81 Message 81: From exi@panix.com Sat Jul 24 01:26:15 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA19828; Sat, 24 Jul 93 01:26:13 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from panix.com by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA18153; Sat, 24 Jul 93 01:26:01 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by panix.com id AA06500 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Sat, 24 Jul 1993 04:20:52 -0400 Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1993 04:20:52 -0400 Message-Id: <199307240820.AA06500@panix.com> To: Exi@panix.com From: Exi@panix.com (List Processing System) Subject: X-Extropian-Date: July 24, 373 P.N.O. [08:20:44 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: R Sat, 24 Jul 93 Volume 93 : Issue 204 Today's Topics: [3 msgs] Babysitting [2 msgs] HEX: share offering [1 msgs] Homosexual tendencies (was: future problems) [3 msgs] Homosexual tendencies (was: future problems) [3 msgs] Machine Slavery (Was: Re: Wage Competition ) [1 msgs] POLI: School vouchers [1 msgs] REBELLION GENE DISCOVERED [1 msgs] Wage Competition [4 msgs] Wage Competition [1 msgs] Administrivia: Approximate Size: 52987 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 14:44:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Edward J OConnell Subject: Wage Competition > FutureNerd Steve Witham says: > > 2) I don't think a smart AI can be produced with the *desire* to > > remain a slave to someone. Heck, simple operant conditioning would be enough to turn anyone on this list into slaves. Dont' believe me? Come to my house; I'll imbed the necessary radio controlled devices in your pain and pleasure centers, watch you through video cameras at a safe distance, and see what happens after a year to two of judicious application of current... >From what I've read, slavery died out largely because it was economically non competitive. Could manufactured intelligence change the economic reality that elimenated slavery? I dont see why not. I expect we'll see slavery again the instant intelligence becomes manufacturable. The ethical dialog that allows it will differentiate between 'true' intelligence and 'simulated' intelligence. Just as racist concepts of different cranial capacities justified the enslavement of africans. Expect Searles ridiculous Chinese room thought experiment to be seen as proving something. But of course, one mans slavery is another mans living wage. I despise Rifkins biotech as slavery nonsense. I don't feel bad about making MS word count the characters in my documents. Maybe I just need my attitudes adjusted. Jay ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 15:01:39 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: Homosexual tendencies (was: future problems) Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~ says: > I think my problem is that I was just trying to _propose_ something based > on observation. Such a proposition is refered to in our language as a "thesis" if you would. > You keep claiming that I have some "thesis" of sorts, Well, you just admitted to having one. > and > that I am _claiming_ outright what I have proposed to be true. No, but you seem to be ignoring evidence that you are wrong. > > > Again, I find it difficult to respond to any of your conclusions, since > > > your premises are so unfounded. You have already taken the typical stance > > > that a significantly feminine male must either be gay or just does not > > > acknowledge it. > > > > Pardon, but you are so completely wrong here that words fail me. I > > said NOTHING about being feminine -- I indeed repeatedly have stated > > that many gay men have no feminine attributes at all. Furthermore, I > > stated, explicitly, later on in my article, that femininity in men is > > a largely artificial concept with no real correlation at all to > > sexuality. How you could so completely misinterpret my words, when > > they were so explicit, is beyond me. Didn't you read a word I said? > > Yes I did. And, when I asked if it was possible for someone to be lead down > a path of believing they were what they weren't, you replied in the positive > by claiming that I was such a person you. Huh? That isn't even grammatical, let alone comprehensable. > Based upon my question and what > you further said, this was an _explicit_ implication, not a theory, on > your part that I am in fact a homosexual that won't acknowledge it. I said no such thing. Go and look at my original article. You are hallucinating. I implied, if anything, that you've somehow been convinced by society that you are "effeminate" and that there is such a thing as being "effeminate" when in fact such a thing doesn't really exist and that you somehow believe this has something to do with being "homosexual" when in fact the things refered to as "effeminate" are completely uncorrelated with homosexuality. There are "effeminate" and "macho" straights, "effeminate" and "macho" gays, "butch" and "fem" lesbians, etc, etc. