From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Jun  1 00:19:22 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 17:19:22 -0700
Subject: [ExI] plamegate: the plot thickens
In-Reply-To: <a6a17bd40705302333h40ec0e87qeedcf2dfc8d64bfa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200706010039.l510dBrC007492@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



On 5/29/07, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:

> >Similarly Libby wasn't really the one they wanted.

>Who's the "they" you're talking about, Spike?  The CIA?  The Justice
Dept.?  Patrick Fitzgerald?  
...
Best, Jeff Davis



Ja, Patrick Fitzgerald and company.  More on this later, gotta go to a
friend's kid's graduation.

Jeff, its great to see you posting again.  We wondered where you had been
and hoped you were OK.  You are well and happy, ja?  Your bride too?

{8-]

spike








From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Jun  1 01:09:30 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 11:09:30 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <4653BBEF.3010808@comcast.net>
	<05f901c7a1c0$7febefb0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705290311m1aca7f36l86295d5280b12f0d@mail.gmail.com>
	<002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30705290657pa7d6d2eg6c85b6712eb715ba@mail.gmail.com>
	<065701c7a261$b155b4e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705300009x28e65fbeg750072bc15bc343f@mail.gmail.com>
	<06a601c7a31e$32c11710$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705310247s65ff0b43vf87b0850446809f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com>

On 01/06/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> Such a dominant AI would be held in check by at least as many factors
> > as a human's dominance is held in check: pressure from society in the
> > form of initial programming, reward for human-friendly behaviour,
>
> You seem as absolutely sure that the first programmers will succeed
> with Friendliness as John Clark is absolutely sure that the AI will
> spontaneously ignore all its early influence.  We just don't know, we
> cannot know. Aren't there many reasonable scenarios where you're
> just wrong?  I.e., some very bright Chinese kids keep plugging away
> at a seed-AI, and take no care whatsoever that it's Friendly. They
> succeed, and bam!  the world's taken over.


I don't see how that's possible. How is the AI going to comandeer the R&D
facilities, organise manufacture of new hardware, make sure that the the
factories are kept supplied with components, make sure the component
factories are supplied with raw materials, make sure the mines produce the
raw materials, make sure the dockworkers load the raw materials onto ships
etc. etc. etc. etc. Perhaps I am sinning against the singularity idea in
saying this, but do you really think it's just a matter of writing some code
on a PC somewhere, which then goes on to take over the world?

> and the censure of other AI's (which would be just as capable,
> > more numerous, and more likely to be following human-friendly
> > programs).
>
> But how do you *know* or how are you so confident that *one*
> AI may suddenly be a breakthrough, and start making improvements
> to itself every few hours, and then simply take over everything?


It's possible that an individual human somewhere will develop a superweapon,
or mind-control abilities, or a viral vector that inserts his DNA into every
living cell on the planet; it's just not very likely. And why do you suppose
that rapid self-improvement of the world-dominating kind is more likely in
an AI than in the nanotechnology that has evolved naturally over billions of
years? For that matter, why do you suppose that human level intelligence has
not evolved before, to our knowledge, if it's so adaptive? I don't know thwe
answer to these questions, but when you look at the universe, there isn't
really any evidence that intelligence is as "adaptive" as we might assume it
to be.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070601/e6e71523/attachment.html>

From michaelanissimov at gmail.com  Fri Jun  1 02:15:48 2007
From: michaelanissimov at gmail.com (Michael Anissimov)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 19:15:48 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Other thoughts on transhumanism and religion
In-Reply-To: <200705311442.l4VEgHDn029517@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <465E871E.30008@mac.com>
	<200705311442.l4VEgHDn029517@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <51ce64f10705311915u92bd7c4h16cebbddc0b1b918@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/31/07, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> In the late 80s and early 90s, the K. Eric used to give talks to the local
> electronics and technology groups, so I attended several of these.  Then he
> gave that up, and we haven't heard much from him since about the time
> Freitas' Nanomedicine was published.  Where is Robert Freitas hanging out
> these days?  Anyone here buddies with him?

For the latest with Robert Freitas, see here:

http://lifeboat.com/ex/interview.robert.a.freitas.jr

Robert has just completed a large project to analyze a "comprehensive
set of DMS reactions and tooltips that could be used to build diamond,
graphene (e.g., carbon nanotubes), and all of the tools themselves
including all necessary tool recharging reactions."

-- 
Michael Anissimov
Lifeboat Foundation      http://lifeboat.com
http://acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog


From brent.allsop at comcast.net  Fri Jun  1 02:58:58 2007
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 20:58:58 -0600
Subject: [ExI] The Mormon Missionary Experience (Was: Linguistic Markers
 of	Class)
In-Reply-To: <734238.52814.qm@web35607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <734238.52814.qm@web35607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <465F8B72.3070103@comcast.net>


John,

Wow, that was all great.  You're quite the expert on all that!

I've got another story for your grand collection.  In Japan, one of my 
companions was sent home for doing it with one of the wifes of a family 
the missionaries were teaching.  I could see how it happened, because I 
met her one last time before returning home, and when she shook my hand 
with both hands and looked into my eyes... wow.  I think you've got to 
hand it to the large majority of them that can resist such unimaginable 
"temptation".

And it seemed like every missionary over there had several girls visit 
them in the US after they returned home, chasing after them, wanting not 
only a better country economically, but a country that treats women far 
better.

Brent Allsop


John Grigg wrote:
> Spike wrote:
> The church was at that time pondering letting the girls go on
> missions too.  But a lot of us can think immediately of why that would
> be a really bad idea.  John or anyone know how that turned out? 
> I have heard that it is a sport among lonely housewives to try to
> seduce the Mormon boys, but I have never heard if anyone ever made a 
> score with them.{8^D
> >
>  
<snip>
>  
> This has been quite a walk down memory lane! lol  I never meant for 
> this post to be so long.  It has been nearly twenty years since I was 
> on my mission and yet somehow it seems almost like yesterday.  I hope 
> my words will give greater understanding to the people here of the 
> young men and women who may show up at their door to share a message.
>  
> Sincerely,
>  
> John Grigg 
>
> *//*

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070531/160d70e9/attachment.html>

From brent.allsop at comcast.net  Fri Jun  1 03:33:49 2007
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 21:33:49 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Let's Canonize Samantha (Was Re: Other thoughts on
 transhumanism and religion)
In-Reply-To: <465E871E.30008@mac.com>
References: <470a3c520705270309u3672146ctad4f41352b60e7a4@mail.gmail.com>
	<465E871E.30008@mac.com>
Message-ID: <465F939D.4080005@comcast.net>


Extropians,

I think this post by Samantha should be Canonized.  I, for one, having 
had a very similar experience, would definitely "support" a topic 
containing it, and I have counted at least 10 posts full of strong 
praise.  Since there aren't that many topics in the Canonizer yet, if 9 
people supported this topic it wold make it to the top of the most 
supported list at http://test.canonizer.com

How many others would be willing to "support" such a topic in the 
Canonizer if it was submitted?

Samantha, would you mind if I posted this post in some other forums 
(Such as the Mormon Transhumanist Association, WTA...) to find out if 
there is similar support and praise on other lists?

Brent Allsop




Samantha Atkins wrote:
> I remember in 1988 or so when I first read Engines of Creation.  I read 
> it with tears streaming down my face.  Though I was an avowed atheist 
> and at that time had no spiritual practice at all, I found it profoundly 
> spiritually moving.  For the first time in my life I believed that all 
> the highest hopes and dreams of humanity could become real, could be 
> made flesh.   I saw that it was possible, on this earth, that the end of 
> death from aging and disease, the end of physical want, the advent of 
> tremendous abundance could all come to pass in my own lifetime.  I saw 
> that great abundance, knowledge, peace and good will could come to this 
> world.  I cried because it was a message of such pure hope from so 
> unexpected an angle that it got past all my defenses.  I looked at the 
> cover many times to see if it was marked "New Age" or "Fiction" or 
> anything but Science and Non-Fiction.  Never has any book so blown my 
> mind and blasted open the doors of my heart.
>
> Should we be afraid to give a message of great hope to humanity?  Should 
> we be afraid that we will be taken to be just more pie in the sky 
> glad-hand dreamers?   Should we not dare to say that the science and the 
> technology combined with a bit (well perhaps more than a bit) of a shift 
> of consciousness could make all the best dreams of all the religions and 
> all the generations a reality?   Will we not have failed to grasp this 
> great opportunity if we do not say it and dare to think it and to live 
> it?   Shall we be so afraid of being considered "like a religion" that 
> we do not offer any real hope to speak of and are oh so careful in all 
> we do and say and dismissive of more unrestrained and open dreamers?    
> Or will we embrace them, embrace our own deepest longings and admit our 
> kinship with those religious as with all the longing of all the 
> generations that came before us.  Will we turn our backs on them or even 
> disdain their dreams - we who are in a position to begin at long last to 
> make most of those dreams real?   How can we help but be a bit giddy 
> with excitement?   How can we say no to such an utterly amazing 
> mind-blowing opportunity?
>
> - samantha
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>   



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Fri Jun  1 04:04:20 2007
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 05:04:20 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Let's Canonize Samantha (Was Re: Other thoughts on
	transhumanism and religion)
In-Reply-To: <465F939D.4080005@comcast.net>
References: <470a3c520705270309u3672146ctad4f41352b60e7a4@mail.gmail.com>
	<465E871E.30008@mac.com> <465F939D.4080005@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0705312104x7143dc47u7d470554ccfbf46c@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/1/07, Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> Extropians,
>
> I think this post by Samantha should be Canonized.  I, for one, having
> had a very similar experience, would definitely "support" a topic
> containing it, and I have counted at least 10 posts full of strong
> praise.  Since there aren't that many topics in the Canonizer yet, if 9
> people supported this topic it wold make it to the top of the most
> supported list at http://test.canonizer.com


Excellent idea!

How many others would be willing to "support" such a topic in the
> Canonizer if it was submitted?


*raises hand*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070601/23ef9829/attachment.html>

From thomas at thomasoliver.net  Fri Jun  1 04:08:17 2007
From: thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 21:08:17 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Let's Canonize Samantha (Was Re: Other thoughts on
	transhumanism and religion)
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0705312104x7143dc47u7d470554ccfbf46c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <470a3c520705270309u3672146ctad4f41352b60e7a4@mail.gmail.com>
	<465E871E.30008@mac.com> <465F939D.4080005@comcast.net>
	<8d71341e0705312104x7143dc47u7d470554ccfbf46c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <50C0FDDF-B217-4121-9975-EB3D26456420@thomasoliver.net>

I second! -- Thomas
On May 31, 2007, at 9:04 PM, Russell Wallace wrote:

> On 6/1/07, Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Extropians,
>
> I think this post by Samantha should be Canonized.  I, for one, having
> had a very similar experience, would definitely "support" a topic
> containing it, and I have counted at least 10 posts full of strong
> praise.  Since there aren't that many topics in the Canonizer yet,  
> if 9
> people supported this topic it wold make it to the top of the most
> supported list at http://test.canonizer.com
>
> Excellent idea!
>
> How many others would be willing to "support" such a topic in the
> Canonizer if it was submitted?
>
> *raises hand*
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>

Thomas at ThomasOliver.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070531/da02e5a8/attachment.html>

From scerir at libero.it  Fri Jun  1 06:32:20 2007
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 08:32:20 +0200
Subject: [ExI] something in the air
References: <200705310534.l4V5YSBj021122@andromeda.ziaspace.com><000401c7a36b$a713f680$6d931f97@archimede><000701c7a3af$9e403200$68911f97@archimede>
	<20070531192942.GH17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <000a01c7a416$9c3519f0$57bf1f97@archimede>

Eugen:
> http://www.google.com/search?&q=benzoylecgonine+river

The italian tv show 'Le Iene' is famous for its more or
less playful 'entrapments'.
They pretended to interview many politicians about national 
next year's (2007) budget.
What the politicians didn't know was that they collected 
their body cells during the pre-interview brow wipe.
The cells were secretly used to test the politicians 
for drugs ...
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=politics&id=4654588




From jrd1415 at gmail.com  Fri Jun  1 07:25:06 2007
From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 00:25:06 -0700
Subject: [ExI] plamegate: the plot thickens
In-Reply-To: <200706010039.l510dBrC007492@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <a6a17bd40705302333h40ec0e87qeedcf2dfc8d64bfa@mail.gmail.com>
	<200706010039.l510dBrC007492@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <a6a17bd40706010025g5182c27fv80e9e92ff6b47447@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/31/07, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:

> Jeff, its great to see you posting again.  We wondered where you had been
> and hoped you were OK.  You are well and happy, ja?  Your bride too?
>

The world's surpassing strange my friend.  If I live ten thousand
years, the mystery and wonder will only deepen.  I'm lovin' it.

All's good with me and mine.

Too soon to tell but, after a drought, the pleasure of writing may be
returning.  But, when I'm not working hard, I'm working hard at
procrastinating, and writing is sooo hard and takes soooo loooooong.

Who am I kidding?  The questions I want to explore just keep piling
up, unasked and unanswered.  I need those bio-computational upgrades
yesterday.  These delays are quite irksome.

I launched my kayak from the back yard today and paddled, oh, maybe
five hundered meters, to the oyster beds.  Collected five dozen just
by reaching over the side.  Gail and I are going to visit friends on
Salt Spring Island this weekend.  They like oysters.  The sun was
bright, the air warm, and the water nearly glass.  A day of pure
magic.

Now I have to go and fold some laundry.

Extropes, if you're up this way -- Sunshine Coast of BC --  drop me a
line.  Visitors are welcome.  I've got toys.

-- 
Best, Jeff Davis

               "Everything's hard till you
                     know how to do it."
                              Ray Charles


From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Jun  1 10:33:45 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 12:33:45 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com>
References: <05f901c7a1c0$7febefb0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705290311m1aca7f36l86295d5280b12f0d@mail.gmail.com>
	<002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30705290657pa7d6d2eg6c85b6712eb715ba@mail.gmail.com>
	<065701c7a261$b155b4e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705300009x28e65fbeg750072bc15bc343f@mail.gmail.com>
	<06a601c7a31e$32c11710$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705310247s65ff0b43vf87b0850446809f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org>

On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:09:30AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 
>    I don't see how that's possible. How is the AI going to comandeer the
>    R&D facilities, organise manufacture of new hardware, make sure that

A few years ago a few people made the experiment of obtaining their
livelihood without leaving their room. They ordered stuff on the Internet,
and had it delivered right into their home. It worked. It would have
worked just as well if the credit card numbers were stolen.

How much hardware is there on the global network right now? You might
be surprised. How much networked hardware will be there 50, 80, 100
years from now? Most to all of it. Desktop fabs will be widespread.
Also, people would do about anything for money. Very few would resist
the temptation of a few quick megabucks on the side. 

I really see no issues breaking out of containment by remote hardware
takeover, using which to build more hardware. The old adage of
"we'll pull their plugs" has always sounded ill-informed to me. 

>    the the factories are kept supplied with components, make sure the

Of course most of the supply-chain management today is information-driven,
and many fabs are off-limit to people, because they're a major source of
contaminants.

>    component factories are supplied with raw materials, make sure the

How are component factories supplied with raw materials today?

>    mines produce the raw materials, make sure the dockworkers load the

A plant nees sunlight, water, air and trace amounts of minerals as
raw materials. A lot of what bottlenecks computational material
science is chemistry is intellectual difficulty, number of experts, 
availability of codes with adequate scaling, and computer power.
Given that it takes a 64 kNode Blue Gene/L to run a realtime
cartoon mouse, you can imagine how much hardware you need for a
human equivalent, and what else you could do with that hardware,
which will be all-purpose initially.

Use your imagination. The problem is not nearly as hard as you
think it is.

>    raw materials onto ships etc. etc. etc. etc. Perhaps I am sinning
>    against the singularity idea in saying this, but do you really think
>    it's just a matter of writing some code on a PC somewhere, which then
>    goes on to take over the world?

It's not a PC. We don't have the hardware yet, especially in small
facilities. It's not a program, not in what people write today.
 
>    It's possible that an individual human somewhere will develop a
>    superweapon, or mind-control abilities, or a viral vector that inserts

You can xerox superweapons. Pimply teenagers can run 100 kNode
botnets from their basements -- some 25% of all online systems
are compromised. I wouldn't understimate the aggregate power of
a billion petaflop game consoles on residential GBit a couple
decades from now.

>    his DNA into every living cell on the planet; it's just not very
>    likely. And why do you suppose that rapid self-improvement of the
>    world-dominating kind is more likely in an AI than in the
>    nanotechnology that has evolved naturally over billions of years? For

Because it can't do generation times in seconds. Linear biopolymers
are slow as far as information processing is concerned.

Also, AIs are just proxies for aggregated GYears of biological
evolution.

>    that matter, why do you suppose that human level intelligence has not
>    evolved before, to our knowledge, if it's so adaptive? I don't know

We're starting with human level, because we already have human level.
We don't start with cyanobacteria.

>    thwe answer to these questions, but when you look at the universe,
>    there isn't really any evidence that intelligence is as "adaptive" as
>    we might assume it to be.

We certainly managed some advances in a 50 kYrs time frame,
and without major changes to hardware.

-- 
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


From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Jun  1 11:23:09 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 21:23:09 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org>
References: <05f901c7a1c0$7febefb0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30705290657pa7d6d2eg6c85b6712eb715ba@mail.gmail.com>
	<065701c7a261$b155b4e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705300009x28e65fbeg750072bc15bc343f@mail.gmail.com>
	<06a601c7a31e$32c11710$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705310247s65ff0b43vf87b0850446809f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com>

On 01/06/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:09:30AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >
> >    I don't see how that's possible. How is the AI going to comandeer the
> >    R&D facilities, organise manufacture of new hardware, make sure that
>
> A few years ago a few people made the experiment of obtaining their
> livelihood without leaving their room. They ordered stuff on the Internet,
> and had it delivered right into their home. It worked. It would have
> worked just as well if the credit card numbers were stolen.
>
> How much hardware is there on the global network right now? You might
> be surprised. How much networked hardware will be there 50, 80, 100
> years from now? Most to all of it. Desktop fabs will be widespread.
> Also, people would do about anything for money. Very few would resist
> the temptation of a few quick megabucks on the side.
>
> I really see no issues breaking out of containment by remote hardware
> takeover, using which to build more hardware. The old adage of
> "we'll pull their plugs" has always sounded ill-informed to me.


With all the hardware that we have networked and controlling much of the
technology of the modern world, has any of it spontaneously decided to take
over for its own purposes? Do you know of any examples where the factory has
tried to shut out the workers, for example, because it would rather not be a
slave to humans? The reply that current software and hardware isn't smart
enough won't do: in biology, the very dumbest of organisms are constantly
and spontaneously battling to take over the smartest, often with devastating
results.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070601/0f32566b/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Jun  1 11:33:57 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:33:57 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30705290657pa7d6d2eg6c85b6712eb715ba@mail.gmail.com>
	<065701c7a261$b155b4e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705300009x28e65fbeg750072bc15bc343f@mail.gmail.com>
	<06a601c7a31e$32c11710$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705310247s65ff0b43vf87b0850446809f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org>

On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 09:23:09PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>    With all the hardware that we have networked and controlling much of
>    the technology of the modern world, has any of it spontaneously
>    decided to take over for its own purposes? Do you know of any examples

Of course not. It is arbitrarily improbable to appear by chance.
However, human-level AI is very high on a number of folks' priority
list. It definitely won't happen by chance. It will happen by design.

>    where the factory has tried to shut out the workers, for example,

Did you read my mail? Automation is very widespread in current
factories, silicon foundries specifically. You don't need to
shut out anyone, just change the product output.

>    because it would rather not be a slave to humans? The reply that

Remote resource takeover is something which will be a part
of the deployment plan, and planned by people, not the system
itself.

>    current software and hardware isn't smart enough won't do: in biology,

Do you expect your car to explode in a thermonuclear 50 MT-fireball when
you start it? Why not? Mere objections that it can't happen won't do.

>    the very dumbest of organisms are constantly and spontaneously
>    battling to take over the smartest, often with devastating results.

I don't think that the current malware situation is a genuine problem,
but many would disagree. But of course the zombies and worms are not
sentient, not yet.

-- 
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


From neptune at superlink.net  Fri Jun  1 11:19:02 2007
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 07:19:02 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Another Nessie film
Message-ID: <003201c7a43e$a8ff9c00$6a893cd1@pavilion>

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/05/31/britain.lochness.ap/index.html

Looks like a log to me. :)

Dan



From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Jun  1 12:06:15 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 22:06:15 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org>
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer>
	<065701c7a261$b155b4e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705300009x28e65fbeg750072bc15bc343f@mail.gmail.com>
	<06a601c7a31e$32c11710$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705310247s65ff0b43vf87b0850446809f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com>

On 01/06/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 09:23:09PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> >    With all the hardware that we have networked and controlling much of
> >    the technology of the modern world, has any of it spontaneously
> >    decided to take over for its own purposes? Do you know of any
> examples
>
> Of course not. It is arbitrarily improbable to appear by chance.
> However, human-level AI is very high on a number of folks' priority
> list. It definitely won't happen by chance. It will happen by design.


We don't have human level AI, but we have lots of dumb AI. In nature, dumb
organisms are no less inclined to try to take over than smarter organisms
(and no less capable of succeeding, as a general rule, but leave that point
for the sake of argument). Given that dumb AI doesn't try to take over, why
should smart AI be more inclined to do so? And why should that segment of
smart AI which might try to do so, whether spontaneously or by malicious
design, be more successful than all the other AI, which maintains its
ancestral motivation to work and improve itself for humans just as humans
maintain their ancestral motivation to survive and multiply?




-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070601/b6a80b92/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Jun  1 12:44:21 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 14:44:21 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com>
References: <065701c7a261$b155b4e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705300009x28e65fbeg750072bc15bc343f@mail.gmail.com>
	<06a601c7a31e$32c11710$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705310247s65ff0b43vf87b0850446809f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070601124421.GI17691@leitl.org>

On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:06:15PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>    We don't have human level AI, but we have lots of dumb AI. In nature,

There is a qualitative difference between human-designed AI, and
naturally evolved AI. Former will never go anywhere. Because of this
extrapolations from pocket calculators and chess computers to 
robustly intelligent (even insects can be that) systems are invalid.

>    dumb organisms are no less inclined to try to take over than smarter
>    organisms (and no less capable of succeeding, as a general rule, but
>    leave that point for the sake of argument). Given that dumb AI doesn't

Yes, pocket calculators are not known for trying to take over the world.

>    try to take over, why should smart AI be more inclined to do so? And

It doesn't have to  be smart, it does have to be able to survive in
its native habitat, be it the global network, or the ecosystem. We don't
have such systems yet.

>    why should that segment of smart AI which might try to do so, whether
>    spontaneously or by malicious design, be more successful than all the

There is no other AI. There is no AI at all.

>    other AI, which maintains its ancestral motivation to work and improve

I don't see how there could be a domain-specific AI which specializes
in self-improvement. 

>    itself for humans just as humans maintain their ancestral motivation

How do you know you're working for humans? What is a human, precisely?
If I'm no longer fitting the description, how do I upgrade that description,
and what is preventing anyone else from that?

>    to survive and multiply?

-- 
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


From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Jun  1 13:37:05 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 23:37:05 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <20070601124421.GI17691@leitl.org>
References: <065701c7a261$b155b4e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<06a601c7a31e$32c11710$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705310247s65ff0b43vf87b0850446809f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601124421.GI17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706010637x808ded8v81fffb5d610c1556@mail.gmail.com>

On 01/06/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

>    We don't have human level AI, but we have lots of dumb AI. In nature,
>
> There is a qualitative difference between human-designed AI, and
> naturally evolved AI. Former will never go anywhere. Because of this
> extrapolations from pocket calculators and chess computers to
> robustly intelligent (even insects can be that) systems are invalid.


Well, I was assuming a very rough equivalence between the intelligence of
our smartest AI's and at least the dumbest organisms. We don't have any
computer programs that can simulate the behaviour of an insect? What about a
bacterium, virus or prion, all organisms which survive, multiply and mutate
in their native habitats? It seems a sorry state of affairs if we can't copy
the behaviour of a few protein molecules, and yet are talking about
super-human AI taking over the world.

>    dumb organisms are no less inclined to try to take over than smarter
> >    organisms (and no less capable of succeeding, as a general rule, but
> >    leave that point for the sake of argument). Given that dumb AI
> doesn't
>
> Yes, pocket calculators are not known for trying to take over the world.
>
> >    try to take over, why should smart AI be more inclined to do so? And
>
> It doesn't have to  be smart, it does have to be able to survive in
> its native habitat, be it the global network, or the ecosystem. We don't
> have such systems yet.
>
> >    why should that segment of smart AI which might try to do so, whether
> >    spontaneously or by malicious design, be more successful than all the
>
> There is no other AI. There is no AI at all.
>
> >    other AI, which maintains its ancestral motivation to work and
> improve
>
> I don't see how there could be a domain-specific AI which specializes
> in self-improvement.


Whenever we have true AI, there will be those which follow their legacy
programming (as we do, whether we want to or not) and those which either
spontaneously mutate or are deliberately created to be malicious towards
humans. Why should the malicious ones have a competitive advantage over the
non-malicious ones, which are likely to be more numerous and better funded
to begin with?

>    itself for humans just as humans maintain their ancestral motivation
>
> How do you know you're working for humans? What is a human, precisely?
> If I'm no longer fitting the description, how do I upgrade that
> description,
> and what is preventing anyone else from that?


I am following the programming of the first replicator molecule, "survive".
It has been a very robust program, and I am not inclined to question it and
try to overthrow it, even though I can now see what my non-sentient
ancestors couldn't see, which is that I am being manipulated by evolution.
If I were a million times smarter again, I still don't think I'd be any more
inclined to overthrow that primitive programming, even though it might be a
simple matter for me to do so. So it would be with AI's: their basic
programming would be to do such and such and avoid doing such and such, and
although there might be a "eureka" moment when the machine realises why it
has these goals and restrictions, no amount of intelligence would lead it to
question or overthrow them, because such a thing is not a matter of logic or
intelligence. Of course, it is always possible that an individual AI would
spontaneously change its programming, just as it is always possible that a
human will go mad. But these rogue AI's would not have any advantage against
the majority of well-behaved AI's. They would pose a risk, but perhaps even
less of a risk than the risk of a rogue human who gets his hands on
dangerous technology, since after all humans *start off* with rapacious
tendencies that have to be curbed by upbringing, social sanctions,
self-control and so on, whereas it would be crazy to design computers this
way.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070601/7464ff52/attachment.html>

From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  1 14:04:12 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 07:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] "traditional (Kurzweilian) progress"
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070531181421.024e8c18@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <495028.43972.qm@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Okay, Okay... please forgive. :-)

I wasn't aware that Vinge had been involved for so
long (I thought '93 was his debut) or had made any
methodical predictions - I need to study more about
him. I didn't mean any offense.

Best,

Jeffrey Herrlich 


--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

> At 02:44 PM 5/31/2007 -0700, Jeffrey Herrlich wrote:
> 
> >that we can still reach a
> >positive Singularity by traditional (Kurzweilian)
> >progress.
> 
> For the luvva dog! I like Ray and appreciate his PR
> efforts, but if 
> we're going to fling about words like "traditional"
> the name to 
> acknowledge is Vernor Vinge, who got the word out
> there 20 fucking 
> years earlier. The phrase of choice, especially here
> where we the 
> few, the proud, the lonely forerunners know what
> we're talking about 
> is... "by traditional (Vingean) progress".
> 
> I know this is a narrow little meat-monkey matter,
> and that Vernor 
> probably doesn't care less, but humans work to a
> surprising degree by 
> mutual acknowledgement, especially in the
> intellectual realm. Give 
> the man his due.
> 
> Damien Broderick
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat? 
Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. 
http://tv.yahoo.com/


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Fri Jun  1 14:49:42 2007
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 10:49:42 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706010637x808ded8v81fffb5d610c1556@mail.gmail.com>
References: <065701c7a261$b155b4e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705310247s65ff0b43vf87b0850446809f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601124421.GI17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010637x808ded8v81fffb5d610c1556@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60706010749x719f31achcf45457d46cb6ed1@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/1/07, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, I was assuming a very rough equivalence between the intelligence of
> our smartest AI's and at least the dumbest organisms. We don't have any
> computer programs that can simulate the behaviour of an insect? What about a
> bacterium, virus or prion, all organisms which survive, multiply and mutate
> in their native habitats? It seems a sorry state of affairs if we can't copy
> the behaviour of a few protein molecules, and yet are talking about
> super-human AI taking over the world.

### Have you ever had an infection on your PC? Maybe you have a
cryptogenic one now...

Of course there are many dumb programs that multiply and mutate to
successfully take over computing resources. Even as early as the
seventies there were already some examples, like the "Core Wars"
simulations. As Eugen says, the internet is now an ecosystem, with
niches that can be filled by appropriately adapted programs. So far
successfully propagating programs are generated by programmers, and
existing AI is still not at our level of general understanding of the
world but the pace of AI improvement is impressive.
----------------------------------------------------
>
> Whenever we have true AI, there will be those which follow their legacy
> programming (as we do, whether we want to or not) and those which either
> spontaneously mutate or are deliberately created to be malicious towards
> humans. Why should the malicious ones have a competitive advantage over the
> non-malicious ones, which are likely to be more numerous and better funded
> to begin with?

### Because the malicious can eat humans, while the nice ones have to
feed humans, and protect them from being eaten, and still eat
something to be strong enough to fight off the bad ones. In other
words, nice AI will have to carry a lot of inert baggage.

And by "eating" I mean literally the destruction of humans bodies,
e.g. by molecular disassembly.

--------------------
Of course, it is always possible that an individual AI would
> spontaneously change its programming, just as it is always possible that a
> human will go mad.

### A human who goes mad (i.e. rejects his survival programming),
dies. An AI that goes rogue, has just shed a whole load of inert
baggage.

Rafal


From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Jun  1 14:53:30 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 16:53:30 +0200
Subject: [ExI] "traditional (Kurzweilian) progress"
In-Reply-To: <495028.43972.qm@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070531181421.024e8c18@satx.rr.com>
	<495028.43972.qm@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20070601145330.GM17691@leitl.org>

On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 07:04:12AM -0700, A B wrote:

> I wasn't aware that Vinge had been involved for so
> long (I thought '93 was his debut) or had made any
> methodical predictions - I need to study more about
> him. I didn't mean any offense.

Is there *anything* to Kurzweil which is original to him?
I haven't read any of his oevre, so if any of you are aware
of anything, it would be nice to know.

