From exi@news.panix.com Sat Aug 14 08:18:37 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA11299; Sat, 14 Aug 93 08:18:36 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from news.panix.com by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA10778; Sat, 14 Aug 93 08:18:26 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by news.panix.com id AA04047 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Sat, 14 Aug 1993 11:14:33 -0400 Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1993 11:14:33 -0400 Message-Id: <199308141514.AA04047@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: August 14, 373 P.N.O. [15:14:27 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: RO Extropians Digest Sat, 14 Aug 93 Volume 93 : Issue 225 Today's Topics: [2 msgs] Axioms and Accusations [1 msgs] The Axiom of Action [1 msgs] AI's as dangerous slaves [1 msgs] AI: Searle's Chinese Room [1 msgs] AI: slaves, selfishness, evo [1 msgs] AMiX: Failure of AMiX?? This is news to me! [1 msgs] Axioms [1 msgs] Extropaganza Lodgings [1 msgs] HUMOR: Hillary Clinton's Guide to Medical Terms and their Definitions[1 msgs] META: test, ignore [1 msgs] Nightly Market Report [1 msgs] PERSONAL: Travelling to Montreal. [1 msgs] PHIL: The volume of an electron [1 msgs] PHIL: The volume of an electron [1 msgs] PROP: Intellectual Property, ppl, etc. [1 msgs] Privacy-Friendly Auditing [1 msgs] Request [1 msgs] good predictors [1 msgs] meteors [1 msgs] physics: potential energy; [1 msgs] test [1 msgs] time delays on posts [1 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 52827 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 14:26:05 -0400 From: Extropy Institute Subject: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu habs@panix.com From: rjc To: extropians Subject: test test ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Aug 93 11:33:40 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: Axioms > >Objection: irrelevant. The subject is human ACTION, not human "behavior." > >Dead humans behave. They do not act. > > Ah... so "action" is DEFINED as purposeful behavior. Well, can't argue > with that. Petitio principii, anyone? Indeed, action and behavior can easily be considered synonyms. You need to qualify them more to differentiate them. I don't see a problem with just saying "purposeful behavior", or anything like that. We don't _always_ have to have a single word for everything. > dV/dt > > Remember, folks, I'm DVDT on HEx, and Tim is TIM. And I'm HAM. Glad to meet ya... ;-) Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 11:59:09 -0700 From: Hastings@courier8.aero.org Subject: Privacy-Friendly Auditing I sent messages pertaining to the anonymous auditing problem to Neils Ferguson, and like someone who hopes the property owner forgives the trespass that occurs when someone walks up and rings the doorbell, I hope he doesn't "have a cow" that I'm sharing some of his remarks. >The anonymous auditing problem is, as far as I have understood, not >well defined. Duh!!! Ahem... >The purpose is to allow an external auditor compute the sum of all >the banks commitments without revealing the individual commitments >to the auditor. The problem is: who is going to provide the data to >the auditor? >The simplest answer would be that the customers are going to provide >the data. In this case the voting protocols described in literature >are a good start. It should even be possible to have the bank provide >signed account statements for a specific date to all clients which are >then used in the protocol to prevent clients from cheating and thereby >generating a false result in the audit. But any such scheme is not >practical as ALL customers have to cooperate. >If the bank is going to supply the information to the auditors, then >there must be some way to stop the bank from creating an entire >`shadow' bookkeeping. That is, the data must include some kind of >customers signature on the balance of each bankaccount, and the public >key of this customer must somehow be verified to belong to a real >person (to ensure that it was not generated by the bank itself). The >authentication of a public key and linking it to an actual person >requires another institution (government?) which keeps track of people >and authenticates that they are actual living persons. >Note that all this information does not have to be revealed to the >auditor, but it is necessary as input to the cryptographic protocol. >In general a cryptographic protocol cannot achieve anything that a >computer which is trusted by all parties cannot achieve. If someone >could give a description of the required functionality of this virtual >trusted computer, then the cryptographers can try to make it into a >protocol (and then try to make it practical). >Did I miss something when I quickly read your mail or is the notion of >an