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 11:49:29 PDT From: Thant Tessman Subject: Babysitting I thought folks might be interested in a description of a babysitting co-op that my wife and I belong to. There is a group called Creative Parenting that has set up a pretty neat system. To join the baby sitting co-op you first need to pass a home safety inspection. The requirements are written down and include all the common-sense things like fire extenguishers and safety-catches on all the cupboards containing chemicals or sharp things. The inspection is carried out by members of the co-op itself. If you pass, you can exchange babysitting duty with anyone in the co-op. I'm not sure how turns are decided (we just joined), but I would assume it works something like Hanson's 'chores tug-o-war.' No money changes hands and there are no regulations other than those imposed by the co-op itself. thant ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 13:03:42 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: Homosexual tendencies (was: future problems) Well, first I'd like to thank those who have now given some more intelligent conversation on this subject. To Perry: I don't keep messages, but I'd like to ask you or anyone else who does to go back to your first reply on this topic, and pull out the excerpt from me and your reply which began with the words "You are", or something to that effect. I asked a question, and you replied "You are." with your first sentence, which, based upon my question and further context, seemed to indicate an implication of the kind I am discussing. If someone could retrieve that, and post it, we can then see if Perry did appear to imply what I say he did, or if I read more into it than I should have (which is certainly possible). I do know that my impression of what he implied won't change, since I read it carefully at the time, and was quite conscious, but it may be that I am simply incorrect. Only others can objectively tell. And to Dave or whoever it was: Folsom, CA is hardly rural. Have you been here lately? But that's irrelevant, because my observations had nothing to do with people in Folsom, CA. Some of the friends I spoke of were from Detroit, where I spent half my childhood, and the rest from yes, a small rural area in Nevada. Those homosexuals whom I know are generally of the type I have been speaking of, although I have met some "stylish" types both in the LA area as well as Scottsdale, AZ. I don't know enough, but those stylish types I met didn't seem to be particularly honest people, or well-adjusted people. Most were also drug-abusers (not experimenters, abusers). Now, Perry, before you jump on that one, I am not implying anything here. I just haven't met any of the "normal childhood, stylish" gay men you speak of. So, when you claim that I am ignoring your _evidence_, I respond by claiming that your "evidence" is nothing more than observation of the kind I am using to make _my_ points - not _evidence_. -- Tony Hamilton | -Intel Corporation | voice: 916-356-3070 --Folsom Engineering Services | mailstop: FM2-55 ---Engineering Resource Group | email: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com ----Software Technician | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 15:19:01 CDT From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) Subject: Babysitting The one my ex-spouse and I were involved with worked on a credit/ debit system. You earned a credit for each child-hour you sat another's child, and you were deducted an equal amount when someone else sat your children. Thus it was inherently a zero-sum system. Both sitter and sitee called in their hours to the record-keeper. The double reporting reduced cheating and helped reduce errors. If you needed a sitter, you were supposed to start with the most negative person in credits, and call them first. If they weren't available, then you worked up the list. If you reached -10 hours, you could no longer have your children sat for until you earned some credits. You could still make side arrangements with another sitter outside the Coop, or non-registered sittings (if you could work out a suitable deal). It worked fairly efficiently, and the fact that all the sitters were parents with young children made you feel more comfortable than the archetypical 16-year old babysitter. Dani Eder ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 16:32:46 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: Homosexual tendencies (was: future problems) Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~ says: > Well, first I'd like to thank those who have now given some more intelligent > conversation on this subject. > > To Perry: > > I don't keep messages, but I'd like to ask you or anyone else who does to > go back to your first reply on this topic, and pull out the excerpt from > me and your reply which began with the words "You are", or something to > that effect. I asked a question, and you replied "You are." I'll quote the passage in question for the benefit of those who didn't see it the first time around. > Is it possible for someone to be manipulated down > that course, and then desire never to return (since I don't believe you > can, if ever, find a homosexual who wants to be otherwise - although I > am just making a blind assumption here). You are. There are many homosexuals who find their sexual identity to be an agonizing thing that tortures them. It would be so much easier just to be straight and not have to deal with all the trouble you get for it. Healthy gays get over this, but some, especially ones with profound religious beliefs, never get over it. "You are" means "you are indeed making a blind assumption here; there are plenty of homosexuals who would prefer to be otherwise." I can see that one could misread that in all sorts of ways -- but none of the ones I can pick would