Always the airports, railways, ports, and key weapons > sites. > > While various globalization models are in use today, they all share similar > heuristics. It is synonymous with empire building, by any name. > > The PRC announced, circa 1998, that their boundary of influence and method > would in future strategy have no borders, as unrestricted warfare. > > In doing so, the PRC declared the world their theatre of operations, using > any method they chose to use. > > In addition, the PRC just announced how 2020 was a huge success for them. I > wonder why? > > The 2008/2009 post-economic crash radicalized the PRC's business practices, > and produced a razor-blade of intent. > > At the time, the PRC, as subject state, kicked in and many private businesses > went under while chanelling resources exclusively to the rescue of the state. > It worked, and a loss of over $2 trillion was mitigated - at great cost to > the private sector. > > Afterwards, a new aggressiveness to be number 1 in the world became apparent. > For example, the PRC started hoarding US dollars, building up to having in > excess stock to the value exceeding the total US debt to GDP. > > To be absolutely clear. I'm not referring to mainland China culture. I'm not > referring to the Chinese people, but to the CCP as the PRC and their global > strategy. Therefore, I'm not arguing about Chinese culture, but the 300-year > strategic plans of an empire on the march. > > Perhaps then, what you perceived as being a "fear" or "unreadiness" of the > PRC to pursue AGI, might've been ancient prudence. Why be the early adopters > when there are simpler ways to skin the cat? > > Still, the PRC know - as do any other country in the world - that if they > cannot nurture their supermassive population, they would be at risk of not > achieving their global objectives for stability and growth. Growth = Relative > stability and it may be achieved by all means possible. By ALL MEANS possible. > > I acknowledge the point on narrow AI. I made a similar point in my prior > message. However, as you well know, the road towards AGI is not a quantum > leap from narrow AI. There are multiple developmental stages in between the 2 > poles. > > Further, you know what the technical difference is between a controllable > superAI and AGI. Initially, it's a design choice. As such, AGI might just be > the star to aim for in order to land on the moon. > > It seems, superpowers are now competing for 5th-wave technologies, with R&D > towards a 7th-wave. That includes the PRC. The star might well be AGI, but > the moon would be pervasive, adaptive AI (in the sense of near AGI). The > playing field is levelling off. The PRC would never be left behind. > > However, physics are making one breakthrough after another, all the while > looking for game changers. It might be, one such a discovery would soon open > the doorway to AGI. > > For example, suppose the 4 forces were unified? With quantum computers, > incredible force fields could be released with a workable theory of the > cosmos. The hadron collider could fulfill it's potential. > > AGI seems a likely testbed for the 5th state of matter, perhaps a future 6th > state, and even a 7th state. > > All I'm saying is that the scientific boundaries are now tumbling very fast. > Never say never. > > It looks to me as if you have a motivated sense of having to argue as you do, > to deny the PRC's having any such ambitions. > > Therefore, for the lack of evidence to the contrary, both our arguments are > equally valid and only time would prove their reliability. > > Alternatively, one may choose to understand the development of this context > and view these artifacts as building blocks within a strategic architecture, > as a system. Then, to simply read the results off the outputs. > > On the weight of it, one may be pursuaded, or at least left considering its > plausibility. > > The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Again, if I were a betting > man, I'd strongly suggest keeping an eye out for a few, significant surprises > in the superAI category in networks directly beneficial to the PRC. > > I'm not saying the PRC are actively developing near-AGI on home soil, even if > they may find application for its "stages" of product development. > > However, by virtue of the anecdotal evidence I observed in this context, I'm > convinced the PRC are probably pursuing a version of AGI with utmost urgency. > > ________________________________ > From: Ben Goertzel <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Friday, 01 January 2021 10:45 > To: AGI <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: [agi] CCP as a model for AGI > > I don't have time to embark on an in-depth discussion of Chinese > politics and history etc., though I do know something about it (not > just due to living in HK for 9 yrs, but also my wife is a mainland > Chinese AI PhD, etc.).... But I want to note a couple points, > > -- China has never sought global empire, they have sought empire > within their borders and periphery. In line with this, they don't > want to take over Africa, they want to get good deals on its natural > resources so as to make China richer. Etc. > > -- Chinese culture habitually values stability over all else. AGI > scares the Chinese gov't and that's part of why there's no Chinese > analogue of Deep Mind or OpenAI at this point. They want AI they can > control, and they are smart enough to know that AGI will not likely be > controllable in any simple way. What they want is an armamentarium > of narrow AIs they can use to achieve their various purposes in > determinate ways. > > I have met with the AGI-oriented teams within Baidu, Tencent, Alibaba > etc. as well as the top AI profs at Tsinghua, Fudan, BeiDa and other > unis there.... Of course one can always hypothesize super-top-secret > projects but without evidence this isn't so interesting to me.... Of > course they have their top-secret projects in cybersecurity, hacking, > weapons systems etc. but the pattern of recruiting/hiring w/in China > does not support the hypothesis of a major top-secret AGI project. > > -- ben > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 2:21 AM Nanograte Knowledge Technologies > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Why develop your own AGI when you can wait and eventually take it for free? > > > > Have a look at what China is investing in heavily: communications > > technologies and the space race, currency, natural resources, independent > > Internet/Web technologies, 5th-gen weaponry, AI-enabled transport, > > supermassive production (build, food, water, and now moving to regen > > power), and so on. > > > > What does that tell us? Either nothing, or that China is preparing a > > specific environment for it to be able to push suddenly and effectively > > into competitive territories. China only play to win, not to share. I think > > that's what they have in common with the USA and Russia. > > > > Ben, for AGI, it must be that your direct, or indirect contribution to > > their future capabilities speak for itself? > > > > China's scaled activities resemble strategies of empire building, not > > dissimilar to the Han and Ming dynasties. > > > > In further support, more competitive indicators for my argument: > > > > China produces 1 million engineers per annum (they dominate the high-end > > labor force). China have 2 million free, skilled to highly-skilled laborers > > in prison (lowest-cost labor), China's GDP is growing while the rest of the > > world are mostly stagnating (more liquidity). China have acquired masses of > > land in many continents and are actively colonizing those areas with > > loyalists and officials (space of influence where to establish colonies). > > Chinese children make up an estimated 90%+ of all online English tutoring > > (preparing to be in the West). China won the national health service > > contract for the AU, the whole African continent - together with France > > (securing medical influence of the largest continent - the breadbasket of > > the world). > > > > Furthermore, China have numerous young-adult citizens working as > > professional and students on key projects in the West, and co publishing. > > China have many, exact replicas of Western towns/city areas, assimilating > > choice citizens. China's on a mission to be the first in the world, to > > build the biggest, to be the smartest. I think they are succeeding. > > > > What does that tell you then? Is China going to compete, or are they > > already in advanced phases of globalization? Are these symbols of a nation > > unsure of its capabilities, bedding itself down to wait things out, or of a > > nation on the march? > > > > Ask Taiwan, Australia, Japan, America and Europe then, consider the South > > and East China Sea confrontations, growing incidents of war, and these > > might agree with China's most-aggressive advancing tactics. China now, > > seems ready to advance, while the West are reeling. > > > > To imagine and suggest that China are not going to effectively compete in > > the AGI space is implausible. They are already, and I think they are just > > doing it very smartly, most unobtrusively, and in a highly-militarized > > fashion. > > > > China are collaborating with many 3rd-party countries on emerging > > technologies, smart countries, by all accounts. They have obtained deals > > for new-gen nuclear plants in many countries, Namibia being the latest. > > > > Over the past, 5 years, there's been a trove of white papers and hi-tech > > patents blossoming from China. I was looking for some of these products, > > but they are not on the market yet. > > > > I predict we would soon see a massive unveiling of Chinese-owned general AI > > technologies, as well as hordes of narrow AI applications. One thing is for > > sure; where the West misses a step, China almost certainly steps in. > > > > Are Chinese persons more intelligent than their competitors, than > > non-Chinese? It's still too early to tell. > > > > Can the CCP be studied as a model for AGI? Given the hi-tech impetus > > obtained from the covid-pandemic, to my mind they are appearing to be > > rapidly moving towards becoming the first nation with a citified > > singularity. Certainly, we have much to learn from the Chinese. > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Ben Goertzel <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > Sent: Thursday, 31 December 2020 11:19 > > To: AGI <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > Subject: Re: [agi] CCP as a model for AGI > > > > > > I don't think it's very useful to model complex systems like major nations > > as one-dimensional utility-maximizers. Asking "whose utility function" > > about a complex system of that nature -- which has a large number of > > shiftingly-weighted, imprecisely-and-shiftingly-defined "objectives" and > > also largely self-organizes in a non-goal-directed way -- is probably the > > wrong framing.... But asking who will exert a more major influence (e.g. > > the West versus China, or corporate shareholders vs. the scientific > > community) certainly has meaning.... > > > > And I don't currently see evidence that China will exert more influence on > > AGI than the West. Things could evolve that way. But I note there is not > > yet a China analogue of Deep Mind or OpenAI, let alone say OpenCog or > > SingularityNET or whatever. OpenNARS is founded by Pei Wang, who is > > mainland Chinese originally, but is centered in the West, etc. > > > > I truly don't understand why folks believe the Chinese gov't is going to be > > able to assimilate the US to its goals and thus achieve a dominant