On 13 Feb 2015, at 04:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/12/2015 2:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Feb 2015, at 22:26, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Jason Resch
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]
> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Jason Resch
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]
> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Jason Resch
<[email protected]> wrote:
If you define increased intelligence as decreased probability of
having a false belief on any randomly chosen proposition, then
superintelligences will be wrong on almost nothing, and their
beliefs will converge as their intelligence rises. Therefore
nearly all superintelligences will operate according to the same
belief system. We should stop worrying about trying to ensure
friendly AI, it will either be friendly or it won't according to
what is right.
I wonder if this isn't prevented by Gödel's incompleteness. Given
that the superintelligence can never be certain of its own
consistency, it must remain fundamentally agnostic. In this case,
we might have different superintelligences working under different
hypothesis, possibly occupying niches just like what happens with
Darwinism.
Interesting point. Yes a true super intelligence may never perform
any actions, as its trapped in never being certain (and knowing it
never can be certain) that its actions are right. Fitness for
survival may play some role in how intelligent active agents can
be before they become inactive.
Yes, that's an interesting way to put it. I wonder.
I think chances are that it will be friendly, since I happen to
believe in universal personhood, and if that belief
is
correct, then superintelligences will also come to believe it is
correct. And with the belief in universal personhood it would know
that harm to others is harm to the self.
I agree with you, with the difference that I try to assume
universal personhood without believing in it, to avoid becoming a
religious fundamentalist.
Interesting. Why do you think having beliefs can lead to religious
fundamentalism. Would you not say you belief
the Earth is round?
Could such a belief lead to religious fundamentalism and if not
why not?
This leads us back to a recurring discussion on this mailing list.
I would say that you can believe the Earth to be round in the
informal sense of the word: your estimation of the probability
that the earth is round is very close to one. I don't think you
can believe the earth to be round with 100% certainty without
falling into religious fundamentalism. This implies a total belief
in your senses, for example. That is a strong position about the
nature of reality that is not really backed up by anything. Just
like believing literally in the Bible or the Quran or Atlas
Shrugged.
I see. I did not mean it in the sense of absolute certitude,
merely that universal personhood is one of my current working
hypotheses derived from my consideration of various problems of
personal identity.
Right. We are in complete agreement then.
Universal personhood is also one of my main working hypotheses. I
wonder if it could be considered a "preferable belief": it may be
true and we are all better off assuming it to be true.
It might be useful after death, but I am not sure if it is a
preferable belief/assumption on the terrestrial (effective) plane.
It makes sense only through a personal understanding, for example
of the universal person that all machine can recognized by
themselves to be when introspecting, in case they are enough self-
referentially correct. If not, it will becomes a statement that the
parrots will repeat and impose without understanding, and that will
quickly lead to a threat to freedom. Like I said: it is double
edged. It might be a type of knowledge belonging to a []* \ [] sort
of logic: you can grasp it from inside, but it would not make sense
to tell others.
On the contrary it makes excellent sense to tell others, and to
persuade them of it's truth and importance:
"Ethics is, at bottom, the art of recommending to others the
self-sacrifice necessary to cooperate with ourselves."
--- Bertrand Russell
OK. We disagree. (Russell never understood Gödel, really). I would say
Help yourself, and the others might help you and themselves.
Ask help to others, and you will not help them.
Ethics is the catalog of the pavement of the road to hell.
That is why "voting" is a crucial progress in meta-ethics. Instead of
judging if this or that is right or wrong, you let people vote, and
if they get unhappy, they can vote for someone else (proposing other
laws) later.
Bruno
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
