From: David Blenkinsop (blenl@sk.sympatico.ca)
Date: Thu Nov 18 1999 - 18:33:23 MST
Lyle Burkhead wrote:
> That's the kind of point I'm making in
> Geniebusters. It's a general point about the structure of the
> situation.
>
> But some people just don't get it.
> . . .
> Some students could learn arithmetic, but when you
> gave them an abstract proposition in geometry, they just didn't get
> it. They would come to that point and stop, like an ass stops
> before a bridge.
Interesting. Suppose that you yourself had been introduced to geometry
by a math teacher, a teacher who thought you were smart enough to
appreciate what a triangle might be, by analogy with something a bit
more familar. Say the teacher made reference to a triangular corner cut
from a piece of construction paper, for instance. Now after thinking
about this a little, let's say that your reaction was to write an essay
called "Construction Paper Busters" where you insist that whatever the
future of triangles may hold, it would be a mistake to believe that
triangles are construction paper! Who isn't "getting it" in a situation
like this?
In the actual situation of nanotech discussions, which I think we are
supposed to be talking about, the comparison of AI's to genies appeared
in Drexler's _Engines of Creation_, in a paragraph near the end of the
chapter titled "Thinking Machines". This short paragraph opens by
stating that "eventually", "some AI systems" could be expected to have
great technical and social abilities. The paragraph then says that
"given charge of enough energy, materials, and assemblers" such a system
could aptly be called a "genie machine", with the quote marks provided
by Drexler himself, in this case. In other words, it's a comparison, or
analogy, to relate this advanced prospect to something more familiar,
the "genie" of legend. Finally, the paragraph ends by warning about the
"danger" of this particular kind of "engine of creation". Nothing here
suggests that Drexler has confused AI's with genies. More importantly,
nothing suggests that Drexler thinks that technology will solve every
problem for us, which is pretty much the confusion underlying Lyle
Burkhead's "Geniebusters" idea.
Unfortunately, I've seen some signs, myself, that some people respond
far too literally to Arthur Clarke's dictum, that "a sufficiently
advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". For instance, I've
read some things by Vernor Vinge, for instance, that seemed interesting,
even scary, at first, concerning some sort of unstoppable takeover by
AI's, only to do a double take on why he should assume that a particular
AI would get all the world's resources, unopposed. The point is, if some
people think AI's may have absolutely magical power, that's not
Drexler's problem! You've really missed something if you think that this
is what he means in speaking about programmable assembers,
nanofactories, or what have you? Anyway, while we're discussing this,
let's try for a major advance in geometry -- "Construction Paper
Busters", anyone?
David Blenkinsop <blenl@sk.sympatico.ca>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:48 MST