eugen at leitl.org
Fri Apr 13 09:58:05 UTC 2007
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 07:36:43PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> I agree that the super-intelligent being will not automatically be
Diversification guarantees you some of the postbiota will be not
intelligent. By the bulk of the postbiomass most of it might be
arguably only slightly smarter than rocks, with a few gods sprinkled
> motivated to destroy us, but I dispute that this has anything to do
> with being rational. Reason is a means used to achieve goals, but in
Logging in Brazil is very rational, and kills habitats just fine.
In fact, if you'd confront these loggers (who have children at home
to feed) they'll shoot you dead.
Palm plantations in Indonesia are also rational. Building airstrips
and shopping malls is also perfectly rational.
> the final analysis the goals themselves are neither rational nor
> irrational; they just are. All else being equal, a more intelligent
> person might be better able to enforce kindness or cruelty than a less
Interactions between very asymmetrical players have no payoff for the
greater player, and hence produce no cooperation.
> intelligent one, but intelligence is no indicator as to whether the
> person will be kind or cruel. Moreover, the likelihood that reason
Expecting reason to always prevail is unreasonable. Human-Ebola interaction
is not governed by reason.
> will be used in making decisions does not necessarily have anything to
> do with level of intelligence. People sometimes do reckless,
> irresponsible or (to use the word in its popular, but strictly
> incorrect sense) irrational things while being fully cognisant of the
If you thought humans are good at SNAFUs, you should see some of what
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
More information about the extropy-chat