role in > > shaping AGI .... China does have a larger population than the US and has > > an extraordinary capability for mass-manufacture of electronics, and plenty > > of other interesting advantages, but the AGI advantage seems clearly to > > US/UK ... > > > > I'd like to understand if there are better arguments though... > > > > ben > > > > ben > > > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 8:58 AM James Bowery > > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 12:17 PM Ben Goertzel > > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > Regarding the CCP as a general intelligence(*), I would say all societies > > and large corporations can be viewed that way, but I don't see evidence > > that the corporate-government complex of China is more generally > > intelligent than the corporate-government complexes of US or Western > > Europe. What is the evidence or argument in that regard?... > > > > > > If the CCP is more capable of assimilating ("Turking") the US to the CCP's > > utility function than vis versa then any claims as to the US being "more > > generally intelligent" become superfluous. That's what I meant when I said: > > > > > The CCP-as-AGI is more capable of "Turking" the US-as-AGI than is the > > US-as-AGI of "Turking" the CCP-as-AGI. > > > > > > (*) to me calling a country or corporation an "AGI" feels needlessly > > confusing, since these are systems largely composed of humans, and not > > engineered from human parts but evolved from human social interactions. > > But whatever, I understand what is meant. > > > > > > The Future of Humanity Institute is an exemplar for why the question of > > "Whose utility function?" cannot be swept under the rug with regards to > > "systems largely composed of humans...evolved from human social > > interactions". Indeed "artificial" means humans had agency in the creation > > of the artifact. The concern of "Friendly Artificial General Intelligence" > > hence "The Future of Humanity" is all about the proper application of that > > agency in selecting the utility function of aid artifact. What future is > > there for "humanity" under the wrong utility function of _any_ notion of > > AGI? > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 6:54 AM James Bowery > > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > As with "AI debates" in general, people can easily talk past each other by > > failing to acknowledge they are addressing different questions. Ben > > Goertzel is addressing China's in/ability to create an "AGI" in the sense > > of Legg, Hutter, et al. Steve Richfield is positing the CCP _is_ an "AGI" > > in a more vague sense that might, if "black boxed" also fit with "AGI" in > > the sense of Legg, Hutter, et al. Now, it may certainly be argued that > > _if_ Steve is right, _then_ it is capable of _creating_ an AGI: "The > > Singularity" occurs when some AI achieves the ability to create a more > > intelligent AI, and this threshold of "AI" is the most general notion of > > AGI. > > > > My approach, respecting Steve's original question, is from a position that > > what we call "The Global Economy" _is_ an AGI that is already operating > > with an "unfriendly" utility function, seeing individual human beings as > > raw materials in its environment to refine into "Mechanical Turks". The > > only extent to which human quality of life, or even the quality of the > > biosphere, is relevant to this AGI is the extent to which it can provide > > resources to replicate its incorporations (corporations/NGOs, governments, > > etc.) wielding hive-like power over, and ultimately disintermediating life > > in seeking access to energy and matter. The CCP is merely among the more > > conspicuous cases of evolution toward such an incipient AGI hive > > incorporation. > > > > Now, having clarified the question I am addressing (Steve's in the OP): > > > > Hive specialization in eusocial species recapitulates, in a less effective > > way, the clone-army specialization seen in sexual organism stem-cell > > differentiation (modulating SC clone gene expression) into various organs > > of the organism. The brain is an organ. The CCP constructs its "brain" not > > so much by altering gene expression of clones but by utilizing its long > > history of civil service examination to mine the population for "neurons". > > THAT is where the math comes in to compare the CCP to the US government's > > intelligence agencies. Having said that, Ben is correct that the CCP's > > structure is more amenable to this mining operation, and one should see the > > "private sector" coddled by the CCP as an updated form of its civil service > > examination tradition. While it may be true that the resulting "brain" is > > not going to be as capable of producing a silicon AGI as the US, this > > misses Steve's, or at least my point: > > > > The CCP-as-AGI is more capable of "Turking" the US-as-AGI than is the > > US-as-AGI of "Turking" the CCP-as-AGI. > > > > Why do I say this? > > > > See my prior post describing all the ways the US has inhibited its own > > intelligence agencies from mining the population for intelligence that > > those intelligence agencies can "Turk". Indeed, it is my working > > hypothesis that this inhibition was the result of the CCP engaging in the > > _real_ "Unrestricted Warfare" that the document by that name represents as > > something far more benign. > > > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 5:03 AM Ben Goertzel > > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > I don't think China's slightly higher average IQ is a big advantage for > > them... > > > > However, their governmental organization obviously has some practical > > advantages. As one example, they can get their intel/ military work done > > directly within their big internet tech companies, rather than via