To me this seems like elevating that status of nanotech to magic. Even given RSI and the ability of the AGI to manufacture new computing resources it doesn't seem clear to me how this would enable it to prevent other AGIs from also reaching RSI capability. Presumably "lesser techniques" means black hat activity, or traditional forms of despotism. There seems to be a clarity gap in the theory here.
On 04/10/2007, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bob Mottram wrote: > > On 04/10/2007, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> As to exactly how, I don't know, but since the AGI is, by assumption, > >> peaceful, friendly and non-violent, it will do it in a peaceful, > >> friendly and non-violent manner. > > > > This seems very vague. I would suggest that if there is no clear > > mechanism for stopping someone from developing an AGI then such > > enforcement will not occur in practice. > > Oh, in my haste I forgot to remind you that this assumes RSI: the first > AGI to be built will undoubtedly be used to design faster and possibly > smarter forms of AGI, in a rapidly escalating process. > > It is only under *those* assumptions that it will take action. It will > invent techniques to handle the situation. Nanotech, probably, but > perhaps lesser techniques will do. > > Clearly, at the base level it will not be able to do anything, if it > doesn't have access to any effectors. > > > Richard Loosemore > > ----- > 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/?&; > ----- 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=49857713-6526fe
