On 10/03/2008, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Do you think that any of this contradicts what I've written thus far? I > don't immediately see any contradictions.
The discussions seem to entirely ignore the role of socialization in human and animal friendliness. We are a large collection of autonomous agents that are well-matched in skills and abilities. If we were unfriendly to one another, we might survive as a species, but we would not live in cities and posses hi-tech. We also know from the animal kingdom, as well as from the political/economic sphere, what happens when abilities are mis-matched. Lions eat gazelles, and business tycoons eat the working class. We've evolved political systems to curb the worst abuses of feudalism and serfdom, but have not yet achieved nirvana. As parents, we apply social pressure to our children, to make them friendly. Even then, some grow up unfriendly, and for them, we have the police. Unless they achieve positions of power first (Hitler, Stalin, Mao). I don't see how a single AGI could be bound by the social pressures that we are bound by. There won't be a collection of roughly-equal AGI's keeping each other in check, not if they are self-improving. Self-preservation is rational, and so is paranoia; its reasonable to assume that agi will race to self-improve merely for the benefit of self-preservation, so that they've enough power so that others can't hurt them. Our hope is that AGI will conclude that humans are harmless and worthy of study and preservation; this is what will make them friendly to *us*.. until one day we look like mosquitoes or microbes to them. --linas ------------------------------------------- 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
