Kevin wrote: > Money may make you beholden to them...But in the most dark > scenario, should > it become apparent > that NM will be as wildly successful as we think is possible, they may > **make sure** that the jeanie stays > only in their bottle, which may not be so good for you and your > team, if you > know what I mean. > I would hope such a scenario would not play out that way, but I would > currently put nothing past them. Their track record on such > matters is not > so good. There are no limits on what they will do "in the name > of national > security".. > > > > > If the DARPA funding is for a non-secret project, then one has > the freedom > > to use the software elsewhere simultaneously with DARPA doing what it > likes > > with the software (i.e. passing it along to the defense community). > > You assume that stipulation would stick should things become successful, I > do not...
I'm thinking about a scenario like OpenCyc. Cyc has been largely funded via military sources, yet OpenCyc is out there for anyone to use. No clampdown is going to rescind it; it's on numerous hard drives around the world. OpenCyc is far from an AGI, but the same distribution model could potentially be used for an AGI whose development was largely military-funded. I readily admit that taking military funding is "playing with fire", but I also note that *not developing AGI quickly* is playing with fire too, because of the risk of other technologies destroying the human race before AGI is created. The advancement of biotech to the point where genetically engineered pathogens are possible *really* worries me, because I don't think it's that far off. I don't see any path that's not fraught with danger, and balancing the dangers adequately is going to require a lot of wisdom as well as a lot of intelligence... -- Ben G ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
