Very well said. (And Pandora's Brain does say it, as it happens...) But the pro-AGI community also needs to convince the public that the AGI we'll get will be a Friendly one.
Calum On 17 March 2015 at 15:56, Ben Goertzel via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > > A problem is that careful, balanced discussions of difficult issues are > boring and don't attract media attention > > Joel Pitt and I wrote a fairly thoughtful discussion of AGI safety issues > a few years ago, > > http://jetpress.org/v22/goertzel-pitt.htm > > but of course our thoughts are more complex and nuanced, whereas a tweet > from a billionaire comparing AI research to demon-summoning is a lot > sexier... > > IMO, to get media attention sufficient to counteract the media's love of > alarmism and doomsaying, the pro-AGI community would need to come forward > very > aggressively with the message that AGI is important for SAVING AND > IMPROVING HUMAN LIVES ... for designing the next generation of > medicines, for creating elder-care robots to make old age more > livable, for extending healthspan for those who want it, for aiding > the invention of new energy sources, for aiding in the fight against > physical and cyber terrorism, and so forth.... "Don't worry too > much, we'll be careful" is not a convincing counterargument -- a better > counterargument to the Musks, Hawkings, Bostroms and Yudkowskys of the > world is more like "Hey, I don't want your fear of science fiction bad > guys to > deny my grandma her life-extending, health-improving medicine and her > robot friend, to eliminate my future of virtually unlimited energy and > to put me at risk from terrorist attacks...." I.e. "DON'T LET THE > LUDDITES KILL YOUR GRANDMA AND TAKE YOUR TOYS AWAY!! EMBRACE AI AND > ROBOTS LIKE YOU'VE EMBRACED SMARTPHONES, AC POWER, THE INTERNET AND BIRTH > CONTROL PILLS -- AND YOUR LIFE WILL BE BETTER -- " .... > > OK I'm semi-joking ;) ;p ... but unfortunately I think it's a mistake to > overestimate the general public's appetite for rational, balanced > discussion and thinking ;p ... When careful nuanced thinking on difficult > issues it put out there, it tends to be vigorously ignored... > > -- Ben > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Benjamin Kapp via AGI <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> If you think of governments as an artificial man (as was done by >> Aristotle and Hobbes amongst others) which is composed of humans who are >> the muscles (military, police), the intelligence (spys, scientists), the >> judging and planning (judges, politicians), etc.. In a way the state is a >> leviathan (a thing which has power to overawe any individual or group of >> individuals). And in this way AGI (or a super intelligence) already >> exists. >> >> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Calum Chace via AGI <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Basile. I agree with Pitrat, although I might dial up the >>> consideration of the downside possibility a touch. >>> >>> Hawking usually gets slightly mis-represented. He said that AGI could >>> be either the best or the worst thing ever to happen to humanity. The >>> "best" bit seems to get missed by both sides of the debate. >>> >>> So, my question is, what is the best way for people who think along >>> these lines to try and steer the public debate on AGI? Alarmism is >>> unhelpful, and hard to avoid. Secrecy won't work. Ben is tackling the >>> issue head-on (as in the video he posted just now), but it's a hard debate >>> to get right. >>> >>> Calum >>> >>> On 17 March 2015 at 11:17, Basile Starynkevitch < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 09:33:22AM +0100, Calum Chace via AGI wrote: >>>> > Steve >>>> > >>>> > I sympathise with your very understandable preference not to be >>>> targeted by >>>> > anti-AI crazies! >>>> > >>>> > What do you think is the best way to try and shape the growing public >>>> > debate about AGI? Following Bostrom's book, and the comments by >>>> Hawking, >>>> > Musk and Gates, a fair proportion of the general public is now aware >>>> that >>>> > AGI might arrive in the medium term, and that it will have a very big >>>> > impact. >>>> > >>>> > Some AI researchers seem to be responding by saying, "Don't worry, it >>>> can't >>>> > happen for centuries, if ever". No doubt some of them genuinely >>>> believe >>>> > that, but I wonder whether some are saying it in the (forlorn?) hope >>>> the >>>> > debate will go away. It won't. In fact I suspect that the new >>>> Avengers >>>> > movie will kick it up a level. >>>> > >>>> > Others are saying, "Don't worry, AGI cannot and will not harm >>>> humans." To >>>> > my mind (and I realise I may be in a small minority here on this) >>>> that is >>>> > hard to be certain about - as Bostrom demonstrated. >>>> > >>>> > Yet others are saying, "AI researcher will solve the problem long >>>> before >>>> > AGI arrives, and it's best not to worry everyone else in the >>>> meantime." >>>> > That seems a dangerous approach to me. If the public ever feels >>>> (rightly >>>> > or wrongly) that things have been hidden from them, they will react >>>> badly. >>>> > >>>> > But I do definitely sympathise with the desire not to be targeted by >>>> > crazies, or to be vilified by journalists who have half-understood the >>>> > situation! >>>> > >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> > >> > ------------------------------------------- >>>> > >> > AGI >>>> > >> > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >>>> >>>> [....] >>>> >>>> >>>> I would suggest reading J.Pitrat's december 2014 blog entry on that >>>> subject. >>>> J.Pitrat is probably not subscribing to that list, i >>>> so I am blind-carbon-copying him. >>>> >>>> >>>> http://bootstrappingartificialintelligence.fr/WordPress3/2014/12/not-developing-an-advanced-artificial-intelligence-could-spell-the-end-of-the-human-race/ >>>> >>>> He is explaining that >>>> >>>> "Not developing an advanced artificial intelligence >>>> could spell the end of the human race" >>>> >>>> and I believe he has a point. Of course AGI researchers should be >>>> careful. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Basile Starynkevitch http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/ >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards >>> >>> Calum >>> >>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/26973278-698fd9ee> | >>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>> >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-deec6279> | Modify >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > http://goertzel.org > > "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one > persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress > depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/26879140-5b8435c3> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Regards Calum ------------------------------------------- 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