anonymous auditing still vague? >I havn't studied voting schemes but most of them have serious flaws. >Many of them have difficulty handling a dishonest minority, or require >too much resources to be practical. One requirement for voting schemes >which I have not seen in literature is the unprovability. After voting >a voter should not be able to prove what she voted to another party. >If this were possible, then buying votes (or blackmailing people to >vote a certain way) becomes possible. The old Italian voting system >had so many possibilities to cast your vote that this was used by the >Mafia in certain areas. They would approach a person and basically >state: "You'd better make sure that there is a ballot with exactly >these choices in the result or else....". >I don't read the cypherpunk mailing list. If it were a newsgroup I >would find it quite interesting, but as a mailing list it is much >harder for me to selectively read the articles. Also, my mail handler >doesn't support a kill file. When I tried a subscription I found the >signal to noise ration to be too low to read it as a mailing list. The >volume was also so high that it drowned out my other e-mail. With a >newsgroup you can safely ignore it for a while. Maybe I should get a >better mail handler, but when I mentioned this problem to Eric Hughes, >he said that they could have created a newsgroup but decided not to. A >clear mistake in my opinion. Anyways, maybe someone will create an >alt.cypherpunk newsgroup and put up a gateway from the mailing list to >the newsgroup. Niels Ferguson can be reached at niels@cwi.nl, and I'm sure one of you finks will rat on me and tell him I'm betraying confidentiality. Well, go ahead, you'll see what I do to you. Kent - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Aug 93 07:21:18 GMT From: Michael Clive Price Subject: physics: potential energy; Ray Cromwell sez, by way of answering Anton: > Be careful. You are discussing the potential _gravitational_ energy. > If this were to gravitate, we would have to say that > "gravity gravitates." And so it does, and is often said. Anton is correct when he says: >> Between two masses there is negative gravitational potential >> energy (-Gmm/d). Energy is equivalent to mass, so this negative >> energy has negative gravity [..] in a cloud between them although it rather trickly trying to localise it. > > Potential energy represents the energy required to move an object > along a path through a field. Thus, potential energy is a measure of > the energy of the field. I know that electromagnetic fields can > gravitate, I'm not sure about the other forces (strong, weak, > gravity). They all gravitate because all the fields (and everything else) have energy and hence mass. > Intuitively, I would guess that gravity doesn't gravitate > because that would lead to a runaway affect. Same happens to the strong force (ie the strong force field also contributes to the strong force in its own right). Makes it harder to calculate, but not paradoxical. > What this all points out is that you have to be careful about how > you apply E=mc^2. For instance, using E=mc^2 we can give mass to > photons but we know that photons can't possess mass because they > ravel at the speed of light. E=mc^2 is only half the equation. The > real equation for massless particles is E=pc, derived from E^2 = > (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 (p is the momentum, let m=0) I know Ray's aware of this, but this is confusing. In E=mc^2 m is the relativistic mass (ie the mass that includes the energy of motion of an object). In E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 m is the rest mass only. > -- Ray Cromwell Mike Price price@price.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Aug 93 13:18:07 PDT From: Eli Brandt Subject: PHIL: The volume of an electron > From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) > X-Message-Number: #93-8-271 > There was a thread in rec.arts.sf.science not too long ago which > "disproved" the plausibility of Vinge's bobbles based on relativity. > If bobbles are incompressible, and you can push them around (like in the > book), you can signal faster than the speed of light. Bobbles also break conservation -- their creation requires an energy input (variable for a given size, too), but this energy is not released when they "burst". Eli ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Aug 93 07:30:31 GMT From: Michael Clive Price Subject: good predictors Dan Goodman asks: > > I'm looking for writers who 1) Have/had a consistently good record of > prediction or 2) made one, or perhaps a few, lucky hits. > Arthur C Clarke and the geostationary telecommunications satellite. Mike Price price@price.