HOW TO CREATE THE BUZZ THAT BRINGS THE BUCKS
Wow, there it is. That just about says it all. Take the content of that concise evaluation and go on the road. That is what AGI needs. For general PR purposes it doesnt have to be much more detailed than that. Talk shows and news articles are unlikely to cover even that much. I have done national media and this is the kind of story they would love. Some additional hooks, events and visuals would also be effective. >From this and prior emails do I detect a pattern. -When I am an AGI booster, pat me on the head and throw me a bone. (I love it. If I had a tail it would wag.) -When I am an AGI detractor, politely and intelligently challenge me . (I dont love it as much, but it is interesting and thought provoking.) So given your apparent bias, I would like to agree in part and disagree in part. I would love to be a big time booster for AGI. I want to be on one of the teams that make it happen in some capacity. I want to be one of the first people to ride an AGI dream machine, something that can talk with you like the most wise, intelligent, and funny of men, that can be like the most brilliant of teacher, one with the worlds knowledge likely to be of any interest already in deep structure, and that can not only brilliantly talk in real time but also simultaneously show real time images, graphs, and photorealistic animations as it talks. I am 59 so I want this to start happening soon. I am convinced it can happen. I am convinced I basically know how to do it (at a high level with a lot of things far from totally filled in) But I think others, like Ben Goertzel, are probably significantly ahead of me. And I have no experience at leading a software team, which I would need because I have never written a program more than 100 pages long and that was twenty years ago, when I programmed Dragon Systems first general purpose dictating machine. So I am an AGI booster, but there needs to be serious discussion of AGIs threats and how we can deal with them, at least among the AGI community, to which the readers of this list are probably pretty much limited. Admittedly there are many possible dangers with future AGI technology. We can think of a million horror stories and in all probability some of the problems that will crop up are things we didnt anticipate. At this point it is pure conjecture. True, the threat is pure conjecture, if by that you mean reasoning without proof. But that is not the proper standard for judging threats. If you had lived you life by disregarding all threats except those that had proof you almost certainly would have died in early childhood. All new technologies have dangers, just like life in general. We cant know the kinds of personal problems and danger we will face in our future. True, many other new technologies involve threats, and certainly among them are nano-technology and bio-technology, which have potentials for severe threats. But there is something particularly threatening about a technology can purposely try to outwit us that, particularly if networked, it could easily be millions of times more intelligent than we are, and that would be able to understand and hack the lesser computer intelligences that we depend our lives on millions of times faster than any current team of humans. Just as it is hard to image a world in which humans long stayed enslaved to cows, it is hard to imagine one in which machines much brighter than we are stayed enslaved to us. ..in the end you have to follow the road ahead. Totally agree. There is no turning back at this point. The wisp of smoke that will become the Geni is already out of the bottle. Assuming that Moores law keeps on keeping on for another couple generations, within five to seven years starting to make a powerful AGI will probably be within the capacity of half the worlds governments and all of the worlds thousand largest companies. So to keep the world safe we will need safer AIs to protect us from the type the Leona Helmslys and Kim Yung ils of the world are likely to make. We well be better informed and better adept at dealing with the inevitable problems the future holds as they arise. This is particularly true if there is a special emphasis on the problem. That is why it should be discussed. I have said for years that for humans to defend themselves against machine, learning how to defend human against machines should be rewarded as one of mankinds highest callings. That is why, despite the fact that I disagree with Eliezer Yudkowski on certain points, have I tremendous respect for the fact that he is probably the first human to dedicate him self to this highest calling. Of course the proper use of intelligence augmentation and collective human intelligence greatly increases our chances, particularly if through the use of augmented intelligence and collective intelligence we can both better learn and understand how to control superhuman intelligences and we can develop a fairly enforceable system for substantially limiting superintelligences uses to what are considered the more safe forms and uses. We must have a certain amount of faith in our ability meet the challenges of the future There is good reason to doubt that, unless we significantly improve our collective intelligence, we humans will be able to resist the urge to unleash the dangerous power of more free minded machines for selfish short term gain. It is not even clear mankind can get control of the global warming issue. We have never been able to get control over mankinds tendency toward war. We have held off nuclear war for sixty years, an impressive accomplishment, but it is not clear in the age of fundamentalism, nuclear proliferation, and stateless terrorism how much longer that will be true. or we will stagnate in the past cowering in fear. AGI has the potential of being hugely beneficial to humanity. Should we outlaw its development just because it could possibly be used inappropriately? As I said above, I dont think there is any turning back at this point. We should move forward, seeking to maximize the tremendous potential benefits and minimize the threats. If we have a relatively just human society the benefits will be both important and many. That is, as long as we can keep the threats at bay. I am certain the benefits will come and that there will be many of them, assuming Moores law keeps on keeping on.. I dont spend that much time talking about the benefits because they are not in dispute with me. But when it comes to HOW TO CREATE THE BUZZ THAT BRINGS THE BUCKS I should have emphasized them more. Fear has never stop technological development before and it is unlikely to stop it this time. That means the more dangerous, mind of their own, AIs, provided they have the promise of providing a significant useful advantage to someone for a few years, are unlikely to be stopped. This emphasizes the threat. What needs to be emphasized is the many ways AGI can be limited and controlled. First of