[MURG] The main problem...

[Yan King Yin]

From: Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org>

>> Intention, or sentience (having human-like emotions), are not
>
>Sentience has nothing to do with human-like emotions. Emotions per se, probably.
>Human emotions are just introspection view of action scheduling. Planning needs
>priority to decide what to do, hence a self and a world model. "If I go
>there, I will fall down the stairs. Hence, I will not go there, but go over
>here instead." 
>
>Don't get too hung up about emotions. Insects have them, so do robots. People
>are complex; judging from evolutonary structure conservation their emotions are less so. 
>
>> necessarily required for an AI to function as a useful tool.
>> An AI can simply have rigid goal structures.
>
>It's doesn't matter what it is. Implementation is irrelevant. 
>It matters what it does.
> 
>> The term "human-grade" AI is ill-defined and as such is not
>
>It is defined well enough. It means human-grade performance across the board.
>It doesn't have to pass the Turing test (for that's a speciality skill, and
>can be addressed at a later stage of development, if required), but
>it is definitely no idiot savant. It can do science and engineering
>sufficiently well to improve itself in an open ended fashion, and a
>motivation to do so by virtue of being embedded in a darwinian context.
>
>This is something I *postulate*. I'm describing a threat model.
>
>> very meaningful. A human-level AI can simply be a tool without
>> sentience, and as such we're not afraid of them. As for
>
>You can produce all kinds of synthetic scenarios which are safe.
>I'm not interested in synthetic scenarios which are safe. Because we can
>ignore these a priori. The dangerous scenarios are self-selection from a
>threat analysis perspective.
>
>> sentient AIs, I have already said this: "If AI can do X, AI
>> can do X without sentience." It's redundant.
>
>You have some pretty curious notions here.
> 
>> Facts:
>> 1. Utility-type AIs will arrive before uploading.
>
>Utility-type AIs are irrelevant. We already have them. Every game package has
>behaviour AI. Any Roomba has AI, or any security robot. Only military robots
>shoot with the intention to kill.
>
>> 2. Sentient AIs will arrive about the same time as uploading.
>
>People can't do sentient AIs. People can make seeds of such. It is
>imperative to find out how hard it is, how much resources this will take,
>and whether we should shoot those who try dead. 
> 
>> The discussion re whether AI will take over is very stupid.
>> AI will not replace us unless we want that to happen. The
>
>My point is that there are several individuals which consciously want it. But
>it's not all that relevant -- collectively, we all want it. You can't afford
>not to use a powerful tool if your competitor uses it. There are billions of
>people on this planet, and a considerable fraction of those people is very
>competent, and also very stupid.
>
>> only way for it to happen is that a majoring of humans
>> choose to opt for having sentient AI offsprings (themselves
>> retiring / dying off); this will result in uploads being
>> outnumbered and outcompeted. Otherwise this will not happen.
>> 
>> Case closed.
>
>If it only was so easy. No wonder Eliezer is so frustrated.

It's stupid to talk about some threats without being able
to state clearly what it is, if you can be scared into
buying that stuff I can't help you anymore.

What are you going to do? Quit your job and join Eliezer?

=(



____________________________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10