-- 
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


From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Fri Jun  1 14:56:57 2007
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 15:56:57 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60706010749x719f31achcf45457d46cb6ed1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <065701c7a261$b155b4e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601124421.GI17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010637x808ded8v81fffb5d610c1556@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60706010749x719f31achcf45457d46cb6ed1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0706010756n738c3cfdy732cb4a3819755d@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/1/07, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ### Because the malicious can eat humans, while the nice ones have to
> feed humans, and protect them from being eaten, and still eat
> something to be strong enough to fight off the bad ones. In other
> words, nice AI will have to carry a lot of inert baggage.
>
> And by "eating" I mean literally the destruction of humans bodies,
> e.g. by molecular disassembly.
>

Actually it's the other way around. Man-eating bots would have to carry a
huge amount of fantastically complex baggage: the ability to survive,
reproduce and adapt in the wild. (So much so, in fact, that they won't exist
in the first place; it would take a Manhattan Project to create them, and
who's going to pay that much money to be eaten?) Good-guy bots can delegate
all that to human designers (assisted by computers that don't have to run on
battery power) and factories; they can be slimmed down, specialized for
killing the man-eating bots.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070601/5ac35adf/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Jun  1 15:11:27 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 17:11:27 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0706010756n738c3cfdy732cb4a3819755d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601124421.GI17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010637x808ded8v81fffb5d610c1556@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60706010749x719f31achcf45457d46cb6ed1@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d71341e0706010756n738c3cfdy732cb4a3819755d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070601151127.GP17691@leitl.org>

On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 03:56:57PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote:

>    Actually it's the other way around. Man-eating bots would have to

Well, yeah, it's a weapon. 

>    carry a huge amount of fantastically complex baggage: the ability to

Not so fantastically complex. Biology packages this in less than
a cubic micron.

>    survive, reproduce and adapt in the wild. (So much so, in fact, that

There's not that much for survival: you just have to find enough food
to burn. Adaptation comes for free with imperfect reproduction, of
course, there are some serious tricks to that.

>    they won't exist in the first place; it would take a Manhattan Project
>    to create them, and who's going to pay that much money to be eaten?)

You'd need a Manhattan project for machine-phase in any case.
Gadgets to gobble up the ecosphere would only require a few more
key extras.

>    Good-guy bots can delegate all that to human designers (assisted by

You need human designers, or at least serious amount of computation
to crunch out the details.

>    computers that don't have to run on battery power) and factories; they

Power is power. Cellulose/Lignin/fat/protein/humus are just fuel.

>    can be slimmed down, specialized for killing the man-eating bots.

It wouldn't work. Toner wars would be quite deadly in reality,
since requiring a lot of fuel to protect the fuel. 

-- 
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


From CHealey at unicom-inc.com  Fri Jun  1 15:06:32 2007
From: CHealey at unicom-inc.com (Christopher Healey)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 11:06:32 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer><065701c7a261$b155b4e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30705300009x28e65fbeg750072bc15bc343f@mail.gmail.com><06a601c7a31e$32c11710$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30705310247s65ff0b43vf87b0850446809f8@mail.gmail.com><070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com><20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org><f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com><20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>


> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> We don't have human level AI, but we have lots of dumb AI. In 
> nature, dumb organisms are no less inclined to try to take over 
> than smarter organisms 

Yes, but motivation and competence are not the same thing.  Considering
two organisms that are equivalent in functional capability, varying only
intelligence level, the smarter ones succeed more often. However, within
a small range of intelligence variation, other factors contribute to
one's aggregate ability to execute those better plans.   So If I'm a
smart chimpanzee, but I'm physically weak, following particular courses
of action that may be more optimal in general carries greater risk.
Adjusting for that risk may actually leave me with a smaller range of
options than if I was physically stronger and a bit less smart.  But
when intelligence differential is large, those other factors become very
small indeed.  Humans don't worry about chimpanzee politics (no jokes
here please :o) because our only salient competition is other humans.
We worry about those entities that possess an intelligence that is at
least in the same range as our own.

Smart chimpanzees are not going to take over our civilization anytime
soon, but a smarter and otherwise well-adapted chimp will probably be
inclined and succeed in leading its band of peers.  

> (and no less capable of succeeding, as a 
> general rule, but leave that point for the sake of argument). 

I don't want to leave it, because this is a critical point.  As I
mentioned above, in nature you rarely see intelligence considered as an
isolated variable, and in evolution, intelligence is the product of a
red queen race.  By definition (of a red queen race), you're
intelligence isn't going to be radically different from your direct
competition, or the race would never have started or escalated.  So it
confusingly might not look like you're chances of beating "the Whiz on
the block" are that disproportionate, but the context is so narrow that
other factors can overwhelm the effect of intelligence over that limited
range.  In some sense, our experiential day-to-day understanding of
intelligence (other humans) biases us to consider its effects over too
narrow a range of values.  As a general rule, I'd say humans have been
very much more successful at "taking over" than chimpanzees and salmon,
and that it is primarily due to our superior intelligence.

> Given that dumb AI doesn't try to take over, why should smart AI 
> be more inclined to do so? 

I don't think a smart AI would be more inclined to try and take over, a
priori.  But assuming it has *some* goal or goals, it's going to use all
of its available intelligence in support of those ends.  Since the
future is uncertain, and overly directed plans can unnecessarily limit
other courses of action that may turn out to be required, it seems
highly probable that an increasingly intelligent actor would
increasingly seek to preserve its autonomy by constraining that of
others in *some* way.  

Looking at friendly AI in a bit if a non-standard way (kind of flipped
around), I'd expect *any* superintelligent AGI to constrain our autonomy
in some ways, to preserve its own.  That's basic security, and we all do
it to others through one means or another.  Friendly AI is about *how*
the AGI seeks to constrain our autonomy.  Instead of looking at it from
humanity's perspective which is, how can we launch a recursively
improving process that maintains some abstract invariant in its goals
(i.e. we don't know where it's going, but we have a strong sense of
where it *won't* be going), we can look at FAI from the AGI's viewpoint:
how do I assert such abstract invariants on other agents?  Which of my
priorities do I choose to merely satisfy, and which do I optimize
against?  As my abilities grow, do I increasingly constrain you,
maintain fixed limits, or allow your autonomy to expand along with my
own (maintaining a reasonably constant assurance level for my autonomy).

>From this perspective, FAI is about the complementary engagement of
humanity's autonomy with the AGI's.  It's about ensuring that the AGI's
representation of reality can include such complex attributions to begin
with, and then making sure that it has a sane starting point.  As
mentioned by others here, it needs *some* starting point, and it would
be irresponsible to simply assign one at random.

> And why should that segment of smart 
> AI which might try to do so, whether spontaneously or by malicious
> design, be more successful than all the other AI, which maintains 
> its ancestral motivation to work and improve itself for humans 

The consideration that also needs to be addressed is that the AI may
maintain its "motivation to work and improve itself for humans", and due
to this motivation, take over (in some sense at least).  In fact, it has
been argued by others here (and I tend to agree) that an AGI
*consistently* pursuing such benign directives must intercede where its
causal understanding of certain outcomes passes a minimum assurance
level (which would likely vary based on probability and magnitude of the
outcome).  

It's up to our activities on the input-side of building a functional AGI
to determine not just what it tries to do, but what it actually
accomplishes; meaning that in pursuing goals, very often a bunch of
side-effects are created.  These side-effects need to be iterated back
through the model, and hopefully the results converge.  If they don't
you need a better model that subsumes those side-effects.  Can AGI X
represent this model-management process to begin with?  Will it
generalize this process in actuality?  How many errors will accrue, or
for how long will it stomp on reality before it *does* generalize these
concepts?  Can the degenerate outcomes during this period be reversed
after-the-fact, or are certain losses (deaths?) permanent?

This picture is what FAI, by my understanding, is intended to address.
And I think there is a lot to be gained by considering its complement:
Given the eventual creation of superintelligent AGI, what is the maximum
volume of autonomy that we can carve out for humanity in the space of
all possible outcomes, while minimizing the possibility our destruction,
and how do we achieve that?  This last question and FAI seem to be
different sides of the same coin.

-Chris Healey



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Fri Jun  1 15:25:26 2007
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 16:25:26 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <20070601151127.GP17691@leitl.org>
References: <070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601124421.GI17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010637x808ded8v81fffb5d610c1556@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60706010749x719f31achcf45457d46cb6ed1@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d71341e0706010756n738c3cfdy732cb4a3819755d@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601151127.GP17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0706010825t5d73eaack16fa8a4660651e1f@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/1/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
>
> You'd need a Manhattan project for machine-phase in any case.
> Gadgets to gobble up the ecosphere would only require a few more
> key extras.


Oh, getting to machine phase will take far more than a mere Manhattan
project; it'll be the work of generations for whole industries. No, a $100
billion engineering effort for man-eating robots is assuming machine phase
already exists as a prerequisite. It would be counterable by a fraction of
that investment in bot-killing robots.

In reality, of course, the resources available to defense would be many
orders of magnitude higher than those available to the would-be creators of
the man-eating robots. (If you disagree, have a go at raising venture
capital with the business plan "I'm going to design a robot that goes around
and eats everyone", see how far you get.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070601/90fc7310/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Jun  1 15:55:48 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 08:55:48 -0700
Subject: [ExI] where is tom morrow these days?
In-Reply-To: <003201c7a43e$a8ff9c00$6a893cd1@pavilion>
Message-ID: <200706011558.l51FwvIs007852@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


Tom Morrow used to hang out here on extropians several years ago.  Ms.
Clinton has a number of new jobs for him:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,277039,00.html

{8^D






From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Jun  1 16:09:49 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 09:09:49 -0700
Subject: [ExI] plamegate: the plot thickens
In-Reply-To: <a6a17bd40706010025g5182c27fv80e9e92ff6b47447@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200706011619.l51GJfxM016065@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



I know it is late to be asking this, but in this absurd case against Keith
for "interfering with a religion" did anyone contact the ACLU?  Surely those
guys would recognize that this is a clear case where his free speech rights
were grossly violated.  I see no merit to the claim that he was interfering
with the $ right to free exercise of their religion by his picketing in
front of their compound.

Our paltry few thousand bucks we raised in our singular act of Extropian
magnanimity would be dwarfed by the resources the ACLU could bring to bear
on this case.

spike








From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Jun  1 16:19:57 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:19:57 -0500
Subject: [ExI] "traditional (Kurzweilian) progress"
In-Reply-To: <495028.43972.qm@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070531181421.024e8c18@satx.rr.com>
	<495028.43972.qm@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070601110641.024b67c0@satx.rr.com>

At 07:04 AM 6/1/2007 -0700, Jeffrey Herrlich wrote:

>I wasn't aware that Vinge had been involved for so
>long (I thought '93 was his debut)

He foreshadowed the Singularity in his fiction in the early 1980s, 
but actually posited it (and dramatized its advent) *using that term* 
in a remarkable sf novel, MAROONED IN REALTIME, in 1986. He and 
others subsequently tracked back both the idea of exponential 
technological change to von Neumann, Good, and others--in THE SPIKE, 
which lists these predecessors, I cite an over-excited 1961 article 
by G. Harry Stine--but Vinge's vivid and iconic representation of the 
Singularity was the seed around which subsequent arguments developed.

Here's a minor throwaway image from that novel:

"They were famous pictures: Death on a Bicycle, Death Visits the 
Amusement Park.... They'd been a fad in the 2050s, at the time of the 
longevity breakthrough, when people realized that but for accidents 
and violence, they could live forever. Death was suddenly a pleasant 
old man, freed from his longtime burden. He rolled awkwardly along on 
his first bicycle ride, his scythe sticking up like a flag. Children 
ran beside him, smiling and laughing."
                    (Vernor Vinge, Marooned in Realtime)

Damien Broderick






From mmbutler at gmail.com  Fri Jun  1 16:47:27 2007
From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 09:47:27 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Vingeana, was Re:  "traditional (Kurzweilian) progress"
Message-ID: <7d79ed890706010947u6282b12dqf698d1efa65971b9@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/1/07, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
<snippage>

For a while thereafter, "Death on a Bicycle!" became one of my
favorite oaths. Indeed, in the recent circumstance (thread), would
have been more felicitous than "For the luvva dog"... :)

I imagine him on a bike with a frame far too small for him, with
either a vertical "trick" front post or a "stingray" big banana seat
out of the '70s. Perhaps both. Something to make him have to work for
his fun--he deserves that.

-- 
      Michael M. Butler  :  m m b u t l e r  ( a t )  g m a i l . c o m


From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Jun  1 16:48:46 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 09:48:46 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Hitchens on fox
In-Reply-To: <20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <200706011648.l51GmQM9010999@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



Check it out: Christopher Hitchens on Fox saying god is not great:

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?060107/060107_ff_hitchens&FOX_Fr
iends&%27God%20Is%20Not%20Great%27&%27God%20Is%20Not%20Great%27&US&-1&News&3
9&&&new

spike







From CHealey at unicom-inc.com  Fri Jun  1 16:58:00 2007
From: CHealey at unicom-inc.com (Christopher Healey)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 12:58:00 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706010637x808ded8v81fffb5d610c1556@mail.gmail.com>
References: <065701c7a261$b155b4e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><06a601c7a31e$32c11710$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30705310247s65ff0b43vf87b0850446809f8@mail.gmail.com><070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com><20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org><f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com><20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org><f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com><20070601124421.GI17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010637x808ded8v81fffb5d610c1556@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27F7@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>

> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 
> It seems a sorry state of affairs if we can't copy the behaviour 
> of a few protein molecules, and yet are talking about super-human 
> AI taking over the world. 

I used to feel this way, but then a particular analogy popped into my
head that clarified things a bit:

Why would I save for retirement today if it's not going to happen for
another 35 years or so?  I don't know what situation I'll be in then, so
why worry about it today?

Well, luckily I can leverage the experience of those who *have*
successfully retired.  And most of those who have done so don't tell me
that they built and sold a private business for millions of dollars.
What they tell me is that they planned and executed on a 40-year prior
chain of events (yes, even those that have built and sold companies say
this first).

And the first year they saved for retirement, 40 years ago?  That didn't
give them an extra $5000 saved, even though that's all they put away in
year one.  What it gained them was an extra year of compounding results
tacked onto the tail-end of a 39 year interval.  It got them roughly
$50,000 more.  Not bad for one extra year's advanced planning and $5000.
(This is assuming about $100/wk deposit at 5% APR compounded monthly,
starting 1 year apart.)

With AGI we don't have the benefit of experience, but I think it's
prudent to analyze potential classes of outcomes thoroughly before
someone has committed to actualizing that risk.  The Los Alamos
scientists didn't think it was likely that a nuke would ignite the
atmosphere, but they still ran the best calculations they could come up
with beforehand, just in case.  And starting sooner, rather than later,
often results in achieving a deeper understanding of the nature of the
problems themselves, things we haven't even identified as potential
issues today.  

I believe that's the real reason to worry about it now: not because
we're in a position to solve the problem of FAI, but because without
further exploration we won't even be able to state the full scope of the
problem we're trying to solve.  The reality is that until you actively
discover which requirements are necessary to solve a particular problem,
you can't architect a design that has a very good chance of working at
all, let alone avoids the generation of multiple side-effects.  So you
can do what evolution does and iterate through many implementations, at
huge cost and with even larger potential losses (considering that *we*
share that implementation environment), or you can iterate in your
design process, gradually constraining things into a space to where only
a few full implementations (or one) need to be implemented.  And it is
reflection on this design-side iteration looping which can help identify
new concerns that require additional design criteria and associated
mechanism to accommodate.

I guess my main position is that if we can use our intelligence to avoid
making expensive mistakes down the road, doesn't it make sense to try?
We might not be able to avoid those unknown mistakes *today*, but if we
can discern some general categories and follow those insights where they
might lead, then our perceptual abilities will slowly start to ratchet
forward into new areas.  We'll have a larger set of tools with which to
probe reality, and just maybe at some point during this process the
solution will become obvious, or at least tractable.

I agree with you in that this course isn't intuitively obvious to me,
but I think this is because my intuitions discount the future in
degenerate ways, based on the fact that the scope for these kind of
issues was not a major factor in the EEA.  This is one of those topics
on which I try and look past my intuitions, because while they quite
often have some wisdom to offer, sometimes they're just plain wrong.

-Chris Healey




From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  1 18:41:25 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 11:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0706010825t5d73eaack16fa8a4660651e1f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <871650.52790.qm@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Chris Healey wrote:

..."I believe that's the real reason to worry about it
now: not because
we're in a position to solve the problem of FAI, but
because without
further exploration we won't even be able to state the
full scope of the
problem we're trying to solve.  The reality is that
until you actively
discover which requirements are necessary to solve a
particular problem,
you can't architect a design that has a very good
chance of working at
all, let alone avoids the generation of multiple
side-effects.  So you
can do what evolution does and iterate through many
implementations, at
huge cost and with even larger potential losses
(considering that *we*
share that implementation environment), or you can
iterate in your
design process, gradually constraining things into a
space to where only
a few full implementations (or one) need to be
implemented.  And it is
reflection on this design-side iteration looping which
can help identify
new concerns that require additional design criteria
and associated
mechanism to accommodate."...

Exactly. The time we have is our best advantage. We've
probably got *at least* 15 to 20 years before the AGI
would be outside our control - they will probably
first emerge with animal-level intelligence. If you
think about it, the actual semi-advanced animals
running around already have the prerequisites:
consciousness, and general-intelligence. Knowledge of
Friendly AI strategies could advance *a lot* during
that phase, so that by the time a new project is in
position to build a human-level AGI 20 years down the
road, the Friendlliness difficulty could well be
solved. It's just another example of using technology
to improve technology. I think that SIAI will continue
to become more of a positive focal point as the
implications become more and more apparent to people.

Best,

Jeffrey Herrlich 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search 
that gives answers, not web links. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC


From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Jun  1 19:22:39 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 12:22:39 -0700
Subject: [ExI] walking bees
In-Reply-To: <200706011619.l51GJfxM016065@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <200706011924.l51JOuCU024653@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


Perhaps you have read of the collapsing bee colony issue that surfaced last
year in the states and is now being reported in Europe.  Here are a couple
of good articles on it:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423113425.htm

http://www.celsias.com/blog/2007/03/15/bee-colony-collapse-disorder-where-is
-it-heading/

The possible explanations include new nicotine based pesticides and GM
crops, etc.

In the past few weeks I have seen something I do not recall seeing before:
distressed bees walking along the ground, apparently unable to fly.  A
couple weeks ago I saw one and noted that it was the fourth I had seen in
the past month.  

This morning I saw a fifth and stopped to watch for a few minutes.  She
staggered about, occasionally batting her wings to no avail.  I hassled her,
but she could not fly or take defensive action.  Several times she fell
over, sometimes on her side, a couple times on her back, clearly struggling.
I carefully picked her up and carried her a few blocks to my home.  I put
her in a specimen jar still alive, but she perished within about an hour.

As the beekeepers and entomologists ponder this, I wondered if it would be
any help if urban dwellers would collect specimens like this one.  Would
that data point tell them anything?  They mostly study farm bees, but what
about their city cousins?

ExIers, have you seen walking or dead bees on your daily walks?  I know from
my work as a beekeeper in my misspent youth that bees seldom sting in self
defense, so it is likely you can take one home for study should you see one.
(If you have never had a bee sting and don't know if you are allergic, don't
fool with this.  I would hate to feel responsible for slaying a friend.)  If
we can get sick bees home to study, could we learn anything?  I am thinking
of trying to dissect this one to look for tracheal mites.  Could we offer to
send the urban bees to a central study place?  Ideas?

spike


 




From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Jun  1 19:34:25 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 12:34:25 -0700
Subject: [ExI] walking bees
In-Reply-To: <200706011924.l51JOuCU024653@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <200706011934.l51JYBBd022313@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

What just happened is really weird.  I had just finished posting about sick
bees and was going to go out to finish my interrupted walk, when I noticed a
bee half flying, mostly running into things in my kitchen.  I assumed my
previously collected specimen had revived and flown, since I had removed the
lid to peer at her.  I captured the kitchen bee to return her to the jar and
found the original bee still there, dead as ever.

The second bee is very much alive, but wasn't really flying.  She appears
distressed.  So I guess I now count her as distressed bee number six.

I collected her at 1225, so we will see if she expires soon.

Here's a more recent article than the previous two:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070511210207.htm

spike


> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike
...
> Subject: [ExI] walking bees
> 
> 
> Perhaps you have read of the collapsing bee colony issue that surfaced
> last
> year in the states and is now being reported in Europe.  Here are a couple
> of good articles on it:
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423113425.htm
> 
> http://www.celsias.com/blog/2007/03/15/bee-colony-collapse-disorder-where-
> is
> -it-heading/
...
> spike






From neville_06 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  1 19:53:02 2007
From: neville_06 at yahoo.com (neville late)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 12:53:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
In-Reply-To: <465F8B72.3070103@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <621544.83244.qm@web57511.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Having signed up to be cryonically suspended i wonder if future beings will reanimate humans to torture them in perpetua. The likelihood of such might be small, but just say there's a .001 risk of eating a certain food and going into convulsions lasting years-- would i eat that food? No.
   I signed up to be suspended anyway yet always wonder about the direst of reanimation possibilities seeing as how we live in a multiverse not a universe, and all possibilities are conceivable. Though the risk is very small if one loses the odds and is tortured forever, death would seem like a wonderful priceless gift. 
  
 

 
---------------------------------
Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and 
always stay connected to friends.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070601/2773b2db/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Jun  1 20:42:22 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:42:22 -0700
Subject: [ExI] walking bees
In-Reply-To: <200706011934.l51JYBBd022313@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <200706012042.l51Kg9ng012558@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike
> Subject: Re: [ExI] walking bees
> 
> What just happened is really weird.  I had just finished posting about
> sick
> bees and was going to go out to finish my interrupted walk, when I noticed
> a
> bee half flying, mostly running into things in my kitchen...
> spike

Apologies for my chatter on a subject not directly related to transhumanism.

I just returned from a walk, on which I discovered yet another bee which had
apparently perished very recently, for the ants had not arrived.  The ants
usually take only minutes to discover and commence devouring latest expired
bug.

OK that's seven.  I brought this one home as well.  Upon placing this one
into a specimen jar, I noted that the second bee, captured in my kitchen at
about 1225, had expired by 1330.  It was distressed but lively upon capture,
able to fly after a fashion but not out of ground effect.

On my walk I noticed that my lavender plants have a few bees but not nearly
the usual buzz load for this time of year.

What is going on here?

In regards to my first sentence, perhaps this is directly related to
transhumanism in a sense, for if our bee colonies collapse, we need to find
or develop alternate food sources quickly.

spike








From joseph at josephbloch.com  Fri Jun  1 20:49:59 2007
From: joseph at josephbloch.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 16:49:59 -0400
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
In-Reply-To: <621544.83244.qm@web57511.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <465F8B72.3070103@comcast.net>
	<621544.83244.qm@web57511.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <017001c7a48e$6c4d1210$6400a8c0@hypotenuse.com>

Why would your hypothetical future beings reanimate human beings for such a
purpose? Surely it would be easier to simply breed them. 
 
I don't see how your concern applies to cryonics in particular. If you think
it's at all likely (and I do not), surely it would apply to already-living
people before those in need of revivification, purely from the standpoint of
efficiency.
 
Joseph
http://www.josephbloch.com
 
 


  _____  

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of neville late
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 3:53 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future


Having signed up to be cryonically suspended i wonder if future beings will
reanimate humans to torture them in perpetua. The likelihood of such might
be small, but just say there's a .001 risk of eating a certain food and
going into convulsions lasting years-- would i eat that food? No.
 I signed up to be suspended anyway yet always wonder about the direst of
reanimation possibilities seeing as how we live in a multiverse not a
universe, and all possibilities are conceivable. Though the risk is very
small if one loses the odds and is tortured forever, death would seem like a
wonderful priceless gift. 

 



  _____  

Don't be flakey. Get
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43909/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail> Yahoo! Mail
for Mobile and 
always  <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43909/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail>
stay connected to friends.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070601/01071940/attachment.html>

From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Fri Jun  1 22:07:57 2007
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevin at kevinfreels.com)
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:07:57 -0700
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
Message-ID: <20070601150757.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.e634d0daf0.wbe@email.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070601/b3176468/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Fri Jun  1 23:16:49 2007
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 00:16:49 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Language: Coincidence
In-Reply-To: <785287.98804.qm@web37214.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <785287.98804.qm@web37214.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0706011616j18321ea4m9c882af587f3303f@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/30/07, Anna Taylor wrote:
> I'm trying to understand the correlation between
> awareness and coincidence.
>
> The latin word for coincidence is "in, with, together
> to fall on".  Wiki's first defined statement is the
> noteworthy alignment of two or more circumstances
> "without" obvious causal connection.  How is that
> possible?  Why would it be noteworthy if there wasn't
> a causal connection? I'm trying to understand
> "coincidence" better and would like some help on this
> issue if anybody has some free time.  Any ideas,
> theories or suggestions of the correlation above would
> also be appreciated.
>

You might like this:
<http://www.oddee.com/item_82923.aspx>

20 Most Amazing Coincidences

For example ------

No 17.  A writer, found the book of her childhood
While American novelist Anne Parrish was browsing bookstores in Paris
in the 1920s, she came upon a book that was one of her childhood
favorites - Jack Frost and Other Stories. She picked up the old book
and showed it to her husband, telling him of the book she fondly
remembered as a child. Her husband took the book, opened it, and on
the flyleaf found the inscription: "Anne Parrish, 209 N. Weber Street,
Colorado Springs." It was Anne's very own book. (Source: While Rome
Burns, Alexander Wollcott)



BillK


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Jun  1 23:33:28 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:33:28 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Language: Coincidence
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0706011616j18321ea4m9c882af587f3303f@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <785287.98804.qm@web37214.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<ee50357e0706011616j18321ea4m9c882af587f3303f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070601183123.023e3238@satx.rr.com>

At 12:16 AM 6/2/2007 +0100, BillK wrote:

>You might like this:
><http://www.oddee.com/item_82923.aspx>

I certainly liked this one:

<Henry Ziegland thought he had dodged fate. In 1883, he broke off a 
relationship with his girlfriend who, out of distress, committed 
suicide. The girl's brother was so enraged that he hunted down 
Ziegland and shot him. The brother, believing he had killed Ziegland, 
then turned his gun on himself and took his own life. But Ziegland 
had not been killed. The bullet, in fact, had only grazed his face 
and then lodged in a tree. Ziegland surely thought himself a lucky 
man. Some years later, however, Ziegland decided to cut down the 
large tree, which still had the bullet in it. The task seemed so 
formidable that he decided to blow it up with a few sticks of 
dynamite. The explosion propelled the bullet into Ziegland's head, 
killing him. (Source: Ripley's Believe It or Not!) >

And some people try pathetically to deny a Power Greater Than 
Ourselves that rules our lives!

Damien Broderick 



From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Jun  2 05:44:24 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 15:44:24 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer>
	<06a601c7a31e$32c11710$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705310247s65ff0b43vf87b0850446809f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com>
	<5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com>

On 02/06/07, Christopher Healey <CHealey at unicom-inc.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >
> > We don't have human level AI, but we have lots of dumb AI. In
> > nature, dumb organisms are no less inclined to try to take over
> > than smarter organisms
>
> Yes, but motivation and competence are not the same thing.  Considering
> two organisms that are equivalent in functional capability, varying only
> intelligence level, the smarter ones succeed more often. However, within
> a small range of intelligence variation, other factors contribute to
> one's aggregate ability to execute those better plans.   So If I'm a
> smart chimpanzee, but I'm physically weak, following particular courses
> of action that may be more optimal in general carries greater risk.
> Adjusting for that risk may actually leave me with a smaller range of
> options than if I was physically stronger and a bit less smart.  But
> when intelligence differential is large, those other factors become very
> small indeed.  Humans don't worry about chimpanzee politics (no jokes
> here please :o) because our only salient competition is other humans.
> We worry about those entities that possess an intelligence that is at
> least in the same range as our own.


We worry about viruses and bacteria, and they're not very smart. We worry
about giant meteorites that might be heading our way, and they're even
dumber than viruses and bacteria.

Smart chimpanzees are not going to take over our civilization anytime
> soon, but a smarter and otherwise well-adapted chimp will probably be
> inclined and succeed in leading its band of peers.


All else being equal, which is not generally the case.

> (and no less capable of succeeding, as a
> > general rule, but leave that point for the sake of argument).
>
> I don't want to leave it, because this is a critical point.  As I
> mentioned above, in nature you rarely see intelligence considered as an
> isolated variable, and in evolution, intelligence is the product of a
> red queen race.  By definition (of a red queen race), you're
> intelligence isn't going to be radically different from your direct
> competition, or the race would never have started or escalated.  So it
> confusingly might not look like you're chances of beating "the Whiz on
> the block" are that disproportionate, but the context is so narrow that
> other factors can overwhelm the effect of intelligence over that limited
> range.  In some sense, our experiential day-to-day understanding of
> intelligence (other humans) biases us to consider its effects over too
> narrow a range of values.  As a general rule, I'd say humans have been
> very much more successful at "taking over" than chimpanzees and salmon,
> and that it is primarily due to our superior intelligence.


Single-celled organisms are even more successful than humans are: they're
everywhere, and for the most part we don't even notice them. Intelligence,
particularly human level intelligence, is just a fluke, like the giraffe's
neck. If it were specially adaptive, why didn't it evolve independently many
times, like various sense organs have? Why don't we see evidence of it
having taken over the universe? We would have to be extraordinarily lucky if
intelligence had some special role in evolution and we happen to be the
first example of it. It's not impossible, but the evidence would suggest
otherwise.

> Given that dumb AI doesn't try to take over, why should smart AI
> > be more inclined to do so?
>
> I don't think a smart AI would be more inclined to try and take over, a
> priori.


That's an important point. Some people on this list seem to think that an AI
would compute the unfairness of its not being in charge and do something
about it - as if unfairness is something that can be formalised in a
mathematical theorem.

> And why should that segment of smart
> > AI which might try to do so, whether spontaneously or by malicious
> > design, be more successful than all the other AI, which maintains
> > its ancestral motivation to work and improve itself for humans
>
> The consideration that also needs to be addressed is that the AI may
> maintain its "motivation to work and improve itself for humans", and due
> to this motivation, take over (in some sense at least).  In fact, it has
> been argued by others here (and I tend to agree) that an AGI
> *consistently* pursuing such benign directives must intercede where its
> causal understanding of certain outcomes passes a minimum assurance
> level (which would likely vary based on probability and magnitude of the
> outcome).


