Re: [META] Re: Economic libertarianism [was Re: The first-to-market effect [WAS Re: [agi] Religion-free technical content]

2007-10-12 Thread Linas Vepstas
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 01:22:26PM -0400, Richard Loosemore wrote:
 
 Am I the only one, or does anyone else agree that politics/political 
 theorising is not appropriate on the AGI list?

Yes, and I'm sorry I triggred the thread. 

 I particularly object to libertarianism being shoved down our throats, 
 not so much because I disagree with it, but because so much of the 
 singularity / extropian / futurist discussion universe is dominated by it.

Why is that?  Before this, the last libertarian I ran across was 
a few decades ago. And yet, here, they are legion. Why is that?
Does libertarian philosphy make people more open-minded to ideas
such as the singularity? Make them bigger dreamers? Make them more
willing to explore alternatives, even as the rest of the world 
explores the latest hollywood movie?

--linas

-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=53020802-76f4d8


Re: [META] Re: Economic libertarianism [was Re: The first-to-market effect [WAS Re: [agi] Religion-free technical content]

2007-10-11 Thread Bob Mottram
On 10/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Am I the only one, or does anyone else agree that politics/political
 theorising is not appropriate on the AGI list?

Agreed.  There are many other forums where political ideology can be debated.

-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=52314407-5d32b9


Re: [META] Re: Economic libertarianism [was Re: The first-to-market effect [WAS Re: [agi] Religion-free technical content]

2007-10-11 Thread JW Johnston
I also agree except ... I think political and economic theories can inform AGI 
design, particularly in areas of AGI decision making and 
friendliness/roboethics. I wasn't familiar with the theory of Comparative 
Advantage until Josh and Eric brought it up. (Josh discusses in conjunction 
with friendly AIs in his The Age of Virtuous Machines at Kurzweil's site.) I 
like to see discussions in these contexts.

-JW

-Original Message-
From: Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Oct 11, 2007 11:12 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [META] Re: Economic libertarianism [was Re: The first-to-market 
effect [WAS Re: [agi] Religion-free technical content]

On 10/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Am I the only one, or does anyone else agree that politics/political
 theorising is not appropriate on the AGI list?

Agreed.  There are many other forums where political ideology can be debated.

-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?;

-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=52436992-ab6eb0


Re: [META] Re: Economic libertarianism [was Re: The first-to-market effect [WAS Re: [agi] Religion-free technical content]

2007-10-11 Thread a

Yes, I think that too.

On the practical side, I think that investing in AGI requires 
significant tax cuts, and we should elect a candidate that would do that 
(Ron Paul). I think that the government has to have more respect to 
potential weapons (like AGI), so we should elect a candidate who is 
strongly pro-gun (Ron Paul). I think that the government has to trust 
and respect the privacy of its people, so your would not be forced to 
sell your AGI to the military. No more wiretapping (abolish the Patriot 
Act) so the government won't hear an AGI being successfully developed. 
Abolish the Federal Reserve, so no more malinvestment, and more 
productive investment (including agi investment). Ron Paul will do all 
of that.


JW Johnston wrote:

I also agree except ... I think political and economic theories can inform AGI design, 
particularly in areas of AGI decision making and friendliness/roboethics. I wasn't 
familiar with the theory of Comparative Advantage until Josh and Eric brought it up. 
(Josh discusses in conjunction with friendly AIs in his The Age of Virtuous 
Machines at Kurzweil's site.) I like to see discussions in these contexts.

-JW

-Original Message-
  

From: Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Oct 11, 2007 11:12 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [META] Re: Economic libertarianism [was Re: The first-to-market 
effect [WAS Re: [agi] Religion-free technical content]

On 10/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Am I the only one, or does anyone else agree that politics/political
theorising is not appropriate on the AGI list?
  

Agreed.  There are many other forums where political ideology can be debated.

-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?;



-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=52468544-1f3003


[META] Re: Economic libertarianism [was Re: The first-to-market effect [WAS Re: [agi] Religion-free technical content]

2007-10-10 Thread Richard Loosemore



Am I the only one, or does anyone else agree that politics/political 
theorising is not appropriate on the AGI list?


I particularly object to libertarianism being shoved down our throats, 
not so much because I disagree with it, but because so much of the 
singularity / extropian / futurist discussion universe is dominated by it.



Richard Loosemore




J. Andrew Rogers wrote:


On Oct 10, 2007, at 2:26 AM, Robert Wensman wrote:

Yes, of course, the Really Big Fish that is democracy.



No, you got this quite wrong.  The Really Big Fish is institution 
responsible for governance (usually the government); democracy is 
merely a fuzzy category of rule set used in governance.



I am starting to get quite puzzled by all Americans (I don't know if 
you are American though, but I want to express this anyway) who 
express severe distrust in government. Because if you distrust all 
forms of government, what you really distrust is democracy itself.



This bias is for good reason; there are well described pathological 
minima that are essentially unavoidable in a democracy.  The American 
government was explicitly designed as a constitutional republic (not a 
democracy) to avoid these pathologies.  In the 20th century the American 
constitution was changed to make it more like a democracy, and the 
expected pathologies have materialized.


If you do not understand this, then the rest of your reasoning is likely 
misplaced.  Much of American libertarian political thought is based on a 
desire to go back to a strict constitutional republic rather than the 
current quasi-democracy, in large part to fix the very real problems 
that quasi-democracy created.  Many of the bad things the Federal 
government is currently accused of were enabled by democracy and would 
have been impractical or illegal under a strict constitutional republic.




Here you basically compare democracy to...  whom? The devil!?



Perhaps I should refrain from using literate metaphors in the future, 
since you apparently did not understand it.



My recommendation is to put some faith in the will of the people! When 
you walk on the street and look around you, those are your fellow 
citizen you should feel at least some kind of trust in. They are not 
out to get you!



I'm sure they are all lovely people for the most part, but their poorly 
reasoned good intentions will destroy us all.  The problem is not that 
people are evil, the problem is that humans at large are hopelessly 
ignorant, short-sighted, and irrational even when trying to do good and 
without regard for clearly derivable consequences.



Actually, I believe that the relative stupidity of the population 
could act as a kind of protection against manipulation.



Non sequitur.


Also, the history shows that intelligence is no guarantee for power. 
The Russian revolution and the genocide in Cambodia illustrates 
effectively how intelligent people were slaughtered by apparently less 
intelligent people, and later how they were controlled to the extreme 
for decades.



You are improperly conflating intelligence and rationality.


Cheers,

J. Andrew Rogers



-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?;




-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=51972366-e14515