Andrew,
> As for non-attachment being a path to "friendly" AI. I'm going to have to > say, that is wrong and dangerous. Sociopath wrong. It would make a system > even less controllable as well as very hard to understand. Now, sure, you > might hope they are not such starving, greedy, self-absorbed creatures like > most people out there, but with no needs, they'd be kind of useless. > Natural languages are rather ambiguous, and English is especially ambiguous about internal states... I don't think that non-attachment, in the sense that I considered it in my blog post, would be dangerous for an AGI... quite the contrary On the other hand, there are certainly interpretations of the English term "non-attachment" under which non-attachment would be dangerous to an AGI... There is non-attachment in the sense of not: retaining dependencies, associations or subgoals beyond the point where there is reason to believe they are valuable for you And then there is non-attachment in the sense of not caring about anything at all... As I thought I made clear, I meant the former sense... -- Ben ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
