Re: AI Dooms Us

Are the resources available to the OverLords that would allow the sharing to be "cost-free" then it would make no difference, otherwise On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:37 PM, LizR wrote: > On 4 September 2014 14:31, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> But something is amiss! Why would the OverLords

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 14:30, Stephen Paul King wrote: > ​Right! Damping down random fluctuations in one's computer is an > optimization move. > >Oh!, your thinking in more "Borg" terms, re: absorption​ > > I'm thinking in terms of "Childhood's End". -- You received this message because yo

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 14:31, Stephen Paul King wrote: > But something is amiss! Why would the OverLords wish to share their > largess with us? > > Why wouldn't they? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this gro

Re: AI Dooms Us

But something is amiss! Why would the OverLords wish to share their largess with us? On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:25 PM, LizR wrote: > On 4 September 2014 14:06, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> OTOH, becoming capable of exploiting computational resources that are >> "free" (note the scare quotes)

Re: AI Dooms Us

​Right! Damping down random fluctuations in one's computer is an optimization move. Oh!, your thinking in more "Borg" terms, re: absorption​ On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:25 PM, LizR wrote: > On 4 September 2014 14:06, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> OTOH, becoming capable of exploiting co

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 14:06, Stephen Paul King wrote: > OTOH, becoming capable of exploiting computational resources that are > "free" (note the scare quotes) is always optimal. If one can obtain > solutions to problem without having to use up one's own resources is always > a "good thing" (for the

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 14:04, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Childhood's End in on my top 20 best scifi books ever list... Umm, I > disagree with "the ultimate aim of life in "Star Maker" (iirc) was to > merge into a single mind" only to the extent that it is actually > impossible (there is a proven the

Re: AI Dooms Us

OTOH, becoming capable of exploiting computational resources that are "free" (note the scare quotes) is always optimal. If one can obtain solutions to problem without having to use up one's own resources is always a "good thing" (for the Overlords at least). On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:53 PM, LizR

Re: AI Dooms Us

Childhood's End in on my top 20 best scifi books ever list... Umm, I disagree with "the ultimate aim of life in "Star Maker" (iirc) was to merge into a single mind" only to the extent that it is actually impossible (there is a proven theorem to this effect) for this to happen. It always goes the op

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 13:48, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Zerg ! ? > > Well, quite. I believe the name comes from "Childhood's End" although obviously Olaf Stapledon was writing about it (and influencing Clarke) decades earlier than the 1950s. The ultimate ai

Re: AI Dooms Us

Zerg ! ? On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:46 PM, LizR wrote: > On 4 September 2014 13:45, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> Umm, not really. It is "exploitation". >> >> Only if you aren't absorbed. Otherwise you'd only be exploiting yourself. > > -- > You receiv

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 13:47, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Umm, explain: "Absorbed". I'm not groking it... > > You become part of it. -- 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 i

Re: AI Dooms Us

Umm, explain: "Absorbed". I'm not groking it... On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:46 PM, LizR wrote: > On 4 September 2014 13:45, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> Umm, not really. It is "exploitation". >> >> Only if you aren't absorbed. Otherwise you'd only be exploiting yourself. > > -- > You received

Re: AI Dooms Us

Humans interacting with each other form very nice (in terms of expressiveness ) adaptive networks. On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Stephen Paul King < stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote: > Umm, not really. It is "exploitation". > > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 13:45, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Umm, not really. It is "exploitation". > > Only if you aren't absorbed. Otherwise you'd only be exploiting yourself. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from t

Re: AI Dooms Us

Umm, not really. It is "exploitation". On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:43 PM, LizR wrote: > On 4 September 2014 13:38, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> Hi John, >> >>"why would have want the Zookeepers intelligence from the Earthlings? >> " >> >>Did you mean, Why would the Zookeepers want inte

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 13:38, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Hi John, > >"why would have want the Zookeepers intelligence from the Earthlings? " > >Did you mean, Why would the Zookeepers want intelligence from > Earthlings? Why to compute things for them, of course! Distributed networks > runnin

Re: AI Dooms Us

Hi John, "why would have want the Zookeepers intelligence from the Earthlings? " Did you mean, Why would the Zookeepers want intelligence from Earthlings? Why to compute things for them, of course! Distributed networks running algorithms that "evolve" are very good at finding solutions to o

Re: MGA revisited paper

Hi John. I am still lost trying to follow what you are saying. I don't think you replied when I asked you to clarify your earlier response so I'm not getting anywhere. Any elucidation would be welcome! Just in case you missed it... On 2 September 2014 09:21, John Mikes wrote: > Did I come close

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 07:51, John Mikes wrote: > Stephen, we have not communicated for quite awhile. Why would you think we > know more than - *what?* - *nothing* indeed and assume circumstances > according to our whim (mindset?). > () > To be exact I quoted you sa saying that. > We still use ou

Re: MGA revisited paper

Brent, you did not mention the 'other' trillion colonizations parallel to ours. Your reply is pretty logical - see my response to Stephen (insert: to Liz) And "colonization" was not MY word. An older fantasy spoke about an advanced species KNOWING about their own demise and looking for ways to keep

Re: AI Dooms Us

Stephen, we have not communicated for quite awhile. Why would you think we know more than - *what?* - *nothing* indeed and assume circumstances according to our whim (mindset?). () We still use our present terms in postulating a far bigger world as our creator, one we can 'imagine' to be applicable

Re: AI Dooms Us

Hi Chris, Could you send me your thoughts about dependency injection to my gmail address so that we can continue? kingstephenp...@gmail.com On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Stephen Paul King < stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote: > Hi Chris, > >Could we discuss this further outside of the

Re: AI Dooms Us

From: John Clark To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 10:56 AM Subject: Re: AI Dooms Us On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: >a human baby is a plastic template for the individual to e

Re: AI Dooms Us

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >a human baby is a plastic template for the individual to emerge in > And those 1000 lines of Lisp are a plastic template for the Jupiter Brain to emerge in. > All of that living experience a

Re: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-03 18:38 GMT+02:00 John Clark : > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:54 AM, meekerdb wrote: > > > on Bruno's theory, consciousness is a binary attribute, all-or-nothing. >> Intelligence has degrees >> > > If that is true (and I'm not saying it is) then we can immediately > conclude that Bruno's the

Re: AI Dooms Us

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:54 AM, meekerdb wrote: > on Bruno's theory, consciousness is a binary attribute, all-or-nothing. > Intelligence has degrees > If that is true (and I'm not saying it is) then we can immediately conclude that Bruno's theory is wrong because we know for a fact from personal

RE: AI Dooms Us

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 4:54 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: AI Dooms Us On 9/2/2014 10:35 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: Fro

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 9/2/2014 10:35 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: *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