On 10/15/2008 08:01 AM,, Ben Goertzel wrote:
...
It seems to me there are two types of conversations here:
1)
Discussions of how to design or engineer AGI systems, using current
computers, according to designs that can feasibly be implemented by
moderately-sized groups of people
2)
On 09/03/2008 05:52 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
I'm talking about a situation where humans must interact with the FAI without
knowledge in advance about whether it is Friendly or not. Is there a test we
can devise to make certain that it is?
This seems extremely unlikely. Consider that
On 08/29/2008 10:09 AM, Abram Demski wrote:
I like that argument.
Also, it is clear that humans can invent better algorithms to do
specialized things. Even if an AGI couldn't think up better versions
of itself, it would be able to do the equivalent of equipping itself
with fancy calculators.
On 08/29/2008 01:29 PM, William Pearson wrote:
2008/8/29 j.k.[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
An AGI with an intelligence the equivalent of a 99.-percentile human
might be creatable, recognizable and testable by a human (or group of
humans) of comparable intelligence. That same AGI at some later
On 08/29/2008 03:14 PM, William Pearson wrote:
2008/8/29 j.k.[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
... The human-level AGI running a million
times faster could simultaneously interact with tens of thousands of
scientists at their pace, so there is no reason to believe it need be
starved for interaction
On 08/28/2008 04:47 PM, Matt Mahoney wrote:
The premise is that if humans can create agents with above human intelligence,
then so can they. What I am questioning is whether agents at any intelligence
level can do this. I don't believe that agents at any level can recognize
higher
While searching for information about the Mitchell book to be published
in 2009
http://www.amazon.com/Core-Ideas-Sciences-Complexity/dp/0195124413/,
which was mentioned in passing by somebody in the last few days, I found
a paper by the same author that I enjoyed reading and that will probably
On 06/01/2008 09:29 PM,, John G. Rose wrote:
From: j.k. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 06/01/2008 03:42 PM, John G. Rose wrote:
A rock is conscious.
Okay, I'll bite. How are rocks conscious under Josh's definition or any
other non-LSD-tripping-or-batshit-crazy definition
On 06/01/2008 03:42 PM, John G. Rose wrote:
A rock is conscious.
Okay, I'll bite. How are rocks conscious under Josh's definition or any
other non-LSD-tripping-or-batshit-crazy definition?
---
agi
Archives:
On 03/09/2008 10:20 AM,, Mark Waser wrote:
My claim is that my view is something better/closer to the true CEV
of humanity.
Why do you believe it likely that Eliezer's CEV of humanity would not
recognize your approach is better and replace CEV1 with your improved
CEV2, if it is actually
On 03/09/2008 02:43 PM, Mark Waser wrote:
Why do you believe it likely that Eliezer's CEV of humanity would not
recognize your approach is better and replace CEV1 with your improved
CEV2, if it is actually better?
If it immediately found my approach, I would like to think that it
would do so
On 03/07/2008 05:28 AM, Mark Waser 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
I've just carefully reread Eliezer's CEV
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*
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 03/06/2008 08:32 AM,, Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And thus, we get back to a specific answer to jk's second question. *US*
should be assumed to apply to any sufficiently intelligent goal-driven
intelligence. We don't need to define *us* because I DECLARE
On 03/05/2008 05:04 PM,, Mark Waser wrote:
And thus, we get back to a specific answer to jk's second question.
*US* should be assumed to apply to any sufficiently intelligent
goal-driven intelligence. We don't need to define *us* because I
DECLARE that it should be assumed to include current
At the risk of oversimplifying or misinterpreting your position, here
are some thoughts that I think follow from what I understand of your
position so far. But I may be wildly mistaken. Please correct my mistakes.
There is one unique attractor in state space. Any individual of a
species that
On 03/06/2008 02:18 PM,, Mark Waser wrote:
I wonder if this is a substantive difference with Eliezer's position
though, since one might argue that 'humanity' means 'the
[sufficiently intelligent and sufficiently ...] thinking being'
rather than 'homo sapiens sapiens', and the former would of
On 03/05/2008 12:36 PM,, Mark Waser wrote:
snip...
The obvious initial starting point is to explicitly recognize that the
point of Friendliness is that we wish to prevent the extinction of the
*human race* and/or to prevent many other horrible nasty things that
would make *us* unhappy.
On 02/14/2008 06:32 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:
The Semantic Web, Syllogism, and Worldview
First published November 7, 2003 on the Networks, Economics, and
Culture mailing list.
Clay Shirky
For an alternate perspective and critique of Shirky's rant, see Paul
Ford's A Response to Clay
everything I've said.
-j.k.
-
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=78280299-9bd5b2
Hi Stan,
On 12/20/2007 07:44 PM,, Stan Nilsen wrote:
I understand that it's all uphill to defy the obvious. For the
record, today I do believe that intelligence way beyond human
intelligence is not possible.
I understand that this is your belief. I was trying to challenge you to
make a strong
On 12/20/2007 07:56 PM,, Richard Loosemore wrote:
I think these are some of the most sensible comments I have heard on
this list for a while. You are not saying anything revolutionary, but
it sure is nice to hear someone holding out for common sense for a change!
Basically your point is that
23 matches
Mail list logo