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Aug 93 08:40:55 GMT From: Michael Clive Price Subject: AI: slaves, selfishness, evo Fnerd: > Mike Price sez- > >> ...The goals were hardwired in by evolution [but] the parental >> drive has become *detached* from the genetic link and is an >> [unselfish] independent goal wired into our heads > Sounds like a plausible use for the term "unselfish"--something > you'd expect to eventually evolve away--IF your explanation is > true. Okay, sounds like we talking the same language here. But... > Another is that parenthood is mostly motivated by "fun and > love"--i.e., goals of the meme-organism. IMO goals are the meme-organism are subservient to the genetic, primary goals of the organism (or equivalently that the memic goals are selected by the genetic goals - the m-goals are the expression and sub-goals of the g-goals). Memes are selected and incorporated on the basis of their fit with the existing goal structure. Doing something for "fun and love" does not mean that it not a genetic goal (or sub-goal thereof). And probably does means that it is. > Our genes program our bodies to hitch a ride on a meme-beast whose > goals are mostly independent. I'm flipping my metaphor, but either > way the memes are mostly in charge and the genes just ask for an > occasional detour. I wouldn't put it like that. The first meme-goals were selected by the genetic goals and defined the original direction of our lives (with some input from our parents' meme-goals :-) The memes may be mostly in charge now, but that's only because the gene-goals passed control over to a "safe pair of hands". > I don't get what you're saying about expression of goals. Simply that the expression of a gene-goal as behaviour is independent of the evolutionary forces that created it. Eg that parenthood was built in to spread our genes through our children but parenthood can be misapplied to rear step-children, in blissful indifference to the "reason". > >>> In designing a robot slave, you're given a master who has little >>> interest in, or ability to, or time to, adapt to the slave. >>> I.e., you're not free to modify one important part. >> Disagree. Designers of AI slaves are going to be very concerned to >> produce impressionable slaves - perhaps designed to be imprinted to >> obey the first master they meet or are sold to. > > My point is that not being able to redesign the master (as our genes > can) makes the design job harder. The design obedient slaves? I don't follow. Surely the design of a general purpose obedient slave is independent of the masters' structures? > Now you're volunteering to design a one-size-fits-all slave, > constricting your choices further, making it even harder. I'm lost by your reasoning. > >>> The more learning ability or intelligence you have, the >>> harder it is for the genes to tame the memes. >> Disagree. Intelligence is a tool, a means to ends. Why should >> more intelligence / problem solving ability reduce the >> effectiveness of the tool? > Intelligence does not exist as a separate capability. I'm not sure if this statement has any content. The world's full of intelligent beings with (very) different goals. > All of the intelligences we know are self-promoting memeplexes. I agree, but the original meme-stance is set by the genes. We are no freer to change our primary goals than a frog is to turn vegan. > They are not means to ends but treat themselves as their own ends. Yes, but they are not free to modify those ends - see below. > Better brains would presumably evolve intelligences that were > better -- at promoting their own interests But their "own interests" are defined by their goals, which are auto- immutable. Try committing suicide - you can't because you don't _want_ to. (Of course some people do commit suicide to satisfy other primary goals, like avoidance of pain under torture or ill-health, but I'm guessing that Fnerd's not in that invidious position. To him the will to live is immutable - if he redesigned himself he'd leave this goal in.) -- and harder to bend to other goals. No intelligence ever has any interest in any but it's _own_ goals. But these goals were not defined by the intelligence - they were already hardwired in from the start. The role of intelligence is to break down the externally given goals into sub-goals, appropriate to the world it finds itself in, and engage in goal-seeking behaviour. > All goals are provisional and held in place (or modified or > removed) by other goals for which they are subgoals. And the > supergoals are in turn subgoals. "It's turtles all the way down," > because it goes around. Absolutely, the chains of goals and sub-goals loop back on themselves forming self-reinforcing loops. More intelligent entities form a more complex web of sub-goals so that, IMO, they are even more motivationally stable. > Stubborn goals are meant to be thwarted and frustrated. You'll have to explain this. >> I see no reason why life in