From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 6:58 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: AI Dooms Us
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 2:45 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
wrote
PS I have to go in a minute to meet my other half to attend this...
http://www.climatevoter.org.nz/debate/
On 3 September 2014 16:31, LizR wrote:
> On 3 September 2014 16:15, Stephen Paul King
> wrote:
>
>> Hi LizR,
>>
>>Yes, I am saying that there may be AIs around already unaware of ou
On 3 September 2014 16:15, Stephen Paul King
wrote:
> Hi LizR,
>
>Yes, I am saying that there may be AIs around already unaware of our
> existence and vice versa! Cultures, languages, religions, etc. all have the
> behaviors that we would associate with entities that are to some degree
> "se
Modulo decryption
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:59 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 3 September 2014 15:45, Stephen Paul King
> wrote:
>
>> Hi LizR,
>>
>> Sequentiable means that the correct sequence of operations occurs.
>> Information is sensitive to orderings after all. 101001010010 is not the
>> sam
Hi LizR,
Yes, I am saying that there may be AIs around already unaware of our
existence and vice versa! Cultures, languages, religions, etc. all have the
behaviors that we would associate with entities that are to some degree
"self-aware" in that there are "self-replication" behaviors associat
On 3 September 2014 15:45, Stephen Paul King
wrote:
> Hi LizR,
>
> Sequentiable means that the correct sequence of operations occurs.
> Information is sensitive to orderings after all. 101001010010 is not the
> same number as 00100110001
>
> Is it a real word? (Personally I'd go for "correc
On 3 September 2014 15:43, Stephen Paul King
wrote:
> Right, the connections have to be correct, but there is a weird trick
> here. Recall how an encrypted message can appear to be random noise? There
> is a form of computation that would look like noise if one where only
> looking at some subset
Hi LizR,
Sequentiable means that the correct sequence of operations occurs.
Information is sensitive to orderings after all. 101001010010 is not the
same number as 00100110001
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:23 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 3 September 2014 15:09, Stephen Paul King
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Li
Right, the connections have to be correct, but there is a weird trick here.
Recall how an encrypted message can appear to be random noise? There is a
form of computation that would look like noise if one where only looking at
some subset of the network that is running a distributed computation. If
On 3 September 2014 15:09, Stephen Paul King
wrote:
> Hi LizR,
>
> But here is the thing: the hardware to run AGI already exists! From what
> I have gathered so far in my research it is a sufficiently complex and
> dynamic network. The AGI, AFAIK, is a "software" machine. It does not need
> par
Hi LizR,
But here is the thing: the hardware to run AGI already exists! From what
I have gathered so far in my research it is a sufficiently complex and
dynamic network. The AGI, AFAIK, is a "software" machine. It does not need
particular hardware, it just needs the functions that are required t
"It's there in the National Geographic, must be the truth." -- Tom Robinson
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@google
On 3 September 2014 12:43, Stephen Paul King
wrote:
> Hi LizR,
>
>My point about Aliens being AGI is simple. A sufficiently advanced
> alien civilization may very likely have had a Singularity of its own in the
> past and what survived are the machines!
>
Agreed.
>
>We forget that the T
Hi LizR,
My point about Aliens being AGI is simple. A sufficiently advanced alien
civilization may very likely have had a Singularity of its own in the past
and what survived are the machines!
We forget that the Turing test is merely a test for an ability to
deceive humans
"In that cas
On 3 September 2014 11:31, Stephen Paul King
wrote:
> What if the aliens are AI?
>
In that case they were built by someone else.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:19 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>> On the subject of AI dooming us, at least we have John Mikes' benevolent
>> aliens looking out for us. Unless
What if the aliens are AI?
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:19 PM, LizR wrote:
> On the subject of AI dooming us, at least we have John Mikes' benevolent
> aliens looking out for us. Unless their aim was to get the AIs ... but why
> not build one themselves? (Come to think of it why not build US themse
On 2 September 2014 04:58, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Pierz wrote:
>
> > What is bizarre about John's objections is that it, if he really can't
>> accept FPI,[...]
>>
>
> Despite what Bruno says I would maintain there is not one single person on
> planet Earth that is co
On the subject of AI dooming us, at least we have John Mikes' benevolent
aliens looking out for us. Unless their aim was to get the AIs ... but why
not build one themselves? (Come to think of it why not build US themselves?)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gr
On 2 September 2014 09:21, John Mikes wrote:
> Did I come close?
>
> Dunno. I was asking what you meant when you replied to my earlier post.
