[extropy-chat] RE: Singularitarian verses singularity

[mike99]

On Dec 21, 2005, at 2:52 PM, mike99 wrote:

> What Samantha says here about the value -- and the dangers -- of
> superhuman
> intelligence reflects quite precisely what I believe on this
> subject. Let me
> add a few points to bolster this position:
>
> 1) If merely human intelligence, and any current or past forms of
> human
> organization, were sufficient to create the sort of world we desire
> to live
> in, then such a world would have already been created. Therefore, no
> rearrangement of human relations (political, economic, etc.) and no
> humanly-manageable system of development could be sufficient to
> take us from
> our current unsatisfactory state of life to the enhanced, long-lived,
> healthy, wealthy and free life we desire. Greater than human
> intelligence is
> required.

Samantha Atkins wrote:
  This argument looks shaky.  Human intelligence in the form of total
knowledge base is increasing.  Combining increasing levels of
communication, storage and computational capabilities gives a larger
set of possibilities than at any earlier time.   So it does not
necessarily hold that the absence of the world we desire is proof
that human level intelligence is incapable of achieving it.  While I
agree with you conclusion this is not a good argument for that
conclusion.


Mike responds:
  Our knowledge base certainly is increasing, but our capacity to derive
useful connections between all the bits and bytes is not keeping pace.
Data mining has come a long way, but it still has a long way to go.

  Assume, for the sake of argument, that hidden within all that data is
some extractable knowledge that, if used, would enable us to create the
kind of world we wish to live in (and you may define that pretty much any
way you like). By what algorithm could we ensure that such knowledge is
found within the data? I argue that we have no such algorithm. Furthermore,
I suspect that even if we did have such an algorithm, we would be so
shocked at the results it turned up that we would discount them.

  What would be shocking about these results? I suspect (but cannot by
any means prove) that the results would indicate that building the world
we wish to live in would require us to combine seemingly contradictory or
mutually exclusive components. Like what? Like the contradictory core claims
of the libertarians and the socialists. Like the mutually exclusive ideals
of the evolutionary psychologists and the spiritual idealists.

  Our experience of human politics shows that we are incapable of combining
these elements on our own. In fact, right now we cannot even conceive of the
possible need to do so. Yet I suspect that our inability to even imagine
combining these is precisely why we need an SAI to tell us that this is what
we must do. **Not compel us to do it** mind you -- no coercion -- but TELL
us to do it. And to give us the benefit of its managerial ability (including
its ability to design and manage Drexlerian nanotech) to make this possible
outside of any political wrangling.



Regards,

Michael LaTorra

mike99 at lascruces.com
mlatorra at nmsu.edu
English Dept., New Mexico State University

"For any man to abdicate an interest in science is to walk with open eyes
towards slavery."
-- Jacob Bronowski

"Experiences only look special from the inside of the system."
-- Eugen Leitl

"Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman: a rope across
an abyss - a dangerous going across, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous
looking back, a dangerous shuddering and staying still."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Member:
Board of Directors, World Transhumanist Association: www.transhumanism.org
Board of Directors, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies:
http://ieet.org/
Extropy Institute: www.extropy.org
Alcor Life Extension Foundation: www.alcor.org
Society for Universal Immortalism: www.universalimmortalism.org
President, Zen Center of Las Cruces:
www.zencenteroflascruces.orgwww.zencenteroflascruces.org