the service of a master should not be >> as interesting and stimulating for slaves as life in the Darwinian >> world is for us. > > Right, if you can construct a world that the slave can't escape or > subvert, and what he does inside it is reasonably profitable on the > outside for the owner, compared to the profitability of free AIs. > The last condition is something our genes haven't had to cope with > yet--another reason we aren't good examples of viable slaves. On the contrary, we are all slaves to our desires and therefore excellent examples of viable slaves. What desire have we to escape from our memeplex? >> Probably a set of slaves wired to obey a particular master would >> form a structure very similar to a religion like the RC Church or >> Islam > What percentage tithe can you expect to get away with? Voluntary contributions only please. I would encourage them to view contributions as devotional offerings, competing with each other to express their fervour (and therefore being copied more by the Church of Price). Kamikaze behaviour is rewarded by posthumous copying of backups. After all, it's about time religion became a force for good in the world. :-) :-) :-) > -fnerd > quote me -Mike Price Obey me ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Aug 93 13:22:18 PDT From: Robin Hanson Subject: PROP: Intellectual Property, ppl, etc. T. David Burns writes: >At 4:02 PM 8/8/93 -0700, Robin Hanson wrote: >>If no copyrights or patents (or any other form of intellectual property) >>were the efficient pairwise contract, folks would want to contract that >>way regardless of their initial situation. > >Is Friedman claiming this is pairwise efficient? I understood it to depend >mostly on externalities, that the gain experienced by third parties was >greater than the loss of the principals. By "pairwise efficient" I meant what two parties would want to negotiate, holding relations between all other pairs constant and ignoring external effects on other parties. This is in contrast to "efficient" which is what everyone would want to agree on together. It seemed clear to me that David Friedman claimed that even if intellectual property were efficient, it's absence would be pairwise efficient, regardless of which other pairs do or don't respect such property. Robin Hanson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 16:39:20 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: PHIL: The volume of an electron Eli Brandt says: > > From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) > > X-Message-Number: #93-8-271 > > > There was a thread in rec.arts.sf.science not too long ago which > > "disproved" the plausibility of Vinge's bobbles based on relativity. > > If bobbles are incompressible, and you can push them around (like in the > > book), you can signal faster than the speed of light. > > Bobbles also break conservation -- their creation requires an energy > input (variable for a given size, too), but this energy is not released > when they "burst". It might have been released -- the energy required was supplied by small batteries at one point in "The Peace War". However, as this is all imaginary anyway, what does it matter? Perry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 16:59:19 -0400 From: nzr20@amdahlcsdc.com (Nicholas Russon) Subject: Request -- Nicholas Russon nzr20@meadow.uucp | Giving money and power to Amdahl Canada nzr20@amail.amdahl.com | government is like giving 416-542-6530 nicholas.russon@canrem.uucp | whiskey and car keys to 416-750-0979 | teenage boys. (P.J. O'Rourke) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Aug 93 14:59:19 PDT From: szabo@netcom.com (Nick Szabo) Subject: AMiX: Failure of AMiX?? This is news to me! I write: > >We should learn from the failure of Xanadu, Amix, etc. Dave Krieger corrects me on AMiX: > "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated." My apologies! I'm guilty here of repeating what I heard in a conversation, probably mis-remembered. Nick Szabo szabo@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Aug 93 07:44:52 GMT From: "Stephen J. Whitrow" Subject: meteors The night of 11-12th was rather a washout in Southern Britain, with cloud cover spoiling the view. I spotted one meteor during a period of thinning clouds. However, 12-13th at least provided a clear sky. I saw about a dozen meteors, looking at various times from 2130 to 0030 GMT. Sometimes 2 or 3 showed up within a couple of minutes. A few were quite good, with a clearly discernible trail. Steve Whitrow sjw@liberty.