Jim, On 6/24/08, Jim Bromer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Although I do suffer from an assortment of biases, I would not get > worried to see any black man walking behind me at night. For example, if I > saw Andrew Young or Bill Cosby walking behind me I don't think I would be > too worried. >
However, you would have to look very carefully to identify these people with confidence. Why would you bother to look so carefully? Obviously, because of some sense of alarm. Or, if I was walking out of a campus library and a young black man > carrying some books was walking behind me, > Again, you would have to look carefully enough to verify age, and that the books weren't bound together with a belt or rope so they could be used as a weapon. Again, why would you bother to look so carefully? Obviously again, because of some sense of alarm. I would not be too worried about that either. > OK, so you have eliminated ~1% of the cases. How about the other 99% of the cases? Your statement was way over the line, and it showed some really bad > judgment. > Apparently you don't follow the news very well. My statement was an obvious paraphrase from a fairly recent statement made by Rev Jesse Jackson, who says that HE gets worried when a black man is walking behind him. Perhaps I should have attributed my statement for those who don't follow the news. I think that if he gets worried, that the rest of us should also pay some attention. However, your comment broadly dismissing what I said (reason for possible alarm) based on some narrow possible exceptions (which would only be carefully verified *BECAUSE* of such alarm) does indeed show that your thinking is quite clouded and wound around the axle of PC (Political Correctness), and hence we shouldn't be expecting any new ideas from you anytime soon. The message here that you will probably still completely miss, but which hopefully other readers here will "get", is that even bright people like you are UNABLE to program AGIs, or to state non-dangerous goals, or even to recognize obvious dangers. The whole concept of human guidance is SO deeply flawed that I see no hope of it ever working in any useful way. Not in this century or the next. Again, for the umpteenth time, and ANYONE here bothered yet to read the REST of the Colossus trilogy that started with *The Forbin Project* movie? If we are going to rehash issues that have already been written about, it would sure be nice to fast-forward over past writings. Steve Richfield ================= > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: agi@v2.listbox.com > Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 10:53:07 PM > Subject: Re: [agi] Approximations of Knowledge > > Andy, > > This is a PERFECT post, because it so perfectly illustrates a particular > point of detachment from reality that is common among AGIers. In the real > world we do certain things to achieve a good result, but when we design > politically correct AGIs, we banish the very logic that allows us to > function. For example, if you see a black man walking behind you at night, > you rightly worry, but if you include that in your AGI design, you would be > dismissed as a racist. > > Effectively solving VERY VERY difficult problems, like why a particular > corporation is failing after other experts have failed, is a multiple-step > process that starts with narrowing down the vast field of possibilities. As > others have already pointed out here, this is often done in a rather summary > and non-probabilistic way. Perhaps all of the really successful programmers > that you have known have had long hair, so if the programming is failing and > the programmer has short hair, then maybe there is an attitude issue to look > into. Of course this does NOT necessarily mean that there is any linkage at > all - just another of many points to focus some attention to. > > Similarly, over the course of >100 projects I have developed a long list of > "rules" that help me find the problems with a tractable amount of effort. > No, I don't usually tell others my poorly-formed rules because they prove > absolutely NOTHING, only focus further effort. I have a special assortment > of rules to apply whenever God is mentioned. After all, not everyone thinks > that God has the same motivations, so SOME approach is needed to "paradigm > shift" one person's statements to be able to be understood by another > person. The posting you responded to was expressing one such rule. That > having been said... > > On 6/22/08, J. Andrew Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> Somewhere in the world, there is a PhD chemist and a born-again Christian >> on another mailing list "...the project had hit a serious snag, and so the >> investors brought in a consultant that would explain why the project was >> broken by defectively reasoning about dubious generalizations he pulled out >> of his ass..." > > > Of course I don't make any such (I freely admit to dubious) generalizations > to investors. However, I immediately drill down to find out exactly why THEY > SAY that they didn't stop and reconsider their direction when it should have > been obvious that things had gone off track. When I hear about how God just > couldn't have led them astray, I quote what they said in my report and > suggest that perhaps the problem is that God isn't also underwriting the > investment with limitless funds. > > How would YOU (or your AGI) handle such situations? Would you (or your AGI) > ignore past empirical evidence because of lack of proof or political > incorrectness? > > Steve Richfield > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com/> > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com/> > ------------------------------------------- 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=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
