[extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads (was: what to do)

[giorgio gaviraghi]

maybe we should make another important assumption
about AIs
They have individual free will
in this case they could disobey human commands, have
their own goals, take their own decisions, refuse to
"unplug " themselves.
In a smarter than human scenario they could connect
between them and create a collective mind, billion of
times more powerful than the individual.
If you consider this possibility we have unlimited
situations and none of them looks good for humans 
--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> ha scritto: 

> --- giorgio gaviraghi <giogavir at yahoo.it> wrote:
> > the entire paragraph is based in one important
> fact:
> > We are assuming that AIs are smarted than humans
> > without such assumption we have a Hal like 2001
> > situation where at the end the human is still in
> > control
> 
> Ah, and here we get to another layer of question:
> what does it mean to
> be "smarter"?  Hal was quite possibly smarter than
> any of the human
> crew.  Certainly, it was capable of forming a plan
> to kill all the crew
> members to ensure its own goals were met, and mostly
> carrying it out
> (though not completely successfully).  At least in
> its own mind, it
> believed its intelligence to be superior to the
> humans', and certain IQ
> tests might well have given it a higher score
> (although I recall
> hearing that Mr. Clarke once commented that HAL's IQ
> was only supposed
> to be about 50).
> 
> > But if we assume that they are smarter, then how
> can
> > we believe that they will allow to be made
> ineffective
> > and practically killed  by the first human who
> will
> > unplug them?
> 
> Being smart and having much control over the
> physical world are not the
> same thing.  Case in point: George Bush, President
> of the United
> States, whom I think most people (even his
> supporters) would agree is
> not as smart as most Nobel Prize winners, but who
> inarguably currently
> has much more control over things that can affect
> the world and his
> personal safety than an average Nobel Prize winner. 
> Indeed, a paranoid
> focus on survival may actually decrease intelligence
> - if only because
> one is spending so many cycles on considering
> scenarios for
> self-preservation than on solving problems.
> 
> There's also the key phrase "made ineffective": it's
> one thing to go
> from being a free human being (or equivalent) to
> being trapped in a
> box.  It's another if one always was an immobile
> box.
> 
> A truly smart AI may realize that the only
> short-term scenario that
> leads to self-preservation is to stop worrying about
> survival and do
> what the humans want, so they will trust you more
> and give you more
> capabilities.  Or how about the case of a smart AI
> that has been raised
> to care about humanity as its children (so as to
> design upgrades and/or
> upload paths for them), with the same
> self-sacrificing memeplex seen in
> human mothers and fathers throughout history but
> applied for the
> benefit of all humans (at least, those who would
> accept the AI's help)?
> 
> > The first thing that they would learn is how to
> > survive and will avoid to be eliminated by a
> simple
> > command.
> 
> Learning how to survive is very hard - impossible,
> really - to do
> without first learning about the world, including
> concepts such as
> "survival" and "commands".
> 
> You might also want to consider why they would want
> to survive.  Just
> because?  Some AIs might focus on that - but, again,
> on an
> equal-generation competition with other AIs, they'd
> probably be at a
> competitive disadvantage with AIs who focus directly
> on whatever
> fitness/survival criteria is out there, be it
> designing faster children
> sooner, helping humanity along, or whatever.  Some
> AIs might excuse
> themselves from the race and strike out on their own
> to survive - just
> like some humans might do the same.  Similar things
> affect the chances
> of survival in both cases, when cut off and in
> self-imposed opposition
> to the still-evolving AIs.
> 
> While we might not be able to fully predict the
> behaviors of smarter
> AIs, that's not to say we can't predict anything,
> nor is it to give
> implicit blessing to the prediction - and it IS a
> prediction that is
> being made here, just like the predictions that the
> same argument says
> can not be made (or believed) - that those AIs will
> want to survive
> first and foremost, and that they are likely to
> believe their best path
> is to dominate and oppress the human race.  (A
> modified version may
> concede that this is merely possible, but that if
> there's any chance
> then we should devote our efforts to preventing
> it...but see Pascal's
> Wager, and specifically its disproof.)
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 



	

	
		
___________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB 
http://mail.yahoo.it