From: J. R. Molloy (jr@shasta.com)
Date: Sun Dec 17 2000 - 15:01:11 MST
From: "Michael M. Butler" <butler@comp-lib.org>
> What if your Real SI has something analogous to Asperger's Syndrome, but
> you decide to go with it anyway? (Fatal Flaw scenario) What but an SI
> can challenge its qualities? This is not a luddite question, it's a
> question about monocultures. Couldn't a deficient but effective SI still
> present problems for the human race as a whole? This can be looked at as
> another sort of labeling error, the grossest kind being "insane SI"
> labeled "sane"; I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about something
> subtler. The SI runs its self-tests and says AOK. Great. How do mehums
> know it has its head screwed on straight?
What if we have questions that only a Real SI can answer? Do we keep
derailing science with irrelevant distractions, or do we put our psychic
energy to use by supporting a Real SI. (Get Real scenario) Anyone can
challenge "its qualities" (whatever that might mean), by asking questions
that humans have not been able to answer (from Fermi's paradox to a Theory
Of Everything -- presently unanswerable questions abound). Neo-luddites can
form questions about monocultures as well as anyone, I guess. A second
Enlightenment entails shutting down pompous theologues, ideologues, and
demagogues with empirical science issuing from new convergence of nano-,
geno-, bio-, computatio-, neuro-, etc., hi-tech discovery which is happening
on a daily basis (read the hi-tech news items posted here). If it is a Real
SI, it has no "deficiencies" that a human can detect (if it has detectable
deficiencies, don't call it SI, call it DDAI, detectably deficient
artificial intelligence). If the deficiency is not detectable, then the
machine is way ahead of any human counterpart, because *every* human brain
has deficiencies of one sort or another. In any event, it will definitely
not present nearly the problem for the human race "as a whole" that
misguided opponents of SI present.
Intelligence means the ability to solve problems, not the ability to present
problems. The human race "as a whole" has failed to provide evidence of its
sanity for the last three thousand years, in which time it has waged five
thousand wars (most of them "holy" wars. The Killer Ape is evidently a
congenital homicidal maniac. I have no idea what "mehums" need as far as a
warranty that SI "has its head screwed on straight" but responsible
scientists no doubt understand that considerably more scrutiny will be
applied to the sanity of SI than is currently applied to the millions of
humans who despite severe psychological problems continue to breed. If you
were sincerely concerned about the effects of insane intelligence on the
human race "as a whole" I don't believe you'd waste time philosophizing
about SI, you'd go to work for Zero Population Growth or Planned Parenthood,
or at least help to point out the insanity of organized religion.
The strongest argument in favor of an Enlightenment singularity, as I
understand it, comes from cognitive and computational neurosciences, which
provide the foundation for building artificial brains. Artificial
intelligence will do for our brains what automotive technology has done for
our legs: Extend their power, amplify their function, enhance their purpose,
and improve the world in which we live and learn. Automobiles, despite some
clever essays by neo-luddites, do not actually rule our lives. Super
intelligence, because it is potentially far more powerful than cars, will
enhance human life even more than cars and trucks have. It's important to
remember that intelligence does not rule our society. If it did, we wouldn't
have gorons (sic) in government. What determines power and status, and
therefore authority and control in our social order (as a message from Greg
Burch helped me to understand) relates to the ability to establish social
connections and build confidence and trust in a professional network of team
members. Decisions are made by those in command, with help from advisors,
and often the advisors are smarter than commanders. Competent leaders are
those who have the emotional quotient to trust rather than to distrust high
intelligence, use it effectively, and make sane decisions with its help. No
mystery there.
Stay hungry,
--J. R.
3M TA3
=====================
I think I'd add "free will" to the list of "consciousness" "phlogiston"
"vitalism" and "mind" as examples of useless hypotheses.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:25 MST