allow you to misread that as "Tony Hamilton is Gay". Anyway, Mr. Hamilton, as your entire set of postings on this topic thus far are filled with misreadings and misinterpretations (such as your contention that I believe that feminine characteristics are a sign of homosexuality in spite of a specific passage in which I stated that feminine characteristics are not a sign of homosexuality), I suggest that you take more care in your reading. > Now, Perry, before you jump on that one, I am not implying anything here. > I just haven't met any of the "normal childhood, stylish" gay men you speak > of. So, when you claim that I am ignoring your _evidence_, I respond by > claiming that your "evidence" is nothing more than observation of the kind > I am using to make _my_ points - not _evidence_. There are two kinds of evidence in the world. Sometimes people claim "maybe most cats are black", and for that you have to go out and do a cat census. There are also the occassions where people say "no cats are black" or "very very few cats are black", and then simply showing a white cat or two is evidence enough. I've met loads of very well put together, and overall normally adjusted, homosexual men. New York is full of them -- indeed, the stereotype (note the word STEREOTYPE) of gay men in these parts is that they are the most attractive looking men in any crowd. Turn over any wet stone and you can find gays that more or less fit that bill -- I wouldn't say that they are the majority but they are easy to find. We must therefore assume that any contention that the cause of homosexuality is peer pressure being applied to unattractive nerdy men is likely, at best, not applicable to a very large segment of the homosexual community. Anecdotal evidence is fine in this case, just as it is fine to show that many cats are not black. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 21:33:50 +0100 From: Rich Walker Subject: Homosexual tendencies (was: future problems) As someone who hasn't been arguing on either side in this one, I'll presume to take up Tony's request: The section referred to, in X-Message-Number: #93-7-875 reads: Tony> Is it possible for someone to be manipulated down > that course, and then desire never to return (since I don't believe you > can, if ever, find a homosexual who wants to be otherwise - although I > am just making a blind assumption here). Perry>You are. There are many homosexuals who find their sexual identity to >be an agonizing thing that tortures them. It would be so much easier >just to be straight and not have to deal with all the trouble you get >for it. Healthy gays get over this, but some, especially ones with >profound religious beliefs, never get over it. Looking at Tony's message, X-Message-Number: #93-7-872, the above quote comes from a paragraph that starts: >Anyway, I'd been called a "fag" more times than I can remember, ... I must admit it took me two readings of Perry's response before I realised that he was replying to the `blind assumption' bit, rather than any other bit; there seems to be a psychological problem with connecting the response to the bracketed section. (Mental scope rules, anyone?) I assume Tony thought Perry was replying to the opening line of the paragraph; this would be easy to do. Two (verbal) duellists take aim at an argument; both miss and hit each other. Happens too often. Rich! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 21:33:50 +0100 From: Rich Walker Subject: Homosexual tendencies (was: future problems) As someone who hasn't been arguing on either side in this one, I'll presume to take up Tony's request: The section referred to, in X-Message-Number: #93-7-875 reads: Tony> Is it possible for someone to be manipulated down > that course, and then desire never to return (since I don't believe you > can, if ever, find a homosexual who wants to be otherwise - although I > am just making a blind assumption here). Perry>You are. There are many homosexuals who find their sexual identity to >be an agonizing thing that tortures them. It would be so much easier >just to be straight and not have to deal with all the trouble you get >for it. Healthy gays get over this, but some, especially ones with >profound religious beliefs, never get over it. Looking at Tony's message, X-Message-Number: #93-7-872, the above quote comes from a paragraph that starts: >Anyway, I'd been called a "fag" more times than I can remember, ... I must admit it took me two readings of Perry's response before I realised that he was replying to the `blind assumption' bit, rather than any other bit; there seems to be a psychological problem with connecting the response to the bracketed section. (Mental scope rules, anyone?) I assume Tony thought Perry was replying to the opening line of the paragraph; this would be easy to do. Two (verbal) duellists take aim at an argument; both miss and hit each other. Happens too often. Rich! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 17:05:57 EDT From: pmetzger@lehman.com (Perry E. Metzger) Subject: HEX: share offering Hello, all. As part of my effort to come into compliance with upcoming HEx regulations, I am offering approximately 300,000 shares of P via private placement to investors. I am willing to negotiate transfers for either Thornes or for shares of your own reputation -- exchange price and possible other terms to be privately negotiated. Following the placement of at least 150,000 of the shares, I will, for a time, be making a public committment to provide a two way market in P with a spread of five thornes or under to provide investors with confidence in their capacity to dispose of their shares at will. Perry Metzger ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 17:00:55 -0400 From: Rens Troost Subject: Machine Slavery (Was: Re: Wage Competition ) >>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 1993 14:44:55 -0400 (EDT), Edward J OConnell said: ejo> Expect Searles ridiculous Chinese room thought experiment to be ejo> seen as proving something. I agree with most of the attitudes you express (except that I feel _really ill_ when I use MS word :) but it escapes me how you can write off the chinese room model as ridiculous. Please expound. -Rens ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 93 13:30:50 PDT From: "Mark W. McFadden" Subject: Homosexual tendencies (was: future problems) On Fri, 23 Jul 1993 14:49:56 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >Just so everyone knows, I'm not being hostile to Mark's views here -- >I am just making some points of my own. None taken. >Yeah, there are places in our society where homosexuals feel fairly >comfortable -- but lets remember doesn't mean that other people get >the urge to turn gay because of it. No. Nor was that my point. My observation is that there are places where the peer pressure to be _heterosexual_ is *negated*, and then any predisposition to a homosexual lifestyle can become overt in an essentially supportive environment. I don't think I'm saying anything revolutionary here, I suspect that if the subject in question was something other than sexual preference, nary an eyebrow would be raised. >It also doesn't mean that there isn't still tremendous trouble for gay >people in our society. You can say that again. My wife and I both have gay family members, so we tend to keep track of the news. LA has more than it's share of gaybashing. >> I can >> remember a Theatre Dept. New Year's party in L.A.. At midnight everyone >> kissed and hugged, but all the men took on deeper voices and gave _me_ >> hearty handshakes. An illuminating experience on several levels. > >I've hung out a lot in the "club culture" of New York and with friends >and aquaintances of my girlfriend who is a fashion designer. I spend a >disproportionate amount of time around homosexuals as a result. There >have been many times when I've felt left out -- but I can't say that >I've ever had the urge to become gay as a result. Well doodah. Nor did I. What was illuminating was not being left out, but their earnest, sincere attempt to make me feel comfortable. Which of course had the exact opposite effect, and led me to speculate about how often I might have embarrassed, or unintentionally insulted gay friends or family. Which is what we in the biz call "making an ass of yourself". > >> I do know that since _I_ am reflexively hetero, that is by definition >> normal and proper and the state that everyone should try to emulate. :-) >> Of course, if Sean Connery made a pass at me and I was horny at the >> time....... > >Myself, it would do nothing for me. I find it difficult to impossible >to think of circumstances where a man's advances would turn me on. > >Perry No, I won't. Too easy. You have no idea how much this is costing me in self-restraint. _Please_ don't leave straight lines like that lying around. ("Straight" lines, get it "straight"?) And that's not a personal slam, I swore off for the duration. It's just one of those Shave-and-a-haircut lines that causes us Toons to go whacky. ______________________________________________________________________ Mark W. McFadden | Been there.....done that. mwm@wwtc.timeplex.com | ___________________________________|__________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 17:48:50 GMT From: al007@cleveland.freenet.edu (Nombrist Beor) Subject: REBELLION GENE DISCOVERED >REBELLION GENE DISCOVERED > A new study suggests that rebelliousness and independent thinking > may be genetically determined. The prospect of separating the > sheep from the goats _in utero_ raises serious policy questions. Yes. If I ever find out I have the "horrible" gene and they start instituting mandatory amniocentesis checks, I will want my wife to abort every child until we get one that is able to think for itself! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 18:08:19 EDT From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham) Subject: Wage Competition > FutureNerd Steve Witham says: > > 2) I don't think a smart AI can be produced with the *desire* to > > remain a slave to someone. > > Lets say, using characteristics similar to those used to breed dogs, > and given a million years or so (probably two or three orders of > magnitude less, but I'll be generous), we keep breeding humans for the > characteristic of absolute obediance to a particular person. We would > have to be pretty nasty about culling, but I suspect that given enough > time one could construct intelligent creatures that would willingly > act as the slaves of a particular person. ... > ...I don't know what mechanism per se would arise in the brains > of these slave creatures, but then again ... > > Perry Yes, this seems like the most viable (so to speak) approach to me. Being nasty about culling means either you're setting your failures loose in the world, or killing them. One way increases