On 10/1/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 01 October 2007 11:34:09 am, Richard Loosemore wrote: > > Right, now consider the nature of the design I propose: the > > motivational system never has an opportunity for a point failure: > > everything that happens is multiply-constrained (and on a massive scale: > > far more than is the case even in our own brains). Once the system is > > set up to behave according to a diffuse set of checks and balances (tens > > of thousands of ideas about what is "right", rather than one single > > directive), it can never wander far from that set of constraints without > > noticing the departure immediately. > > That's essentially what I've been proposing, although the form appears > different. Namely, design AIs so that they form a society, with the same kind > of ability to monitor and police each other that human societies give us. > This has the advantage that if enough of us do it with our AIs, it won't > matter (at least it won't be catastrophic) that some other people create > psychopathic ones. > > It's clearly valuable to think about how to do this inside a single system, > but crucial to make sure we can do it for the population of all AIs as a > whole.
In my opinion, this is the only workable approach, not to be confused with a workable solution. - Jef ----- 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=48564784-73bb6c
