On Jan 19, 2008 8:24 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/16-02/ff_aimystery?currentPage=all > > Turing also committed suicide.
That's a personal solution to the Halting problem I do not plan to exercise. > Building a copy of your mind raises deeply troubling issues. Logically, there Agreed. If that mind is within acceptable tolerance for human life at peak load of 30%(?) of capacity, can it survive hard takeoff? I consider myself reasonably intelligent and perhaps somewhat wise - but I would not expect the stresses of thousand-fold "improvement" in throughput would scale out/up. Even the simplest human foible can become an obsessive compulsion that could destabilize the integrity of an expanding mind. I understand this to be related to the issue of Friendliness (am I wrong?) > It follows logically that there is no reason to live, that death is nothing > to fear. Given a directive to maintain life, hopefully the AI-controlled life support system keeps perspective on such logical conclusions. An AI in a nuclear power facility should have the same directive. I don't expect that it shouldn't be allowed to self-terminate (that gives rise to issues like slavery) but that it gives notice and transfers responsibilities before doing so. > In http://www.mattmahoney.net/singularity.html I discuss how a singularity > will end the human race, but without judgment whether this is good or bad. > Any such judgment is based on emotion. Posthuman emotions will be > programmable. ... and arbitrary? Aren't we currently able to program emotions (albeit in a primitive pharmaceutical way)? Who do you expect will have control of that programming? Certainly not the individual. ----- 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=87858522-76fadd
