On Thursday 06 March 2008 08:45:00 pm, Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 3:27 AM, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The scenario takes on an entirely different tone if you replace weed out
some
wild carrots with kill all the old people who are economically
Attractor Theory of Friendliness
There exists a describable, reachable, stable attractor in state space that is
sufficiently Friendly to reduce the risks of AGI to acceptable levels
---
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS
Whether humans conspire to weed out wild carrots impacts whether humans
are
classified as Friendly (or, it would if the wild carrots were sentient).
Why does it matter what word we/they assign to this situation?
My vision of Friendliness places many more constraints on the behavior
How do you propose to make humans Friendly? I assume this would also have
the
effect of ending war, crime, etc.
I don't have such a proposal but an obvious first step is
defining/describing Friendliness and why it might be a good idea for us.
Hopefully then, the attractor takes over.
--- Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Attractor Theory of Friendliness
There exists a describable, reachable, stable attractor in state space that
is sufficiently Friendly to reduce the risks of AGI to acceptable levels
Proof: something will happen resulting in zero or more intelligent
--- Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you propose to make humans Friendly? I assume this would also have
the
effect of ending war, crime, etc.
I don't have such a proposal but an obvious first step is
defining/describing Friendliness and why it might be a good idea for us.
Attractor Theory of Friendliness
There exists a describable, reachable, stable attractor in state space
that
is sufficiently Friendly to reduce the risks of AGI to acceptable levels
Proof: something will happen resulting in zero or more intelligent agents.
Those agents will be Friendly to
Are any of the AI folks here competing in this challenge?
http://www.causality.inf.ethz.ch/challenge.php
Eric B. Ramsay
---
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you propose to make humans Friendly? I assume this would also have
the
effect of ending war, crime, etc.
I don't have such a proposal but an obvious first step is
defining/describing Friendliness and why it might be a good
--- Stan Nilsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reprogramming humans doesn't appear to be an option.
We do it all the time. It is called school.
Less commonly, the mentally ill are forced to take drugs or treatment for
their own good. Most notably, this includes drug addicts. Also, it is
common
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Stan Nilsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reprogramming humans doesn't appear to be an option.
We do it all the time. It is called school.
I might be tempted to call this manipulation rather than programming.
The results of schooling are questionable while programming
--- Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Attractor Theory of Friendliness
There exists a describable, reachable, stable attractor in state space
that
is sufficiently Friendly to reduce the risks of AGI to acceptable levels
Proof: something will happen resulting in zero or more
Comments seem to be dying down and disagreement appears to be minimal, so let
me continue . . . .
Part 3.
Fundamentally, what I'm trying to do here is to describe an attractor that will
appeal to any goal-seeking entity (self-interest) and be beneficial to humanity
at the same time
--- Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TAKE-AWAY: Having the statement The goal of Friendliness is to promote the
goals of all Friendly entities allows us to make considerable progress in
describing and defining Friendliness.
How does an agent know if another agent is Friendly or not,
On 03/07/2008 08:09 AM,, Mark Waser wrote:
There is one unique attractor in state space.
No. I am not claiming that there is one unique attractor. I am
merely saying that there is one describable, reachable, stable
attractor that has the characteristics that we want. There are
*clearly*
How does an agent know if another agent is Friendly or not, especially if
the
other agent is more intelligent?
An excellent question but I'm afraid that I don't believe that there is an
answer (but, fortunately, I don't believe that this has any effect on my
thesis).
--- Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Huh? Why can't an irreversible dynamic be part of an attractor? (Not
that
I need it to be)
An attractor is a set of states that are repeated given enough time.
NO! Easily disprovable by an obvious example. The sun (moving through
space)
On 03/07/2008 03:20 PM,, Mark Waser wrote:
For there to be another attractor F', it would of necessity have to be
an attractor that is not desirable to us, since you said there is only
one stable attractor for us that has the desired characteristics.
Uh, no. I am not claiming that there is
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The core of my thesis is that the
particular Friendliness that I/we are trying to reach is an attractor --
which means that if the dominant structure starts to turn unfriendly, it is
actually a self-correcting situation.
19 matches
Mail list logo