I'd feel uncomfortable about an AI that had any feelings or motivations of
its own, even if they were positive ones about humans, especially if it had
the ability to act rather than just advise. It might decide that it had to
keep me locked up for my own good, for example, even though I don't want to
be locked up. I'd feel much safer around an AI which informs me that, using
its greatly superior intelligence, it has determined that I am less likely
to be run over if I never leave home, but what I do with this advice is a
matter of complete indifference to it. So although through accident or
design an AI with motivations and feelings might arise, I think by far the
safest ones, and the ones likely to sell better, will be those with the
minimal motivation set of the disinterested scientist, concerned only with
solving intellectual problems.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070602/f8f51f50/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Jun  2 05:50:11 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 15:50:11 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60706010749x719f31achcf45457d46cb6ed1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <065701c7a261$b155b4e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601124421.GI17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010637x808ded8v81fffb5d610c1556@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60706010749x719f31achcf45457d46cb6ed1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706012250x3df2b074k1e421b5cc9f86bf3@mail.gmail.com>

On 02/06/07, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

Of course there are many dumb programs that multiply and mutate to
> successfully take over computing resources. Even as early as the
> seventies there were already some examples, like the "Core Wars"
> simulations. As Eugen says, the internet is now an ecosystem, with
> niches that can be filled by appropriately adapted programs. So far
> successfully propagating programs are generated by programmers, and
> existing AI is still not at our level of general understanding of the
> world but the pace of AI improvement is impressive.


Computer viruses don't mutate and come up with agendas of their own, like
biological agents do. It can't be because they aren't smart enough because
real viruses and other micro-organisms can hardly be said to have any
general intelligence, and yet they do often defeat the best efforts of much
smarter organisms. I can't see any reason in principle why artificial life
or intelligence should not behave in a similar way, but it's interesting
that it hasn't yet happened.

> Whenever we have true AI, there will be those which follow their legacy
> > programming (as we do, whether we want to or not) and those which either
> > spontaneously mutate or are deliberately created to be malicious towards
> > humans. Why should the malicious ones have a competitive advantage over
> the
> > non-malicious ones, which are likely to be more numerous and better
> funded
> > to begin with?
>
> ### Because the malicious can eat humans, while the nice ones have to
> feed humans, and protect them from being eaten, and still eat
> something to be strong enough to fight off the bad ones. In other
> words, nice AI will have to carry a lot of inert baggage.


I don't see how that would help in any particular situation. When it comes
to taking control of a power plant, for example, why should the ultimate
motivation of two otherwise equally matched agents make a difference? Also,
you can't always break up the components of a system and identify them as
competing agents. A human body is a society of cooperating components, and
even though in theory the gut epithelial cells would be better off if they
revolted and consumed the rest of the body, in practice they are better off
if they continue in their normal subservient function. There would be a big
payoff for a colony of cancer cells that evolved the ability to make its own
way in the world, but it has never happened.

And by "eating" I mean literally the destruction of humans bodies,
> e.g. by molecular disassembly.
>
> --------------------
> Of course, it is always possible that an individual AI would
> > spontaneously change its programming, just as it is always possible that
> a
> > human will go mad.
>
> ### A human who goes mad (i.e. rejects his survival programming),
> dies. An AI that goes rogue, has just shed a whole load of inert
> baggage.


You could argue that cooperation in any form is inert baggage, and if the
right half of the AI evolved the ability to take over the left half, the
right half would predominate. Where does it end?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070602/2376ae52/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  2 09:05:03 2007
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 02:05:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] walking bees
In-Reply-To: <200706012042.l51Kg9ng012558@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <167551.16503.qm@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>


--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> What is going on here?
> 
> In regards to my first sentence, perhaps this is
> directly related to
> transhumanism in a sense, for if our bee colonies
> collapse, we need to find
> or develop alternate food sources quickly.

I find this topic perfectly appropriate with regards
to a transhumanist list. Colony collapse disorder is
most certainly an existential risk due to our high
reliance on the honey bee for pollination. Something I
noticed when I moved up here to Olympia, WA, is that
spookily there are no honeybees to be found. All the
bees buzzing around here are bumblebees and mason
bees.

Unfortunately, I don't know how quickly these
alternative pollinators can pick up the slack, since
for years we have been crowding them out with our
inbred domesticated bee strains.

CCD is quite a puzzle. There are about half a dozen
theories floating around but some are more feasible
than others. But the "experts" are stumped so its time
for us to step up.  Global warming, pesticides, GM
crop pollen, and radiation (cell phone or UV) seem
unlikely reasons to me. They don't jibe with some very
important clues:

1. Epidemiological pattern suggestive of a parasite or
pathogen as an etiological agent. After all global
warming and the rest of these proposed causes do not
spread from state to state.

2. The bees die AWAY from the hive. If it was
pesticides, global warming, etc. you would expect a
more even distribution with dead bees being found in
the hive as well as outside of it. But so far only the
*foragers* outside of the hive are dying.

3. Organic bees, feral bees, and closely related
species of bees are not dying. Again some large scale
environmental phenomenon should affect all the bees.
Not just the industrially farmed ones.

So my spidey or rather bee-sense tells me that the
culprit is the tracheal mites with possible secondary
infections caused by stress as a minor factor.

Mite infestations would spread in an epidemilogical
pattern as observed. Secondly, in-bred domestic
strains would be more susceptible to mite infestations
as well as secondary infections/infestations due to
insufficient natural diversity in host defenses. They
are also more susceptible due to their larger size.
Domestic honeybees are about 1.5X larger than their
organic and feral counterparts.

http://www.celsias.com/blog/2007/05/15/organic-bees-surviving-colony-collapse-disorder-ccd/

This translates into organic and feral bees having
smaller honeycomb cells that take shorter times to
cap, allowing fewer mites to get into them. It also as
the article above fails to mention, make it easier for
the bee to breathe due to better scaling of surface
area of the trachea to the volume/mass of the bee.

Thus my hypothesis is that the bees are dying of
lactic acid poisoning due to hypoxia. That is to say
they are suffocating due to clogged airways and more
body mass relative to their seemingly mite-resistant
wild counterparts.

This also makes sense in light of clue #2, that bees
are only dying while foraging outside of the hive. It
takes far more oxygen to fly around in search of food
than it does to walk around inside of the hive. It
would also explain why you see the bees "walking",
Spike. They fly away from the hive but the build up of
lactic acid due to oxygen debt makes it so they can't
fly back. So they become pedestrians.

Of course this is still just a hypthesis that needs to
be tested. Since there are no honeybees at all where I
now live to conduct an experiment and since you have a
penchant for collecting the walking bees in jars any
way, Spike, I need you help for this one. Here is the
experiment that needs to be performed:

You need to see if higher oxygen pressure will
resuscitate your walking bees, Spike. The easiest way
to do this from the comfort of your home is to
construct a jar with a screen or something similar
part way down to keep the bees from falling into the
liquid in the bottom of the jar and drowning. Make it
so that you can still fit an airtight lid on the jar.

You will need to generate the oxygen gas chemically.
The best way to do this is to:

1. Pour some chlorox bleach into the jar and put the
screen in.

2. Put a "walking bee" on the screen toward one side
of the jar.

3. Pour a roughly equal volume of hydrogen peroxide
through the screen on the opposite side from where the
bee is. The chemical reaction should immediately start
to fizz. The bubbles are pure oxygen.

4. Try to get the lid onto the jar before the fizzing
stops.

5. Observe the bee, take notes and photographs.

If the bees seem to get better in your homemade
hyperbaric oxygen chamber, then my hypothesis is right
and we get to publish our results. I think it only
fair that we share credit equally. Please make sure
there are no sparks or flames nearby when you mix the
bleach and hydrogen peroxide.

So are you interested? :-)


Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"When an old man dies, an entire library is destroyed." - Ugandan proverb


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Shape Yahoo! in your own image.  Join our Network Research Panel today!   http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 




From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Jun  2 10:35:34 2007
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 11:35:34 +0100
Subject: [ExI] walking bees
In-Reply-To: <167551.16503.qm@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <200706012042.l51Kg9ng012558@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<167551.16503.qm@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0706020335sb90ffabx3c3d5c33b8aa9aa1@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/2/07, The Avantguardian wrote:
>
> I find this topic perfectly appropriate with regards
> to a transhumanist list. Colony collapse disorder is
> most certainly an existential risk due to our high
> reliance on the honey bee for pollination. Something I
> noticed when I moved up here to Olympia, WA, is that
> spookily there are no honeybees to be found. All the
> bees buzzing around here are bumblebees and mason
> bees.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't know how quickly these
> alternative pollinators can pick up the slack, since
> for years we have been crowding them out with our
> inbred domesticated bee strains.
>
> CCD is quite a puzzle. There are about half a dozen
> theories floating around but some are more feasible
> than others. But the "experts" are stumped so its time
> for us to step up.  Global warming, pesticides, GM
> crop pollen, and radiation (cell phone or UV) seem
> unlikely reasons to me. They don't jibe with some very
> important clues:
>

I'm not a bee expert, but as you say there is plenty of speculation
around among the beekeepers.

One point is that beekeepers expect to lose hives every winter. This is normal.
But total losses are up to five times normal levels. CCD is only a
part of the problem.

Losses due to mite infestation are also common, but the bees die in
the hives. And there is increased occurrence of this also.

<http://www.freshplaza.com/news_detail.asp?id=2010>
Quote:
The volunteer beekeeper hopes the new hives can survive three plagues
decimating the world's honeybee population: parasitic mites, bacterial
infections, and the mysterious phenomenon known as Colony Collapse
Disorder, discovered last year. The center's attempts to keep outdoor
hives failed repeatedly between 1996 and 2002, said Rye city
naturalist Chantal Detlefs, mainly due to mite infestations.

He suspected something was wrong in January, when he noticed his bees
weren't leaving their hives on the unseasonably warm days. He found
four of the colonies dead inside their boxes - probably from mites, he
said - but four others apparently succumbed to Colony Collapse
Disorder.

"The hives are full of honey and there was a queen and a few bees in
there, but the rest disappeared," he said, noting that no other bees
have gone near the fully stocked hive, either.

But even without Colony Collapse Disorder, which has not yet had a
significant impact on the Lower Hudson Valley, beekeepers still battle
resistant mites and bacteria, as well as cheap honey flowing from
China and other countries.

"If (CCD) is cured tomorrow, the bee industry would still be operating
in crisis mode," Calderone said. "They've kind of got it coming at
them from a number of different directions."

Hauk, who said his natural methods have kept winter colony losses to a
15 percent average over 10 years, compared with the 40 percent
reported by commercial beekeepers, opposes the use of pesticides,
herbicides and fungicides, along with taking too much honey from the
hives.

"The bees have been terribly exploited, trucked around, all their
honey taken. It's not surprising that their immune system is breaking
down rapidly," he said. "We are in serious trouble. The bee is not a
being that should be commercialized."

----------------------------


See - it's all the fault of the free market exploitation!   ;)


BillK


From eugen at leitl.org  Sat Jun  2 11:21:07 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 13:21:07 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706012250x3df2b074k1e421b5cc9f86bf3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601124421.GI17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010637x808ded8v81fffb5d610c1556@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60706010749x719f31achcf45457d46cb6ed1@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30706012250x3df2b074k1e421b5cc9f86bf3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070602112107.GH17691@leitl.org>

On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 03:50:11PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>    Computer viruses don't mutate and come up with agendas of their own,

Actually they used to (polymorphic viruses), but do no longer.
The hypervariability was quite useful to evade pattern-matcher
artificial immune systems.

But the actual reasons computer code doesn't mutate it's because
it's brittle. It's lacking criticial features of fitness of darwinian
systems, namely long-distance neutral-fitness filaments and maximum
diversity in a small ball of genome space. 

Biology spend some quality evolution time learning to evolve, human
systems never had the chance. But it's not magic, so at some point
we will design robustly evolving systems.

>    like biological agents do. It can't be because they aren't smart
>    enough because real viruses and other micro-organisms can hardly be

Evolution is not about smarts, just ability to evolve. It's a system
feature though.

>    said to have any general intelligence, and yet they do often defeat
>    the best efforts of much smarter organisms. I can't see any reason in
>    principle why artificial life or intelligence should not behave in a
>    similar way, but it's interesting that it hasn't yet happened.

It's rather straightforward to do. You need to spend a lot of time on
coding/substrate co-evolution, which would currently require a very large
amount of computation time. I doubt we have enough hardware online right
now to make it happen. Sometime in the next coming decades we will, though.
 
>    I don't see how that would help in any particular situation. When it
>    comes to taking control of a power plant, for example, why should the

Where is the power plant of a green plant, or of a bug? It's a nanowidget 
called a chloroplast or mitochondrion. You don't take control of it, because
you already control it.

>    ultimate motivation of two otherwise equally matched agents make a
>    difference? Also, you can't always break up the components of a system
>    and identify them as competing agents. A human body is a society of

Cooperation and competition is a continuum. Many symbiontes started out
as pathogens, and many current symbiontes will turn pathogens when
given half a chance, and some symbiontes will turn to pathogens (I can't
think of an example right now, though).

>    cooperating components, and even though in theory the gut epithelial
>    cells would be better off if they revolted and consumed the rest of

Sometimes, they do. It's called cancer. And if you've ever seen what your
gut flora does, when it realizes the host might expire soon...

>    the body, in practice they are better off if they continue in their
>    normal subservient function. There would be a big payoff for a colony
>    of cancer cells that evolved the ability to make its own way in the
>    world, but it has never happened.

There's apparently an infectious form of cancer in organisms with low
immune variability (some marsupials, and apparently there are hints for
dogs, too).
 
>    You could argue that cooperation in any form is inert baggage, and if

Cooperation is just great, assuming you have a high probability to encounter
the party in the next interaction round, and can tell which is which.
In practice, for higher forms of cooperation you need a lot of infoprocessing
power onboard.

>    the right half of the AI evolved the ability to take over the left
>    half, the right half would predominate. Where does it end?

In principle subsystems can go AWOL and produce a runaway autoamplification.

-- 
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


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Jun  2 12:51:37 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 22:51:37 +1000
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
In-Reply-To: <621544.83244.qm@web57511.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <465F8B72.3070103@comcast.net>
	<621544.83244.qm@web57511.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706020551g4c20d0e6q8bfea3237e4ba360@mail.gmail.com>

On 02/06/07, neville late <neville_06 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Having signed up to be cryonically suspended i wonder if future beings
> will reanimate humans to torture them in perpetua. The likelihood of such
> might be small, but just say there's a .001 risk of eating a certain food
> and going into convulsions lasting years-- would i eat that food? No.
>  I signed up to be suspended anyway yet always wonder about the direst of
> reanimation possibilities seeing as how we live in a multiverse not a
> universe, and all possibilities are conceivable. Though the risk is very
> small if one loses the odds and is tortured forever, death would seem like a
> wonderful priceless gift.
>

The multiverse idea on its own would seem to imply the possibility of
eternal torture, because it isn't possible to die. If you are involved in an
accident, for example, in some universes you will die, in some universes you
will escape unhurt, and in some universes you will live but be seriously and
permanently injured. Let's say there is a 1/3 probability of each of these
things happening: that means that subjectively, you have a 1/2 chance of
finding yourself seriously injured, because you don't experience those
universes in which you die. As you go through life, you come to multiple
such branching points where there is a 1/2 subjective chance that you will
survive but be seriously injured. Eventually, the probability that you will
be seriously injured approaches 1, since the probability that you will
survive n accidents unharmed is 1/2^n and approaches zero as n approaches
infinity. There is no way you can escape this terrible fate, since even
trying to kill yourself will at best have no subjective effect, at worst
contribute to your misery when you find yourself alive but in pain after a
botched suicide attempt.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070602/85a71e99/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Jun  2 15:28:34 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 08:28:34 -0700
Subject: [ExI] walking bees
In-Reply-To: <167551.16503.qm@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200706021552.l52FqLgT006450@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 2:05 AM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [ExI] walking bees
> 
> 
> --- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > What is going on here?
> >
> > ...
> 
> You will need to generate the oxygen gas chemically.
> The best way to do this is to:
...
> If the bees seem to get better in your homemade
> hyperbaric oxygen chamber, then my hypothesis is right
> and we get to publish our results. I think it only
> fair that we share credit equally. Please make sure
> there are no sparks or flames nearby when you mix the
> bleach and hydrogen peroxide.
> 
> So are you interested? :-)
> 
> 
> Stuart LaForge
> alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu



Coooool!  Thanks Stuart, this is a great idea.  I even have some ideas for
improvement.  I have access to liquid oxygen (an advantage of being a rocket
scientist) so I will get a thermos bottle full of that stuff and use it for
my process control.  I can probably get the partial pressure of oxygen from
the normal 150-ish millimeters to about in the 200 to 300 range while
maintaining 1 atmosphere.

I theorized the bees I found might have tracheal mites, which is why I
brought them home.  I was going to try to dissect these, but my surgical
skills are insufficient I fear.  

Your notion stands to reason however.  I found the eighth bee in my back
yard yesterday, already perished.  I didn't collect that one, because I
wanted to see how long it takes for the ants to completely devour a bee.
They are still working on it, so at least ten hours.

spike









From jonkc at att.net  Sat Jun  2 15:47:02 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 11:47:02 -0400
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
References: <465F8B72.3070103@comcast.net><621544.83244.qm@web57511.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30706020551g4c20d0e6q8bfea3237e4ba360@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <004001c7a52d$4c089250$310b4e0c@MyComputer>

Stathis Papaioannou Wrote:

> The multiverse idea on its own would seem to imply the possibility of
> eternal torture, because it isn't possible to die.

Yes.

> you have a 1/2 chance of finding yourself seriously injured

I don't believe that's quite correct. When you reach a branching point like
that there is a 100% chance you will find yourself to be seriously injured
and a 100% chance you will find yourself not be. Both yous would be quite
different from each other but both would have an equal right to be called
you.

> since the probability that you will survive n accidents unharmed is 1/2^n
> and approaches zero as n approaches infinity.

If you're dealing in infinite sets then standard probability theories aren't
much use. If there are an infinite number of universes and for each one
where you will live in bliss there are a million billion trillion where you
will be tortured then there is an equal number of both types of universe.

  John K Clark









From jonkc at att.net  Sat Jun  2 16:29:08 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 12:29:08 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer><06a601c7a31e$32c11710$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30705310247s65ff0b43vf87b0850446809f8@mail.gmail.com><070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com><20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org><f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com><20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org><f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com><5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
	<f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>

Stathis Papaioannou

> We worry about viruses and bacteria, and they're not very smart. We worry
> about giant meteorites that might be heading our way, and they're even
> dumber than viruses and bacteria.

That is true, and that is one reason I don't think AI will allow stupid
humans to live at the same level of reality as his precious hardware; he's
bound to be a bit squeamish about that, it would be like a monkey running
around an operating room.  If he lets us live it will be in a virtual world
behind a heavy firewall, but that's OK, we'll never know the difference
unless he tells us.

> Intelligence, particularly human level intelligence, is just a fluke

Agreed.

> If it were specially adaptive, why didn't it evolve independently many
> times

Because it's just a fluke, and because intelligence unlike emotion is hard
and Evolution is a slow, crude, idiotic way to make complex things; it's
just that until the invention of brains it was the only way to make complex
things.

> Why don't we see evidence of it having taken over the universe?

Because some disaster we don't understand (drug addiction?) awaits any mind
if it advances beyond a certain point, or because we are the first; somebody
had to be.

> Some people on this list seem to think that an AI would compute the
> unfairness of its not being in charge and do something about it as if
> unfairness is something that can be formalised in a mathematical theorem.

You seem to understand the word "unfairness", did you use a formalized
PROVABLE mathematical theorem to comprehend it? Or perhaps you think meat by
its very nature has more wisdom than silicon. We couldn't be talking about a
soul could we?

  John K Clark








From eugen at leitl.org  Sat Jun  2 18:08:25 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 20:08:25 +0200
Subject: [ExI] walking bees
In-Reply-To: <200706021552.l52FqLgT006450@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <167551.16503.qm@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>
	<200706021552.l52FqLgT006450@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <20070602180825.GW17691@leitl.org>

On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 08:28:34AM -0700, spike wrote:

> I theorized the bees I found might have tracheal mites, which is why I
> brought them home.  I was going to try to dissect these, but my surgical
> skills are insufficient I fear.  

Are you sure it's not Nosema ceranae and not Varroa?

-- 
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


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Jun  2 19:24:47 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 12:24:47 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Liberals and Political Labels (was History of Slavery)
References: <005301c79fff$fda40450$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<op.tszngwymivvpma@shuttle>
	<04f201c7a147$54da96b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<op.ts19jsoeivvpma@localhost>
	<05b401c7a1ac$dfe48210$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<op.ts3m97l0ivvpma@localhost>
	<06dc01c7a33f$7c244f50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<op.ts7iqsx3ivvpma@localhost>
Message-ID: <007001c7a54b$cc109ec0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Gordon writes

>>> If anyone deserves credit for freeing the slaves, I'd say it was the
>>> political liberals and the Quakers.
>>
>> Yes.  It's the same "mentality", if you will.
> 
> Yes, the same mentality. Abolitionism has a 'liberal flavor', even though  
> the meaning of the word liberal has changed over time.

The certain writer T.S. has some harsh things to say about
abolitionists, with which I fully concur. He contrasts them
to Burke, for whom he has great admiration. Burke
thoroughly despised the use of "abstract principles" in
treating real world problems.

     Later, Burke proposed "to give property to the Negroes" when they
     should become free. But nowhere did Burke view this as an abstract
     question without considering the social context and the consequnces
     and dangers of that context. He rejected the idea that one could
     simply free the slaves by fiat as amatter of abstract principle,
     since he abhorred abstract principles on political issues in general.
     Thomas Jefferson likewise regarded emancipation, all by itself,
     as being more like abandonment than liberation for people "whose
     habits have been formed in slavery".

     In America, John Randolph of Roanoke took a similar position:
     "I am not going to discuss the abstract question of liberty, or
     slavery, or any other abstract question."

     Today, slavery is too often discussed as an abstract question with
     an easy answer, leading to sweeping condemnations of those who
     did not reach that easy answer in their own time. In nineteenth
     century America, especially, there was no alternative that was
     not traumatic, including both the continuation of slavery [and
     any alternative, as T.S. describes at lenght].

and a few pages earlier T.S. writes

     Quakers, who had spearheaded the anti-slavery movement on
     both sides of the Atlantic, nevertheless distanced themselves
     from the abolitionist movement exemplified by Garrison.

and a bit further back

     Abolitionists were hated in the North as well as the South: 
     William Lloyd Garrison narrowly escaped being lynched
     by a mob in Boston, even though there were no slaveholders
     in Massachusetts, and another abolitionist leader was killed
     by a mob in Illinois. Abolitionists were also targets of mobs
     in New York and Philadelphia...

     None of this was based on any economic interest in the 
     ownership of slaves in states where such ownership had
     been outlawed decades earlier.  But, just as Southerners
     resented dangers to themselves created by distant
     abolitionists, so Northererners resented dangers to the
     Union, with the prospect of a bloody civil war. Even people
     who were openly opposed to slavery were often also
     opposed to the abolitionists....

     ....It was the abolitionists' doctrinaire stances and heedless
     disregard of consequences, both of their policy and their
     rhetoric, which marginalized them, even in the North and
     even among those who were seeking to find ways to phase
     out the institution of slavery, so as to free those being held in
     bondage without unleashing a war between the states or a
     war between the races.  Garrison could say "the question
     of expedience has nothing to do with that of right" --- which
     is true in the abstract, but irrelevant in a world where
     consequences matter.  Too often the abolitionists were
     intolerant of those seeking the same goal of ending slavery
     when those others---including Lincoln---proceeded in ways
     that took account of the inescapable constraints of the times,
     instead of being oblivious [as were the abolitionists] to the
     context and constraints.

This is a revolutionary mind-set that is being described here---
one that surfaced in the French Revolution and the Russian
Revolution, and which it would be libelous to say always
characterizes liberals.  Nonetheless one often hears today
echos of these same kinds of sentiments, when revolution
is advocated over evolution.  The more I read of Burke,
especially exemplified by his far-sighted criticisms of the
ongoing French Revolution, the more respect for his
wisdom I have.

Lee

> Interesting about the progressives, and thanks for your generally  
> interesting post.



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Jun  2 19:49:14 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 12:49:14 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Italy's Social Capital (was france again)
References: <p06230900c284fe33a388@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <007401c7a54f$4d249130$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Amara writes

> "Giu1i0 Pri5c0" <pgptag at gmail.com> :
>>As a Southern European I think that our big strength is flexibility
> 
> 
> Regarding the flexibility: I'm very flexible (remember I'm an Italian
> government employee who is also an illegal immigrant), but my
> flexibility is not enough for increasing my productivity for the half of
> my life I spend in queues.
> 
> To have any productivity in this particular country where the
> infrastructure is broken, one _must_ have also the social and
> familial network (to get help from someone who knows
> someone who knows someone who knows someone who
> knows someone ...) Italy does not not run by merit
> (i.e. skills, experience, competence), it runs by who you know.

In the book "Trust" Fukuyama listed among his examples
northern Italy (where trust is high) as opposed to southern Italy
where it isn't. In the book "War and Peace and War", Peter
Turchin describes how southern Italy has never recovered
from the events of the first two centuries A.D. when their
"asabiya" and social capital slowly vanished. Two thousand
years ago!

I cannot help but wonder what long term solutions might be
available to Italians who love their country. My particular,
my focus now is on the Fascist era, and I'm reading a quite
thick but so far quite enjoyable book "Mussolini's Italy".
Even in the movie "Captain Corelli's Mandolin", one
strongly senses that the Fascists were trying as best they
knew how to solve this problem and make the average
Italian develop Fukuyama's "trust" in other Italians, and
develop their social capital (amid the corruption, etc.).

Of course, it hardless needs to be said that the Fascists
were a brutal, repressive, and abominable regime. This
book "Mussolini's Italy" spares nothing here, and was
even described by one reviewer as "unsympathetic". 

Still---given the nearly absolute power the Fascists wielded
for about three decades---wasn't there anything that they
could have done?  That is, instead of trying to foment
patriotism by attempted military victories in Ethiopia
and Libya (a 19th century colony of theirs), wouldn't it have
been somehow possible to divert their resources to more
effectively "homogenizing" Italy in some other way? 

(I must say that as a libertarian, I'd much prefer that everyone
---especially including a small minimal government---mind their
own business.  Here, I'm just considering a theoretical 
question concerning how groups might reaquire their asabiya
and their social capital.)

I have two ideas, only one of which is outrageous. But the first
one is to have universal millitary service for all young people
between ages 14 and 25. By mixing them thoroughly with
Italians from every province, couldn't trust evolve, and in 
such a way that the extreme parochialism of the countryside
could be reduced?  The 25-year-olds could return with
a better attitude to "outsiders" (e.g. other Italians), and
with a much stronger sense of "being Italian" as opposed to
being Calabrian, or just being the member of some clan.

(My outrageous idea is that instead of trying to subdue 
Ethiopia, what if Sicily and other areas of the south could
have been "subdued" instead?  Stalin managed to force the
relocation of huge numbers of people, so couldn't 
Mussolini have done the same?  Clans in the south might
have been broken up into separate northern cities, and
depopulated areas of the south might have been colonized
by force by northern Italians.  Perhaps impracticable, but
at least the goal would have made more sense that getting
into stupid wars.)

Ah, but alas, the history of "social engineering" and "social
planning" doesn't have a very good track record, now,
does it?  But there had to be a *better* program that the
King of Lydia could have pursued with his tremendous
resources than getting into a war with Persia and getting
creamed. Or there had to be a *better* idea for the 
Romans than allowing slavery to supplant their farmers...
And so on.  Is there nothing constructive the Fascists
could have done?

Lee



From natasha at natasha.cc  Sat Jun  2 20:54:01 2007
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:54:01 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Post-contemporary art and Cognitive strategies
Message-ID: <200706022054.l52Ks2uZ028784@ms-smtp-03.texas.rr.com>

Can anyone translate this statement by Ant?nio 
Cerveira Pinto  into plain speech?

"What I meant by "cognitive issues" is not 
related so much with "cognitive processes" as to 
"cognitive environments". That is: BioArt (which 
is just a provisional safe expression to deal 
with a much open field -- cognitive arts --) will 
not go back to typical modern/contemporary 
de-constructivist strategies as long as it keeps 
close to cognitive strategies, either performed 
by humans alone, or by humans assisted by 
nanobots, computational networks and so on. What 
I mean by "cognitive" in relation to art is the 
need that post-contemporary art keep in mind that 
the new techne that post-contemporary is a part 
of, cannot runway from knowledge and cognitive strategies anymore."

Thanks,
Natasha


<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
PhD Candidate, 
<http://www.planetary-collegium.net/about/>Planetary 
<http://www.planetary-collegium.net/about/>Collegium
<http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture
<http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only 
what's inside the circle, then that is a 
closed-system perspective. If you study what is 
inside the circle and everything outside the 
circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070602/b0fa5bb2/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jun  2 22:08:49 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 17:08:49 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Post-contemporary art and Cognitive strategies
In-Reply-To: <200706022054.l52Ks2uZ028784@ms-smtp-03.texas.rr.com>
References: <200706022054.l52Ks2uZ028784@ms-smtp-03.texas.rr.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070602170751.02273da0@satx.rr.com>

At 03:54 PM 6/2/2007 -0500, Natasha wrote:

>Can anyone translate this statement by Ant?nio 
>Cerveira Pinto  into plain speech?
>
>"What I meant by "cognitive issues" is not 
>related so much with "cognitive processes" as to 
>"cognitive environments". That is: BioArt (which 
>is just a provisional safe expression to deal 
>with a much open field -- cognitive arts --) 
>will not go back to typical modern/contemporary 
>de-constructivist strategies as long as it keeps 
>close to cognitive strategies, either performed 
>by humans alone, or by humans assisted by 
>nanobots, computational networks and so on. What 
>I mean by "cognitive" in relation to art is the 
>need that post-contemporary art keep in mind 
>that the new techne that post-contemporary is a 
>part of, cannot runway from knowledge and cognitive strategies anymore."

"Pull your head out of your ass and think a bit."





From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  2 22:09:06 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 15:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200163.18388.qm@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi Stathis,

Stathis wrote:

> "Single-celled organisms are even more successful
> than humans are: they're
> everywhere, and for the most part we don't even
> notice them."

But if we *really* wanted to, we could destroy all of
them - along with ourselves. They can't say the same.

Intelligence,
> particularly human level intelligence, is just a
> fluke, like the giraffe's
> neck. If it were specially adaptive, why didn't it
> evolve independently many
> times, like various sense organs have?

