On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 1:48 AM, J Storrs Hall, PhD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 06 March 2008 04:28:20 pm, Vladimir Nesov wrote: > > > > This is different from what I replied to (comparative advantage, which > > J Storrs Hall also assumed), although you did state this point > > earlier. > > > > I think this one is a package deal fallacy. I can't see how whether > > humans conspire to weed out wild carrots or not will affect decisions > > made by future AGI overlords. ;-) > > > > There is a lot more reason to believe that the relation of a human to an AI > will be like that of a human to larger social units of humans (companies, > large corporations, nations) than that of a carrot to a human. I have argued > in peer-reviewed journal articles for the view that advanced AI will > essentially be like numerous, fast human intelligence rather than something > of a completely different kind. I have seen ZERO considered argument for the > opposite point of view. (Lots of unsupported assumptions, generally using > human/insect for the model.) >
My argument doesn't need 'something of a completely different kind'. Society and human is fine as substitute for human and carrot in my example, only if society could extract profit from replacing humans with 'cultivated humans'. But we don't have cultivated humans, and we are not at the point where existing humans need to be cleared to make space for new ones. The only thing that could keep future society from derailing in this direction is some kind of enforcement installed in minds of future dominant individuals/societies by us lesser species while we are still in power. > > Note that if some super-intelligence were possible and optimal, evolution > could have opted for fewer bigger brains in a dominant race. It didn't -- > note our brains are actually 10% smaller than Neanderthals. This isn't proof > that an optimal system is brains of our size acting in social/economic > groups, but I'd claim that anyone arguing the opposite has the burden of > proof (and no supporting evidence I've seen). > Sorry, I don't understand this point. We are the first species to successfully launch culture. Culture is much more powerful then individuals, if only through parallelism and longer lifespan. What follows from it? -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
