On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Terren Suydam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I challenge anyone who believes that Friendliness is attainable in principle >to construct a scenario in which there is a clear right action that does not >depend on cultural or situational context.
It does depend on culture & other things, but at some point, mankind may get unified by a single culture and things like our DNA, our learning methods, our responses to particular stimulus (and more) may get highly controlled & standardized. The meaning of friendliness & goodness may then get well defined & standardized (for us as well as for our machines). If this is ever gonna happen, it will probably be in so distant future that I don't think today's AGI developers need to spend much time with theoretical analysis of those scenarios. In short, the more differences between us the more meaningless the hardcoded friendliness is. At this point, we should IMO rather focus on AGIs that get goals/rules from authorized subjects. And those subjects, when specifying the goals/rules, should IMO be more specific than what some of the members of this list seem to be envisioning. I don't think it's a good idea to give just very high-level orders to our AGIs and let it work on it. When you say to your AGI: "Figure out what's good for us and make sure we all get as much of it as possible!", the results may not really be that good. What would you do if you are in the AGI's shoes in that case? Search Internet for phrases like "Ohhhh, it feels sooo good!" and making statistics about what are all those scenarios about (including checks for negative consequences) so you could "force" (and intensify) the "good" stuff on global scale? I think we can well guess what would top such a list. Our AGIs will IMO need to be tightly controlled (by people) for a while to prevent ridiculous solutions. Our "written record" (/Internet) is filled with data that could be very misleading for thinking machines that did not learn in very human-like ways. And we just don't have technology for implementing human senses and related data processing mechanisms. We can still make AGI working (using other architectures), but I just don't think you could then simply send your AGI to learn from internet in the first major learning phase. It will IMO be more painful than that. For our babies it's also not that simple/fast to understand basics about our world. As for the thread subject: No, embodiment is not necessary for AGI. There is certain [not too high] number of core semantic concepts that you can support with built-in grounding and such semantic baseline can be later used to ground later-gained knowledge. Limited in certain ways? Sure, but we humans have limitations of that nature as well. Regards, Jiri Jelinek ------------------------------------------- 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