all most infrastructure technology can be controlled by regular AI. In other words, an effective firewall between the more powerful AGI systems and human infrastructure could possibly be created. There are many other possible strategies for controlling any dangers represented by AGI in the future. In fact AGI itself can help us to develop them. I agree, as indicated by comments above. But remember for AGI to achieve its greatest promise, they have to be able to program, and if they can program there is an increased chance they could hack, and they would be brilliant hackers. The war between the good (as defined by the interests of humanity) and bad sides of the AGI force may well be the final conflict of human existence. As I said above, learning how to define human from machine intelligence, particularly to IA and collective intelligence, should become one of the most rewarded of human callings. In any case this is a technology that is too important to outlaw or just pass up. Agreed to above. These are important questions and unless the AGI I community gets out in front of the issue we will be at the mercy of the media and the opposition to set the framework of the debate and to create the public stereotype of AGI. The one who gets there first has a tremendous advantage in establishing the public image. No lie! That is why I think it is important that we focus particularly hard on the threats now. Achieving many of the benefits will be the easy part. Dealing with the threats is the hard part, and we should be thinking about it now. This would be not only to know how to best reduce such threats, but also to help clarify how to best discribe them to those outside the field. For example, this conversation is helping to clarify my view on both of these subjects at once. I think it is likely the mainstream media would make a mockery of the discussion of these issues. I think the religious right and most of mainstream America would be opposed to AGI if they know roughly what we were talking about. A large part of me was opposed to AI until I realized it was unstoppable. A large part of me is still deeply disturbed by it. Thus, you are right to say there are dangers to the field of AGI by having a discussion like that in our recent posts. But there is also a danger in not having such discussions. THIS IS THE PUBLIC IMAGE THEY ARE TRYING TO PAINT OF YOU NOW >Some critics have mocked singularists for their obsession with "techno-salvation" and >"techno-holocaust" or what some wags have called the coming "nerdocalypse." Their >predictions are grounded as much in science fiction as science, the detractors claim, and <may never come to pass. Associated Press ITS BOUND TO GET WORSE. For years people made fun of the people who talked about global warming, calling them names like tree huggers So should people have stopped talking about the problem. A I know I keep posting this AP quote, but it proves the need better than anything that you guys better wake up and take some action. So what are we to do? Studiously ignore talking about a very serious threat. You tell me. I want this field to be funded. I realize from this conversation that I should emphasize the positives, which I largely take for granted, more. But how are we likely to deal well with very real threats, such as the fact that these machines will be able to put most people in America out of anything like their current work, unless we discuss and think about them. I would like to hear your answer. Don Detrich Edward W. Porter Porter & Associates 24 String Bridge S12 Exeter, NH 03833 (617) 494-1722 Fax (617) 494-1822 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Don Detrich - PoolDraw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 4:55 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] HOW TO CREATE THE BUZZ THAT BRINGS THE BUCKS HOW TO CREATE THE BUZZ THAT BRINGS THE BUCKS Wow, there it is. That just about says it all. Take the content of that concise evaluation and go on the road. That is what AGI needs. For general PR purposes it doesnt have to be much more detailed than that. Talk shows and news articles are unlikely to cover even that much. I have done national media and this is the kind of story they would love. Some additional hooks, events and visuals would also be effective. >> And now for the buzz fuster... AGI Will Be The Most Powerful Technology In Human History In Fact, So Powerful that it Threatens Us << Admittedly there are many possible dangers with future AGI technology. We can think of a million horror stories and in all probability some of the problems that will crop up are things we didnt anticipate. At this point it is pure conjecture. All new technologies have dangers, just like life in general. We cant know the kinds of personal problems and danger we will face in our future. We can be careful not to take unnecessary risks, but in the end you have to follow the road ahead. We well be better informed and better adept at dealing with the inevitable problems the future holds as they arise. We must have a certain amount of faith in our ability meet the challenges of the future or we will stagnate in the past cowering in fear. AGI has the potential of being hugely beneficial to humanity. Should we outlaw its development just because it could possibly be used inappropriately? Fear has never stop technological development before and it is unlikely to stop it this time. What needs to be emphasized is the many ways AGI can be limited and controlled. First of all most infrastructure technology can be controlled by regular AI. In other words, an effective firewall between the more powerful AGI systems and human infrastructure could possibly be created. There are many other possible strategies for controlling any dangers represented by AGI in the future. In fact AGI itself can help us to develop them. In any case this is a technology that is too important to outlaw or just pass up. These are important questions and unless the AGI I community gets out in front of the issue we will be at the mercy of the media and the opposition to set the framework of the debate and to create the public stereotype of AGI. The one who gets there first has a tremendous advantage in establishing the public image. THIS IS THE PUBLIC IMAGE THEY ARE TRYING TO PAINT OF YOU NOW >Some critics have mocked singularists for their obsession with "techno-salvation" and >"techno-holocaust" or what some wags have called the coming "nerdocalypse." Their >predictions are grounded as much in science fiction as science, the detractors claim, and <may never come to pass. Associated Press ITS BOUND TO GET WORSE. I know I keep posting this AP quote, but it proves the need better than anything that you guys better wake up and take some action. Don Detrich _____ 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/? <http://v2.listbox.com/member/?& > & ----- 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=8660244&id_secret=48002975-85a363