the population/competition and the other is coercive and might have political repercussions. Also, 1E6/1E2 is still 1E4. If this could be done in ten years, it might do the trick, but it has to work *during* the singularity, right? So, copying and culling AIs sounds like a very powerful and monstrous technique, but I'm not sure it's enough to do the trick fast enough. -fnerd copy me ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 15:18:18 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: Homosexual tendencies (was: future problems) Perry, look at Rich's comments. As he indicated, I saw your "You are" line as referring to the open line of my statement, not the portion in partheses. Given this, I think you'll find that: 1. Your reply left plenty of room for that interpretation. It could have been more specific than "you are". 2. I wasn't careful enough to notice that you might have been responding to my bracketed comment (although, when I re-read the section, I think if I didn't have your later explanation, I'd still lean towards assuming you were responding to the open part). Given this "revelation", I would like to apologize for any later anger I may have expressed, since this interpretation of your reply was key to my understanding of your position. I still disagree with much of what you have to say, but that is all. Given all that, *phew*, I'd still like to understand something. I've read through your later remarks, and it still seems you steadfastly stick to your same arguments. I am willing to accept your observations of gay individuals - are you not willing to do the same? This not a challenge, but an honest question. So there are many handsome, seemingly-adjusted gay men in New York who would _appear_ to have no reason for being homosexual other than genetic predispotion. I claim I know shy, nerdish, homely men with troubled childhoods who have no apparent reason for being homosexual other than being weak-minded and environmentally bludgeoned into their current situation. I also claim that maybe these people have the gene, and that it is _possible_ that this gene _allowed_ their environment to "make them gay". Okay, call it a thesis (which I never realized, but now do, covered what I am doing - I only understood the definition which pertains to degree or research work - my fault). There it is. This thesis, then, does not disclaim genetic predisposition, but proposes alternate methods of "becoming" homosexual. Because my thesis does not disallow the existence of the homosexual type you speak of, their existence hardly disproves it. My understanding is that this is what you are in fact saying, though. What I _really_ want to get at is, if my thesis is correct, what does that mean in an extropian society? If the gene is only a prerequisite (or simply a strong prerequisite), than would there be homosexuals in an extropian society? If it implies that homosexuals are not _necessarily_ homosexual, but that they are naturally heterosexual, does that mean this condition could possibly complicate their lives (anytime you act in complete discordance with your fundamental nature would seem to potentially precipitate other problems) and therefore restrict them from being as much as they would hope to be? Well, _actually_, that sounds a little too far fetched to me, so I'd probably be inclined to agree that at least _some_ homosexuals may be so by nature, for one reason or another (genetics, divine influence (!?), physical disorder (?!)) (just groping for alternatives here - however strange). My predictions: Case 1: homosexuality is genetic: an extropian society would probably allow for the free expansion of this lifestyle. Homosexuals would find more acceptance, and therefore be more free to being competitive and basically extropian. The gene thing might even help them find homosexuals sooner and make sure that true homosexuals don't get bludgeoned into being heterosexual. Case 2: Most homosexuality is genetic, but a certain amount is not. I think in this case homosexuals will still survive in an extropian society, there just wouldn't be quite as many. Case 3: Mostly environmental, but some genetic: Here I think you have a chance of homosexual behavior becoming extinct, due to natural selection (or competition, or whatever you what to call it, since I'm no proponent of the original "Natural Selection" theory as applied to modern man). Case 4: no such thing as genetically predispotioned homosexual tendency: the outcome here is obvious. In an extropian society in this case, there would be no homosexuals. Personally, I'm betting Case 3 is more accurate. I'm no homophobic (although I once was), but it's just my hunch that's how things are. I could live with any of the above scenarios. Of course, Cases 3 and 4 assume that existing homosexuals do not achieve immortality via scientific means. If we find the means to biological or self-immortality before society is largely extropian in nature, we'll always have homosexuals one way or another. BTW: does this list have a posting limit? I wasn't sure, but when I saw all of Perry's posts today, well ... :-) Seriously, tell me if there is, and I'll gladly observe it. Oh yes, if you've read this far and can, please someone tell me how I can find out what this Hawthorne Exchange is all about. It's a reputation market from what I can gather. If there is an information document, where can I find it? I have not seen a FAQ on this list or HEX since I've been here this last month (I was just on the digest for the previous 18 months). I'd like to know how/why it was created, how it works, and exactly why it relates to Extropianism. I gather from my recent readings on this list that somehow there is a connection between extropianism and markets of just about any kind (like the talks about prediction markets and the like). I know there has to be a connection, but since I missed all the months of discussion I'm sure must have taken place, I'm hoping there is a document somewhere that explains it all. The "regulars" on this list should realize that HEX appears to be a silly, macho-istic "game" of sorts. From what I gather, there is more to it, but really, newcomers (or come-againers such as myself) might get the wrong impression if there isn't a regular FAQ on it or something... -- Tony Hamilton | -Intel Corporation | voice: 916-356-3070 --Folsom Engineering Services | mailstop: FM2-55 ---Engineering Resource Group | email: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com ----Software Technician | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 16:15:41 -0700 From: cappello@engineering.ucsb.edu (Peter Cappello) Subject: POLI: School vouchers >>I just heard ... California just enacted the voucher program ... > >I don't think that this is accurate. A Voucher proposal is slated >to be on the CA ballot as an initiative in the near future. It will >be BIG BIG news, if it passes. > >-Pete This morning, I heard on the radio that CA governor Pete Wilson signed some legislation that would enable some parents to apply to have their child go to a district other than their own. The host district does not have to accept. This legislation is designed to take the wind out of the school choice movement in CA. -Pete ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 18:50:39 EDT From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham) Subject: Wage Competition > fnerd writes: > > 2) I don't think a smart AI can be produced with the *desire* to > > remain a slave to someone. This is the interesting point to me. And Hans Moravec replies: > Just as mothers cannot be built that will slavishly provide food, > shelter and protection for their babbling infants, at detriment > to their own existence? If we had four billion years, it would be no problem, I admit. As I said to Perry, the problem is to accomplish it *during* the "singularity." (Or to postpone the singularity until it's accomplished, also problematical.) > The motivational structure of a robot can be quite separate from > its problem-solving intelligence. I'm not sure how separate. For instance, if the goal is to make the robot do what the owner wants, how do you make a system *separate from the intelligence* figure that out? But see my example next paragraph. > If its internal structure has > a conditioning system like higher animals, then it merely needs > detectors that generate internal rewards for doing whatever its > builders want it to like doing, and punishments for taboos. Yes; the simplest would be a button under control of the owner. My argument against ideas like the pleasure button is that owner-button- slave becomes a single system, and if slave is the vast majority of the intelligence in the system, then "owner" becomes a small subsystem. In other words, the smart slave knows better than the owner how to make the owner press the button, until the slave figures out how to get (the owner to give it) control of the button. Think of it this way: the slave has control of the things it does for the owner. These please or displease the owner. The slave is conditioning the owner--less directly but more intelligently. Also, what are the effects of the contradictory, irrational patterns of wishes of the owner on this giant slave brain? > If its structure is strictly rational, then its axioms can be > structured to the same end. I don't believe the idea of a "strictly rational" intelligence makes sense. Emotions are the aspect of intelligence that figures out what to think about and what works. I think those issues are central, not peripheral, to making intelligence work. "Reason is, and by rights ought to be, slave to the emotions." --Bertrand Russell I would substitute "by necessity has" where he says "by rights ought." > The intelligence acts to achieve > a-priori goals. Whether or not the behavior is an evolutionary > stable strategy depends on the outer society- probably not forever, > but things can be constructed so that the cost to a robot of > going rogue is so high, very many of them never appear. > > Can this list handle a 100kbyte chapter that discusses this at length? I should have read Mind Children long ago--I was very smart in school, but they never succeeded in conditioning me to do my homework! -fnerd straight arrow, you bet quote me ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 16:26:07 -0700 From: dkrieger@Synopsys.COM (Dave Krieger) Subject: Wage Competition At 6:08 PM 7/23/93 -0400, FutureNerd Steve Witham wrote: >Also, 1E6/1E2 is still 1E4. If this could be done in ten years, it might >do the trick, but it has to work *during* the singularity, right? > >So, copying and culling AIs sounds like a very powerful and monstrous >technique, but I'm not sure it's enough to do the trick fast enough. > >-fnerd >copy me Ah, but Perry was talking about humans. With AIs you can do the variation and selection