From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Thu Dec 11 1997 - 04:45:44 MST
Eugene Leitl <eugene@liposome.genebee.msu.su> writes:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Steve Witham wrote:
>
> > [ a very fine post snipped ]
> > Measuring ourselves by dribble-glass standards is not a game I want to be
> > included in, implicitly or not.
>
> Very well, what should we do? Autodafe the designers? Wipe out criminally
> pointy-haired decision-makers, and the mob which adapts to broken designs
> stampedeing all over the marketplace? Pass me that torch, please.
I think less drastic measures are more effective (if you remove one
idiot, two takes his place); we should both demand better designs and
try to promote good design (as you all know, I'm constantly cheering
HCI as one of the most important >H areas). We need both positive and
negative fitness gradients.
> This seems about forcing 'good' decisions upon resisting imbecility. About
> memetic engineering. Last time I looked it was not a formal discipline
> still.
>
> Let's put Machiavelli on a scientific platform.
Very true. I have started looking at replicator dynamics; combined
with cognitive science it might be a workable first step towards
memetic simulation and modelling.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:12 MST