sluggish > > military contractors and limited-scope awkward back-channel-ish alliances > > with big internet tech companies like happens in the US. This means they > > are getting on average cleverer and harder working folks working on their > > gov't oriented tech, not due to IQ issues but due to organizational > > issues... > > > > On the other hand they continue to have deep problems with radical > > technical innovation due to a persistent culture of mistrust, and this will > > cause them real issues, because there are significant differences btw US > > and China contexts and copying/adapting Western innovations will probably > > not allow them to overtake the West technologically... > > > > I predict AGI will emerge first via organizations that are centered in the > > West, and China will then attempt to copy it, but will not be fast enough > > ... because the org that first creates AGI will be very fast-moving and > > agile and not that easy for creativity-phobic Chinese institutions to catch > > up with > > > > Note I lived in HK for 9 yrs and made many dozens of trips to Beijing, > > Shanghai, Xiamen etc. etc. ... I have met w/ folks at the highest levels in > > Chinese tech companies and SOEs and fairly high up in gov't. There is a > > lot to admire and a lot to fear there, but I don't think China is really in > > the race as regards AGI and nor do they have the capacity to extremely > > rapidly play catch-up > > > > Of course all this could change in 10 yrs, so these comments are most > > relevant if AGI is achieved in the next say 7 yrs... > > > > ben > > > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 4:22 PM James Bowery > > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > It's "Unrestricted Warfare" and as I've pointed out on numerous occasions, > > that document strikes me as a limited hangout disinformation. Keep in > > mind the Chinese have a higher average IQ than Europeans, their population > > is several times larger and they have a _very_ long history of civil > > service examinations. Extrapolate that mean advantage out to the high IQ > > tail where the ratios explode and it's hard to imagine how great an > > advantage they have when it comes to "peacetime" strategy. Add to that the > > belly-full of the West with Sassoon's steamships delivering opium and Mao > > calling it "a century of humiliation"... > > > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 6:48 PM Steve Richfield > > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > As you are reading this, doing the best you can to survive the Pandemic, > > consider... > > > > The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is a pretty good model for AGI, as there > > are ~500 people working together to provide the best possible management > > for China as it attempts to interact as well as possible with the rest of > > the world. A rising tide usually floats all boats, but China perceived an > > advantage to restrict information about COVID-19 to inflict it on the rest > > of the world, which is consistent with their internal manual Unconventional > > Warfare, which details LOTS of dirty tricks you might expect an AGI to > > employ as it seeks its goals. This manual is a REALLY scary read. > > > > Why would anyone expect an AGI to be any "friendlier" than the CCP? Why > > wouldn't anyone expect an AGI to be even nastier? > > > > This dirty deed WILL work for the CCP - unless worldwide revulsion costs > > the CCP even more. I doubt whether an AGI would greatly consider feelings > > that run counter to profit. We may all be paying dearly for not reigning in > > the CCP long ago - and we might end up paying more if we turn an AGI loose > > on the world - for exactly the SAME reasons. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Steve Richfield > > > > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> > > > > > > > > -- > > Ben Goertzel, PhD > > http://goertzel.org > > > > "Words exist because of meaning; once you've got the meaning you can forget > > the words. How can we build an AGI who will forget words so I can have a > > word with him?" -- Zhuangzhi++ > > > > > > > > -- > > Ben Goertzel, PhD > > http://goertzel.org > > > > "Words exist because of meaning; once you've got the meaning you can forget > > the words. How can we build an AGI who will forget words so I can have a > > word with him?" -- Zhuangzhi++ > > > > > > > > -- > > Ben Goertzel, PhD > > http://goertzel.org > > > > "Words exist because of meaning; once you've got the meaning you can forget > > the words. How can we build an AGI who will forget words so I can have a > > word with him?" -- Zhuangzhi++ > > Artificial General Intelligence List / AGI / see discussions + participants > > + delivery options Permalink > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > http://goertzel.org > > "Words exist because of meaning; once you've got the meaning you can > forget the words. How can we build an AGI who will forget words so I > can have a word with him?" -- Zhuangzhi++ > Artificial General Intelligence List / AGI / see discussions + participants + > delivery options Permalink -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org "Words exist because of meaning; once you've got the meaning you can forget the words. How can we build an AGI who will forget words so I can have a word with him?" -- Zhuangzhi++ -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org "Words exist because of meaning; once you've got the meaning you can forget the words. How can we build an AGI who will forget words so I can have a word with him?" -- Zhuangzhi++ 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/Tf065676fd779dd5c-M1dc5e1b158efb8734c60ec3d> ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tf065676fd779dd5c-M6771e3974c9846dcce6af992 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
