On 10/27/07, Stefan Pernar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/27/07, Aleksei Riikonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> An AI implementing CEV doesn't question, is the thing that humans >>>> express that they ultimately want, 'good' or not. If it is what the >>>> humans really want, then it is done. No thinking about whether it is >>>> really 'good' (except the thinking done by the humans answering the >>>> questions, and the possible simulations/modifications/whatever of >>>> those humans -- and they indeed think that it *is* 'good'). >>> >>> If that is how CEV is meant to work than I object to CEV and reject it. >> >> If you really had figured out a smart answer to this question, don't >> you think the vastly smarter and more knowledgeable humans of the >> future would agree with you (they would check out what is already >> written on the subject)? And so CEV would automatically converge on >> whatever it is that you have figured out... > > This would require 'goodness' to emerge outside of the CEV dynamic not as a > result thereof. I agree with you.
So is there actually anything in CEV that you object to? If we use your terminology, in the CEV model 'goodness' *does* emerge "outside" of the dynamic, since 'goodness' is found in the answers the humans give. -- Aleksei Riikonen - http://www.iki.fi/aleksei ----- 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=4007604&id_secret=58064006-5f30ae