I said (commenting on the SSA and the Doomsday Argument):
Actually I'm surprised that there are *no* "populous" universes anywhere in
> the string landsca
Here's hoping the last paragraph comes true. I guess in a multiverse it is
guaranteed to, unless it would involve something physically impossible.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receivi
Is it some untold truth that sooner, or later we all gonna die? Never
oocurred to me. What next? (Remember the discussion of the 2 fetuses
whether there is life after birth?)
I used to be a Ouijja-Board spiritist in college years (and later) ~70
years ago with friends, we did not cheat and never f
On 01 Sep 2014, at 18:58, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Pierz wrote:
> What is bizarre about John's objections is that it, if he really
can't accept FPI,[...]
Despite what Bruno says I would maintain there is not one single
person on planet Earth that is confused by
On 9/2/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Aug 2014, at 21:04, meekerdb wrote:
Bostrom says, "If humanity had been sane and had our act together globally, the
sensible course of action would be to postpone development of superintelligence until
we figured out how to do so safely. And the
On 01 Sep 2014, at 14:58, Pierz wrote:
What is bizarre about John's objections is that it, if he really
can't accept FPI, then he can't accept MWI either,
Yes, that points has been made clear, many times, by Quentin and others.
yet that theory is perfectly straightforward and clear, and,
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 25 Aug 2014, at 21:04, meekerdb wrote:
>
> Bostrom says, "If humanity had been sane and had our act together
> globally, the sensible course of action would be to postpone development of
> superintelligence until we figured out how to
On 29 Aug 2014, at 19:41, meekerdb wrote:
I appreciated Hal's posting on the list. I wasn't aware he had died.
In a sad coincidence I just learned that Vic Stenger died
unexpectedly in Hawaii, Wednesday. He wasn't a participant on this
list but some here know him from his books and his A
On 25 Aug 2014, at 21:04, meekerdb wrote:
Bostrom says, "If humanity had been sane and had our act together
globally, the sensible course of action would be to postpone
development of superintelligence until we figured out how to do so
safely. And then maybe wait another generation or two
Hi Pierz,
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Pierz wrote:
> I have to say I find the whole thing amusing. Tegmark even suggested we
> should be spending one percent of GDP trying to research this terrible
> threat to humanity and wondered why we weren't doing it. Why not? Because,
> unlike global
On 24 Aug 2014, at 22:43, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/24/2014 4:44 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 August 2014 23:50, meekerdb wrote:
You're saying it may be incoherent to reduce consciousness to
computation, if computation is reducible to physics? Why would
that be incoherent? Must 'reduction'
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Stephen Paul King <
stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
> Hi Telmo,
>
> Access to resources seems to only allow for reproduction and
> continuation. For an AGI to "act on the world" it has to be able to use
> those resources in a manner that implies that it can "se
On 24 Aug 2014, at 00:50, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/23/2014 9:09 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 August 2014 05:02, meekerdb wrote:
What we observe in practice are physical devices of various kinds
(indeed, in principle, indefinitely many kinds) that we accept FAPP
as adequately instantiating pa
On 23 Aug 2014, at 06:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/22/2014 6:46 PM, David Nyman wrote:
I must confess that I've been reading the MGA revisited thread with
a certain sense of frustration (notwithstanding that Russell has
made a pretty good fist of clarifying some key points). My
frustration is
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 6:43 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> Can a single complex multi-cellular organism be understood or defined
> completely without also viewing it in its larger multi-species context?
>
Nothing can be understood complet
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Stephen Paul King <
stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
> The chicken or the egg problem is not hard to solve; just figure out how
> to get something that is a little bit like both and has an evolution path
> into one or the other.
>
That's why origin of life theori
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 2:45 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> Amazing isn’t it. The elegance of self-assembling processes that can
> do so much with so little input.
>
Yes, very amazing!
> > I doubt 1000 lines of computer code is a
We have to have a real success to get people emotionally geared to AI threat
remediation. It's not SKYNET that threatens us, its ourselves. Plus, the ruling
elites, who's politics are now Progressive, are not motivated to deal such a
problem. We don't have international unrest protesting any tec
One day, a printout of this email will be found among the post apocalyptic
wreckage by one of the few remaining humans and they will enjoy the first
laugh they've had in a year.
Just kidding. I have no idea how to calibrate this threat. I'm pretty
skeptical, but some awfully smart people are serio
I have to say I find the whole thing amusing. Tegmark even suggested we
should be spending one percent of GDP trying to research this terrible
threat to humanity and wondered why we weren't doing it. Why not? Because,
unlike global warming and nuclear weapons, there is absolutely no sign of
the
38 matches
Mail list logo
