From: Eugene Leitl (eugene.leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de)
Date: Tue Aug 31 1999 - 23:33:37 MDT
Billy Brown writes:
> Eli isn't the only one. I figure that whether or not this scenario happens
> wil be determined by the laws of physics, so I'm not worried about causing a
"Will be determined by the laws of physics" is a remarkably
contentless statement. Everything's (apart from Divine Intervention,
which most people here believe don't exist) determined by the laws of
physics. So what?
> disaster that would not otherwise have occured. I am, however, very
> concerned about the potential for a future in which AI turns out to be easy,
> and the first example is built by some misguided band of Asimov-law
> enthusiasts.
Fortunately, whoever believes in fairy-tales like Asimov's laws is
(due to obvious extreme incompetence) quite unlikely to bootstrap the
first AI.
To make this somewhat less noise: I think rushing AI is at least as
bad as rushing nano. Relying on best-case scenario (where the the
first transcendee is deliberately holding back (*all*) the horses to
allow everybody to go on the bus) is foolish at best. To begin, the
perpetuator might be not human to start with.
And say hello to oblivion,
'gene
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:58 MST