From: D.den Otter (neosapient@geocities.com)
Date: Wed Mar 15 2000 - 07:01:33 MST
----------
> From: Dan Fabulich <daniel.fabulich@yale.edu>
> 'What is your name?' 'D.den Otter.' 'Do you deny having written the
> following?':
Yes. No. Maybe.
> > Ah no, outlawing never stopped anything. I think the word I
> > used was "curbed", but didn't write that the *state* would
> > have to do the curbing. Not on my website, anyway.
>
> OK. What DO you mean by curbed? How would you suggest I go about this,
> given that I'm a rational subjective being and so on and so forth?
Well, "concerned" private individuals/organizations
could contact the top (i.e. most likely to succeed)
scientists working on AI (and the people who fund
their work) and explain to them the possible
consequences of their research (homo sapiens wiped
out etc.) Most of the AI people probably aren't
"evil" (or really suicidal), just a bit naive and
misguided, and are likely to listen to rational
arguments if these are presented in the proper
manner (this varies per individual).
With a bit of luck all parties could then reach a mutually
acceptable compromize (mass uploading which involves
some sort of "weak" AI, for example). If this doesn't work,
one would have to resort to more, um, *coercive* means,
of course...[use your imagination].
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:24 MST