From: Franklin Wayne Poley (culturex@vcn.bc.ca)
Date: Mon Sep 25 2000 - 16:22:35 MDT
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, J. R. Molloy wrote:
> Franklin Wayne Poley writes,
>
> > I don't understand much about the process behind my calculator but I
> > understand the product.
>
> Yes, of course. Note that the question is not why your calculator would want to
> be friendly. We're discussing why AI (of the human-competitive kind) would want
> to be friendly.
In his 1997 book, Warwick says the less intelligent will not continue to
be governed by the more intelligent. Others have said much the same. My
reply is that intelligence is not motivation. I don't care how complex the
machine is or whether it has mobility and can evolve or self-improve. What
I care about is that it stays under control. That is a prime concern of
all when it comes to AI. Human-competitive AI has no "wants" except for
those capabilities it is given. Competing with humans is not a bad
thing. That's why we invent all kinds of useful machines. So just spell
out in terms we can all understand how the machines will surpass humans
and how they will remain under control.
FWP
Lay persons make themselves obsolete to the degree that they
> fail to understand the significance of the Artilects, Mind Children, Robo
> sapiens, and Spiritual Machines that do considerably more to enhance production
> than the most sophisticated calculators (or present day super computers for that
> matter).
>
> > I think it depends on how you approach the public. Nobody is threatened by
> > the $5 calculator. Everyone thinks it is a useful invention. However, it
> > surpasses "human equivalency" with respect to arithmetic ability (which is
> > sometimes in measuring IQ). I don't think the general public is
> > threatened by chess playing machines which surpass human equivalency
> > although some human experts are. If you explain that "transhuman" AI as
> > it is called on the Singularity web site in such terms I expect most
> > people will see it as a positive contribution to socially beneficial
> > inventions. Actually I think it is "intellectual workers" who will be most
> > threatened. The general public would want to know how you propose to keep
> > it under control if it has mobility and autonomy and genetic algorithms.
>
> I find your comments reasonable and plausible. Hostile reactions to AI (as
> imagined by some contributors here) may be exaggerated. It could be that most
> folks will welcome AI as yet another labor-saving appliance -- which saves them
> the trouble of thinking for themselves. It's been my experience that lots of
> people dread exercising their brains even more than we dread exercising our
> muscles.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:12 MST