On 8/25/08, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Valentina Poletti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > In other words, Vladimir, you are suggesting that an AGI must be at some > > level controlled from humans, therefore not 'fully-embodied' in order to > > prevent non-friendly AGI as the outcome. > > Controlled in Friendliness sense of the word. (I still have no idea > what "embodied" refers to, now that you, me and Terren used it in > different senses, and I recall reading a paper about 6 different > meanings of this word in academic literature, none of them very > useful).
Agree > Therefore humans must somehow be able to control its goals, correct? > > > > Now, what if controlling those goals would entail not being able to > create > > an AGI, would you suggest we should not create one, in order to avoid the > > disastrous consequences you mentioned? > > > > Why would anyone suggest creating a disaster, as you pose the question Also agree. As far as you know, has anyone, including Eliezer, suggested any method or approach (as theoretical or complicated as it may be) to solve this problem? I'm asking this because the Singularity has confidence in creating a self-improving AGI in the next few decades, and, assuming they have no intention to create the above mentioned disaster.. I figure someone must have figured some way to approach this problem. ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
