On 7/26/07, Robert Wensman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What worries me is that the founder of this company subscribes to the > philosophy of Objectivism, and the implications this might have for the > company's possibility at achieving friendly AI. I do not know about the rest > of their team, but some of them use the word "rational" a lot, which could > be a hint. >
You do not wish the AGI to be rational? :-) Seriously, if you knew Peter even lightly you would know he is in no way of the ilk of the worst of those who may call themselves "objectivist". He is imminently sensible, ethical and committed. Your remark also imho displays a very shallow notion of objectivist philosophy . I am well aware of that Ayn Rand, the founder of Objectivism, uses slightly > non-standard meaning when using words like "selfishness" and "altruism", but > her main point is that altruism is the source of all evil in the world, and > selfishness ought to be the main virtue of all mankind. Instead of altruism > she often also uses the word "selflessness" which better explains her > seemingly odd position. What she essentially means is that all evil of the > world stems from people who "give up their values, and their self" and > thereby become mindless evildoers that respect others as little as they > respect themselves. While this psychological statement in isolation could be > worth noting, and might help understand some collective madness, especially > from the last century, I still feel her philosophy is dangerous because she > mixes up her very specific concept of "selflessness" with the > commonly understood concept of altruism, in the sense of valuing the well > being and happiness of others. Is this mix-up accidental or intended? In her > novel The Fountainhead you even get the impression that she doesn't think it > is possible to combine altruism with creativity and originality, as all > "altruistic" characters of her book are incompetent copycats who just > imitate others. > If you had actually read her works on this subject, especially in this case "The Virtue of Selfishness" I think you would have no problem like the above. Her view of the world also seems to completely ignore another category of > potential evil-doers: Selfish people who just do not see any problem with > using whatever means they see fit, including violence, to achieve their > goals. People who just do not see there is "any problem" in killing or > torturing others. Why does she ignore this group of people, because she does > not think they exist? > OK. You obviously have no real knowledge of objectivism. So because this philosophy is controversial, it raises some interesting > questions about Adaptive AI's plans for friendly AI. *What values > an objectivist would give to an AGI seems like a complete paradox to me? * > Would > he make an AGI that is only obedient to its master and creator, or would he > make an AGI system that to only cares about protecting and sustaining the > life of itself? But in the first case, the AGI would truly become a > selfless, and therefore evil soul in Ayn Rands very meaning, an evil soul > that is also super intelligent. > If you actually understood objectivism you would undestand that reason, intelligence and ability are seen as virtues and real objectivists deeply desire to see their increase regardless of whether that manifestation is in themselves or others. It is not remotely about being King of the Hill or some such nonsense. It is not at all clear whether a real AGI would be selfless. You are btw mistaken that selflessness per se is the essence of evil in objectivism. On the other hand I cannot understand what selfish interest the objectivist > AGI designer could find in creating a selfish super intelligent AGI system > that would likely become a superior competitor? Maybe such an AGI system > would decide, much like the fictionous Skynet, that the humans is the most > imminent threat to its survival, and make us its enemy? > Objectivists welcome superior ability as all profit from greater intelligence and productive ability in the world. That an AGI may turn against us is as much of a concern for an objectivist as anyone else. I bet a strong enough AGI system could kill us even without the use > of offensive violence in the sense Ayn Rand uses the word. I guess it just > needs to obtain exclusive legal ownership on all the land that we need to > live on, on all the food we need to eat, and on all the air we need to > breathe. Then it could just kill us in self-defence because we trespass on > its property. I know even Ayn Rand sees no moral problem in using defensive > violence to defend material property that is being stolen. > Again, you do not know what you are talking about. - samantha ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&id_secret=28676632-76d1fc