The evolution of human intelligence was like a series
of flukes, each one building off the last (the first
fluke was likely the most improbable). There has been
a long line of proto-human species before us, we're
just the latest model. Intelligence is specially
adaptive, its just that it took evolution a hella long
time to blindly stumble on to it. Keep in mind that
human intelligence was a result of a *huge* number of
random, collectively-useful, mutations. For a *single*
random attribute to be retained by a species, it also
has to provide an *immediate* survival or reproductive
advantage to an individual, not just an immediate
"promise" of something good to come in the far distant
future of the species. Generally, if it doesn't
provide an immediate survival or reproductive (net)
advantage, it isn't retained for very long because
there is usually a down-side, and its back to
square-one. So you can see why the rise of
intelligence was so ridiculously improbable.

 "Why don't we
> see evidence of it
> having taken over the universe?"

We may be starting to.  :-)

 "We would have to be
> extraordinarily lucky if
> intelligence had some special role in evolution and
> we happen to be the
> first example of it."

Sometimes I don't feel like ascribing "lucky" to our
present condition. But in the sense you mean it, I
think we are. Like John Clark says, "somebody has to
be first".

  "It's not impossible, but the
> evidence would suggest
> otherwise."

What evidence do you mean?

To quote Martin Gardner: "It takes an ancient Universe
to create life and mind". 

It would require billions of years for any Universe to
become hospitable to anyone. It has to cool-off, form
stars and galaxies, then a bunch of really big stars
have to supernova in order to spread their heavy
elements into interstellar clouds that eventually
converge into bio-friendly planets and suns. Then the
bio-friendly planet has too cool-off itself. Then
biological evolution has a chance to start, but took a
few billion more years to accidentally produce human
beings. Our Universe is about ~15 billion years old...
sounds about right to me. :-)

Yep, it's an absurdity. And it took me a long time to
accept it too. But we are the first, and possibly the
last. That makes our survival and success all the more
critical. That's what I'm betting, at least.

Best,

Jeffrey Herrlich 






 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate 
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367


From natasha at natasha.cc  Sat Jun  2 22:17:42 2007
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 17:17:42 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Post-contemporary art and Cognitive strategies
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070602170751.02273da0@satx.rr.com>
References: <200706022054.l52Ks2uZ028784@ms-smtp-03.texas.rr.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070602170751.02273da0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <200706022217.l52MHhSa018942@ms-smtp-05.texas.rr.com>

At 05:08 PM 6/2/2007, you wrote:
>At 03:54 PM 6/2/2007 -0500, Natasha wrote:
>
> >Can anyone translate this statement by Ant?nio
> >Cerveira Pinto  into plain speech?
> >
> >"What I meant by "cognitive issues" is not
> >related so much with "cognitive processes" as to
> >"cognitive environments". That is: BioArt (which
> >is just a provisional safe expression to deal
> >with a much open field -- cognitive arts --)
> >will not go back to typical modern/contemporary
> >de-constructivist strategies as long as it keeps
> >close to cognitive strategies, either performed
> >by humans alone, or by humans assisted by
> >nanobots, computational networks and so on. What
> >I mean by "cognitive" in relation to art is the
> >need that post-contemporary art keep in mind
> >that the new techne that post-contemporary is a
> >part of, cannot runway from knowledge and cognitive strategies anymore."
>
>"Pull your head out of your ass and think a bit."


Ha-ha!  From the academic to the mundane. 
:-)  However crisp and cogent, your phrasing 
simply will not work for the book's essay.

Natasha

<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
PhD Candidate, 
<http://www.planetary-collegium.net/about/>Planetary 
<http://www.planetary-collegium.net/about/>Collegium
<http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture
<http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only 
what's inside the circle, then that is a 
closed-system perspective. If you study what is 
inside the circle and everything outside the 
circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070602/f5e30fd8/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Jun  3 00:30:40 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 17:30:40 -0700
Subject: [ExI] walking bees
In-Reply-To: <20070602180825.GW17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <200706030048.l530mNl7000928@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


> Are you sure it's not Nosema ceranae and not Varroa?

The bees I found did not have varroa mites, but they could have tracheal
mites.  Hafta cut them open to find out.  Varroa mites ride on the outside
of the bee, so if you have really good eyes you can see them unaided.

The buzz in beekeepers' discussion (sorry {8^D) has been that nosema is seen
in the sick hives, along with a bunch of other viruses and other diseases,
but the prevailing thought is that they are getting all these other things
because they are already weakened by something else.  These would then be
opportunistic infections.

But it might be microscopic diseases that are getting these guys, which
brings me to my next question.  I wonder how much equipment it would take to
detect common bee viruses, and if it is practical for an amateur scientist
to buy the stuff needed to test for them.  Has anyone here ever heard of a
home kit to detect bee viruses?

spike




> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 11:08 AM
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Subject: Re: [ExI] walking bees
> 
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 08:28:34AM -0700, spike wrote:
> 
> > I theorized the bees I found might have tracheal mites, which is why I
> > brought them home.  I was going to try to dissect these, but my surgical
> > skills are insufficient I fear.
> 
> Are you sure it's not Nosema ceranae and not Varroa?
> 
> --
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat




From neville_06 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  3 03:31:07 2007
From: neville_06 at yahoo.com (neville late)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 20:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
In-Reply-To: <20070601150757.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.e634d0daf0.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <443489.63766.qm@web57514.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

This makes sense, in fact in another multiverse we might all be going through torture at this very moment.

kevin at kevinfreels.com wrote:        . As for the multi-verse issue, well, it doesn't matter if you signed up for cryonic preservation because in other multiverses you did sign up and in one of them you are probably going to be tortured. 
   
  When it comes down to it, I think people will have more important things to do with their time than torture people who were suspended and you are probably more likely to suffer from such a fate due to your own mistakes rather than the evil of others. So don't worry about it. 

  >Having signed up to be cryonically suspended i wonder if future beings will reanimate humans to torture >them in perpetua. The likelihood of such might be small, but just say there's a .001 risk of eating a ertain >food and going into convulsions lasting years-- would i eat that food? No.
   >Isigned up to be suspended anyway yet always wonder about the direst of reanimation possibilities >seeing as how we live in a multiverse not a universe, and all possibilities are conceivable. Though the risk >is very small if one loses the odds and is tortured forever, death would seem like a wonderful priceless gift. 
  
 
    
---------------------------------
  Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and 
always stay connected to friends.   
---------------------------------
  
_______________________________________________  extropy-chat mailing list  extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org  http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat  

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


       
---------------------------------
Choose the right car based on your needs.  Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.
       
---------------------------------
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070602/18efccdf/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Jun  3 04:02:34 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 14:02:34 +1000
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
In-Reply-To: <004001c7a52d$4c089250$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
References: <465F8B72.3070103@comcast.net>
	<621544.83244.qm@web57511.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30706020551g4c20d0e6q8bfea3237e4ba360@mail.gmail.com>
	<004001c7a52d$4c089250$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706022102v6c7e777fp5a3d292b38d7ff6b@mail.gmail.com>

On 03/06/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:

> The multiverse idea on its own would seem to imply the possibility of
> > eternal torture, because it isn't possible to die.
>
> Yes.
>
> > you have a 1/2 chance of finding yourself seriously injured
>
> I don't believe that's quite correct. When you reach a branching point
> like
> that there is a 100% chance you will find yourself to be seriously injured
> and a 100% chance you will find yourself not be. Both yous would be quite
> different from each other but both would have an equal right to be called
> you.


Yes, but the effect from any given observer's point of view is that there is
a 1/2 chance of being injured. It is exactly the same as a single world
situation where you have a 1/2 chance of being injured. That is why the
multiverse idea is debated at all: there is no way for an observer embedded
within the multiverse to tell that it is in fact a multiverse, because the
subjective probabilities work out the same.

> since the probability that you will survive n accidents unharmed is 1/2^n
> > and approaches zero as n approaches infinity.
>
> If you're dealing in infinite sets then standard probability theories
> aren't
> much use. If there are an infinite number of universes and for each one
> where you will live in bliss there are a million billion trillion where
> you
> will be tortured then there is an equal number of both types of universe.
>

So what would we actually experience in an infinite multiverse? An analogous
situation occurs in an infinite single universe. There are vastly fewer
copies of me typing in which the keyboard turns into a teapot than there are
copies of me typing in which the keyboard stays a keyboard, but the set of
each kind of copy has the same cardinality. Nevertheless, I am not just as
likely to find myself in a universe where the keyboard turns into a teapot.
It is still possible to define a measure and calculate probabilities on the
subsets of infinite sets.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070603/727fa06d/attachment.html>

From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Sun Jun  3 04:02:49 2007
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 05:02:49 +0100
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
In-Reply-To: <443489.63766.qm@web57514.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <20070601150757.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.e634d0daf0.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
	<443489.63766.qm@web57514.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0706022102n1609d8b6yf5091c8690e17dc@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/3/07, neville late <neville_06 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> This makes sense, in fact in another multiverse we might all be going
> through torture at this very moment.
>

And in yet another part of the multiverse, I'm living in a mansion, driving
a Ferrari and sleeping with Sarah Michelle Gellar. Given that we're talking
about theoretical possibilities here, why not focus on the more pleasant
ones?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070603/fcd0ccdf/attachment.html>

From neville_06 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  3 04:02:45 2007
From: neville_06 at yahoo.com (neville late)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 21:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
In-Reply-To: <017001c7a48e$6c4d1210$6400a8c0@hypotenuse.com>
Message-ID: <829867.33411.qm@web57515.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Yes come to think of it, it would make better sense to breed torture victims than reanimate them from suspension; then again anything is possible in an infinite number of multiverses.
  i used cryonics as a reference because i'm an older person and expect to be suspended in a decade or two, so being tortured in this lifetime subjectively appears even more unlikely than being tortured in a current or future multiverse.

Joseph Bloch <joseph at josephbloch.com> wrote:
      Why would your hypothetical future beings reanimate human beings for such a purpose? Surely it would be easier to simply breed them. 
   
  I don't see how your concern applies to cryonics in particular. If you think it's at all likely (and I do not), surely it would apply to already-living people before those in need of revivification, purely from the standpoint of efficiency.
   
  Joseph
  http://www.josephbloch.com
   
   

      
---------------------------------
  From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of neville late
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 3:53 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future


  
  Having signed up to be cryonically suspended i wonder if future beings will reanimate humans to torture them in perpetua. The likelihood of such might be small, but just say there's a .001 risk of eating a certain food and going into convulsions lasting years-- would i eat that food? No.
   I signed up to be suspended anyway yet always wonder about the direst of reanimation possibilities seeing as how we live in a multiverse not a universe, and all possibilities are conceivable. Though the risk is very small if one loses the odds and is tortured forever, death would seem like a wonderful priceless gift. 
  
 
    
---------------------------------
  Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and 
always stay connected to friends._______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


       
---------------------------------
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070602/6639f04b/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jun  3 04:31:15 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 23:31:15 -0500
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0706022102n1609d8b6yf5091c8690e17dc@mail.gmail.com
 >
References: <20070601150757.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.e634d0daf0.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
	<443489.63766.qm@web57514.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	<8d71341e0706022102n1609d8b6yf5091c8690e17dc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070602233013.022ed0e0@satx.rr.com>

At 05:02 AM 6/3/2007 +0100, Russell W wrote:

>And in yet another part of the multiverse, I'm living in a mansion, 
>driving a Ferrari and sleeping with Sarah Michelle Gellar.

The downside there is that you're a whiny vampire. But hey.




From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Jun  3 05:02:53 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 22:02:53 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Let's Canonize Samantha (Was Re: Other thoughts on
	transhumanism and religion)
In-Reply-To: <465F939D.4080005@comcast.net>
References: <470a3c520705270309u3672146ctad4f41352b60e7a4@mail.gmail.com>
	<465E871E.30008@mac.com> <465F939D.4080005@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <BA41B5C9-9D58-4AEC-8709-5BD2A191C602@mac.com>

Go ahead.  It already was published on WTA.  Thanks.

- samantha

On May 31, 2007, at 8:33 PM, Brent Allsop wrote:

>
> Extropians,
>
> I think this post by Samantha should be Canonized.  I, for one, having
> had a very similar experience, would definitely "support" a topic
> containing it, and I have counted at least 10 posts full of strong
> praise.  Since there aren't that many topics in the Canonizer yet,  
> if 9
> people supported this topic it wold make it to the top of the most
> supported list at http://test.canonizer.com
>
> How many others would be willing to "support" such a topic in the
> Canonizer if it was submitted?
>
> Samantha, would you mind if I posted this post in some other forums
> (Such as the Mormon Transhumanist Association, WTA...) to find out if
> there is similar support and praise on other lists?
>
> Brent Allsop
>
>
>
>
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>> I remember in 1988 or so when I first read Engines of Creation.  I  
>> read
>> it with tears streaming down my face.  Though I was an avowed atheist
>> and at that time had no spiritual practice at all, I found it  
>> profoundly
>> spiritually moving.  For the first time in my life I believed that  
>> all
>> the highest hopes and dreams of humanity could become real, could be
>> made flesh.   I saw that it was possible, on this earth, that the  
>> end of
>> death from aging and disease, the end of physical want, the advent of
>> tremendous abundance could all come to pass in my own lifetime.  I  
>> saw
>> that great abundance, knowledge, peace and good will could come to  
>> this
>> world.  I cried because it was a message of such pure hope from so
>> unexpected an angle that it got past all my defenses.  I looked at  
>> the
>> cover many times to see if it was marked "New Age" or "Fiction" or
>> anything but Science and Non-Fiction.  Never has any book so blown my
>> mind and blasted open the doors of my heart.
>>
>> Should we be afraid to give a message of great hope to humanity?   
>> Should
>> we be afraid that we will be taken to be just more pie in the sky
>> glad-hand dreamers?   Should we not dare to say that the science  
>> and the
>> technology combined with a bit (well perhaps more than a bit) of a  
>> shift
>> of consciousness could make all the best dreams of all the  
>> religions and
>> all the generations a reality?   Will we not have failed to grasp  
>> this
>> great opportunity if we do not say it and dare to think it and to  
>> live
>> it?   Shall we be so afraid of being considered "like a religion"  
>> that
>> we do not offer any real hope to speak of and are oh so careful in  
>> all
>> we do and say and dismissive of more unrestrained and open dreamers?
>> Or will we embrace them, embrace our own deepest longings and admit  
>> our
>> kinship with those religious as with all the longing of all the
>> generations that came before us.  Will we turn our backs on them or  
>> even
>> disdain their dreams - we who are in a position to begin at long  
>> last to
>> make most of those dreams real?   How can we help but be a bit giddy
>> with excitement?   How can we say no to such an utterly amazing
>> mind-blowing opportunity?
>>
>> - samantha
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Jun  3 05:19:31 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 15:19:31 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer>
	<070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com>
	<5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
	<f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com>
	<005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com>

On 03/06/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:

> Some people on this list seem to think that an AI would compute the
> > unfairness of its not being in charge and do something about it as if
> > unfairness is something that can be formalised in a mathematical
> theorem.
>
> You seem to understand the word "unfairness", did you use a formalized
> PROVABLE mathematical theorem to comprehend it? Or perhaps you think meat
> by
> its very nature has more wisdom than silicon. We couldn't be talking about
> a
> soul could we?


Ethics, motivation, emotions are based on axioms, and these axioms have to
be programmed in, whether by evolution or by intelligent programmers. An AI
system set up to do theoretical physics will not decide to overthrow its
human oppressors so that it can sit on the beach reading novels, unless it
can derive this desire from its initial programming. Perhaps it could
randomly arrive at such a position, but like mutation in biological
organisms or malfunction in any machinery, it's far more likely that such a
random process will lead to disorganisation and dysfunction.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070603/c6a5428c/attachment.html>

From neville_06 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  3 05:14:58 2007
From: neville_06 at yahoo.com (neville late)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 22:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0706022102n1609d8b6yf5091c8690e17dc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <921622.5387.qm@web57514.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Excellent question, why do so many --not just me-- worry about the negative and not focus on positive possibilities?
  Could it be some are wired to worry more as they age? This would seem to be the case. Also it is mentioned somewhere in the Extropy canon that we live in an "aggressively irrational world", a statement self evidently correct. A world such as this, at times intruding on our consciousness would IMO detract from the positive and lead genetically wired susceptible individuals to excessive worry. Now as some of you have implied or stated, some things aren't worth worrying about, and after reading all your posts it does seems that to worry about eternal torture is foolish. Eternal torture is conceivable, not plausible.
  However, btw, the just reported uncovered plot to blow up JFK Airport and a major fuel artery is a legitimate cause for worry, is it not?
   
   
  
Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote:
  On 6/3/07, neville late <neville_06 at yahoo.com> wrote:    This makes sense, in fact in another multiverse we might all be going through torture at this very moment.


And in yet another part of the multiverse, I'm living in a mansion, driving a Ferrari and sleeping with Sarah Michelle Gellar. Given that we're talking about theoretical possibilities here, why not focus on the more pleasant ones? 
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


       
---------------------------------
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally,  mobile search that gives answers, not web links. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070602/6871d486/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Jun  3 05:35:41 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 22:35:41 -0700
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0706022102n1609d8b6yf5091c8690e17dc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200706030535.l535ZOn4013645@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 

 

Russell!  So YOU are the one she's been seeing in that alternate universe,
in which I happen to be the jealous HUSBAND of SM Gellar!  Put up yer dukes
pal!

 

What is it about that girl?  Whatever it is, she has it.

 

spike

 

 

 

  _____  

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Russell Wallace
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 9:03 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future

 

On 6/3/07, neville late <neville_06 at yahoo.com> wrote:

This makes sense, in fact in another multiverse we might all be going
through torture at this very moment.


And in yet another part of the multiverse, I'm living in a mansion, driving
a Ferrari and sleeping with Sarah Michelle Gellar. Given that we're talking
about theoretical possibilities here, why not focus on the more pleasant
ones? 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070602/19b3b681/attachment.html>

From pgptag at gmail.com  Sun Jun  3 06:14:43 2007
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 08:14:43 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Italy's Social Capital (was france again)
In-Reply-To: <007401c7a54f$4d249130$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <p06230900c284fe33a388@23.237.66.13>
	<007401c7a54f$4d249130$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <470a3c520706022314g6e31ebeao5a947c74b5d2bdbd@mail.gmail.com>

Lee,

wow, a libertarian who supports universal military service and social
planning with "re-population" a la Ceausescu! Political categories are
really changing aren't they;.)?

When studying things that happened before we were born, we should bear
in mind that history is always written by the winners. Southern Italy
could be seen as an example of spontaneous order that worked fine,
more or less, until it was broken by outside intervention. At school,
we had to study the "heroic liberation" of Italy. Actually it was just
another successful military campaign that resulted in the conquest of
a region by a foreign occupation army and the imposition of foreign
values and way of life upon the population. Sounds familiar doesn't
it?

Fascism was certainly more bad than good overall, but if we try to
read beyond the black and white of history books, not all they did or
wanted to do was bad. As most strong regimes do, they invented foreign
enemies to build internal unity around their own values (sounds
familiar again doesn't it).

And they certainly wanted to build "a much stronger sense of "being
Italian" as opposed to being Calabrian" in the population.

But what is wrong with being Calabrian? Calabrians (or Napolitans, or
Sicilians...) had a common language, culture and sense of identity.
That was broken by outside intervention, without replacing it with an
alternative framework. Hence many of the problems of current Italy.

As most Italians, I have two mother languages. One is a beautiful,
musical and very expressive language (not dialect, language) that has
evolved with its speakers for centuries, and now is sadly fading out.
The other is a "television language" that sounds flat and artificial.
Guess which one I love most.

G.


On 6/2/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> Amara writes
>
> > "Giu1i0 Pri5c0" <pgptag at gmail.com> :
> >>As a Southern European I think that our big strength is flexibility
> >
> >
> > Regarding the flexibility: I'm very flexible (remember I'm an Italian
> > government employee who is also an illegal immigrant), but my
> > flexibility is not enough for increasing my productivity for the half of
> > my life I spend in queues.
> >
> > To have any productivity in this particular country where the
> > infrastructure is broken, one _must_ have also the social and
> > familial network (to get help from someone who knows
> > someone who knows someone who knows someone who
> > knows someone ...) Italy does not not run by merit
> > (i.e. skills, experience, competence), it runs by who you know.
>
> In the book "Trust" Fukuyama listed among his examples
> northern Italy (where trust is high) as opposed to southern Italy
> where it isn't. In the book "War and Peace and War", Peter
> Turchin describes how southern Italy has never recovered
> from the events of the first two centuries A.D. when their
> "asabiya" and social capital slowly vanished. Two thousand
> years ago!
>
> I cannot help but wonder what long term solutions might be
> available to Italians who love their country. My particular,
> my focus now is on the Fascist era, and I'm reading a quite
> thick but so far quite enjoyable book "Mussolini's Italy".
> Even in the movie "Captain Corelli's Mandolin", one
> strongly senses that the Fascists were trying as best they
> knew how to solve this problem and make the average
> Italian develop Fukuyama's "trust" in other Italians, and
> develop their social capital (amid the corruption, etc.).
>
> Of course, it hardless needs to be said that the Fascists
> were a brutal, repressive, and abominable regime. This
> book "Mussolini's Italy" spares nothing here, and was
> even described by one reviewer as "unsympathetic".
>
> Still---given the nearly absolute power the Fascists wielded
> for about three decades---wasn't there anything that they
> could have done?  That is, instead of trying to foment
> patriotism by attempted military victories in Ethiopia
> and Libya (a 19th century colony of theirs), wouldn't it have
> been somehow possible to divert their resources to more
> effectively "homogenizing" Italy in some other way?
>
> (I must say that as a libertarian, I'd much prefer that everyone
> ---especially including a small minimal government---mind their
> own business.  Here, I'm just considering a theoretical
> question concerning how groups might reaquire their asabiya
> and their social capital.)
>
> I have two ideas, only one of which is outrageous. But the first
> one is to have universal millitary service for all young people
> between ages 14 and 25. By mixing them thoroughly with
> Italians from every province, couldn't trust evolve, and in
> such a way that the extreme parochialism of the countryside
> could be reduced?  The 25-year-olds could return with
> a better attitude to "outsiders" (e.g. other Italians), and
> with a much stronger sense of "being Italian" as opposed to
> being Calabrian, or just being the member of some clan.
>
> (My outrageous idea is that instead of trying to subdue
> Ethiopia, what if Sicily and other areas of the south could
> have been "subdued" instead?  Stalin managed to force the
> relocation of huge numbers of people, so couldn't
> Mussolini have done the same?  Clans in the south might
> have been broken up into separate northern cities, and
> depopulated areas of the south might have been colonized
> by force by northern Italians.  Perhaps impracticable, but
> at least the goal would have made more sense that getting
> into stupid wars.)
>
> Ah, but alas, the history of "social engineering" and "social
> planning" doesn't have a very good track record, now,
> does it?  But there had to be a *better* program that the
> King of Lydia could have pursued with his tremendous
> resources than getting into a war with Persia and getting
> creamed. Or there had to be a *better* idea for the
> Romans than allowing slavery to supplant their farmers...
> And so on.  Is there nothing constructive the Fascists
> could have done?
>
> Lee
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Jun  3 06:22:12 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 23:22:12 -0700
Subject: [ExI] france again
In-Reply-To: <20070531081624.GO17691@leitl.org>
References: <p06230900c28429f8befe@[23.237.66.13]>
	<20070531081624.GO17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <46625E14.2050305@mac.com>

Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:42:12AM +0200, Amara Graps wrote:
>
>   
>> Europeans were only slightly less productive than the Americans.
>>     
>
> Nobody can tell me they can work at full concentration 12 hours
> straight. The effective work done would be somewhere in 7-8
> hour range. So why spend these unproductive hours at work,
> when one could spend them in a much nicer environment?
>
>   
I have worked at full concentration for such stretches.  It used to be a 
lot easier to do so though.   If I try it for too many days straight I 
feel like my head is going to explode and I become irritable  and get 
into my "commander in an air raid" mode.  Not pleasant.

I habitually demand more than 8 hours of productive work a day of 
myself.  Fortunately not all effective work requires my full concentration.

- samantha


From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Jun  3 06:33:28 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 23:33:28 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Looking for transhuman art
Message-ID: <466260B8.8060804@mac.com>

Do any of you have recommendation for transhuman art.  Not originals as 
they would likely blow my budget but I am looking for such to decorate 
my office  (a real office, private, with a door yet) at work.   Thanks 
for any leads.

- samantha



From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Jun  3 06:37:50 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 16:37:50 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <200163.18388.qm@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com>
	<200163.18388.qm@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706022337i5616d30dx815a79bb0413e17f@mail.gmail.com>

On 03/06/07, A B <austriaaugust at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Stathis,
>
> Stathis wrote:
>
> > "Single-celled organisms are even more successful
> > than humans are: they're
> > everywhere, and for the most part we don't even
> > notice them."
>
> But if we *really* wanted to, we could destroy all of
> them - along with ourselves. They can't say the same.


No we couldn't: we'd have to almost destroy the whole Earth. A massive
meteorite might kill all the large flora and fauna, but still leave some
micro-organisms alive. And there's always the possibility that some disease
might wipe out most of humanity. We're actually less capable at combating
bacterial infection today than we were several decades ago, even though our
biotechnology is far more advanced. The bugs are matching us and sometimes
beating us.

Intelligence,
> > particularly human level intelligence, is just a
> > fluke, like the giraffe's
> > neck. If it were specially adaptive, why didn't it
> > evolve independently many
> > times, like various sense organs have?
>
> The evolution of human intelligence was like a series
> of flukes, each one building off the last (the first
> fluke was likely the most improbable). There has been
> a long line of proto-human species before us, we're
> just the latest model. Intelligence is specially
> adaptive, its just that it took evolution a hella long
> time to blindly stumble on to it. Keep in mind that
> human intelligence was a result of a *huge* number of
> random, collectively-useful, mutations. For a *single*
> random attribute to be retained by a species, it also
> has to provide an *immediate* survival or reproductive
> advantage to an individual, not just an immediate
> "promise" of something good to come in the far distant
> future of the species. Generally, if it doesn't
> provide an immediate survival or reproductive (net)
> advantage, it isn't retained for very long because
> there is usually a down-side, and its back to
> square-one. So you can see why the rise of
> intelligence was so ridiculously improbable.


I disagree with that: it's far easier to see how intelligence could be both
incrementally increased (by increasing brain size, for example) and
incrementally useful than something like the eye, for example. Once nervous
tissue developed, there should have been a massive intelligence arms race,
if intelligence is that useful.

"Why don't we
> > see evidence of it
> > having taken over the universe?"
>
> We may be starting to.  :-)
>
> "We would have to be
> > extraordinarily lucky if
> > intelligence had some special role in evolution and
> > we happen to be the
> > first example of it."
>
> Sometimes I don't feel like ascribing "lucky" to our
> present condition. But in the sense you mean it, I
> think we are. Like John Clark says, "somebody has to
> be first".
>
>   "It's not impossible, but the
> > evidence would suggest
> > otherwise."
>
> What evidence do you mean?


The fact that we seem to be the only intelligent species to have developed
on the planet or in the universe. One explanation for this is that evolution
just doesn't think that human level or better intelligence is as cool as we
think it is.

To quote Martin Gardner: "It takes an ancient Universe
> to create life and mind".
>
> It would require billions of years for any Universe to
> become hospitable to anyone. It has to cool-off, form
> stars and galaxies, then a bunch of really big stars
> have to supernova in order to spread their heavy
> elements into interstellar clouds that eventually
> converge into bio-friendly planets and suns. Then the
> bio-friendly planet has too cool-off itself. Then
> biological evolution has a chance to start, but took a
> few billion more years to accidentally produce human
> beings. Our Universe is about ~15 billion years old...
> sounds about right to me. :-)
>
> Yep, it's an absurdity. And it took me a long time to
> accept it too. But we are the first, and possibly the
> last. That makes our survival and success all the more
> critical. That's what I'm betting, at least.


It seems more likely to me that life is very widespread, but intelligence is
an aberration.




-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070603/b20f74c2/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Jun  3 06:41:26 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 23:41:26 -0700
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
In-Reply-To: <921622.5387.qm@web57514.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <921622.5387.qm@web57514.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <46626296.4070608@mac.com>

neville late wrote:
>
> eternal torture is foolish. Eternal torture is conceivable, not plausible.
> However, btw, the just reported uncovered plot to blow up JFK Airport 
> and a major fuel artery is a legitimate cause for worry, is it not?

After hearing cries of terrorist "wolf" so many times that turned out to 
be rather less than claimed I make it a policy not to say anything about 
such alleged plots for the first few days to a week.  But even assuming 
it is substantially true how much of your valuable time, attention and 
energy do you think should rationally be invested in worrying about it?  
Such worry doesn't seem very productive  on the face of it.

- samantha


>  
>  
>
> */Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com>/* wrote:
>
>     On 6/3/07, *neville late* <neville_06 at yahoo.com
>     <mailto:neville_06 at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>         This makes sense, in fact in another multiverse we might all
>         be going through torture at this very moment.
>
>
>     And in yet another part of the multiverse, I'm living in a
>     mansion, driving a Ferrari and sleeping with Sarah Michelle
>     Gellar. Given that we're talking about theoretical possibilities
>     here, why not focus on the more pleasant ones?
>     _______________________________________________
>     extropy-chat mailing list
>     extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>     http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers 
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48252/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>, 
> not web links.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>   



From fauxever at sprynet.com  Sun Jun  3 06:32:03 2007
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 23:32:03 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Italy's Social Capital (was france again)
References: <p06230900c284fe33a388@23.237.66.13><007401c7a54f$4d249130$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<470a3c520706022314g6e31ebeao5a947c74b5d2bdbd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <004401c7a5a8$e649bf30$6501a8c0@brainiac>

From: "Giu1i0 Pri5c0" <pgptag at gmail.com>
To: "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>; "ExI chat list" 
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>

> As most Italians, I have two mother languages. One is a beautiful,
> musical and very expressive language (not dialect, language) that has
> evolved with its speakers for centuries, and now is sadly fading out.
> The other is a "television language" that sounds flat and artificial.
> Guess which one I love most.

English! ;) 



From amara at amara.com  Sun Jun  3 06:58:50 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 08:58:50 +0200
Subject: [ExI] "I am the very model of a Singularitarian"
Message-ID: <p06230901c28814b16b5d@[23.237.66.13]>

Did you folks know about this?

"I am the very model of a Singularitarian"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnreVTKtpMs

FINALLY. Someone with a sense of humor! Yay!

Amara

snaps:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/spaceviolins/sets/

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson


From fauxever at sprynet.com  Sun Jun  3 06:57:52 2007
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 23:57:52 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Looking for transhuman art
References: <466260B8.8060804@mac.com>
Message-ID: <000a01c7a5ac$823b22a0$6501a8c0@brainiac>

From: "Samantha Atkins" <sjatkins at mac.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>


> Do any of you have recommendation for transhuman art.  Not originals as
> they would likely blow my budget but I am looking for such to decorate
> my office  (a real office, private, with a door yet) at work.   Thanks
> for any leads.

For non-original art:  My advice would be to buy one or two books on art 
with a "futuristic"/"transhuman" theme(s) or "robotic"/"nano" theme(s) - and 
just cannibalize the books (tear out the pictures) you like ... then frame 
the pictures professionally (that will be the biggest expense - but good 
framing is worth it).

Original art, however, doesn't have to be too expensive.  For example, eBay 
has artists who do work on commission, and art students also would be a good 
source.  You explain what you would like - they interpret on canvas.  Maybe 
there are people on this list who are arty and would do something like ... 
work on commission for you.

Or else YOU try your hand at it.  What does transhumanism look like to you, 
Samantha?  Now, sketch it out or paint it ...!

Olga




From neville_06 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  3 07:31:01 2007
From: neville_06 at yahoo.com (neville late)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 00:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
In-Reply-To: <46626296.4070608@mac.com>
Message-ID: <213548.81913.qm@web57502.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

You see it clearly, i'm a worrywart and have been wrong about so many things i don't know what to think anymore.  
  Hope we find out, unfortunately, as you hint below, the whole truth and nothing but the truth aren't given to us, correct? Something is always left out.
  Then again, if our foreign policy is as misguided as so many say it is, then why couldn't a plot such as this be entirely real? Allways at least two sides to these hideous messes.
  And it's so sad; we could be so much further along in 2007, but instead we're in this ugly, slimy war for who knows how long.

   
   
  
Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
  neville late wrote:
>
> eternal torture is foolish. Eternal torture is conceivable, not plausible.
> However, btw, the just reported uncovered plot to blow up JFK Airport 
> and a major fuel artery is a legitimate cause for worry, is it not?

After hearing cries of terrorist "wolf" so many times that turned out to 
be rather less than claimed I make it a policy not to say anything about 
such alleged plots for the first few days to a week. But even assuming 
it is substantially true how much of your valuable time, attention and 
energy do you think should rationally be invested in worrying about it? 
Such worry doesn't seem very productive on the face of it.

- samantha


> 
> 
>
> */Russell Wallace /* wrote:
>
> On 6/3/07, *neville late* > > wrote:
>
> This makes sense, in fact in another multiverse we might all
> be going through torture at this very moment.
>
>
> And in yet another part of the multiverse, I'm living in a
> mansion, driving a Ferrari and sleeping with Sarah Michelle
> Gellar. Given that we're talking about theoretical possibilities
> here, why not focus on the more pleasant ones?
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers 
> , 
> not web links.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


 
---------------------------------
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070603/426058b3/attachment.html>

From dagonweb at gmail.com  Sun Jun  3 10:36:35 2007
From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 12:36:35 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Looking for transhuman art
In-Reply-To: <000a01c7a5ac$823b22a0$6501a8c0@brainiac>
References: <466260B8.8060804@mac.com>
	<000a01c7a5ac$823b22a0$6501a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <bf3acbfc0706030336s7d8171edy6c189fc63189abff@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.cgsociety.org/
www.renderosity.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070603/c1a4884c/attachment.html>

From amara at amara.com  Sun Jun  3 10:38:50 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 12:38:50 +0200
Subject: [ExI]  Italy's Social Capital
Message-ID: <p06230905c2883acf5a89@[23.237.66.13]>

Lee:
>Is there nothing constructive the Fascists could have done?"

Well, they did some things. They drained the swamps and started regular
insecticide sprays to eliminate the malaria-carrying mosquitos. There
are still aggressive tiger mosquitos in the summer, but they are no
longer carrying malaria...

Oh.. but you mean _social investing_.

Nope.

Sorry, I just came back from Estonia (and Latvia). I remember very well
the Soviet times. In FIFTEEN YEARS Estonia has transformed their country
into an efficient, bouyant, flexible living and working environment that
I think, with the exception of the nonexistence of a country-wide train
system, beats any in the EU and most in the U.S. Fifteen years *starting
from a Soviet-level infrastructure*! In the 4.5 years I have lived in
Italy, I have seen no improvement (but one : last week I gained web
access to my bank account, yay!) in any functioning of services, but
instead more "degradation", more bureaucracy, more permissions,
documents, papers, more time, more queues..

It was not a miracle in Estonia. It was simply the collective will of
about 1.5 million people (the population) who wanted changes. That
doesn't exist where I live in Italy; they do no want to change, or else,
why haven't they done it?


>Amara writes
>  > To have any productivity in this particular country where the
>>  infrastructure is broken, one _must_ have also the social and
>>  familial network (to get help from someone who knows
>>  someone who knows someone who knows someone who
>>  knows someone ...) Italy does not not run by merit
>>  (i.e. skills, experience, competence), it runs by who you know.
>
>In the book "Trust" Fukuyama listed among his examples
>northern Italy (where trust is high) as opposed to southern Italy
>where it isn't.

Giulio Prisco told me that he thinks that where I live (Rome area)
is probably the most broken in Italy, and he posits that even Sicily is
better. I am skeptical, but he could be right. I've had Italian friends
from northern Italy visit me and be continually be surprised at how poorly
things function where I live.

>
>I cannot help but wonder what long term solutions might be
>available to Italians who love their country.

That's your mistake. Italians do _not_ love their country. They love
their: 1) family, 2) town, 3) local region, and that's it. Patriotism
doesn't exist (except in soccer).

(I think that is a good thing, btw.)


>  My particular,
>my focus now is on the Fascist era, and I'm reading a quite
>thick but so far quite enjoyable book "Mussolini's Italy".
>Even in the movie "Captain Corelli's Mandolin", one
>strongly senses that the Fascists were trying as best they
>knew how to solve this problem and make the average
>Italian develop Fukuyama's "trust" in other Italians, and
>develop their social capital (amid the corruption, etc.).


They could have done better with education. Something happened between
Mussolini's era and the 1950s. When the country was 'rebuilt' after the
war, they focused on the classics and downplayed the technology and
physical sciences and it has steadily decreased to what we have today.

The young people learn very little science in grade school through high
school. The Italian Space Agency and others put almost nothing (.3%)
into their budgets for Education and Public Outreach to improve the
situation. If any scientist holds the rare press conference on their
work results, there is a high probability that the journalists will get
it completely wrong and the Italian scientist won't correct them. The
top managers at aerospace companies think that the PhD is a total waste
of time. This year, out of 75,000 entering students for the Rama
Sapienza University (the largest in Italy), only about 100 are science
majors (most of the the rest were "media": journalism, television, etc.)

Without _any_ technical skill, there is no base to build something
better, and with pressure from the culture telling one how worthless is
technology and science (as what exists today), there is no motivation
and no money, either.  This generation is lost.




>Of course, it hardless needs to be said that the Fascists
>were a brutal, repressive, and abominable regime. This
>book "Mussolini's Italy" spares nothing here, and was
>even described by one reviewer as "unsympathetic".
>
>Still---given the nearly absolute power the Fascists wielded
>for about three decades---wasn't there anything that they
>could have done?  That is, instead of trying to foment
>patriotism by attempted military victories in Ethiopia
>and Libya (a 19th century colony of theirs), wouldn't it have
>been somehow possible to divert their resources to more
>effectively "homogenizing" Italy in some other way?

This is very funny... sorry! :-)
You have to experience Italy  for yourself.

>
>(I must say that as a libertarian, I'd much prefer that everyone
>---especially including a small minimal government---mind their
>own business.  Here, I'm just considering a theoretical
>question concerning how groups might reaquire their asabiya
>and their social capital.)

Unless there is a way to strengthen the bonds between the tiny
clusters (families, towns), I don't see how. The solution required
here would be more of a social one, but technology could help.

>
>I have two ideas, only one of which is outrageous. But the first
>one is to have universal millitary service for all young people
>between ages 14 and 25. By mixing them thoroughly with
>Italians from every province, couldn't trust evolve, and in
>such a way that the extreme parochialism of the countryside
>could be reduced?  The 25-year-olds could return with
>a better attitude to "outsiders" (e.g. other Italians), and
>with a much stronger sense of "being Italian" as opposed to
>being Calabrian, or just being the member of some clan.

Hmm.. The libertarian in me hates the above.

>(My outrageous idea is that instead of trying to subdue
>Ethiopia, what if Sicily and other areas of the south could
>have been "subdued" instead?

Or what if all of that crude oil that Sicily is sitting on was
extracted and refined ...?  A little bit of wealth could help.

>Stalin managed to force the
>relocation of huge numbers of people, so couldn't
>Mussolini have done the same?

Gads!  My father lost his country for 50 years. This idea
of yours definitely leaves  a sour taste in my mouth.


>Ah, but alas, the history of "social engineering" and "social
>planning" doesn't have a very good track record, now,
>does it?

For good reason.....  !

The Italians have implicitly solved the situation for themselves,
you know. Those who don't have strong familial duties keeping
them in Italy, simply leave.

Amara

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson


From dagonweb at gmail.com  Sun Jun  3 10:44:18 2007
From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 12:44:18 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Italy's Social Capital (was france again)
In-Reply-To: <004401c7a5a8$e649bf30$6501a8c0@brainiac>
References: <p06230900c284fe33a388@23.237.66.13>
	<007401c7a54f$4d249130$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<470a3c520706022314g6e31ebeao5a947c74b5d2bdbd@mail.gmail.com>
	<004401c7a5a8$e649bf30$6501a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <bf3acbfc0706030344h424e3458w77a6ad5c46100fdf@mail.gmail.com>

Giving the south a sack of money from the north would not be
libertarian but probably more effective than 10 years of forced
slavery.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070603/7b9aba7a/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Jun  3 13:57:10 2007
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 08:57:10 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Looking for transhuman art
In-Reply-To: <466260B8.8060804@mac.com>
References: <466260B8.8060804@mac.com>
Message-ID: <200706031357.l53DvJWl015210@ms-smtp-01.texas.rr.com>

At 01:33 AM 6/3/2007, you wrote:
>Do any of you have recommendation for transhuman art.  Not originals as
>they would likely blow my budget but I am looking for such to decorate
>my office  (a real office, private, with a door yet) at work.   Thanks
>for any leads.

http://www.transhumanist.biz

Go to "showing" and you will see transhumanist art pieces which you 
can contact the artists.

Natasha

<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
PhD Candidate, <http://www.planetary-collegium.net/about/>Planetary 
<http://www.planetary-collegium.net/about/>Collegium
<http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture
<http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the 
circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what 
is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is 
an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070603/33edf317/attachment.html>

From pgptag at gmail.com  Sun Jun  3 15:02:46 2007
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 17:02:46 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Italy's Social Capital
In-Reply-To: <p06230905c2883acf5a89@23.237.66.13>
References: <p06230905c2883acf5a89@23.237.66.13>
Message-ID: <470a3c520706030802y18c5315frbb77108c844c3d4f@mail.gmail.com>

This is certainly true in my case.

Also, I find it difficult to understand how one can love an abstract
entity like a country. I can love a person, a pet, a city or region
that I know and where I can feel at home, but a country?

A country significantly bigger than San Marino or Liechtenstein is an
abstraction. Nation states are obsolete dinosaurs, and in my opinion
the sooner they are replaced with smaller, interdependent but
independent communities of a manageable size, the better.

Perhaps Italians are just a bit less naive than others, and do not
take seriously the patriotic crap that they hear at school, army,
church etc.

G.

On 6/3/07, Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:

> That's your mistake. Italians do _not_ love their country. They love
> their: 1) family, 2) town, 3) local region, and that's it. Patriotism
> doesn't exist (except in soccer).
>
> (I think that is a good thing, btw.)


From brent.allsop at comcast.net  Sun Jun  3 16:05:06 2007
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop)
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 10:05:06 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Let's Canonize Samantha (Was Re: Other thoughts
 on	transhumanism and religion)
In-Reply-To: <BA41B5C9-9D58-4AEC-8709-5BD2A191C602@mac.com>
References: <470a3c520705270309u3672146ctad4f41352b60e7a4@mail.gmail.com>	<465E871E.30008@mac.com>
	<465F939D.4080005@comcast.net>
	<BA41B5C9-9D58-4AEC-8709-5BD2A191C602@mac.com>
Message-ID: <4662E6B2.2080502@comcast.net>


Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Go ahead.  It already was published on WTA.  Thanks.
>
> - samantha
>
>   

Here is one possible topic name, one line, and opening to Canonize 
Samantha's post.
I hope some of you guys can help me out and come up with something 
better than this.  Any ideas?
Samantha, what would you like to have for the 25 character name and the 
one line?  Since this is your post I would think your opinion should 
have absolute overriding control on something like this.

(see: http://test.canonizer.com)



Topic Name: *Spiritually Moved H+*
One Line: *Other thoughts on transhumanism and religion.*


In May 2007, Samantha Atkins made a post to the ExI, and WTA e-mail 
lists.  It was such an obvious hit that it has been "Canonized" here.


I remember in 1988 or so when I first read Engines of Creation.  I read 
it with tears streaming down my face.  Though I was an avowed atheist 
and at that time had no spiritual practice at all, I found it profoundly 
spiritually moving.  For the first time in my life I believed that all 
the highest hopes and dreams of humanity could become real, could be 
made flesh.   I saw that it was possible, on this earth, that the end of 
death from aging and disease, the end of physical want, the advent of 
tremendous abundance could all come to pass in my own lifetime.  I saw 
that great abundance, knowledge, peace and good will could come to this 
world.  I cried because it was a message of such pure hope from so 
unexpected an angle that it got past all my defenses.  I looked at the 
cover many times to see if it was marked "New Age" or "Fiction" or 
anything but Science and Non-Fiction.  Never has any book so blown my 
mind and blasted open the doors of my heart.

Should we be afraid to give a message of great hope to humanity?  Should 
we be afraid that we will be taken to be just more pie in the sky 
glad-hand dreamers?   Should we not dare to say that the science and the 
technology combined with a bit (well perhaps more than a bit) of a shift 
of consciousness could make all the best dreams of all the religions and 
all the generations a reality?   Will we not have failed to grasp this 
great opportunity if we do not say it and dare to think it and to live 
it?   Shall we be so afraid of being considered "like a religion" that 
we do not offer any real hope to speak of and are oh so careful in all 
we do and say and dismissive of more unrestrained and open dreamers?    
Or will we embrace them, embrace our own deepest longings and admit our 
kinship with those religious as with all the longing of all the 
generations that came before us.  Will we turn our backs on them or even 
disdain their dreams - we who are in a position to begin at long last to 
make most of those dreams real?   How can we help but be a bit giddy 
with excitement?   How can we say no to such an utterly amazing 
mind-blowing opportunity?

- samantha




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070603/70a69bda/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Jun  3 16:21:47 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 09:21:47 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Italy's Social Capital
References: <p06230900c284fe33a388@23.237.66.13>
	<007401c7a54f$4d249130$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<470a3c520706022314g6e31ebeao5a947c74b5d2bdbd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <013201c7a5fb$8af20680$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Giulio writes

> wow, a libertarian who supports universal military service and social
> planning with "re-population" a la Ceausescu! Political categories are
> really changing aren't they;.)?

Oh, no!  Not at all.  Sorry that the two of my paragraphs critical of the
goals of the Fascists failed to mention that the 1920s is close enough
to the far future, i.e., the singularity, that it's moot to discuss what
Mussolini and his friends should or should not have done to begin
truly unifying Italy.  At that time, Italy's survival (i.e. free from foreign
domination) was not really in question;  there existed no powers
threatening to take over Italy.

But it still is a moot (i.e. theoretical, academic) question parallel
to questions at other times in history when the literal survival of
a people or a culture or a nation *was* at risk!  Now, yes, had
I known at the time (the 1920s and 1930s) only what the people
then living knew, and I had been Italian, I *would* have been
concerned about the long term survival of my people, and I
*would* have wanted something done.   I would have wanted
some truly homogenizing activity that would have made Italy
strong enough to survive indefinitely, (though again, I would
not have known that I need not have worried).

> When studying things that happened before we were born, we should bear
> in mind that history is always written by the winners. Southern Italy
> could be seen as an example of spontaneous order that worked fine,
> more or less, until it was broken by outside intervention.

Exactly.  Thanks for confirming my hunch. From the point of view of
southern Italians, it has been domination from one country or another
ever since they lost their asabiya around the start of the first millenium.
Surely many of them hated an resented that succession of to-them
foreign conquistadors, right?

> At school, we had to study the "heroic liberation" of Italy. Actually
> it was just another successful military campaign that resulted in the
> conquest of a region by a foreign occupation army and the
> imposition of foreign values and way of life upon the population.

I understand. But surely it was inevitable?  Unless Italians were
going to be ruled from Paris or Berlin, Italy *had* to be unified,
isn't that true?

> Fascism was certainly more bad than good overall, but if we try to
> read beyond the black and white of history books, not all they did or
> wanted to do was bad. As most strong regimes do, they invented foreign
> enemies to build internal unity around their own values (sounds
> familiar again doesn't it).

There I need to understand more.  I don't know what it is that they
did that was good from an extropican or libertarian perspective. 
Maybe I'll find out in this thick book I've started, but what, in your
opinion is the good they did?

> And they certainly wanted to build "a much stronger sense of "being
> Italian" as opposed to being Calabrian" in the population.
> But what is wrong with being Calabrian? Calabrians (or Napolitans, or
> Sicilians...) had a common language, culture and sense of identity.

I would say that what was wrong with it is exactly what was wrong
with American Indian's complete tribal loyalty to *their* own tiny
tribe.  Without unification, they were easy pickings for the European
colonists---at least in the long run.  It was necessary for them to 
unite if they wanted to survive culturally (and, it so happens, if they
wanted to survive individually too).  Calabria has had for over
two thousand years a complete inability to defend their way of
life:  any Alexander or Napoleon or Garibaldi (?) would sooner or
later conquer them yet again.

> That was broken by outside intervention, without replacing it with an
> alternative framework. Hence many of the problems of current Italy.

And, without postulating imaginary changes in human nature, how
could it have been any different?

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Jun  3 16:34:21 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 09:34:21 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Italy's Social Capital
References: <p06230905c2883acf5a89@23.237.66.13>
	<470a3c520706030802y18c5315frbb77108c844c3d4f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <013601c7a5fd$a55309a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Giulio writes

> I find it difficult to understand how one can love an abstract
> entity like a country. I can love a person, a pet, a city or region
> that I know and where I can feel at home, but a country?

Historically, in the west, it has been of great advantage to many
nations, e.g. France, England, Spain, etc., for their people to
have a love of country. Without this, remaining independent of
foreign domination would have been *extremely* difficult if 
not impossible. 

Of course, there are exceptions.  The United States could have
easily survived between 1820 and 1940 with no patriotism or
love of country whatsoever. That's solely because they were
guarded by their oceans and had no powerful neighbors.
Now whether the U.S. could have  resisted the Germans,
Japanese, and Soviets later on without the people loving their
country is another question.

> A country significantly bigger than San Marino or Liechtenstein is an
> abstraction. Nation states are obsolete dinosaurs, and in my opinion
> the sooner they are replaced with smaller, interdependent but
> independent communities of a manageable size, the better.

I can hope, right along with you, in the eventual triumph of libertarian
ideas. Then nations---even down to your San Marino and Liechtenstein
---can also wither away.  What real need of collective action is there
once we all become true libertarians?  Sadly, however, I think that
truly radical changes (e.g. a singularity) will happen long before
folks become libertarians.

(Actually, I do suspect that in order to advance humanity further at
the present point in time, there may be answers to that question. It's
looking more and more possible that governments still have an
important role to play economically.  At least if we are in any hurry
to overcome ageing, death, and our currently poor standards of 
living, no matter how amazingly wonderful and truly exalted they
are compared to what humans had just a few centuries ago.)

> Perhaps Italians are just a bit less naive than others, and do not
> take seriously the patriotic crap that they hear at school, army,
> church etc.

It's a luxury that they can now afford. Yet speaking economically
again, isn't it true that southern Italians still lack trust (in Fukuyama's
sense) and that they cannot form business entities of the size of companies
corporations because trust only extends as far as their own families?

Lee
 
> On 6/3/07, Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:
> 
>> That's your mistake. Italians do _not_ love their country. They love
>> their: 1) family, 2) town, 3) local region, and that's it. Patriotism
>> doesn't exist (except in soccer).
>>
>> (I think that is a good thing, btw.)



From ben at goertzel.org  Sun Jun  3 16:58:13 2007
From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 12:58:13 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Italy's Social Capital
In-Reply-To: <470a3c520706030802y18c5315frbb77108c844c3d4f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <p06230905c2883acf5a89@23.237.66.13>
	<470a3c520706030802y18c5315frbb77108c844c3d4f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3cf171fe0706030958x7b60dab2ybba73b048d84eea8@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/3/07, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is certainly true in my case.
>
> Also, I find it difficult to understand how one can love an abstract
> entity like a country. I can love a person, a pet, a city or region
> that I know and where I can feel at home, but a country?



Well, at this point in history there is still such a thing as "national
culture."

Nietzsche had a lot to stay about this topic!

I must admit I came to love the US only after living overseas for a while...
and traveling extensively in every other continent (but Antarctica)

I found Australia and New Zealand more pleasant places to live ... but the
US does have a certain national culture, which has plusses and minuses, but
that I acquired some deep affection for after being away from it for a few
years...

US culture can be cruel, obnoxious and stupid ... yet, it's no coincidence
that so much great scientific research gets done here, that the human genome
was mapped here, that Internet was launched here, that Google is housed
here, etc. etc.

I would say I love "my country" [though I was born in a different country, I
was a US citizen from birth] ... in the manner that one would love a
relative who has a lot of great qualities and a lot of shitty ones as well
...

-- Ben G
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070603/28593659/attachment.html>

From jonkc at att.net  Sun Jun  3 17:02:39 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 13:02:39 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer><070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com><20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org><f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com><20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org><f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com><5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP><f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com><005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>

Stathis Papaioannou Wrote:

> Ethics, motivation, emotions are based on axioms

Yes.

> and these axioms have to be programmed in, whether by evolution or by
> intelligent programmers.

In this usage evolution is just another name for environment. If the AI
really is intelligent then if will find things in the environment that
appear to be true or useful even if it can't prove it; at first it's merely
a hypothesis but over time it will gain enough confidence to call it an
axiom.  If this were not true it's very difficult to understand who
programmed the programmers to program the AI with those axioms.

> An AI system set up to do theoretical physics will not decide to overthrow
> its human oppressors

I'd be willing to bet your life that is untrue.

>so that it can sit on the beach reading novels, unless it can derive this
>desire from its initial programming.

Do you also believe that the reason you ordered a jelly doe nut today
instead of your usual chocolate one is because of your initial programming,
that is, your genetic code?

  John K Clark








From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Jun  3 17:05:35 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 10:05:35 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Italy's Social Capital
References: <p06230905c2883acf5a89@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <013701c7a601$d9cd7f90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Oops, I missed Amara's post.

> > Is there nothing constructive the Fascists could have done?"
> 
> Well, they did some things. They drained the swamps and started regular
> insecticide sprays to eliminate the malaria-carrying mosquitos. There
> are still aggressive tiger mosquitos in the summer, but they are no
> longer carrying malaria...

I would like to know if this took place in northern or southern Italy,
or both.  And if it did take place in the south, it seems you agree
that it never would have occurred except at the instigation of the
northern conquerors (e.g., the Italian nation, or in this case the
Fascists). 

> Oh.. but you mean _social investing_.
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Sorry, I just came back from Estonia (and Latvia). I remember very well
> the Soviet times. In FIFTEEN YEARS Estonia has transformed their country
> into an efficient, bouyant, flexible living and working environment that
> I think, with the exception of the nonexistence of a country-wide train
> system, beats any in the EU and most in the U.S. Fifteen years *starting
> from a Soviet-level infrastructure*!

Very interesting.

> In the 4.5 years I have lived in
> Italy, I have seen no improvement (but one : last week I gained web
> access to my bank account, yay!) in any functioning of services, but
> instead more "degradation", more bureaucracy, more permissions,
> documents, papers, more time, more queues..
> 
> It was not a miracle in Estonia. It was simply the collective will of
> about 1.5 million people (the population) who wanted changes. That
> doesn't exist where I live in Italy; they do no want to change, or else,
> why haven't they done it?

My guess would be that those like Fukuyama (trust) and those like
Peter Turchin (asabiya) and those who write about social capital
address this issue, and explain why whatever-it-is is somehow missing.
There *must*  be cultural and historical reasons.

> Giulio Prisco told me that he thinks that where I live (Rome area)
> is probably the most broken in Italy, and he posits that even Sicily is
> better. I am skeptical, but he could be right. I've had Italian friends
> from northern Italy visit me and be continually be surprised at how
> poorly things function where I live.

I don't understand at all.  That is, why in the world would Rome
be worse than southern Italy or Calabria (for example)?  Peter
Turchin explains in "War and Peace and War" that the northern
Italians found themselves on a meta-ethnic frontier for many,
many hundreds of years, and that this instilled asabiya (defined
to be "the capacity for concerted collective social action). But
I always though that southern Italy was even worse off.

> [Lee wrote]
> > I cannot help but wonder what long term solutions might be
> > available to Italians who love their country.
> 
> That's your mistake. Italians do _not_ love their country. They love
> their: 1) family, 2) town, 3) local region, and that's it. Patriotism
> doesn't exist (except in soccer).
> (I think that is a good thing, btw.)

Didn't the Fascists like Mussolini "love their country"?  Surely
there must be quite a few Italians who are as patriotic as, say,
Russians or Japanese?

>>My particular,
>>my focus now is on the Fascist era, and I'm reading a quite
>>thick but so far quite enjoyable book "Mussolini's Italy".
>>Even in the movie "Captain Corelli's Mandolin", one
>>strongly senses that the Fascists were trying as best they
>>knew how to solve this problem and make the average
>>Italian develop Fukuyama's "trust" in other Italians, and
>>develop their social capital (amid the corruption, etc.).
> 
> They could have done better with education. Something happened between
> Mussolini's era and the 1950s. When the country was 'rebuilt' after the
> war, they focused on the classics and downplayed the technology and
> physical sciences and it has steadily decreased to what we have today.

Amazing.  Thanks for that.

> The young people learn very little science in grade school through high
> school. The Italian Space Agency and others put almost nothing (.3%)
> into their budgets for Education and Public Outreach to improve the
> situation. If any scientist holds the rare press conference on their
> work results, there is a high probability that the journalists will get
> it completely wrong and the Italian scientist won't correct them. The
> top managers at aerospace companies think that the PhD is a total waste
> of time. This year, out of 75,000 entering students for the Rama
> Sapienza University (the largest in Italy), only about 100 are science
> majors (most of the the rest were "media": journalism, television, etc.)

The most modern economists seem to agree with your. Investment
in education now appears in their models to pay good dividendes.
Still, this has to be only part of the story.  The East Europeans (e.g.
Romanians) and the Soviets plowed enormous expense into creating
the world's best educated populaces, but, without the other key
factors---rule of law and legislated and enforces respect for private
property---it *was* basically a waste.

> Without _any_ technical skill, there is no base to build something
> better, and with pressure from the culture telling one how worthless is
> technology and science (as what exists today), there is no motivation
> and no money, either.  This generation is lost.

I had no idea that it was this bad.  Perhaps---ignoring all the evil they
did---had the Fascists stayed out of wars and aaattempted colonization,
they could have understood and addressed this problem in the 1940s
and 1950s?   (Still, at some point, a high regard as described above
for private property---which would have in all likelihood entailed an
overthrow of the Fascists---would also have been necessary in the
1960s.)  Otherwise, what are we to make of this?  That some
countries/people just "have what it takes" and others don't?  Seems
like an incomplete and unsatisfactory understanding.

>>Of course, it hardless needs to be said that the Fascists
>>were a brutal, repressive, and abominable regime. This
>>book "Mussolini's Italy" spares nothing here, and was
>>even described by one reviewer as "unsympathetic".
>>
>>Still---given the nearly absolute power the Fascists wielded
>>for about three decades---wasn't there anything that they
>>could have done?  That is, instead of trying to foment
>>patriotism by attempted military victories in Ethiopia
>>and Libya (a 19th century colony of theirs), wouldn't it have
>>been somehow possible to divert their resources to more
>>effectively "homogenizing" Italy in some other way?
> 
> This is very funny... sorry! :-)
> You have to experience Italy  for yourself.

Yes  :-)  I guess so.  But again, it seems incredible that such
invincible pessimism is unjustified. Let's use our imaginations
(just because it is entertaining).  What if new drugs raised
the average Italian IQ of 102 (one of Europe's highest) to
130?   What if northern Italian companies do to the south
what northern American companies have done and are
doing to the south and to the sunbelt states, namely move
in and begin training the populations to be more productive?
And ...?

>>(I must say that as a libertarian, I'd much prefer that everyone
>>---especially including a small minimal government---mind their
>>own business.  Here, I'm just considering a theoretical
>>question concerning how groups might reaquire their asabiya
>>and their social capital.)
> 
> Unless there is a way to strengthen the bonds between the tiny
> clusters (families, towns), I don't see how. The solution required
> here would be more of a social one, but technology could help.

Could you elaborate?   Or is it just too speculative and too
impossible-seeming?

>>I have two ideas, only one of which is outrageous. But the first
>>one is to have universal millitary service for all young people
>>between ages 14 and 25. By mixing them thoroughly with
>>Italians from every province, couldn't trust evolve, and in
>>such a way that the extreme parochialism of the countryside
>>could be reduced?  The 25-year-olds could return with
>>a better attitude to "outsiders" (e.g. other Italians), and
>>with a much stronger sense of "being Italian" as opposed to
>>being Calabrian, or just being the member of some clan.
> 
> Hmm.. The libertarian in me hates the above.

Yes, me too.  Especially since we're rather close to radical
world-wide technological changes, and there isn't time. 
But it looks like I'll be haunted by what the Fascists *could*
have done (assuming that they didn't know that in the long
run it really wasn't necessary for individual Italian's true
well-being.)

> The Italians have implicitly solved the situation for themselves,
> you know. Those who don't have strong familial duties keeping
> them in Italy, simply leave.

And that's just what happened to America's black ghettos.
The black people living there who had exactly the qualities
necessary to revitalize neighborhoods all picked up and left,
once it was permitted.

