Well, my "The Next Wave" post was intended to be humorous. I not that much of a comedian, so I may have weighed in too heavily on "apparently serious." Let me apologize to the extent it was a feebly frivolous failure.
Perhaps I am wrong, but my impression is that the talk here about AGI sense of self, AGI friendliness, and so on is quite premature. "The Next Wave" post was intended to illustrate this by way of even more off-the-deep-end topics. Heck, the last I heard we haven't been able to write an algorithm that can beat an accomplished 9 year old at Go. However, I think it is quite conceivable for a future AGI to learn all non-trivial details of the universe, arriving at point where there is effectively nothing left to learn and nothing left to do. Why do something if you know in advance the result? Even random outcomes, such as the nearly infinite number of snowflake patterns will get boring and pointless after, say, 8,941,204,723,493,808 images. But if we find an infinite number of parallel universes . . . ah, forget it. Kevin Copple ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
