X-Message-Number: 29762 From: Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 01:27:50 -0500 Subject: Re: Singularity, replies to Stodolsky, Watson, Plus & an emai... --_----------=_1187764070245915 Content-Disposition: inline David Stodolsky said: "Is the next debate going to be about 'global warming' or square circles :-)" Crop circles, Dr. Stodolsky, with brief meanderings into "If something is not in the journals, does it exist?" and "If it is not a sociological problem, can it be a problem?" :) ------------ Kennita Watson said: "If not by us, by someone else. It may not start out super, but it will get there eventually. Best we do it first and do it right. By "we" I refer generically to "people I think of as 'the good guys'"." I think you just described the upcoming origin of the intergalactic war between the supercomputers, as brought up by Francois. The point you are missing is that just because the "good guys" build one, that has nothing to do with stopping the "bad guys" from doing the same, and they probably would. Then comes the battle. So what's stopping the "bad guys"? Maybe nothing, but there is a slim chance that if the "good" ones exercised immense restraint on development, the "bad" ones" who are often not nearly as bright anyway, might be deprived of knowledge as well as motivation. I am quite pessimistic, though, about anything stopping that "river" you describe. I intend to enjoy life while I still can. For those who are instead optimistic about the same thing, the river, all I can say is "thanks a fargin' lot for the river, and it was nice knowing you." ----------- Mark Plus said: "The AI field started during the time of Harry S Truman's presidency, yet after nearly 60 years it has bogged down with no obvious path forward." This is simply wrong. The AI field is merely a part of the overall development of computer technology, which was basically flashing light bulbs at the time of Truman, and has now progressed to where what took a gymnasium full of huge components in the '60s can fit in the palm of one's hand today, and with magnitudes more processing power and storage. Compare pong to the complex game programs of today, and chess is also now beaten. A self-aware and intelligent AI? I think it is just over the horizon, but perhaps if it is coming too slowly to satisfy Plus, the developers are indeed using some cautious restraint. I don't know about that, but I can hope. Regardless of whether it will happen next week or 500 years off, the time to prepare is now, when we either do, or should, foresee the risk and threat. SIAI claims they address both opportunity and risk, but their "Summits" so far have shown little of the latter. For those who are too blind to see any risk, I have some feathered suits, and holes in the ground for their heads. ----------- A person who will go unnamed unless he wants to speak up publicly, said in an email to me: "If half the time is spent talking about whether the singularity is good, and half the time is spent talking about whether it's bad, then there would be no time left to talk about what to do about it, which is the purpose of the conference." This sounds like somebody who likes the "positive emphasis" of the conference and would rather hear nothing but how we will enjoy such exciting lives via the advanced AI technology. Well, I may be wrong on that, but I'm not wrong on this: If half the conference were spent hearing speakers on "why it is good," that would include all the exciting stuff we will supposedly enjoy, as well as how to promote the advent of it. And if the other half were spent on "why it is bad" it would include the risks involved and why it is not a good idea to try to promote it, and what we can do to prevent it. In conclusion, that was one of the silliest emails I have received this week. -- We've Got Your Name at http://www.mail.com ! Get a FREE E-mail Account Today - Choose From 100+ Domains --_----------=_1187764070245915 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29762