I guess I'm not ready to buy into the black and white scenario that either 1) AI is open sourced for the good of humanity or 2) the AI is privately developed with an implicit assumption that this is not so good for humanity.
It strikes me as a bit of an oversimplification. Sure, science developed in a mostly open way, but along the way a lot of private inventions were patented, eg, fortunes in pharmacy. Prozac. I like open source. You can make money from open source, sure. But along the way to the singularity I think the avenue of private development should exist. Why? For competition, for incentive. Both closed and open source can coexist in AI like they do today for everything else. You could take the "trust but verify" approach with closed source. Eg., that the company reveals certain agreed upon boundaries of its AI. Mike A On 3/11/16, Bill Hibbard <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 11 Mar 2016, Steve Richfield wrote: >> So, How about a petition AGAINST transparent and open AIs? > > Go for it, man. As we were working on our article > and petition I was thinking that perhaps someone > should have a petition against transparency. > > When I was thinking about making my Vis5D system > open source in 1989, I weighed possible good and > and bad consequences. Turned out, none of the bad > stuff happened and all sorts of good stuff happened > that I never imagined. > > Best wishes, > Bill > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- 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