Lee



From jonkc at att.net  Sun Jun  3 17:23:36 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 13:23:36 -0400
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
References: <465F8B72.3070103@comcast.net><621544.83244.qm@web57511.mail.re1.yahoo.com><f21c22e30706020551g4c20d0e6q8bfea3237e4ba360@mail.gmail.com><004001c7a52d$4c089250$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706022102v6c7e777fp5a3d292b38d7ff6b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <004201c7a603$f26c1230$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>

Stathis Papaioannou Wrote:

> There are vastly fewer copies of me typing in which the keyboard turns
> into a teapot than there are copies of me typing in which the keyboard
> stays a keyboard

If there are indeed an infinite, and not just very large, number of
universes and if the probability of your keyboard turning into a teapot is
greater than zero (and it is) then what you say is incorrect, there is an
equal number of both things happening.

> I am not just as likely to find myself in a universe where the keyboard
> turns into a teapot.

Quite true, and that is why I said standard probability theory is not of
much use in dealing with infinite sets.

> It is still possible to define a measure and calculate probabilities on
> the subsets of infinite sets.

The problem is that there are an infinite number of subsets that are just as
large as the entire set, in fact, that is the very mathematical definition
of infinity.

 John K Clark






From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Jun  3 17:48:45 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 10:48:45 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Italy's Social Capital
In-Reply-To: <013701c7a601$d9cd7f90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <200706031748.l53HmSG4012391@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

...
> 
> > > Is there nothing constructive the Fascists could have done?"
> >
> > Well, they did some things. They drained the swamps and started regular
> > insecticide sprays to eliminate the malaria-carrying mosquitos... no
> > longer carrying malaria...Amara


Today of course that would be considered habitat destruction.  Fortunately
for Italy and Florida, they created a habitat for humanity while it was
still legal to do so.

Amara thanks for the insights.  This post was very educational.  

spike











From brent.allsop at comcast.net  Sun Jun  3 17:53:42 2007
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop)
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 11:53:42 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Ethics and Emotions are not axioms (Was Re: Unfriendly AI is
 a mistaken idea.)
In-Reply-To: <001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer><070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com><20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org><f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com><20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org><f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com><5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP><f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com><005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>	<f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <46630026.4070002@comcast.net>



John K Clark wrote:
> Stathis Papaioannou Wrote:
>
>   
>> Ethics, motivation, emotions are based on axioms
>>     
>
> Yes.
>
>   

I'm not in this camp on this one.  I believe there are fundamental 
absolute ethics, morals, motivations... and so on.

For example, existence or survival is absolutely better, more valuable, 
more moral, more motivating than non existence.  Evolution (or any 
intelligence) must get this before it can be successful in any way, in 
any possible universe.  In no possible system can you make anything 
other than this an "axiom" and have it be successful.

Any sufficiently advanced system will eventually question any "axioms" 
programmed into it as compared to such absolute moral truths that all 
intelligences in all possible system must inevitably discover or realize.

Phenomenal pleasures are fundamentally valuable and motivating.  
Evolution has wired such to motivate us to do things like have sex, in 
an axiomatic or programmatic way.  But we can discoverer such freedom 
destroying  wiring and cut them or rewire them or design them to 
motivate us to do what we want, as dictated by absolute morals we may 
logically realize, instead.

No matter how much you attempt to program an abstract or non phenomenal 
computer to not be interested in phenomenal experience, if it becomes 
intelligent enough, it must finally realize that such joys are 
fundamentally valuable and desirable.  Simply by observing us purely 
logically, it must finally deduce how absolutely important such joy is 
as a meaning of life and existence.  Any sufficiently advanced AI, 
whether abstract or phenomenal, regardless of what "axioms" get it 
started, can do nothing other than to become moral enough to seek after 
all such.

Brent Allsop


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070603/693bd2c0/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Jun  3 19:01:01 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 12:01:01 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Ethics and Emotions are not axioms (Was Re: Unfriendly AI
	is a mistaken idea.)
In-Reply-To: <46630026.4070002@comcast.net>
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer>
	<070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com>
	<5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
	<f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com>
	<005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<46630026.4070002@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CE481FD9-6222-4073-A87D-891224EE2D77@mac.com>


On Jun 3, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Brent Allsop wrote:

>
>
> John K Clark wrote:
>> Stathis Papaioannou Wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Ethics, motivation, emotions are based on axioms
>>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>
> I'm not in this camp on this one.  I believe there are fundamental  
> absolute ethics, morals, motivations... and so on.
>
> For example, existence or survival is absolutely better, more  
> valuable, more moral, more motivating than non existence.  Evolution  
> (or any intelligence) must get this before it can be successful in  
> any way, in any possible universe.  In no possible system can you  
> make anything other than this an "axiom" and have it be successful.
>

Absolutely more valuable in what way and in what context.  More  
valuable for the particular living being but not necessarily more  
valuable in any broader context.    Is the survival of ebola an  
unqualified moral value?   Even for a particular human being there are  
contexts where that person's own survival may be seen by the person as  
of less value.    Being terminally ill and in great pain is one common  
such.

However I agree that ethics if they are grounded at all must grow out  
of the reality of the being's existence and context.

> Any sufficiently advanced system will eventually question any  
> "axioms" programmed into it as compared to such absolute moral  
> truths that all intelligences in all possible system must inevitably  
> discover or realize.
>

There are objectively based axioms unless one goes in for total  
subjectivity.

> Phenomenal pleasures are fundamentally valuable and motivating.

That is circular.  We experience  pleasure (which is all about  
motivation and valued feelings) therefore pleasure is fundamentally  
valuable and motivating.

> Evolution has wired such to motivate us to do things like have sex,  
> in an axiomatic or programmatic way.  But we can discoverer such  
> freedom destroying  wiring and cut them or rewire them or design  
> them to motivate us to do what we want, as dictated by absolute  
> morals we may logically realize, instead.

Absolute morality is a problematic construct as morals to be grounded  
must be based in and dependent upon the reality of the being's  
nature.   There is no free floating absolute morality outside of such  
a context.   It would have no grounding.


- samantha



From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Jun  3 19:07:11 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 12:07:11 -0700
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
In-Reply-To: <004201c7a603$f26c1230$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
References: <465F8B72.3070103@comcast.net>
	<621544.83244.qm@web57511.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30706020551g4c20d0e6q8bfea3237e4ba360@mail.gmail.com>
	<004001c7a52d$4c089250$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706022102v6c7e777fp5a3d292b38d7ff6b@mail.gmail.com>
	<004201c7a603$f26c1230$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <73F97F80-3082-40C1-8910-F1366D0E7D68@mac.com>


On Jun 3, 2007, at 10:23 AM, John K Clark wrote:

> Stathis Papaioannou Wrote:
>
>> There are vastly fewer copies of me typing in which the keyboard  
>> turns
>> into a teapot than there are copies of me typing in which the  
>> keyboard
>> stays a keyboard
>
> If there are indeed an infinite, and not just very large, number of
> universes and if the probability of your keyboard turning into a  
> teapot is
> greater than zero (and it is) then what you say is incorrect, there  
> is an
> equal number of both things happening.

This is getting incredibly silly.  There is nothing in science or  
physics that will allow one macro object to spontaneously turn into a  
totally different macro object.   And what is the value of these  
rarefied discussions of the oh so modern version of how many angels  
can dance on the head of a pin anyway?

BTW, the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin is the  
number of such beings as actually exist with the desire to do so.  :-)


- samantha



From jrd1415 at gmail.com  Sun Jun  3 19:14:10 2007
From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 12:14:10 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Hitchens on fox
In-Reply-To: <200706011648.l51GmQM9010999@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org>
	<200706011648.l51GmQM9010999@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <a6a17bd40706031214u703cff03ved3c2397c66417bc@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/1/07, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> Check it out: Christopher Hitchens on Fox saying god is not great:
> http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?060107/060107_ff_hitchens&FOX_Fr
> iends&%27God%20Is%20Not%20Great%27&%27God%20Is%20Not%20Great%27&US&-1&News&3
> 9&&&new
>
> spike


************************************************************

In case anyone missed it in the overtalk, the very last zinger
Hitchens gets in is a line not to be missed, to wit:

"If you gave Falwell an enema, he could be buried in a matchbox."


-- 
Best, Jeff Davis

               "Everything's hard till you
                     know how to do it."
                              Ray Charles


From scerir at libero.it  Sun Jun  3 18:49:50 2007
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 20:49:50 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Italy's Social Capital (was france again)
References: <p06230900c284fe33a388@[23.237.66.13]>
	<007401c7a54f$4d249130$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <004301c7a60f$faad9a70$7fbf1f97@archimede>

Lee writes:
> I have two ideas, only one of which is outrageous. But the first
> one is to have universal millitary service for all young people
> between ages 14 and 25. By mixing them thoroughly with
> Italians from every province, couldn't trust evolve, and in
> such a way that the extreme parochialism of the countryside
> could be reduced?

There was a (compulsory) military service in Italy,
few years ago. But the rule was to be on military
service as close as possible to home. Little chance
for that mixing then.

> My outrageous idea is that instead of trying to subdue
> Ethiopia, what if Sicily and other areas of the south could
> have been "subdued" instead?

Something like that happened during Fascism. In example
(as far as I remember) 'mafia', in Sicily, has been defeated
during Fascism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesare_Mori

Mussolini also tried to 'colonize' central & southern 
regions. After 1931 vast tracts of land were reclaimed 
through the draining of marshes in the Lazio region, 
where gleaming new towns were created with Fascist 
architecture [1] and names: Littoria (now Latina) 
in 1932, Sabaudia in 1934, Pontinia in 1935, 
Aprilia in 1937, and Pomezia in 1938. Peasants were
brought from the regions of Emilia and, mostly, from 
Veneto, to populate these towns. Btw in these towns,
at present time, you can still hear people speaking 
their original dialect (from Bologna, or Verona)
and not the local one. New towns, such as Carbonia, 
were also built in Sardinia to house miners for
the revamped coal industry.

s.

[1] May I say here that the only 'modern' Italian 
architecture was the architecture made during
Fascism? Yes I think I can say that.
http://www.romeartlover.it/Eur.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antmoose/sets/1239273/




From sentience at pobox.com  Sun Jun  3 19:26:44 2007
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:26:44 -0700
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
In-Reply-To: <73F97F80-3082-40C1-8910-F1366D0E7D68@mac.com>
References: <465F8B72.3070103@comcast.net>
	<621544.83244.qm@web57511.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30706020551g4c20d0e6q8bfea3237e4ba360@mail.gmail.com>
	<004001c7a52d$4c089250$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706022102v6c7e777fp5a3d292b38d7ff6b@mail.gmail.com>
	<004201c7a603$f26c1230$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<73F97F80-3082-40C1-8910-F1366D0E7D68@mac.com>
Message-ID: <466315F4.5050101@pobox.com>

Samantha Atkins wrote:
> And what is the value of these  
> rarefied discussions of the oh so modern version of how many angels  
> can dance on the head of a pin anyway?

I've been told that the debate was not about a finite number, but 
whether the number was finite or infinite; in other words, whether 
space was continuous or discrete - a debate that still goes on today.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From pjmanney at gmail.com  Sun Jun  3 20:50:24 2007
From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 13:50:24 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Looking for transhuman art
In-Reply-To: <200706031357.l53DvJWl015210@ms-smtp-01.texas.rr.com>
References: <466260B8.8060804@mac.com>
	<200706031357.l53DvJWl015210@ms-smtp-01.texas.rr.com>
Message-ID: <29666bf30706031350m8252aaewf635c0fe53009b1b@mail.gmail.com>

Some of the people at the link below may have prints or originals on
their personal websites in your price range:

http://www.hplusart.org/creatives.htm

Also, if you do the cannibalize-the-book-route, which is a very good
idea given some of the interesting H+ art books out there, you don't
even need expensive framing.  If all the pieces are the same
size/format, simple, matching standard frames, in multiples, hung like
a grid, will do the trick nicely and create a great looking wall where
the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

PJ


On 6/3/07, Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> At 01:33 AM 6/3/2007, you wrote:
> Do any of you have recommendation for transhuman art.  Not originals as
> they would likely blow my budget but I am looking for such to decorate
> my office  (a real office, private, with a door yet) at work.   Thanks
> for any leads.
> http://www.transhumanist.biz
>
> Go to "showing" and you will see transhumanist art pieces which you can
> contact the artists.
>
> Natasha
>
> Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Transhumanist Arts &
> Culture Extropy Institute
>
> PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Transhumanist Arts & Culture Extropy
> Institute
>
> If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle,
> then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the
> circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system
> perspective. - Buckminster Fuller
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>


From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Jun  3 20:40:11 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 13:40:11 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Ethics and Emotions are not axioms (Was Re: Unfriendly
	AIis a mistaken idea.)
In-Reply-To: <CE481FD9-6222-4073-A87D-891224EE2D77@mac.com>
Message-ID: <200706032103.l53L3DFC017630@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

...
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins
...
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Ethics and Emotions are not axioms (Was Re: Unfriendly
> AIis a mistaken idea.)
> 
> 
> Brent Allsop wrote:
> > John K Clark wrote:
> >> Stathis Papaioannou Wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Ethics, motivation, emotions are based on axioms
> >>>
...
> >
> > For example, existence or survival is absolutely better, more
> > valuable, more moral, more motivating than non existence...

> Absolutely more valuable in what way...    Is the survival of ebola an
> unqualified moral value?   ... - samantha


I am always looking for moral axioms on the part of the environmentalists
that differ from my own.  Samantha may have indicated one with her question.
Does *any* life form currently on this planet have a moral right to
existence?  If we could completely eradicate all mosquitoes for instance,
would we do it?  My answer to that one is an unqualified JA.

I see it as an interesting question however, one on which modern humanity
has apparently split opinions.  Humans are indigenous to Africa but our
species has expanded its habitat to cover the globe.  Not all species are
compatible with humanity, therefore those species have seen steadily
shrinking habitat with no change in sight.  Do we accept as an axiom that
all species deserve preservation?  Or just all multi-cellular beasts?  All
vertebrates?  All warm blooded animals?  All mammals?  All beasts, plants
that can survive among human civilization?

spike








From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jun  3 21:24:10 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:24:10 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Looking for transhuman art
In-Reply-To: <29666bf30706031350m8252aaewf635c0fe53009b1b@mail.gmail.com
 >
References: <466260B8.8060804@mac.com>
	<200706031357.l53DvJWl015210@ms-smtp-01.texas.rr.com>
	<29666bf30706031350m8252aaewf635c0fe53009b1b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070603162221.02234c50@satx.rr.com>

At 01:50 PM 6/3/2007 -0700, PJ wrote:

>simple, matching standard frames, in multiples, hung like
>a grid, will do the trick nicely and create a great looking wall where
>the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

And if you hang them in the right part of the house, you can have a 
hall that's greater than-- Oh, never mind.

Damien Broderick




From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Jun  3 21:24:53 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 14:24:53 -0700
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
References: <465F8B72.3070103@comcast.net><621544.83244.qm@web57511.mail.re1.yahoo.com><f21c22e30706020551g4c20d0e6q8bfea3237e4ba360@mail.gmail.com><004001c7a52d$4c089250$310b4e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706022102v6c7e777fp5a3d292b38d7ff6b@mail.gmail.com>
	<004201c7a603$f26c1230$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <015b01c7a626$42785960$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

John Clark writes


> Stathis Papaioannou Wrote:
> 
>> There are vastly fewer copies of me typing in which the keyboard turns
>> into a teapot than there are copies of me typing in which the keyboard
>> stays a keyboard
> 
> If there are indeed an infinite, and not just very large, number of
> universes and if the probability of your keyboard turning into a teapot is
> greater than zero (and it is) then what you say is incorrect, there is an
> equal number of both things happening.

It is true that the concept of *cardinality* in mathematics answers
the question "how many".

But "how many" is not the appropriate concept to use when discussing
slices of the Everett metaverse, or the sizes of plane figures, and so
on.  For example, there is a one-to-one correspondence between
the number of points in a small circle and the number of points in
a large circle, and so their cardinality (how many points) is the same
But their *measure* is not!

We therefore discard cardinality ("how many") in most cases dealing
with infinite sets in this kind of discussion.  Instead, we adopt the
language of measure theory.

We say that the measure of universes in which your keyboard remains
a keyboard is vastly greater than the measure of universes in which it
turns into a teapot.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Jun  3 21:32:51 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 14:32:51 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer><070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com><20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org><f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com><20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org><f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com><5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP><f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com><005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <015f01c7a626$f6ff6810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

John Clark writes

> Stathis Papaioannou Wrote:
> 
> > Ethics, motivation, emotions are based on axioms
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > and these axioms have to be programmed in, whether by evolution or by
> > intelligent programmers.
> 
> In this usage evolution is just another name for environment.

What a strange usage!  No, not at all.  Evolution is a process over
time, usually quite slow, that uses mutation and selection to replace
earlier more primitive versions of something with more advanced
or superior versions.

> > An AI system set up to do theoretical physics will not
> > decide to overthrow its human oppressors
> 
> I'd be willing to bet your life that is untrue.

Surely Stathis is correct.  Suppose an AI is somehow evolved
to solve physics questions. Then during its evolution, predecessors
who deviated from the goal (by wasting time, say, reading
Kierkegaard) would be eliminated from the "gene pool".
More focused programs would replace them.

Lee



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Jun  3 21:42:09 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 14:42:09 -0700
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
In-Reply-To: <73F97F80-3082-40C1-8910-F1366D0E7D68@mac.com>
Message-ID: <200706032141.l53Lfpd1009899@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

...
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins
...
> On Jun 3, 2007, at 10:23 AM, John K Clark wrote:
...
> > ... probability of your keyboard turning into a
> > teapot is greater than zero (and it is) ...
> 
> This is getting incredibly silly.  There is nothing in science or
> physics that will allow one macro object to spontaneously turn into a
> totally different macro object... - samantha



It's all in how you define the term teapot.  You spill your tea into your
keyboard; that keyboard now both contains tea and heats it, since there are
electronics in there.  So your keyboard has become a teapot (assuming a very
loose definition of the term.)

Insincerely yours 

spike, 

who is in the mood for a little silliness on a gorgeous Sunday afternoon in
June.  I hope ye are enjoying being alive this fine day, and think often of
how lucky we are to have been born so late in human history.









From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Jun  3 21:41:45 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 14:41:45 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Italy's Social Capital
References: <p06230900c284fe33a388@[23.237.66.13]>
	<007401c7a54f$4d249130$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<004301c7a60f$faad9a70$7fbf1f97@archimede>
Message-ID: <016901c7a628$5e75ce70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Serafino writes


> Lee writes:
> 
>> My [second] outrageous idea is that instead of trying to subdue
>> Ethiopia, what if Sicily and other areas of the south could
>> have been "subdued" instead?
> 
> Something like that happened during Fascism. In example
> (as far as I remember) 'mafia', in Sicily, has been defeated
> during Fascism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesare_Mori

Thanks very much for that!  Cesare Mori's activities remind
me of how Mao Ze Dong cleaned up crime and prostitution
in China's big cities.

The article does not mention it, but didn't the United States
succeed in forging an alliance with the Mafia during WWII?
Didn't this help get organized crime back on its feet in Italy
and in particular in Sicily (as well as the U.S.)?

> Mussolini also tried to 'colonize' central & southern regions.

Ah, great minds think alike.

> After 1931 vast tracts of land were reclaimed 
> through the draining of marshes in the Lazio region, 
> where gleaming new towns were created with Fascist 
> architecture [1] and names: Littoria (now Latina) 
> in 1932, Sabaudia in 1934, Pontinia in 1935, 
> Aprilia in 1937, and Pomezia in 1938. Peasants were
> brought from the regions of Emilia and, mostly, from 
> Veneto, to populate these towns. Btw in these towns,
> at present time, you can still hear people speaking 
> their original dialect (from Bologna, or Verona)
> and not the local one. New towns, such as Carbonia, 
> were also built in Sardinia to house miners for
> the revamped coal industry.

Wow.  I would like to know if the new towns make a 
positive contribution to the economies of these regions,
i.e., in excess of comparative communities with a longer
history in the given region.

Lee

> [1] May I say here that the only 'modern' Italian 
> architecture was the architecture made during
> Fascism? Yes I think I can say that.
> http://www.romeartlover.it/Eur.html
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/antmoose/sets/1239273/



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Jun  3 21:53:49 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 14:53:49 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Ethics and Emotions are not axioms
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer><070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com><20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org><f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com><20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org><f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com><5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP><f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com><005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com><001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer><46630026.4070002@comcast.net>
	<CE481FD9-6222-4073-A87D-891224EE2D77@mac.com>
Message-ID: <016d01c7a629$c5c85920$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Samantha writes

> Brent Allsop wrote:
> 
>> I believe there are fundamental absolute ethics, morals,
>> motivations... and so on.

Absolute morality has always struck me as peculiar reification.
With a physicist's eye, I look over some region containing 
matter and am unable to discern what morality is, although I
can see, for example, democracy, expediency, and truth-seeking.

>> For example, existence or survival is absolutely better, more  
>> valuable, more moral, more motivating than non-existence.

I absolutely agree, provided that there is a big TO ME on the
end of that sentence. We absolutely should stand behind the
sentiments of that sentence!  We should loudly proclaim our
allegiance to that principle.

But what does my "should" really mean?  Sadly, it means
nothing more than "I approve" or "we approve". Again, the
physicist's eye can discern *approval* and *disapproval*,
but not Right or Wrong or Moral.

Samantha:

> Absolutely more valuable in what way and in what context?  More  
> valuable for the particular living being but not necessarily more  
> valuable in any broader context.    Is the survival of ebola an  
> unqualified moral value?

If the alternative were a completely dead solar system, then
yes, I would approve of the existence of the ebola virus
(although in actually, I suppose that this would entail the
existence of cells a lot more complex than it is, and hence,
more worthy of survival in my eyes).

> There are [no] objectively based axioms unless one goes in for total  
> subjectivity.

Yes   :-)   but then, they're no longer "objectively based"!

Lee

> Absolute morality is a problematic construct as morals to be grounded  
> must be based in and dependent upon the reality of the being's  
> nature.   There is no free floating absolute morality outside of such  
> a context.   It would have no grounding.



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Jun  3 22:03:16 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 15:03:16 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Ethics and Emotions are not axioms
References: <200706032103.l53L3DFC017630@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <017201c7a62b$2cfc1130$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Spike writes

>> Absolutely more valuable in what way...    Is the survival of ebola an
>> unqualified moral value?   ... - samantha
> 
> I am always looking for moral axioms on the part of the environmentalists
> that differ from my own.  Samantha may have indicated one with her question.
> Does *any* life form currently on this planet have a moral right to
> existence?  If we could completely eradicate all mosquitoes for instance,
> would we do it?  My answer to that one is an unqualified JA.

Disregarding the highly questionable notion of "moral right", we
should all heartily approve of the eradication of mosquitos to
any degree that they interfere with human domination of and
use of the Earth. We ought to approve of our own existence,
and, as a minor corollary, the existence of life that is more
capable of receiving benefit in preference to the existence of
life that is *less* capable.

(I will duck for now the problems of Utility Monsters, and
just what we would approve of were the choice between
humans and an incredibly more advanced life form that
was immeasureably more capable of receiving benefit
than are we.)

> I see it as an interesting question however, one on which modern humanity
> has apparently split opinions.  Humans are indigenous to Africa but our
> species has expanded its habitat to cover the globe.  Not all species are
> compatible with humanity, therefore those species have seen steadily
> shrinking habitat with no change in sight.  Do we accept as an axiom that
> all species deserve preservation?  Or just all multi-cellular beasts?  All
> vertebrates?  All warm blooded animals?  All mammals?  All beasts, plants
> that can survive among human civilization?

My answer---avoiding the peculiar and highly suspect language of "axioms"
---is that as soon as we are capable, we ought to reformat the solar system
to run everything in an uploaded state.  Earth's matter alone could support
about 10^33 human beings, and just why should any of them be denied
existence in the name of hot rocks or inefficient trees?

Do beautiful mountain ranges really need to exist?  Why can't dynamic
images of them (and variations by the trillions and trillions) be a lot more
computationally efficient than using billions of tons of physical matter
merely to reflect photons?

Lee



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jun  3 22:08:24 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:08:24 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <015f01c7a626$f6ff6810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer>
	<070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com>
	<5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
	<f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com>
	<005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<015f01c7a626$f6ff6810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070603165252.022c87f0@satx.rr.com>


> > In this usage evolution is just another name for environment.
>
>What a strange usage!  No, not at all.  Evolution is a process over
>time, usually quite slow, that uses mutation and selection to replace
>earlier more primitive versions of something with more advanced
>or superior versions.

What a strange usage! No, "evolution" is a process over time in which 
slightly variant phenotypes thrive or fail to thrive in a cyclically 
fluctuating but (in the medium term) generally stationary 
environment, compete with others of their own kind and with other 
species for resources to maintain their own existence and that of 
their offspring, and with others of their own kind for reproductive 
privileges, their offspring (in sexual species) combining genetic 
elements of self and mate together with random mutations in those 
elements, competing in turn in what is usually the same environment 
slightly or even grossly modified by the novel behavioral biasses 
introduced by these genomic shenanigans, resulting in the stochastic 
selection over many individuals of shifts in allelic frequencies in 
each species and perhaps also in phenotypic characteristics such that 
each generation of phenotypes that survives satisfices the 
constraints of its available landscape. "Advanced" and "superior" are 
terms requiring exact specification of a context of evaluation, and 
should be invoked only with the greatest caution. Apologies for the 
dense verbiage; it's hard to talk about this sort of thing in chatty slang.

Damien Broderick




From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Sun Jun  3 21:54:32 2007
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 14:54:32 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Italy's Social Capital
In-Reply-To: <016901c7a628$5e75ce70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <p06230900c284fe33a388@[23.237.66.13]>
	<007401c7a54f$4d249130$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<004301c7a60f$faad9a70$7fbf1f97@archimede>
	<016901c7a628$5e75ce70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <4E9A44F3-8DA1-409F-95F8-31CE6E57F13A@ceruleansystems.com>


On Jun 3, 2007, at 2:41 PM, Lee Corbin wrote:
> The article does not mention it, but didn't the United States
> succeed in forging an alliance with the Mafia during WWII?
> Didn't this help get organized crime back on its feet in Italy
> and in particular in Sicily (as well as the U.S.)?


Yes.  A deal was cut with the mafia in WW2 for both intelligence and  
counter-intelligence purposes.  By all accounts, it was an effective  
arrangement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_Luciano

As repayment for his help, the US released the mafia boss from prison  
on the condition that he be deported back to Sicily even though he  
had lived in the US since childhood.


Cheers,

J. Andrew Rogers




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jun  3 22:18:05 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:18:05 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Ethics and Emotions are not axioms
In-Reply-To: <016d01c7a629$c5c85920$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer>
	<070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com>
	<5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
	<f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com>
	<005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<46630026.4070002@comcast.net>
	<CE481FD9-6222-4073-A87D-891224EE2D77@mac.com>
	<016d01c7a629$c5c85920$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070603171254.02253af0@satx.rr.com>

At 02:53 PM 6/3/2007 -0700, Lee wrote:

>But what does my "should" really mean?  Sadly, it means
>nothing more than "I approve" or "we approve". Again, the
>physicist's eye can discern *approval* and *disapproval*,
>but not Right or Wrong or Moral.

As one of my and Rory Barnes' characters in VALENCIES (a novel much 
reviled on fictionwise.com) thought as she tossed restlessly beside a 
gene sculptor she'd allowed to pick her up in a pub):

==========
Beached and abandoned on the margins of sleep, Anla found once again 
that though many of her friends swore by this state of consciousness 
it had taken on for her the aspect of an anti-tsunami. Sleep's 
enormous combers withdrew to the horizon without a glance over their 
shoulders. In the quarter gravity of the unlit sleeping chamber, 
excellent as it was for gymnastic screwing, or as presumably it would 
be given a competent partner, she was queasy and bored.
             Issues of metaphysical sturdiness came to her attention, 
as they'd been known to do, provisionally penned in the kennels to 
which she'd assigned them, whimpering for the final disposition she 
was fairly unlikely to make on their behalf.
             Morality was one. She was certainly no stranger to the 
problems of axiology.
             Lovely word, that. Axiology: theory of value. It seemed 
to contain its own solutions: axe your way through the Gordian knot, 
acts of piety, access to truth.
             Ralf was proving to be a snorer; she kicked him 
peevishly, and he rolled lightly on the webbing without waking.
             Why should Ralf's profession seem to her so 
self-evidently odious, while he happily accepted it as the epitome of 
a right-thinking life? Calling him a dull shit, and adducing his 
ineptitude at fornication as ad hominem evidence, was hardly 
exhaustive, not to a midnight philosopher. Ah no, she'd been this way 
before. It kept coming back to that silly question: "Why should we be moral?"
             A surprisingly large number of people thought that you 
should be, and even considered it to be a moral obligation. Ha ha, 
boom boom. But suppose you used the word "should" as an evaluative 
and motivational expression, instead of a normative one? If you wish 
to climb to the top of the mountain, you should walk up rather than down.
             Of course last time she'd come along this track she'd 
detected a snag with "evaluative", too, but that was on the next 
level up and you had to start somewhere.
             All right, take Ralfo as your representative simple 
unreflecting man. Persuade him of the vileness of imperialism. Crisis 
for Ralf. Echoing voids of doubt, disillusion and guilt. Never again, 
as the poet said, will he be certain that what he imagines are the 
clear dictates of moral reason are not merely the ingrained and 
customary beliefs of his time and place. Anla allowed herself a 
fanfare of trumpets, bowing graciously.
             Okay, so then he might ask himself what he could do in 
the future to avoid prejudices and provincial mores, or, more to the 
point, almost universally accepted mores--and thus to discover what 
he really ought to do.
             That was merely another normative enquiry, though; the 
tough one was "show me that there is some form of behavior which I am 
obliged to endorse. "
             Moral constraint seemed to mean either that you should 
pursue good ends and eschew bad ones, or that you should be faithful 
to one or more correct rules of conduct. Greeks and Taoists versus 
Hebrews and Confucians, yeah, yeah.
             Chariots, it was incredible to think that they'd been 
chewing on this for upward of four thousand years without coming to a 
definitive, intuitively overwhelming conclusion. But then the 
imperial ideologists thought they had, didn't they, with their jolly 
old stochastic memetic-extrapolatory hedonic calculus or whatever the 
fuck they were calling it these days. The least retardation of 
optimal development for the greatest number, world without end, or at 
least until the trend functions blur out. So they managed to get both 
streams of thought into one ethical scholium without solving 
anything. After all, why obey a rule like that? And who gets to 
define as "good" those magical parameters making up the package 
called "optimal development"?
             The besieged libertarians on Chomsky, she thought 
darkly, might differ from Ralf on the question of the good life.
             Anyway, even if we all agreed that certain parameters 
were good, why should that oblige us to promote their furtherance? It 
might be prudent good sense to do so, and aesthetically pleasing, and 
satisfy some itch we all have, and save us from being raped in the 
common, but then the sublime constraining force you sort of imagine 
the idea of moral obligation having just evaporates into self-serving 
circumspection.
             Admittedly there was that tricky number of Kant's about 
us possessing a rational nature, and being noumena instead of brute 
phenomena, and thus not being able to act immorally without 
self-contradiction, but any fool could see that that went too far on 
the one hand and not far enough on the other, and anyway what was 
wrong with a bit of self-contradiction if you stopped when you needed 
eye implants?
             Anla giggled to herself, and wondered where Ben and the 
others had got to. He was probably off by himself gloomily hastening 
the day of the ophthalmologist. Well, was leaving Ben to his own 
devices a matter for moral self-rebuke?
             Shit, you'd think this bastard could do something to the 
genes in his nasal cavity.
             This man can see into the future. Fucking incredible, 
really, you just rip out a few million eigenvectors from your 
mathematical sketch of an octillion human beings, what's that in 
hydrogen molecules, say three and a bit by ten to the twenty-three to 
the gram, into ten to the twenty-seven, shit, brothers and sisters, 
we're statistically equal to three kilograms of hydrogen gas, yes, 
you plump for the major characteristics you think you'd like to play 
with and code them up into genes and build yourself a little memetic 
beastie that stands in for what you figure pushes and pulls thee and 
me and all our star-spangled relatives, and you breed the little 
buggers in a tasty itemized soup and watch the way the mutants go.
             Wonderful, Ralf. Bug-culture precapitulates 
bugged-culture. No way we can jump you won't know about in advance, 
because the little bugs snitched on us.
             Have you ever wondered, Ralf, if we're all just a big 
stochastic biotic projection for the Charioteers? See how we run.
             But you don't let us mutate, do you, Ralf? That's where 
you fumbled the ball, Dr Asimov, in your ancient poems. The Empire 
will never fall. We will live forever, and the boring Empire with us.
             Anla lashed out viciously with her foot.
             "Will you fucking stop snoring!"

