Even Statis responded - although I cannot understand why he wrote "they" and
My problem is the "A" pertinent to SAI: s u p e r i n t e l l i
g e n c e dores not contain an "A". If it is ''a'-rtificial' I
question the 'natural one' (following Bruno's fear of the (natural?) 'super
stupidity'.) Yet I don't think Marc wants to let himself denature into an
artifact. So: what is the "A" standing for?
I have a solution to the ID of superintelligence, I got it in a malicious
discussion group of peers when I denigrated the 'exceedingly wealthy' as
getting inevitably demoralised, I was asked whom I consider 'exceedingly
wealthy'? One chap quipped: whoever is wealthier then himself. So I can find
lots of 'superintelligents' in these terms. it is not a contractual
belonging-to it is a quality. Unidefinable. But: smarter than me.
It is some 'koanic' wisdom of the Budhist to "kill all superintelligent on
the road". It requires considerable 'intelligence' (whatever that may be) to
recognise the more-'so' on the road.
In our (definition-wise) lower mentality it is not likely that we can 'kill'
the smarter. So the condition involves the un-possibility, even if we are
capable to recognise them
- what we are not likely to be.
On 10/15/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le 15-oct.-07, à 07:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> > On Oct 14, 3:39 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Take care, trust yourself and "kill all the "SAI"" on the road, to
> >> paraphrase a well known Buddhist idea. Either you are sufficiently
> >> clever to understand the SAI arguments, showing you are already an SAI
> >> yourself, and your message is without purpose, or you are not, in
> >> which
> >> case, to keep soundness (by lobianity), you better be skeptical, (and
> >> not to abide so quick imo).
> >> Unless you want to loose your universality, and be a slave, a tool.
> >> Bruno
> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
> > Heh. Bruno, I continue to analyse my current (human) condition to try
> > to find a way out of this mess (I'm not a happy bloke). Still
> > considering many possibilities. Given the possibility that super-
> > intelligences do already (or will in the future) exist, there's a
> > chance that a non-interference policy is being/will be pursued, but
> > that there's a way to get their attention - it could be a simple
> > matter of indicating that you are aware of the possibility and
> > requesting to 'sign' a 'social contract'. Get in early now! ;)
> The price of the existence of intelligence, is the existence of
> stupidity. I am afraid that the price of super-intelligence is
> super-stupidity, and if you are not super-intelligent yourself, then
> you cannot be sure of making the difference, and you are taking the
> risk of alerting the super-idiots of the universe ...
> So be careful when writing the "social contract". What do *you* intend
> to put in the contract?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at