"Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: __________ > >> When a proposed system design turns out to require fancy emergency >> patches and somewhat arbitrary set points to achieve part of its >> function, then perhaps that's a hint that it's time to widen-back and >> re-evaluate the concept at a higher level. >> >> - Jef > >I dunno, Jef ;-) ... > >The human brain seems to have a lot of emergency patches and arbitrary set >points in it, and so does every *practical* AI design I've ever seen > >The problem may be that "safety" is not a simple concept... > >As Moshe pointed out, if one wants to trust to the power of elegant >generalization, then one can simply trust to the rule I called R_2 in my >second paper. > >This has no emergency patches and no arbitrary set points.. it's beautiful >and pretty... > >Does this mean it's better than the patched up version? I'm not so sure. >Elegance is a virtue, but not the only one...
My point continues to be that the "threat" is from an evolutionary process larger than ourselves. It's impractical in principle to try to control it; the best we can do is adapt such that we can exert the influence of our own values within the larger system. -Jef ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