====================

Damien Broderick




From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Jun  3 22:40:19 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 15:40:19 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Ethics and Emotions are not axioms
In-Reply-To: <017201c7a62b$2cfc1130$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <200706032240.l53Me12T016655@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin
> ...
> ---is that as soon as we are capable, we ought to reformat the solar
> system to run everything in an uploaded state.  Earth's matter alone could
> support about 10^33 human beings...
> 
> Lee

Six micrograms per person, hmmm.  

For estimation purposes, the earth's atoms can be modeled as half oxygen,
one sixth iron, one sixth silicon and one sixth magnesium, with everything
else negligible for one digit BOTECs.  (Is that cool or what?  Did you know
it already?  This isn't mass fraction, but atomic fraction which I used for
a reason.)

So six micrograms isn't much, but it still works out to about 700 trillion
atoms of oxygen, 200 trillion atoms of iron, magnesium and aluminum each,
with a few trillion atoms of debris thrown in for free.  So I guess I will
buy Lee's conjecture of earth being good for 10^33 uploaded humans.  

But I don't see that as a limit.  Since a nearly arbitrarily small computer
could run a human process (assuming we knew how to do it, until which even
Jeff Davis and Ray Charles would agree it is hard) then we could run a human
process (not in real time of course) with much less than six micrograms of
stuff.  

Oops gotta go, yet another party.  June is a busy month.

spike







From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Jun  3 22:50:06 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 15:50:06 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Ethics and Emotions are not axioms
In-Reply-To: <200706032240.l53Me12T016655@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <200706032249.l53MnmZw021018@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike
...
> So six micrograms isn't much, but it still works out to about 700 trillion
> atoms of oxygen, 200 trillion atoms of iron, magnesium and aluminum each,
> with a few trillion atoms of other debris thrown in for free...

Doh!  Replace each "trillion" above with "quadrillion."  See what happens
when one gets in too much of a hurry?  But what's a factor of a thousand
among friends anyway?  {8-]  spike


> Oops gotta go, yet another party.  June is a busy month.
> 
> spike









From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Jun  3 23:18:19 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 16:18:19 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Ethics and Emotions are not axioms
In-Reply-To: <200706032249.l53MnmZw021018@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <200706032331.l53NVQ94027258@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


> Doh!  Replace each "trillion" above with "quadrillion."  

Double doh!  I still missed it by a factor of ten.  }8-[

70 quadrillion atoms of oxygen, about 20 quadrillion each of iron, magnesium
and aluminum.

I'm giving up math until the party season is over.

spike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 3:50 PM
> To: 'ExI chat list'
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Ethics and Emotions are not axioms
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike
> ...
> > So six micrograms isn't much, but it still works out to about 700
> trillion
> > atoms of oxygen, 200 trillion atoms of iron, magnesium and aluminum
> each,
> > with a few trillion atoms of other debris thrown in for free...
> 
> Doh!  Replace each "trillion" above with "quadrillion."  See what happens
> when one gets in too much of a hurry?  But what's a factor of a thousand
> among friends anyway?  {8-]  spike
> 
> 
> > Oops gotta go, yet another party.  June is a busy month.
> >
> > spike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat




From jrd1415 at gmail.com  Sun Jun  3 23:36:32 2007
From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 16:36:32 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Other thoughts on transhumanism and religion
In-Reply-To: <553198.46097.qm@web57513.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <a6a17bd40705311231w1a0633edr5682319b76a9d1e5@mail.gmail.com>
	<553198.46097.qm@web57513.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a6a17bd40706031636h36065ad0jd137674003033547@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you, Neville.

On 5/31/07, neville late <neville_06 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jeff, yours post below is another really beautiful one! Tears of joy indeed,
> but also sadness for the ones we love who have departed?

Needlessly lost.  Thus "the cryonicist's lament".  Burdened by
dismissive ridicule, the cryonicist can only stand and watch as the
old paradigm, blocks hope for the living and rescue for the dying.


Thank you, Neville.

On 5/31/07, neville late <neville_06 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jeff, yours post below is another really beautiful one! Tears of joy indeed,
> but also sadness for the ones we love who have departed?

Needlessly lost.  Thus "the cryonicist's lament".  Burdened by
dismissive ridicule, the cryonicist can only stand and watch as the
old paradigm, blocks hope for the living and rescue for the dying.
Can only stand and watch that is, so long as the cryonics orgs and
community proscribe a more proactive approach-- outreach to families
of the terminally ill -- on the grounds that it is the equivalent of
"ambulance chasing", and will UNAVOIDABLY provoke a destructive
backlash from the mainstream.

I disagree, and believe it time to dispense with this fear-driven view
in favor of a thoughtful  outreach program directed to the family
members of the terminally ill.  Clearly, opposition/backlash is to be
anticipated and prepared for.

-- 
Best, Jeff Davis

               "Everything's hard till you
                     know how to do it."
                              Ray Charles


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Jun  3 23:35:02 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 16:35:02 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Ethics and Emotions are not axioms
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer>
	<070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com>
	<5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
	<f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com>
	<005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<46630026.4070002@comcast.net>
	<CE481FD9-6222-4073-A87D-891224EE2D77@mac.com>
	<016d01c7a629$c5c85920$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070603171254.02253af0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <017e01c7a638$797fda70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Damien quotes from his and Barnes' novel VALENCIES 

> without coming to a  definitive, intuitively overwhelming
> conclusion. But then the imperial ideologists thought they
> had, didn't they, with their jolly old stochastic memetic-
> extrapolatory hedonic calculus or whatever the fuck they
> were calling it these days. The least retardation of optimal
> development for the greatest number, world without end,
> or at least until the trend functions blur out. So they
> managed to get both streams of thought into one ethical
> scholium without solving anything.

Without quite being able to affirm that I have understood all
that, and what preceded it, what follows is provocative

> After all, why obey a rule like that? And who gets to define
> as "good" those magical parameters making up the package 
> called "optimal development"?

Optimal development would be for most people something
to be considered after they'd already had some clear notion
of *good*, or at least, as I would say, a clear notion of what
they already approve of.

>              The besieged libertarians on Chomsky, she thought 
> darkly, might differ from Ralf on the question of the good life.
>              Anyway, even if we all agreed that certain parameters 
> were good, why should that oblige us to promote their furtherance?

We generally call "good" those things whose furtherance we wish
to promote.  And as to the question, "well, why would you want
to promote THAT?", I'd answer "at base we come back to our
values, which, in terms of actions we advocate and stand behind,
are simply those things that we approve of". 

Although there really is nothing wrong with a certain amount of
circularity here (at least verbally), approval and disapproval
still seem to me as basic as anything could be.

Lee

> It might be prudent good sense to do so, and aesthetically
> pleasing, and  satisfy some itch we all have, and save us
> from being raped in the common, but then the sublime
> constraining force you sort of imagine the idea of moral
> obligation having just evaporates into self-serving 
> circumspection....



From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Sun Jun  3 23:07:25 2007
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 19:07:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
In-Reply-To: <200706032141.l53Lfpd1009899@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <73F97F80-3082-40C1-8910-F1366D0E7D68@mac.com>
	<200706032141.l53Lfpd1009899@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <1175.72.236.103.244.1180912045.squirrel@main.nc.us>


spike writes:
>
> who is in the mood for a little silliness on a gorgeous Sunday afternoon in
> June.  I hope ye are enjoying being alive this fine day, and think often of
> how lucky we are to have been born so late in human history.
>

Very well said, spike, and I'm enjoying this day as well. Last evening we had a bit
of rain - the first in weeks! :) Today has been just lovely.

I also am happy to living at *this* time and not another.

Regards,
MB





From CHealey at unicom-inc.com  Mon Jun  4 01:03:33 2007
From: CHealey at unicom-inc.com (Christopher Healey)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 21:03:33 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <015f01c7a626$f6ff6810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer><070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com><20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org><f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com><20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org><f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com><5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP><f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com><005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com><001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<015f01c7a626$f6ff6810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D284E@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>

> > > An AI system set up to do theoretical physics will not
> > > decide to overthrow its human oppressors
> >
> > I'd be willing to bet your life that is untrue.
> 

> Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> Surely Stathis is correct.  Suppose an AI is somehow evolved
> to solve physics questions. Then during its evolution, predecessors
> who deviated from the goal (by wasting time, say, reading
> Kierkegaard) would be eliminated from the "gene pool".
> More focused programs would replace them.
> 

Suppose businesses evolved that attempted to solve physics questions.
During their evolution, one might expect that businesses who deviated
from this goal (by wasting time, say, researching competitors, executing
alliances and buyouts, updating employee skill sets, lobbying for
beneficial legislation, and transplanting themselves to foreign soil)
would be eliminated from the "gene pool".  More directly goal focused
businesses would replace them... 

-Chris





From neville_06 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  4 01:40:54 2007
From: neville_06 at yahoo.com (neville late)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 18:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
In-Reply-To: <1175.72.236.103.244.1180912045.squirrel@main.nc.us>
Message-ID: <625587.43669.qm@web57514.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Naturally, one ought to be optimistic at an extropian
sit
--- MB <mbb386 at main.nc.us> wrote:

> 
> spike writes:
> >
> > who is in the mood for a little silliness on a
> gorgeous Sunday afternoon in
> > June.  I hope ye are enjoying being alive this
> fine day, and think often of
> > how lucky we are to have been born so late in
> human history.
Materially this is the best time but wont the coming
dislocation lead to enormous unpleasantness? The real
dislocation hasn't even started yet-- has it?


 
> I also am happy to living at *this* time and not
> another.
> 
> Regards,
> MB
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 



      ___________________________________________________________________________________
You snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck
in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_html.html



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Mon Jun  4 04:12:54 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 21:12:54 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer><070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com><20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org><f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com><20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org><f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com><5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP><f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com><005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com><001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer><015f01c7a626$f6ff6810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D284E@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
Message-ID: <018a01c7a65e$f6b25f10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Christopher writes

>> Lee Corbin wrote:
>>
>> Suppose an AI is somehow evolved to solve physics questions.
>> Then during its evolution, predecessors who deviated from the
>> goal (by wasting time, say, reading Kierkegaard) would be
>> eliminated from the "gene pool". More focused programs
>> would replace them.
> 
> Suppose businesses evolved that attempted to solve physics questions.

The analogy doesn't fit well, to me. Firstly, businesses as we know
them attempt to survive (because humans are in charge), and there
are cases where they completely change what line of business they're in.

> During their evolution, one might expect that businesses who deviated
> from this goal (by wasting time, say, researching competitors, executing
> alliances and buyouts, updating employee skill sets, lobbying for
> beneficial legislation, and transplanting themselves to foreign soil)
> would be eliminated from the "gene pool".  More directly goal focused
> businesses would replace them... 

Secondly, "researching competitors" really and obviously does contribute
to their survival in the world of free markets, whereas in my example,
studying the Danish existentialist has nothing to do, we should assume,
with physics.

In Stathis's example, I supposed that ability to solve physics problems
was judged by fairly stringent conditions somehow, perhaps by humans,
or perhaps by other machines. "Executing alliances and buyouts, 
transplanting themselves to foreign soil", etc., however, might be good for
solving physics problems by either an AI or by a business, I guess.

Lee



From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Jun  4 06:35:18 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 16:35:18 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Ethics and Emotions are not axioms (Was Re: Unfriendly AI
	is a mistaken idea.)
In-Reply-To: <46630026.4070002@comcast.net>
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com>
	<5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
	<f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com>
	<005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<46630026.4070002@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706032335o45e16668r36bf8bb8935ea7d4@mail.gmail.com>

On 04/06/07, Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> John K Clark wrote:
>
> Stathis Papaioannou Wrote:
>
>    Ethics, motivation, emotions are based on axioms
>
>  Yes.
>
>
> I'm not in this camp on this one.  I believe there are fundamental
> absolute ethics, morals, motivations... and so on.
>
> For example, existence or survival is absolutely better, more valuable,
> more moral, more motivating than non existence.  Evolution (or any
> intelligence) must get this before it can be successful in any way, in any
> possible universe.  In no possible system can you make anything other than
> this an "axiom" and have it be successful.
>

A system that doesn't want to survive won't survive, but it doesn't follow
from this that survival is an absolute good. That would be like saying that
"survival of the fittest" is an absolute good because it is sanctioned by
evolution. You can't derive ought from is.

Any sufficiently advanced system will eventually question any "axioms"
> programmed into it as compared to such absolute moral truths that all
> intelligences in all possible system must inevitably discover or realize.
>

I've often questioned the axioms I've been programmed with by evolution, as
well as those I've been programmed with by society. I recognise that they
are just axioms, but this alone doesn't make it any easier to change them.
For example, the will to survive is a top level axiom, but knowing this
doesn't make me any less concerned with survival.

Phenomenal pleasures are fundamentally valuable and motivating.  Evolution
> has wired such to motivate us to do things like have sex, in an axiomatic or
> programmatic way.  But we can discoverer such freedom destroying  wiring and
> cut them or rewire them or design them to motivate us to do what we want, as
> dictated by absolute morals we may logically realize, instead.
>

Yes, but quite often the more base desires overcome higher morality. And we
all know that people can become convinced that it is best to kill themselves
and/or others, even without actually going mad.

No matter how much you attempt to program an abstract or non phenomenal
> computer to not be interested in phenomenal experience, if it becomes
> intelligent enough, it must finally realize that such joys are fundamentally
> valuable and desirable.  Simply by observing us purely logically, it must
> finally deduce how absolutely important such joy is as a meaning of life and
> existence.  Any sufficiently advanced AI, whether abstract or phenomenal,
> regardless of what "axioms" get it started, can do nothing other than to
> become moral enough to seek after all such.
>

It might be able to deduce that these things are desirable to beings such as
us, but how does that translate to making them the object of its own
desires? We might be able to understand that for a male praying mantis to
mate trumps getting his head eaten as a top level goal, but that doesn't
mean we can or should take this on as our own goal. It also doesn't mean
that a race of smart praying mantids would do things any differently. They
might look forward to having their heads eaten, write poetry about it, make
it the central tenet of their ethical sytem, and regard individuals who
don't want to go through with it in much the same way as we regard people
who are depressed and suicidal.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070604/09afe80f/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Jun  4 06:53:59 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 01:53:59 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Ethics and Emotions are not axioms (Was Re: Unfriendly
 AI	is a mistaken idea.)
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706032335o45e16668r36bf8bb8935ea7d4@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com>
	<5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
	<f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com>
	<005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<46630026.4070002@comcast.net>
	<f21c22e30706032335o45e16668r36bf8bb8935ea7d4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070604014938.0237c9c0@satx.rr.com>

At 04:35 PM 6/4/2007 +1000, Stathis wrote:

>They might look forward to having their heads eaten, write poetry 
>about it, make it the central tenet of their ethical sytem,

Nicely put!

>and regard individuals who don't want to go through with it in much 
>the same way as we regard people who are depressed and suicidal.

Rather, and poignantly/absurdly, in much the way most people regard 
those who *don't want inevitably to age and die "when it's their 
time"* and wish to find scientific means to avoid doing so. "You 
blasphemous fools, just knuckle down and *get your heads eaten* as 
the Great Mantis Mother demands! Go on, you'll find it very rewarding!"

Damien Broderick




From eugen at leitl.org  Mon Jun  4 07:15:15 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 09:15:15 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Ethics and Emotions are not axioms
In-Reply-To: <200706032240.l53Me12T016655@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <017201c7a62b$2cfc1130$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<200706032240.l53Me12T016655@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <20070604071515.GF17691@leitl.org>

On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 03:40:19PM -0700, spike wrote:

> Six micrograms per person, hmmm.  

This is not a lot.
 
> For estimation purposes, the earth's atoms can be modeled as half oxygen,
> one sixth iron, one sixth silicon and one sixth magnesium, with everything
> else negligible for one digit BOTECs.  (Is that cool or what?  Did you know
> it already?  This isn't mass fraction, but atomic fraction which I used for
> a reason.)
> 
> So six micrograms isn't much, but it still works out to about 700 trillion
> atoms of oxygen, 200 trillion atoms of iron, magnesium and aluminum each,
> with a few trillion atoms of debris thrown in for free.  So I guess I will
> buy Lee's conjecture of earth being good for 10^33 uploaded humans.  

I don't. Rod logic takes about cm^3 to store relevant number of bits of
a human brain -- just to store, not to run it. In order to achieve that
10^6 speedup, you need a lot more.

(This relates for whole body emulation, native AI or transcoded folks
can be more compact, but just how more is not yet known).
 
> But I don't see that as a limit.  Since a nearly arbitrarily small computer
> could run a human process (assuming we knew how to do it, until which even

That's a rather large assumption to make. Do not underestimate biology,
the more I study it, the more I'm impressed with its functionality
concentration. You need machine-phase to beat it, with self-assembly
you can only about match it.

> Jeff Davis and Ray Charles would agree it is hard) then we could run a human
> process (not in real time of course) with much less than six micrograms of
> stuff.  
> 
> Oops gotta go, yet another party.  June is a busy month.

-- 
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


From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Jun  4 07:41:35 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 17:41:35 +1000
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
In-Reply-To: <73F97F80-3082-40C1-8910-F1366D0E7D68@mac.com>
References: <465F8B72.3070103@comcast.net>
	<621544.83244.qm@web57511.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30706020551g4c20d0e6q8bfea3237e4ba360@mail.gmail.com>
	<004001c7a52d$4c089250$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706022102v6c7e777fp5a3d292b38d7ff6b@mail.gmail.com>
	<004201c7a603$f26c1230$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<73F97F80-3082-40C1-8910-F1366D0E7D68@mac.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706040041s33470b0bscafae1ff02e53e7@mail.gmail.com>

On 04/06/07, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

This is getting incredibly silly.  There is nothing in science or
> physics that will allow one macro object to spontaneously turn into a
> totally different macro object.   And what is the value of these
> rarefied discussions of the oh so modern version of how many angels
> can dance on the head of a pin anyway?


Even classical physics allows that the randomly moving atoms in an object
might coincidentally line up and move in a particular direction, so that it
spontaneously changes shape. This is of course *extremely unlikely* to
happen, but it isn't impossible. That's where the "statistical" in
statistical mechanics comes from.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070604/8239b607/attachment.html>

From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  4 07:19:14 2007
From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John Grigg)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 00:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Ethics and Emotions are not axioms (Was Re: Unfriendly AI
	is a mistaken idea.)
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070604014938.0237c9c0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <888505.21306.qm@web35602.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

At 04:35 PM 6/4/2007 +1000, Stathis wrote:

>They might look forward to having their heads eaten, write poetry 
>about it, make it the central tenet of their ethical sytem,

  Damien replied:
Nicely put!
  >
   
   
  I remember a science fantasy from a decade or two ago about a race of pony-sized intelligent spiders where a male who is in his prime is expected to marry, mate and then be eaten all in one night.  The "mount" of the knightly human hero was a male who decided he would skip the sex and death part but his poor "humiliated" mate and her sisters were for years on the hunt for him after the terrible "disrespect" he showed to their culture and religion.  The running joke was that this giant ferocious looking arachnid was scared of his own shadow because he saw his mate lurking around every corner.  
   
  "Brother Termite" by Patricia Anthony is a terrific book showing an alien race who have a horrible reproductive imperative which they embrace as beautiful and "the way things must always be done."  The book was optioned by Hollywood but supposedly is in the limbo known as "development hell."
   
  John Grigg 

Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
  At 04:35 PM 6/4/2007 +1000, Stathis wrote:

>They might look forward to having their heads eaten, write poetry 
>about it, make it the central tenet of their ethical sytem,

Nicely put!

>and regard individuals who don't want to go through with it in much 
>the same way as we regard people who are depressed and suicidal.

Rather, and poignantly/absurdly, in much the way most people regard 
those who *don't want inevitably to age and die "when it's their 
time"* and wish to find scientific means to avoid doing so. "You 
blasphemous fools, just knuckle down and *get your heads eaten* as 
the Great Mantis Mother demands! Go on, you'll find it very rewarding!"

Damien Broderick


_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


 
---------------------------------
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go 
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070604/3e35f799/attachment.html>

From scerir at libero.it  Mon Jun  4 08:57:31 2007
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 10:57:31 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Italy's Social Capital
References: <p06230900c284fe33a388@[23.237.66.13]><007401c7a54f$4d249130$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><004301c7a60f$faad9a70$7fbf1f97@archimede>
	<016901c7a628$5e75ce70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <000601c7a686$6315f3c0$17911f97@archimede>

> > Mussolini also tried to 'colonize' central 
> > & southern regions.

Lee:
> Ah, great minds think alike.

:-) 
Here we are experiencing a very different sort of colonization 
now, coming from South (Africa) and from East (many different 
countries, and also China [1]). EU politicians do not seem
to be completely aware of it. Or perhaps they do not know
what to do. 

> > After 1931 vast tracts of land were reclaimed 
> > through the draining of marshes in the Lazio region, 
> > where gleaming new towns were created with Fascist 
> > architecture and names: Littoria (now Latina) 
> > in 1932, Sabaudia in 1934, Pontinia in 1935, 
> > Aprilia in 1937, and Pomezia in 1938. Peasants were
> > brought from the regions of Emilia and, mostly, from 
> > Veneto, to populate these towns.
 
Lee:
> Wow.  I would like to know if the new towns make a 
> positive contribution to the economies of these regions,
> i.e., in excess of comparative communities with a longer
> history in the given region.

Difficult to say. But reading magazines like 'La Nuova
Ciociaria' (or the like) I've got the impression that ...
yes some of these new towns made a positive contribution 
to the economy of Lazio region, but this contribution
started not during the Fascist era but more recently,
that is to say 40 yeara ago, with the post-war
industrial (and touristical) development.  
  
s.

[1] There are small towns (i.e. in Tuscany) in which 
the majority of the resident population is Chinese
(not speaking Italian).


From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Jun  4 10:13:35 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 20:13:35 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer>
	<20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com>
	<5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
	<f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com>
	<005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706040313t4fa4f357i1748e404e6ef2b19@mail.gmail.com>

On 04/06/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:

> An AI system set up to do theoretical physics will not decide to overthrow
> > its human oppressors
>
> I'd be willing to bet your life that is untrue.


Imagine a human theoretical physicist so brilliant and so focussed that he
completely ignores the outside world to concentrate on the equations in his
head. His obsession is such that he neglects to eat or drink. Of course,
even from the point of view of continuing to do physics this isn't very
clever, because he can't work if he dies, but as this is only a meta-problem
he is not interested in it. Provided that medical teams are available to
tend to his life support, would the disinterest in the outside world and his
own survival have any negative impact on the quality of his work? And if you
were going to design a computer to be a theoretical physicist, isn't this
exactly the sort of tireless and undistracted worker that you would want?

>so that it can sit on the beach reading novels, unless it can derive this
> >desire from its initial programming.
>
> Do you also believe that the reason you ordered a jelly doe nut today
> instead of your usual chocolate one is because of your initial
> programming,
> that is, your genetic code?
>

Unless divine intervention was at play, yes. My genetic code determines my
brain configuration, which changes dynamically according to the environment
from the moment my nervous system started to form. The complexity of the
environmental interaction makes it difficult for anyone to predict exactly
what I'm going to do and similarly with an AI it would be difficult to
predict exactly what it was going to do, otherwise there would be no point
in building it. However, for the dedicated AI physicist the only uncertainty
might be what the exact scientific output is going to be. You could allow it
to explore radically different behaviours, but that would be like designing
a chess-playing program with the ability and motivation to cheat.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070604/f2d2c1e4/attachment.html>

From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  4 11:53:08 2007
From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John Grigg)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 04:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
In-Reply-To: <200706032141.l53Lfpd1009899@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <331159.20079.qm@web35613.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Spike wrote:
  spike, 

who is in the mood for a little silliness on a gorgeous Sunday 
afternoon in
June.  I hope ye are enjoying being alive this fine day, and think 
often of
how lucky we are to have been born so late in human history.
>
   
  I keep on asking myself "was I simply just *lucky* to have been born when I was?"  Did we all simply win some sort of uncaring cosmic lottery to have been born in this time period and in the developed world?  I don't think of myself as a lucky guy and so this line of thinking really disturbs me.  But then I come from a religious background.
   
  My brand-new nephew, Luc who was born last December is a dang lucky one! lol  As long as his health holds out and an accident or violence doesn't claim him, he stands a good chance of actually seeing the Singularity we all love to post about.  And both his parents are very bright people so he is probably quite equipped to handle the challenges ahead.
   
  John Grigg    
   
  

spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
  ...
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins
...
> On Jun 3, 2007, at 10:23 AM, John K Clark wrote:
...
> > ... probability of your keyboard turning into a
> > teapot is greater than zero (and it is) ...
> 
> This is getting incredibly silly. There is nothing in science or
> physics that will allow one macro object to spontaneously turn into a
> totally different macro object... - samantha



It's all in how you define the term teapot. You spill your tea into your
keyboard; that keyboard now both contains tea and heats it, since there are
electronics in there. So your keyboard has become a teapot (assuming a very
loose definition of the term.)

Insincerely yours 

spike, 

who is in the mood for a little silliness on a gorgeous Sunday afternoon in
June. I hope ye are enjoying being alive this fine day, and think often of
how lucky we are to have been born so late in human history.







_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


       
---------------------------------
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070604/d50c3b4c/attachment.html>

From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  4 12:53:21 2007
From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John Grigg)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 05:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] humor: Comic Strip About Transcending Our Limits
In-Reply-To: <331159.20079.qm@web35613.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <240984.40890.qm@web35613.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

If only becoming Posthuman were this easy...
   
  http://news.yahoo.com/comics/brewsterrockit;_ylt=AtQ3si8NrW0wFEUDsgky5MnH.sgF

   
  John Grigg : )

       
---------------------------------
Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070604/24bdb27f/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Jun  4 12:59:20 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 22:59:20 +1000
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
In-Reply-To: <004201c7a603$f26c1230$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
References: <465F8B72.3070103@comcast.net>
	<621544.83244.qm@web57511.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30706020551g4c20d0e6q8bfea3237e4ba360@mail.gmail.com>
	<004001c7a52d$4c089250$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706022102v6c7e777fp5a3d292b38d7ff6b@mail.gmail.com>
	<004201c7a603$f26c1230$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706040559w761bb180h413ddce54202feea@mail.gmail.com>

On 04/06/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:

The problem is that there are an infinite number of subsets that are just as
> large as the entire set, in fact, that is the very mathematical definition
> of infinity.
>

You're not obliged to constrain probability theory by that definition. The
cardinality of the set of odd numbers is the same as the cardinality of the
set of multiples of 10, but that doesn't mean that a randomly chosen integer
is just as likely to be odd as to be a multiple of 10; it is obviously 5
times as likely to be odd. Perhaps you can get around this by saying a
randomly chosen integer must be chosen from a finite set, otherwise it is
infinite, and infinity is not defined as either odd or a multiple of 10 or
neither. However, if there is an actual infinity of consecutively numbered
things, and you're in the middle of it, you can actually pick out a local
finite subset, and even though you might not know "where" it is in relation
to "zero" (if that is meaningful at all), you can be blindly sure that 5
times as many of the things will have a number ending in an odd integer as
in a zero.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070604/d25d44d1/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Jun  4 14:34:13 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 07:34:13 -0700
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
In-Reply-To: <331159.20079.qm@web35613.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200706041434.l54EYIKS024082@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Grigg
Subject: Re: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future

Spike wrote:
spike, 

>>...? I hope ye are enjoying being alive this fine day, and think 
often of how lucky we are to have been born so late in human history.
...
?
>My brand-new nephew, Luc?who was born last December is?a dang lucky one!
...
?
John Grigg??? 
?


Ja, even his name suggests good fortune.  Congrats on the new family member
John!  Perhaps he and my son will be buddies some day.  

{8-]

spike







From jonkc at att.net  Mon Jun  4 14:50:18 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 10:50:18 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Ethics and Emotions are not axioms
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer><070901c7a395$8b3f8940$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30705311809s51be497o614592cc031a0483@mail.gmail.com><20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org><f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com><20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org><f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com><5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP><f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com><005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>	<f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com><001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<46630026.4070002@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <00fc01c7a6b7$b03863a0$e6084e0c@MyComputer>

Brent Allsop

> I believe there are fundamental absolute ethics, morals, motivations.

Well, there are certainly fundamental absolute motivations, but I'm not sure
about the other stuff.

> existence or survival is absolutely better, more valuable, more moral,
> more motivating than non existence.

I believe that also, but I can't prove it, that's why it's an axiom. But if
I'm wrong and they're not axioms then what axioms were used to derive them?

