From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun Apr 07 2002 - 03:13:20 MDT
Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>
>>Why "not good" exactly? Getting to an SI is considered a
>>general good, but preferably with more checks and balances
>>
>
> A hard edged transition to SI is hardly a general good, since it mostly
> likely associated with killer side effects. Like, really killer, man.
>
If you check the original post I think you may notice that I
don't believe that merely having access to spare computational
capacity is sufficient to create an SI much less to do so with a
hard-edged transition.
>
>>toward Friendliness. Several million computers without a
>>
>
> Yea, verily, and the lamb shalt lie with the lion.
>
Did I say anything that justifies you acting as if I spouted
some true-believer notion? I don't think so.
>
>>workable plan of how to acheive a full AI and with the latencies
>>implied between nodes is not particularly scary to me or likely
>>to evolve something dangerous much faster than otherwise.
>>
>
> Current online computers (infrastructure such as routers included) can be
> quantitatively taken over a small, moderately competent group of crackers.
> Worries about your P2P suite's potential hidden cargo (hi Googlebar!) on
> this background are immaterial.
>
So what? Please show a coherent plan of how these computers can
be used to force the development of an SI. I don't see that
they can so I think the worry of that developing from the unused
computational capacity merely being tapped is unfounded.
> There is no trend towards deployment of inherently safe protocols, OSses,
> and sandboxing of the application layer. Future infrastracture still looks
> like today's, like swiss cheese.
>
If you are sandboxing to avoid it spontaneously evolving into an
SI then I think the efforts are a waste of energy as the
possibility being protected against is impossible to occur in
such a manner.
Now a really good AI team with a very well thought out SI seed
architecture might me able to do something with such a net of
computational power but even then the poor overall latency of
the system would work against the result being all that
impressive. Or do you see something that I am missing?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:17 MST