> > There are simple external conditions that provoke protective tendencies in > humans following chains of logic that seem entirely natural to us. Our > intuition that reproducing these simple external conditions serve to > provoke protective tendencies in AIs is knowably wrong, failing an > unsupported specific complex miracle.
Well said. > > Or to put it another way, you see Friendliness in AIs as pretty likely > regardless, and you think I'm going to all these lengths to provide a > guarantee. I'm not. I'm going to all these lengths to create a > *significant probability* of Friendliness. > You're mischaracterizing my position. I'm certainly not saying we'll get friendliness for free, but was trying to reason by analogy (perhaps in a flawed way), that our best chance of success may be to model AGI's based on our innate tendencies wherever possible. Human behavior is a knowable quality. I perceived, based on the character of your discussion, that you would be unsatisfied with anything short of a formal, mathetmatical proof that any given AGI would not destroy us before giving the assent to turning it on. If that characterization was incorrect, the fault is mine. -Brad ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