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 19:46:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark Sulkowski Subject: HUMOR: Hillary Clinton's Guide to Medical Terms and their Definitions I found a photocopy of the following being passed around. I thought I would share it with you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hillary Clinton's Guide to Medical Terms and their Definitions Artery....................The Study of Paintings Bacteria..................The Back Door of a Cafeteria Barium....................What Doctors Do When a Patient Dies Bowel.....................A Letter like A,E,I,O, or U Cesarean Section..........A Neighborhood in Rome Cat Scan..................Searching for Kitty Cauterize.................Had Eye Contact With Her Colic.....................A Sheep Dog D & C.....................Where Washington Is Dilate....................To Live Long Enema.....................Not a Friend Fester....................Quicker Genital...................Not a Jew G.I. Series...............Soldier Ball Game Hangnail..................Coat Hook Impotent..................Distinguished, Well Known Labor Pain................Getting Hurt at Work Medical Staff.............A Doctor's Cane Morbid....................A Higher Offer Nitrates..................Cheaper than Day Rates Node......................Was Aware Of Outpatient................A Person Who Fainted Pap smear.................A Fatherhood Test Pelvis....................A Cousin to Elvis Postoperative.............A Letter Carrier Recovery Room.............A Place to do Upholstery Rectum....................Dang Near Killed 'Em Seizure...................Roman Emperor Tablet....................A Small Table Terminal Illness..........Getting Sick at the Airport Tumor.....................More than One Urine.....................Opposite of You're Out Varicose..................Nearby Vein......................Conceited ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- * . ====\\. ~ //==== || \\ ~ . *// || || \\ * // || || \\.~// || || \\// || || Mark \/enture || ==================== ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 20:51:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Harry Shapiro Subject: Extropaganza Lodgings a conscious being, Mark Desilets wrote: > Merrybrook Lodge (cabins): (408)338-6813, About 1.5 Miles, $70/night I will be staying here. -- Harry S. Hawk habs@extropy.org Electronic Communications Officer, Extropy Institute Inc. The Extropians Mailing List, Since 1991 EXTROPY -- A measure of intelligence, information, energy, vitality, experience, diversity, opportunity, and growth. EXTROPIANISM -- The philosophy that seeks to increase extropy. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 20:59:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Harry Shapiro Subject: time delays on posts a conscious being, Michael Clive Price wrote: > on the list. My post to appear took over a day and the last one I sent > is about 2 or 3 days over due. It probally went out ok. If it didn't would either be delays get from your site to the list, or more likely once posted, a dely in getting back to you. /hawk -- Harry S. Hawk habs@extropy.org Electronic Communications Officer, Extropy Institute Inc. The Extropians Mailing List, Since 1991 EXTROPY -- A measure of intelligence, information, energy, vitality, experience, diversity, opportunity, and growth. EXTROPIANISM -- The philosophy that seeks to increase extropy. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Aug 93 18:11 PDT From: ibhdnw8 Subject: AI: Searle's Chinese Room ------------------------------TEXT-OF-YOUR-MAIL-------------------------------- > Received: (from UCLAMVS for via BSMTP) > Received: (from SMTP@UCLAMVS for MAILER@UCLAMVS via NJE) > (UCLA/Mail V1.502 M-SMTP-3099-39); Mon, 26 Jul 93 01:29:05 PDT > Received: from ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.ed by MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU > (IBM MVS SMTP V2R2.1) with TCP; Mon, 26 Jul 93 01:28:56 PST > Received: by ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu > id AA00688; Mon, 26 Jul 93 04:06:51 EDT > Received: from panix.com by ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu via TCP with SMTP > id AA00683; Mon, 26 Jul 93 04:06:35 EDT > Received: by panix.com id AA20682 > (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for exi-remail@ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu); Mon, 26 Jul 1993 03:58: 12 > -0400 > To: Exi@PANIX.COM > Message-Id: > From: szabo@TECHBOOK.COM(Nick Szabo) > Subject: AI: Searle's Chinese Room > X-Original-To: extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu > Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 01:00:58 -0700 (PDT) > X-Extropian-Date: Remailed on July 26, 373 P.N.O. [07:58:10 UTC] > X-Message-Number: #93-7-1012 > Reply-To: extropians@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU > Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu > > Could we simulate a human brain, slowed down by a factor very large > but less than the busy beaver number, by writing symbols on a chalkboard? > This might involve, say 10^9 people writing symbols on a chalkboard > the size of Manhattan, and sharing results with their neighbors. > This might be a "nanosecond Turing test", eg the simulated brain would > have behave indistinguishably from a real brain for a nanosecond, > during a simulation that might last billions of years and involve > billions of people scriblling in parallel. > > How long is the shortest behavior unique to a conscious being? > (A picosecond? Nanosecond? Millisecond? Second?) > > Nick Szabo szabo@techbook.