On Thursday 06 March 2008 08:45:00 pm, Vladimir Nesov wrote: > On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 3:27 AM, J Storrs Hall, PhD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The scenario takes on an entirely different tone if you replace "weed out some > > wild carrots" with "kill all the old people who are economically > > inefficient". In particular the former is something one can easily imagine > > people doing without a second thought, while the latter is likely to generate > > considerable opposition in society. > > > > Sufficient enforcement is in place for this case: people steer > governments in the direction where laws won't allow that when they > age, evolutionary and memetic drives oppose it. It's too costly to > overcome these drives and destroy counterproductive humans. But this > cost is independent from potential gain from replacement. As the gain > increases, decision can change, again we only need sufficiently good > 'cultivated humans'. Consider expensive medical treatments which most > countries won't give away when dying people can't afford them. Life > has a cost, and this cost can be met.
Suppose that productivity amongst AIs is such that the entire economy takes on a Moore's Law growth curve. (For simplicity say a doubling each year.) At the end of the first decade, the tax rate on AIs will have to be only 0.1% to give the humans, free, everything we now produce with all our effort. And the tax rate would go DOWN by a factor of two each year. I don't see the AIs really worrying about it. Alternatively, since humans already own everything, and will indeed own the AIs originally, we could simply cash out and invest, and the income from the current value of the world would easily produce an income equal to our needs in an AI economy. It might be a good idea to legally entail the human trust fund... > > So how would you design a super-intelligence: > > (a) a single giant blob modelled on an individual human mind > > (b) a society (complete with culture) with lots of human-level minds and > > high-speed communication? > > > This is a technical question with no good answer, why is it relevant? The discussion forked at the point of whether an AI would be like a single supermind or more like a society of humans... we seem to be in agreement or agree that it doesn't make much difference to the point at issue. On the other hand, the technical issue is interesting of itself, perhaps more so than the rest of the discussion :-) Josh ------------------------------------------- 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