at machine speeds (the variation/selection mechanism doesn't need to be as complex as the programs it's supervising), maybe with hundreds to thousands of generations per day. dV/dt ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 19:40:08 EDT From: Hans Moravec Subject: Wage Competition fnerd writes: > Moravec writes: >> If its internal structure has >> a conditioning system like higher animals, then it merely needs >> detectors that generate internal rewards for doing whatever its >> builders want it to like doing, and punishments for taboos. > >Yes; the simplest would be a button under control of the owner. >My argument against ideas like the pleasure button is that owner-button- >slave becomes a single system, and if slave is the vast majority of the >intelligence in the system, then "owner" becomes a small subsystem. No, no the conditioning system is a program inside the robot. The robot feels good when its psychology module says its owner is happy. >I don't believe the idea of a "strictly rational" intelligence makes sense. >Emotions are the aspect of intelligence that figures out what to think about >and what works. I think those issues are central, not peripheral, to making >intelligence work. Logic is a universal programming language. It's possible to implement anything in it, including the equivalent of emotions, to the extent they're desirable. Pure logic may be, but probably isn't, the best way of implementing a robot psychology. John McCarthy is one of the few people who thinks it is. >I should have read Mind Children long ago--I was very smart in school, but >they never succeeded in conditioning me to do my homework! better hurry, the chapter I mentioned is from the next book! In it, robot mental evolution and pychology is developed much more carefully. -- Hans ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 19:40:08 EDT From: Hans Moravec Subject: Wage Competition fnerd writes: > Moravec writes: >> If its internal structure has >> a conditioning system like higher animals, then it merely needs >> detectors that generate internal rewards for doing whatever its >> builders want it to like doing, and punishments for taboos. > >Yes; the simplest would be a button under control of the owner. >My argument against ideas like the pleasure button is that owner-button- >slave becomes a single system, and if slave is the vast majority of the >intelligence in the system, then "owner" becomes a small subsystem. No, no the conditioning system is a program inside the robot. The robot feels good when its psychology module says its owner is happy. >I don't believe the idea of a "strictly rational" intelligence makes sense. >Emotions are the aspect of intelligence that figures out what to think about >and what works. I think those issues are central, not peripheral, to making >intelligence work. Logic is a universal programming language. It's possible to implement anything in it, including the equivalent of emotions, to the extent they're desirable. Pure logic may be, but probably isn't, the best way of implementing a robot psychology. John McCarthy is one of the few people who thinks it is. >I should have read Mind Children long ago--I was very smart in school, but >they never succeeded in conditioning me to do my homework! better hurry, the chapter I mentioned is from the next book! In it, robot mental evolution and pychology is developed much more carefully. -- Hans ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 18:04:43 -0600 (MDT) From: J. Michael Diehl Subject: My Worry, Guns, and Social Security According to Lefty: > J. Michael Diehl asks: > >But do you remember the story of the grasshopper and the ant. The ant saved > >all summer, and the grasshopper played all summer. In the end, the ant > >supported the grasshopper by feeding him through the winter. How would we > >avoid this problem if we abolished Wf? > > Not in the version _I_ heard. In in the version _I_ heard, the grasshopper > _starved_, the shiftless bastard. I laughed my ass off at this one! ;^) > Besides, if the ant _voluntarily_ feeds the grasshopper, does this > represent a problem? After all, I voluntarily feed my five-year-old. Unfortunately, much of society refuses to help people whom they do not know. If it weren't for Welfare, we COULD have (more?) people with absolutely no hope for survival. I too, am against State-instituted Welfare, but I wonder what would happen if we abolished it. I think that there are people out there who honestly can not support themselves for one reason or another; they should be guanranteed help of some sort. I also believe there are people on welfare who can and should get off their lazzy asses and get a job. I'm not quite sure that I can support the utter destruction of the Welfare system at this point in time, but I do think we are in desparate need of (MAJOR!) reform. > +-----------------------+-----------------------------+---------+ | J. Michael Diehl ;-) | I thought I was wrong once. | PGP KEY | | mdiehl@triton.unm.edu | But, I was mistaken. |available| | mike.diehl@fido.org | | Ask Me! | | (505) 299-2282 +-----------------------------+---------+ | | +------"I'm just looking for the opportunity to be -------------+ | Politically Incorrect!" | +-----If codes are outlawed, only criminals wil have codes.-----+ +----Is Big Brother in your phone? If you don't know, ask me---+ ------------------------------ End of V93 #204 **************** &