From: Reason (reason@vipmobile.com)
Date: Sat Aug 17 2002 - 06:39:25 MDT
--> Anders Sandberg
> Which are useless against suitcase nukes and anthrax. The problem with
> "sysop shields" is that it is a single point of failure: somehow the
> system has to prevent threats, but if it fails there is no other
> defense. I think the interview with Bruce Schneier in The Atlantic
> Monthly makes a few very salient points about this:
> http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/09/mann.htm
> It is better to have systems that fail smartly than foolproof systems.
>
> This is roughly my position on AI (as I stated at Extro 5): better to
> have several imperfect layers of protection than spend all effort on one
> "perfect" protection.
>
> Deterrence is one such imperfect protection: if you are known to
> impassionately wipe out anybody who attacks you (according to clear
> rules that you can be observed to obey) the value of an attack becomes
> lower (but again, an irrational attacker doesn't care). It will decrease
> the likeliehood of one category of attacks, leaving resources for the
> other kinds.
You know, it does seem to come down to how to deal with irrational
attackers. In this sense of "irrational", I'm thinking of attackers who have
beliefs that lead to very different values placed on self-preservation. I
think that Ander's point is well made -- everyday life on every level
demonstrates that multiple layers of imperfect protection (a lot of it all
in behavior, words and memes) work pretty well on people who are "rational".
i.e. people who place the same values on various facets of
self-preservation. Where it all breaks down is when you run into a situation
in which the other person doesn't really mind being upset, getting shouted
at, going to jail, dying, losing a limb, becoming poor, or suffering various
other damages that you might expect them to try and avoid.
So that said, how do you deal with the "irrational?" I need a better word
here. Differently-valued or somesuch.
To further continue with this theme and depart on a minor tangent, people
become uncomfortable and act oddly when they can't predict the rationality
of other actors in any given circumstances. I see that in the
racial/cultural/everything else divide here in the US. The cultures are
sufficiently diverse and different that people aren't always sure if the
other guy is going to behave "rationally," because their little mental model
of the other guy is throwing NaN errors. Cured by experience and exposure,
of course, but a lot of people seem to shy away from NaN error situations.
Anyway. What I said above; how to deal with the "irrational"?
Reason
http://www.exratio.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:11 MST