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Aug 93 18:11 PDT From: ibhdnw8 Subject: AI: Searle's Chinese Room ------------------------------TEXT-OF-YOUR-MAIL-------------------------------- > Received: (from UCLAMVS for via BSMTP) > Received: (from SMTP@UCLAMVS for MAILER@UCLAMVS via NJE) > (UCLA/Mail V1.502 M-SMTP-3099-39); Mon, 26 Jul 93 01:29:05 PDT > Received: from ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.ed by MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU > (IBM MVS SMTP V2R2.1) with TCP; Mon, 26 Jul 93 01:28:56 PST > Received: by ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu > id AA00688; Mon, 26 Jul 93 04:06:51 EDT > Received: from panix.com by ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu via TCP with SMTP > id AA00683; Mon, 26 Jul 93 04:06:35 EDT > Received: by panix.com id AA20682 > (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for exi-remail@ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu); Mon, 26 Jul 1993 03:58: 12 > -0400 > To: Exi@PANIX.COM > Message-Id: > From: szabo@TECHBOOK.COM(Nick Szabo) > Subject: AI: Searle's Chinese Room > X-Original-To: extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu > Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 01:00:58 -0700 (PDT) > X-Extropian-Date: Remailed on July 26, 373 P.N.O. [07:58:10 UTC] > X-Message-Number: #93-7-1012 > Reply-To: extropians@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU > Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu > > Could we simulate a human brain, slowed down by a factor very large > but less than the busy beaver number, by writing symbols on a chalkboard? > This might involve, say 10^9 people writing symbols on a chalkboard > the size of Manhattan, and sharing results with their neighbors. > This might be a "nanosecond Turing test", eg the simulated brain would > have behave indistinguishably from a real brain for a nanosecond, > during a simulation that might last billions of years and involve > billions of people scriblling in parallel. > > How long is the shortest behavior unique to a conscious being? > (A picosecond? Nanosecond? Millisecond? Second?) > > Nick Szabo szabo@techbook.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Aug 93 19:10:54 EDT From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham) Subject: AI's as dangerous slaves edgar@spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank) sez- > FutureNerd Steve Witham replies to my comments: > The problem with following orders is in making a non-learning > system that can understand the orders and figure out whether > they're being followed. > > I never said the AI should be "non-learning." I said the highest > level should be programmed, not a neural net. I assert that > programming and learning are not incompatible. I assert that unless you allow the *highest level* to change itself, then that is the part of the system that will not be smart enough to figure out what to do. And if you do let the highest level change, then it won't stick to the goal (at least, it will be infeasible to program a system that will be both smart and programmed in the pre- uploading timeframe). -fnerd quote me ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 93 00:10:04 EDT From: The Hawthorne Exchange Subject: Nightly Market Report The Hawthorne Exchange - HEx Nightly Market Report For more information on HEx, send email to HEx@sea.east.sun.com with the Subject info. News Summary as of: Sat Aug 14 00:10:03 EDT 1993 Newly Registered Reputations: (None) New Share Issues: (None) Share Splits: (None) Market Summary as of: Sat Aug 14 00:00:03 EDT 1993 Total Shares Symbol Bid Ask Last Issued Outstanding Market Value 1000 .10 .20 .10 10000 2000 200.00 110 .01 .10 - 10000 - - 150 .01 .10 - 10000 - - 1E6 .02 .10 - 10000 - - 1E9 .01 .10 - 10000 - - 200 .10 .20 .10 10000 2000 200.00 80 .01 .10 - 10000 - - 90 .01 .20 .10 10000 2000 200.00 ACS .10 .15 .50 10000 1124 562.00 AI .01 .30 .20 10000 1000 200.00 ALCOR 2.00 3.80 2.00 10000 3031 6062.00 ALTINST - .15 .15 10000 2500 375.00 ANTON .02 1.00 .02 10000 3 .06 ARKU - .20 .05 10000 3000 150.00 BIOPR .01 .18 .10 10000 1500 150.00 BLAIR .01 30.00 50.00 10000 25 1250.00 CYPHP .15 .17 .17 10000 100 17.00 DEREK - .42 1.00 100000 8220 8220.00 DRXLR 1.00 2.00 2.00 10000 2246 4492.00 DVDT .75 1.55 1.55 10000 9900 15345.00 E .58 .70 .65 10000 5987 3891.55 ESR - - - - - - EXI 1.00 3.00 1.30 10000 3025 3932.50 FAB - - - - - - FCP - - 2.00 80000 7320 14640.00 GHG .01 .30 .01 10000 6755 67.55 GOBEL .01 .30 1.00 10000 767 767.00 GOD .10 .20 .10 10000 1000 100.00 H .76 .76 .76 30000 18750 14250.00 HAM .01 .55 .50 10000 5460 2730.00 HEINLN .01 .25 - 10000 - - HEX 100.00 101.00 100.00 10000 3330 333000.00 HFINN 2.00 6.00 .75 10000 1005 753.75 IMMFR .25 .80 .49 10000 1401 686.49 JFREE .01 .15 .10 10000 3000 300.00 JPP .25 .26 .25 10000 2510 627.50 KARL - - - - - - LEARY .01 .20 .20 10000 100 20.00 LEF .01 .15 .30 10000 1526 457.80 LEFTY .01 .45 .30 10000 3051 915.30 LIST .40 .75 .50 10000 5000 2500.00 LP .01 .09 - 10000 - - LSOFT 1.00 - .60 10000 7550 4530.00 LURKR .06 .07 - 100000 - - MARCR - - - - - - MED21 .01 .08 - 10000 - - MLINK - .01 .02 1000000 2602 52.04 MMORE - .10 - 10000 - - MORE .75 1.25 .75 10000 3000 2250.00 MWM .15 .15 1.50 10000 1260 1890.00 N 20.00 25.00 25.00 10000 108 2700.00 NEWTON - .20 - 10000 - - NSS .01 .05 - 10000 - - OCEAN .11 .12 .11 10000 1700 187.00 P 20.00 25.00 25.00 1000000 80 2000.00 PETER - .01 1.00 10000000 600 600.00 PLANET .01 .09 .05 10000 1500 75.00 PPL .11 .25 .10 10000 400 40.00 PRICE - 4.00 2.00 10000000 1410 2820.00 R .49 2.80 .99 10000 5100 5049.00 RAND - .06 - 10000 - - RJC 1.00 999.00 .60 10000 5100 3060.00 ROMA - - - - - - RWHIT - - - - - - SGP - - - 10000 - - SHAWN .01 1.00 - 10000 - - SSI - .05 - 10000 - - TCMAY .40 .63 .75 10000 4000 3000.00 TIM .25 1.00 1.00 10000 700 700.00 TRANS .01 .05 .40 10000 1511 604.40 VINGE .20 .50 .50 10000 1001 500.50 WILKEN 1.00 10.00 10.00 10000 101 1010.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 448130.44 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1993 00:58:38 -0400 From: Alexander Chislenko Subject: PERSONAL: Travelling to Montreal. I am planning to visit Montreal for a couple of days sometime next week, and would like to meet fellow extropians who live there, on on the way there from Boston, or near one of the above. Please send me email or call if you are interested in meeting! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Alexander Chislenko | sasha@cs.umb.edu | Cambridge, MA | (617) 864-3382 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 93 8:33:58 GMT From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu Subject: The Axiom of Action >From: jrk@information-systems.east-anglia.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) >Subject: Axioms > >Tim Starr writes: >>Action != "behavior." All human action is indeed purposeful. That's how it >>is distinguished from mere human behavior. > >Is this a definition of the phrase "human action", or an empirical claim >about the world, or one element of a larger body of doctrine which as a >whole makes empirical claims about the world? Or something else? It is an empirical claim about the definition of human action that the larger body of praxaeology, a.k.a., Austrian economics, is founded upon. Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL, The International Society for Individual Liberty, 1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034.2711@compuserve.com Think Universally, Act Selfishly - starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 93 5:09:58 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: META: test, ignore testing testing testing -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- EE/Math Student | politics is the implementation of faith. -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Zetetic Commentaries -- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1993 05:25:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Extropy Institute Subject: test ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 93 10:55:18 GMT From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu Subject: Axioms and Accusations >From: dkrieger@Synopsys.COM (Dave Krieger) > >>>The fact that some human behavior is purposeful some of the time does not >>>imply that all human behavior is purposeful, or that any human behavior is >>>purposeful all of the time. >>> dV/dt >> >>Objection: irrelevant. The subject is human ACTION, not human "behavior." >>Dead humans behave. They do not act. > >Ah... so "action" is DEFINED as purposeful behavior. Mais, bien sur! Else we'd have only "reaction." >Remember, folks, I'm DVDT on HEx, and Tim is TIM. Yes, indeed. Remember, too, that DVDT is given to wild accusations of dishonesty (which he then later retracts in private e-mail alone) about those who dare to question the doctrines he holds as sacred cows. Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL, The International Society for Individual Liberty, 1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034.2711@compuserve.com Think Universally, Act Selfishly - starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #225 *********************************