Re: Additional thought on Crocker's Laws

From: Kathryn Aegis (k_aegis@mindspring.com)
Date: Tue Sep 28 1999 - 21:22:46 MDT


At 09:34 PM 9/28/99 -0400, you wrote:
>I half-agree with Eliezer and Lee. It's definitely a good idea to be able to
>look past other people's indelicacy in phrasing; we just disagree with
>how much effort we should make when originating speech.

Again, I ask, are we talking about simple words, or a form of action? This
is my point of divergence with some of what has been written on this
thread, and I hope that someone will address it. Emotions do not
constitute the sole mechanism through which persons formulate a reaction to
written or verbal communication, and to reduce it to that misses an
opportunity to address an aspect of posthuman development.

As we move into realms of uploading, AI and other transhuman futures,
symbolic forms of communication will take on greater significance. If an
AI or an uploaded entity can only act digitally, then every communication
it utters also consitutes a form of action, and actions generally fall
under some sort of self-governance mechanism. The decisions we make now as
to how to communicate on the Internet could eventually relate to how we
develop methods of AI interaction. The initial design of an AI or uploaded
entity will include the current understanding of communications in a
digital medium, of which the best example we have is the Internet.

Kathryn Aegis



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:19 MST