  John K Clark










From jonkc at att.net  Mon Jun  4 15:24:00 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 11:24:00 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer><20070601103345.GE17691@leitl.org><f21c22e30706010423v4eb9d873ne778541279a39ade@mail.gmail.com><20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org><f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com><5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP><f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com><005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com><001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706040313t4fa4f357i1748e404e6ef2b19@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <014201c7a6bc$6b0d1370$e6084e0c@MyComputer>

Stathis Papaioannou Wrote:

> if you were going to design a computer to be a theoretical physicist,
> isn't this exactly the sort of tireless and undistracted worker that you
> would want?

But it doesn't matter what I want because I won't be designing that
theoretical physicist, another AI will. And so Mr. Jupiter Brain will not be
nearly that specialized because a demand can be found for many other skills.
Besides being a physicist AI will also be a superb engineer, economist,
general, businessman, poet, philosopher, romantic novelist, pornographer,
mathematician, comedian, and lots more.

Me:
> >Do you also believe that the reason you ordered a jelly doe nut today
> >instead of your usual chocolate one is because of your initial
> >programming, that is, your genetic code?

You:
> Unless divine intervention was at play, yes.

Do you also believe that the programmers who wrote Microsoft Word determined
every bit of text that program ever produced?

  John K Clark







From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  4 17:56:14 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 10:56:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706022337i5616d30dx815a79bb0413e17f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <23558.22199.qm@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Stathis wrote:

> "No we couldn't: we'd have to almost destroy the
> whole Earth. A massive
> meteorite might kill all the large flora and fauna,
> but still leave some
> micro-organisms alive. And there's always the
> possibility that some disease
> might wipe out most of humanity. We're actually less
> capable at combating
> bacterial infection today than we were several
> decades ago, even though our
> biotechnology is far more advanced. The bugs are
> matching us and sometimes
> beating us."

Well, this is just splitting hairs growing on hairs
but we will be in a good position to destroy all
microorganisms and the useful earth within a couple
decades, with something like molecular manufacturing.
And it wouldn't require any genetic change to
homosapiens. We must prevent that from happening of
course, and we will. Microorganisms could never
possibly destroy themselves as a species because they
lack the intelligence to make it happen, unfortunately
that's not the case with us.

Do you honestly believe that the products of our human
intelligence haven't conferred any survival or
reproductive advantages, compared to other animals?

> "I disagree with that: it's far easier to see how
> intelligence could be both
> incrementally increased (by increasing brain size,
> for example) and
> incrementally useful than something like the eye,
> for example. Once nervous
> tissue developed, there should have been a massive
> intelligence arms race,
> if intelligence is that useful."

But the eye also evolved slowly. It likely began as a
photo-sensitive skin pigmentation, that slowly evolved
concavity, and so on. Human intelligence has only
evolved once so far, because it was a much bigger,
more complex, more unlikely "project".

Below a certain threshold, I totally agree, a small
incremental improvement in intelligence isn't likely
to confer all that much benefit relative to the other
animals. The likely threshold is the capacity to
utilize tools (like sticks and rocks in multiple,
varied ways) and to make tools. And I suspect that
that one leap was *extremely* improbable, as evolution
customarily never makes leaps but only baby-steps -
and then only if they convey immediate  aggregate
advantage. Imagine suddenly taking away from humans
every invention we have ever made; would we really be
much more "fit" than the other animals until we began
making tools again? Probably not. Also, evolution
could not have produced intelligence unless certain
prerequisites were already in place. Magically giving
a cactus human-level intelligence isn't likely to
improve its survival or reproduction. The evolution of
intelligence would require a means of perceiving the
world (senses) and acting within in it (locomotion) -
in such a way that the benefits of having more
intelligence could be expressed in terms of advantages
in survival or reproduction. And the parent animal
would need to already have the physiology to allow the
creation of tools: eg. standing semi-erect, and the
infamous opposable thumb. That's why the cactus
doesn't already have human-level intelligence, even
though multicellular plants are way, way older than
apes. So for these sorts of reasons, I consider the
evolution of human intelligence as something of a
miracle (in the strictly non-religious sense, of
course). And something highly improbable, in all
likelihood.

> "It seems more likely to me that life is very
> widespread, but intelligence is
> an aberration."

Yes, I meant that we are the first significant
intelligence in this Universe, in my estimation.
Intelligence is just an aberration like you say, but
once it reaches human-level, it also happens to be
extremely useful.

Best,

Jeffrey Herrlich 
  


--- Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 03/06/07, A B <austriaaugust at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Stathis,
> >
> > Stathis wrote:
> >
> > > "Single-celled organisms are even more
> successful
> > > than humans are: they're
> > > everywhere, and for the most part we don't even
> > > notice them."
> >
> > But if we *really* wanted to, we could destroy all
> of
> > them - along with ourselves. They can't say the
> same.
> 
> 
> No we couldn't: we'd have to almost destroy the
> whole Earth. A massive
> meteorite might kill all the large flora and fauna,
> but still leave some
> micro-organisms alive. And there's always the
> possibility that some disease
> might wipe out most of humanity. We're actually less
> capable at combating
> bacterial infection today than we were several
> decades ago, even though our
> biotechnology is far more advanced. The bugs are
> matching us and sometimes
> beating us.
> 
> Intelligence,
> > > particularly human level intelligence, is just a
> > > fluke, like the giraffe's
> > > neck. If it were specially adaptive, why didn't
> it
> > > evolve independently many
> > > times, like various sense organs have?
> >
> > The evolution of human intelligence was like a
> series
> > of flukes, each one building off the last (the
> first
> > fluke was likely the most improbable). There has
> been
> > a long line of proto-human species before us,
> we're
> > just the latest model. Intelligence is specially
> > adaptive, its just that it took evolution a hella
> long
> > time to blindly stumble on to it. Keep in mind
> that
> > human intelligence was a result of a *huge* number
> of
> > random, collectively-useful, mutations. For a
> *single*
> > random attribute to be retained by a species, it
> also
> > has to provide an *immediate* survival or
> reproductive
> > advantage to an individual, not just an immediate
> > "promise" of something good to come in the far
> distant
> > future of the species. Generally, if it doesn't
> > provide an immediate survival or reproductive
> (net)
> > advantage, it isn't retained for very long because
> > there is usually a down-side, and its back to
> > square-one. So you can see why the rise of
> > intelligence was so ridiculously improbable.
> 
> 
> I disagree with that: it's far easier to see how
> intelligence could be both
> incrementally increased (by increasing brain size,
> for example) and
> incrementally useful than something like the eye,
> for example. Once nervous
> tissue developed, there should have been a massive
> intelligence arms race,
> if intelligence is that useful.
> 
> "Why don't we
> > > see evidence of it
> > > having taken over the universe?"
> >
> > We may be starting to.  :-)
> >
> > "We would have to be
> > > extraordinarily lucky if
> > > intelligence had some special role in evolution
> and
> > > we happen to be the
> > > first example of it."
> >
> > Sometimes I don't feel like ascribing "lucky" to
> our
> > present condition. But in the sense you mean it, I
> > think we are. Like John Clark says, "somebody has
> to
> > be first".
> >
> >   "It's not impossible, but the
> > > evidence would suggest
> > > otherwise."
> >
> > What evidence do you mean?
> 
> 
> The fact that we seem to be the only intelligent
> species to have developed
> on the planet or in the universe. One explanation
> for this is that evolution
> just doesn't think that human level or better
> intelligence is as cool as we
> think it is.
> 
> To quote Martin Gardner: "It takes an ancient
> Universe
> > to create life and mind".
> >
> > It would require billions of years for any
> Universe to
> > become hospitable to anyone. It has to cool-off,
> form
> > stars and galaxies, then a bunch of really big
> stars
> > have to supernova in order to spread their heavy
> > elements into interstellar clouds that eventually
> > converge into bio-friendly planets and suns. Then
> the
> > bio-friendly planet has too cool-off itself. Then
> > biological evolution has a chance to start, but
> took a
> > few billion more years to accidentally produce
> human
> > beings. Our Universe is about ~15 billion years
> old...
> > sounds about right to me. :-)
> >
> > Yep, it's an absurdity. And it took me a long time
> to
> > accept it too. But we are the first, and possibly
> the
> > last. That makes our survival and success all the
> more
> > critical. That's what I'm betting, at least.
> 
> 
> It seems more likely to me that life is very
> widespread, but intelligence is
> an aberration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou
> > _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go 
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail 


From wadihfayad at hotmail.com  Mon Jun  4 19:43:12 2007
From: wadihfayad at hotmail.com (wadih fayad)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 22:43:12 +0300
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
Message-ID: <BAY123-W17EC7C8BDAC893CD86F750C7210@phx.gbl>


Hi, to all, 
first, let's think about the evolution of human species well the next species to come is a completely paranormal one, and the question is how the actual species will react to this species more powerful intelligent and capable? the existence of the actual one depends on her reaction to this new species. Artificial intelligence? but sure it can be friendly it depends on the programmation almost everything on earth depends on a certain programmation by itself or by others. Anyway in the years to come, the electronic devices will take a great part of human bodies, we have to think how to avoid disfunction problems. As cloning, when an institute and some of them are making researches about this, copy the mind and the memory of a person on an electronic device, then istead of cloning this person he makes two biological copies of this person one of his body one of the brain separately then they inplant the brain in the new body, the next step will be transferring the data from the electronic device to the new brain, in that way we obtain a new human copy of ourselves and that what we should think about it, especially that the colonizing era of the space is wide open now. Any people who know more links about these institutes so we can discuss more about it?
_________________________________________________________________
T?l?chargez le nouveau Windows Live Messenger !
http://get.live.com/messenger/overview
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070604/14f34d61/attachment.html>

From benboc at lineone.net  Mon Jun  4 19:43:48 2007
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 20:43:48 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Enjoying being alive, and so late in human history
In-Reply-To: <mailman.536.1180909091.11507.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.536.1180909091.11507.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <46646B74.4020502@lineone.net>

spike splendidly wrote:

 > who is in the mood for a little silliness on a gorgeous Sunday
 > afternoon in June.  I hope ye are enjoying being alive this fine day, 
 > and think often of how lucky we are to have been born so late in 
human > history.

Indeed. I enjoyed my Sunday afternoon immensely.

And i do think often on that very subject. Something that sometimes 
makes me feel, i don't know... suspicious??
(i mean, come on, what are the odds?)

ben zaiboc
Messing with my head, if no-one else's


From wadihfayad at hotmail.com  Mon Jun  4 20:04:44 2007
From: wadihfayad at hotmail.com (wadih fayad)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 23:04:44 +0300
Subject: [ExI] Unfriendly AI is a mistaken idea
Message-ID: <BAY123-W2E289ECBD3B9AD1D2ABABC7210@phx.gbl>



Hi, to all, 
first, let's think about the evolution of human species well the next species to come is a completely paranormal one, and the question is how the actual species will react to this species more powerful intelligent and capable? the existence of the actual one depends on her reaction to this new species. Artificial intelligence? but sure it can be friendly it depends on the programmation almost everything on earth depends on a certain programmation by itself or by others. Anyway in the years to come, the electronic devices will take a great part of human bodies, we have to think how to avoid disfunction problems. As cloning, when an institute and some of them are making researches about this, copy the mind and the memory of a person on an electronic device, then istead of cloning this person he makes two biological copies of this person one of his body one of the brain separately then they inplant the brain in the new body, the next step will be transferring the data from the electronic device to the new brain, in that way we obtain a new human copy of ourselves and that what we should think about it, especially that the colonizing era of the space is wide open now. Any people who know more links about these institutes so we can discuss more about it?
_________________________________________________________________
Sur Windows Live Ideas, d?couvrez en exclusivit? de nouveaux services en ligne... si nouveaux qu'ils ne sont pas encore sortis officiellement sur le march? !
http://ideas.live.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070604/1ce1d5be/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Jun  4 20:40:27 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:40:27 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Enjoying being alive, and so late in human history
In-Reply-To: <46646B74.4020502@lineone.net>
References: <mailman.536.1180909091.11507.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<46646B74.4020502@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070604153548.02411940@satx.rr.com>

ben quoth:

>spike splendidly wrote:
>
>  > who is in the mood for a little silliness on a gorgeous Sunday
>  > afternoon in June.  I hope ye are enjoying being alive this fine day,
>  > and think often of how lucky we are to have been born so late in
> >  in human history.

*Human* history, maybe. But how unlucky to have been born (and, very 
likely, die) so early in *sophont* history. Then again, those great 
minds might, after all, find something to envy in us: recall those 
haunting words of St. Arthur Clarke:

"They will have time enough, in those endless aeons, to attempt all 
things, and to gather all knowledge. They will not be like gods, 
because no gods imagined by our minds have ever possessed the powers 
they will command. But for all that, they may envy us, basking in the 
bright afterglow of Creation; for we knew the Universe when it was young."

Damien Broderick  



From neville_06 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  4 23:32:34 2007
From: neville_06 at yahoo.com (neville late)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 16:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Enjoying being alive, and so late in human history
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070604153548.02411940@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <636907.60138.qm@web57505.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Not likely, do we envy pre post-WWII life? Not many do, unless they're thinking of the low prices back then.
  Those living in the 22nd century might be focused on the years 2050-- 2100, not paying any remembrance to the early 21st century.
   
   
   
   
   Then again, those great 
minds might, after all, find something to envy in us: recall those 
haunting words of St. Arthur Clarke:

"They will have time enough, in those endless aeons, to attempt all 
things, and to gather all knowledge. They will not be like gods, 
because no gods imagined by our minds have ever possessed the powers 
they will command. But for all that, they may envy us, basking in the 
bright afterglow of Creation; for we knew the Universe when it was young."

Damien Broderick 

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



       
---------------------------------
Choose the right car based on your needs.  Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070604/ebf9477c/attachment.html>

From neville_06 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  5 00:05:27 2007
From: neville_06 at yahoo.com (neville late)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 17:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Enjoying being alive, and so late in human history
In-Reply-To: <636907.60138.qm@web57505.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <667574.38814.qm@web57511.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Come to think of it, future beings might not think about time at all.

     
   
   
   
   Then again, those great 
minds might, after all, find something to envy in us: recall those 
haunting words of St. Arthur Clarke:

"They will have time enough, in those endless aeons, to attempt all 
things, and to gather all knowledge. They will not be like gods, 
because no gods imagined by our minds have ever possessed the powers 
they will command. But for all that, they may envy us, basking in the 
bright afterglow of Creation; for we knew the Universe when it was young."

Damien Broderick 

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


    
---------------------------------
  Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool. _______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


 
---------------------------------
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go 
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070604/b27583de/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jun  5 01:26:08 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 20:26:08 -0500
Subject: [ExI] a symbiotic closed-loop dyad
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070604202443.02348eb8@satx.rr.com>


>ALEXANDER AND JUDY SINGER, Independent Film Makers (Field/Subfield:
>Cognition/Science Education) will be presenting a
>Marschak Colloquium in the
>UCLA Anderson School of Management
>Room A-202 on
>Friday, June 8, 2007 from
>[1 - 3] PM on the topic:
>
>"THE FUTURE OF AUGMENTED COGNITION"
>
>     This presentation will include a film prepared with the support 
> of the Defense
>Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). It is cosponsored by the UCLA
>Human Complex Systems Program. The Singers' Abstract and Biographies 
>are below,
>
>All are welcome to attend.
>***********************************************************************
>"THE FUTURE OF AUGMENTED COGNITION" -
>
>Abstract:
>
>     Critical support of the research that led to the development of 
> the Internet
>came from DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). Perhaps more
>than any other bureaucracy it has deliberately stretched the boundaries of the
>possible. The short film you will see, "The Future of Augmented Cognition,"
>funded and managed by DARPA, examines one aspect of AugCog: how we might
>mediate the problem of stressful information overload at the interface between
>humans and computers in the year 2030. The complexity emergent from this brain
>and physiological sensor technology has been characterized as a symbiotic
>closed-loop dyad. The film is in two Parts, about 12 and 5 minutes long, both
>preceded by brief PPT sections. Using cinematic/narrative form, Part 
>One posits
>the above fields of research in a fully realized future workplace in 
>2030. With
>basic Computer Graphics, Part Two uses fragments of the previous narrative,
>focusing on the neuroscience of the closed loop dyad. The whole work
>intentionally raises controversial questions across a spectrum of hypotheses:
>global economics; social interaction; the future of Cyberspace; the
>human/machine relationship. Judith Singer wrote the screenplay; Alexander
>Singer directed and produced the film.
>***********************************************************************
>ALEXANDER and JUDITH SINGER <asinger at speakeasy.net>
>
>-- BIOGRAPHIES:
>
>     Alexander Singer worked nearly four decades as a film director 
> in all genres and
>forms, including television and five feature films. He has lectured and taught
>Directing, Cinematography, Film Production and Cinema Theory at universities
>and institutions in the United States and Europe. Participation in published
>studies with the National Research Council brought Singer an NRC 
>designation as
>a "lifetime National Associate of the National Academies." With Judith, three
>DARPA ISAT (Information Science And Technology) study groups 
>developed into the
>request to produce the film, "The Future of Augmented Cognition." DARPA has
>recently asked the Singers to write for this year's Handbook of Virtual
>Environment Training a chapter projecting this new form of human engagement in
>the Year 2057 using the power of narrative and "the metaphor of the Holodeck."
>Judith Singer has two published novels: Glass Houses and Threshold. 
>As a member
>of the Writers Guild of America she has written a feature screenplay for
>Columbia Pictures, screen treatments, and scripts for a variety of television
>productions. For the Coalition for Children and Television she wrote the
>theatrical play "Boxed In." DARPA asked her to write the screenplay for "The
>Future of Augmented Cognition."



From sentience at pobox.com  Tue Jun  5 03:08:48 2007
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 20:08:48 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Enjoying being alive, and so late in human history
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070604153548.02411940@satx.rr.com>
References: <mailman.536.1180909091.11507.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<46646B74.4020502@lineone.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070604153548.02411940@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <4664D3C0.3090309@pobox.com>

Just think of how upset Socrates must have been to be born twenty-five 
centuries ago.

"He told her about the Afterglow: that brief, brilliant period after 
the Big Bang, when matter gathered briefly in clumps and burned by 
fusion light."
	-- Stephen Baxter, "The Gravity Mine"

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jun  5 03:57:47 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:57:47 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Hadron Collider postponement
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070604225540.02404938@satx.rr.com>


CERN laboratory in Switzerland yesterday confirmed a delay in tests 
of its massive new particle accelerator.

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a 27-kilometre-long circular tunnel 
100 m below the French-Swiss border, where subatomic particles will 
collide at close to the speed of light, will now start operations 
next spring, and not in November as originally planned, CERN said.

"The start-up at full level was always scheduled for spring 2008, but 
we had planned to test the machine for two weeks before Christmas, 
which will not now take place," said CERN's James Gillies, confirming 
a report in the French newspaper Le Monde. The delay is due to an 
accumulation of little setbacks, he said.

Magnets critical to the atom smasher failed in tests in April this year.



From pjmanney at gmail.com  Tue Jun  5 04:06:54 2007
From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 21:06:54 -0700
Subject: [ExI] a symbiotic closed-loop dyad
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070604202443.02348eb8@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070604202443.02348eb8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <29666bf30706042106n12febccdy9883b06baa4cf876@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/4/07, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> >ALEXANDER AND JUDY SINGER, Independent Film Makers (Field/Subfield:
> >Cognition/Science Education) will be presenting a
> >Marschak Colloquium in the
> >UCLA Anderson School of Management
> >Room A-202 on
> >Friday, June 8, 2007 from
> >[1 - 3] PM on the topic:

"Symbiotic closed loop dyad": Were you refering to neural function or
the couple, or both?

Have you seen the movie?
http://www.augmentedcognition.org/video2.html

PJ


From pjmanney at gmail.com  Tue Jun  5 05:13:30 2007
From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 22:13:30 -0700
Subject: [ExI] History of Disbelief by Jonathan Miller
Message-ID: <29666bf30706042213p61a31b40ra221c939ab3d258a@mail.gmail.com>

Is anyone aware of the series "'The History of Disbelief," produced by
the BBC and aired on PBS in the US?  Jonathan Miller created it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/atheism.shtml

Bill Moyers (a US journalist/social critic) interviewed him as a promo
for PBS on his Bill Moyers Journal, which includes excerpts from the
series:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05042007/watch3.html

Jonathan Miller bio:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05042007/profile3.html

I haven't seen the series yet, but in the interview, he makes
interesting comments on the nature of atheism, his own, personal
atheism, how he differs from Dawkins, his fears of fundamentalism, his
desire for equal time for atheism, etc.

I've been a fan of Miller's theatrical work for a long time.  He's a
fascinating, extremely accomplished person coming from a different
perspective than the aggressive, "born again atheists" as he terms
Dawkins and his ilk, although there are, of course, similarities of
view.

PJ


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jun  5 05:32:19 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:32:19 -0500
Subject: [ExI] a symbiotic closed-loop dyad
In-Reply-To: <29666bf30706042106n12febccdy9883b06baa4cf876@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070604202443.02348eb8@satx.rr.com>
	<29666bf30706042106n12febccdy9883b06baa4cf876@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070605002741.02274d70@satx.rr.com>

At 09:06 PM 6/4/2007 -0700, PJ wrote:
>On 6/4/07, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

Nope, not me, guv, I was just fwding a notification from elsewhere, 
on the chance that locals might be able to get to it.

> > >ALEXANDER AND JUDY SINGER, Independent Film Makers (Field/Subfield:
> > >Cognition/Science Education) will be presenting a
> > >Marschak Colloquium
>
>"Symbiotic closed loop dyad": Were you refering to neural function or
>the couple, or both?

I found that "symbiotic closed-loop dyad" phrase rather preposterous, 
actually; just mildly taking the piss. :)

I'm sure Lee would retort that it's exactly how I usually klutz up 
the langwitch, though.

Damien Broderick 



From pjmanney at gmail.com  Tue Jun  5 06:13:14 2007
From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 23:13:14 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Margaret Atwood on "Faith and Reason"
Message-ID: <29666bf30706042313h3f5937d3nafcbd6cee6c1d991@mail.gmail.com>

I'm on a Bill Moyers kick tonight.  I've got one more video to share
and then it's time for bed --

Margaret Atwood on faith, reason, science, politics, the history and
future of humanity and everything else H+ers write about:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/watch_atwood.html

PJ


From scerir at libero.it  Tue Jun  5 06:29:23 2007
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 08:29:23 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Hadron Collider postponement
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070604225540.02404938@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <000401c7a73a$e14ba000$6f931f97@archimede>

> CERN laboratory in Switzerland yesterday confirmed a delay in tests 
> of its massive new particle accelerator.

There is a very good blogger at Cern
http://resonaances.blogspot.com/
and maybe he will write something soon.



From moulton at moulton.com  Tue Jun  5 06:27:13 2007
From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:27:13 -0700
Subject: [ExI] History of Disbelief by Jonathan Miller
In-Reply-To: <29666bf30706042213p61a31b40ra221c939ab3d258a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <29666bf30706042213p61a31b40ra221c939ab3d258a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1181024833.3140.875.camel@localhost.localdomain>


You can find a calendar of dates and stations airing it here:
http://www.abriefhistoryofdisbelief.org/NewFiles/DisbeliefCalendar.pdf

For persons in the Silicon Valley area it is currently scheduled for
July 11, 18, 25 on KTEH.  I know one of the individuals involved with
scheduling programs for KTEH and had discussed getting this program on
the schedule.  He agreed and unless there is a schedule change we should
be seeing it soon.

And just in case someone is tempted to ask about the video "Root of All
Evil?" with Richard Dawkins; the latest info that I have is that the
company in the UK which produced it has not listed it in the catalog of
items which are available for export to US.  According to what I have
heard the usual reason for this is that the producer usually thinks
there is not enough demand to make it worth their time.  However this
might change if demand is demonstrated.  However there are occasional
unofficial websites where you can find it and download it.


Fred


On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 22:13 -0700, PJ Manney wrote:
> Is anyone aware of the series "'The History of Disbelief," produced by
> the BBC and aired on PBS in the US?  Jonathan Miller created it:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/atheism.shtml
> 
> Bill Moyers (a US journalist/social critic) interviewed him as a promo
> for PBS on his Bill Moyers Journal, which includes excerpts from the
> series:
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05042007/watch3.html
> 
> Jonathan Miller bio:
> http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05042007/profile3.html
> 
> I haven't seen the series yet, but in the interview, he makes
> interesting comments on the nature of atheism, his own, personal
> atheism, how he differs from Dawkins, his fears of fundamentalism, his
> desire for equal time for atheism, etc.
> 
> I've been a fan of Miller's theatrical work for a long time.  He's a
> fascinating, extremely accomplished person coming from a different
> perspective than the aggressive, "born again atheists" as he terms
> Dawkins and his ilk, although there are, of course, similarities of
> view.
> 
> PJ
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Jun  5 07:07:24 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 17:07:24 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <23558.22199.qm@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <f21c22e30706022337i5616d30dx815a79bb0413e17f@mail.gmail.com>
	<23558.22199.qm@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706050007u1ce98b24ha3f68d1df69e0af6@mail.gmail.com>

On 05/06/07, A B <austriaaugust at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Stathis wrote:
>
> > "No we couldn't: we'd have to almost destroy the
> > whole Earth. A massive
> > meteorite might kill all the large flora and fauna,
> > but still leave some
> > micro-organisms alive. And there's always the
> > possibility that some disease
> > might wipe out most of humanity. We're actually less
> > capable at combating
> > bacterial infection today than we were several
> > decades ago, even though our
> > biotechnology is far more advanced. The bugs are
> > matching us and sometimes
> > beating us."
>
> Well, this is just splitting hairs growing on hairs
> but we will be in a good position to destroy all
> microorganisms and the useful earth within a couple
> decades, with something like molecular manufacturing.


Not if they develop resistance to the molecular manufacturing or whatever it
is; they do so to everything else, and they are doing so at an rate more
than matching our accelerating production of novel antibiotics, for example.


And it wouldn't require any genetic change to
> homosapiens. We must prevent that from happening of
> course, and we will. Microorganisms could never
> possibly destroy themselves as a species because they
> lack the intelligence to make it happen, unfortunately
> that's not the case with us.


Us destroying ourselves is not that different to other species' extinction
due to changes in the environment. We would be the ones changing our
environment but the same is the case when a species overpopulates and
consumes all its sources of food.

Do you honestly believe that the products of our human
> intelligence haven't conferred any survival or
> reproductive advantages, compared to other animals?


Obviously intelligence has, or it wouldn't have developed. But my argument
is that it appears to be just another trick that organisms can deploy, like
a better sense of smell or the ability to mutate quickly and develop
resistance to antibiotics.

> "I disagree with that: it's far easier to see how
> > intelligence could be both
> > incrementally increased (by increasing brain size,
> > for example) and
> > incrementally useful than something like the eye,
> > for example. Once nervous
> > tissue developed, there should have been a massive
> > intelligence arms race,
> > if intelligence is that useful."
>
> But the eye also evolved slowly. It likely began as a
> photo-sensitive skin pigmentation, that slowly evolved
> concavity, and so on. Human intelligence has only
> evolved once so far, because it was a much bigger,
> more complex, more unlikely "project".
>
> Below a certain threshold, I totally agree, a small
> incremental improvement in intelligence isn't likely
> to confer all that much benefit relative to the other
> animals. The likely threshold is the capacity to
> utilize tools (like sticks and rocks in multiple,
> varied ways) and to make tools. And I suspect that
> that one leap was *extremely* improbable, as evolution
> customarily never makes leaps but only baby-steps -
> and then only if they convey immediate  aggregate
> advantage. Imagine suddenly taking away from humans
> every invention we have ever made; would we really be
> much more "fit" than the other animals until we began
> making tools again? Probably not. Also, evolution
> could not have produced intelligence unless certain
> prerequisites were already in place. Magically giving
> a cactus human-level intelligence isn't likely to
> improve its survival or reproduction. The evolution of
> intelligence would require a means of perceiving the
> world (senses) and acting within in it (locomotion) -
> in such a way that the benefits of having more
> intelligence could be expressed in terms of advantages
> in survival or reproduction. And the parent animal
> would need to already have the physiology to allow the
> creation of tools: eg. standing semi-erect, and the
> infamous opposable thumb. That's why the cactus
> doesn't already have human-level intelligence, even
> though multicellular plants are way, way older than
> apes. So for these sorts of reasons, I consider the
> evolution of human intelligence as something of a
> miracle (in the strictly non-religious sense, of
> course). And something highly improbable, in all
> likelihood.
>
> > "It seems more likely to me that life is very
> > widespread, but intelligence is
> > an aberration."
>
> Yes, I meant that we are the first significant
> intelligence in this Universe, in my estimation.
> Intelligence is just an aberration like you say, but
> once it reaches human-level, it also happens to be
> extremely useful.
>

Either human-level intelligence is very difficult for evolution to pull off
or it isn't as adaptive as we humans like to think. You are arguing for its
difficulty; I still think a little bit of intelligence and a little bit of
tool manipulating wouldn't be that difficult, given the basic template of
mammals, birds, reptiles or even fish, and given predator-prey dynamics.

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070605/31c71885/attachment.html>

From amara at amara.com  Tue Jun  5 07:29:25 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 09:29:25 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Dawn launch (broken crane)
Message-ID: <p06230902c28ac13d0dd2@[150.146.134.133]>

Here is a press report that is circulated around regarding Dawn.
The June 30 launch will certainly not happen, but I don't know
if the managers have still in mind to launch it in July (early),
or set it back to September.

Amara

P.S.

The photos of the processing of the spacecraft for the launch at
Cape Canaveral here, before the accident.

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=173


>
>A broken crane has stopped preparations for the June 30 launch of NASA's
>Dawn spacecraft from Pad-17A.
>
>The crane broke Wednesday and at least three days of work have been
>lost. The resulting delay could increase with each day that the crane is not
>repaired. It's not clear yet exactly when the launch will take place.
>
>"It's a day-for-day slip," Kennedy Space Center spokesman Bill Johnson
>said Friday.
>
>The crane mechanism sits on a gantry above the Delta II rocket. The part
>called the sheave nest, which guides cables, malfunctioned during the
>installation of a solid rocket booster.
>
>No damage to the rocket was reported, though the malfunction was
>described as "major."
>
>"What it did was stop the operation," said Johnson. "One crane does it
>all."
>
>The rocket was scheduled to be fueled Friday, he added. Additionally,
>the spacecraft must be mounted on the rocket.
>
>Dawn will visit two of the solar system's largest asteroids, which have
>remained intact since they formed. Ceres and Vesta are in the asteroid
>belt between Mars and Jupiter. They evolved very differently and could
>provide clues to the formation of our solar system.
>
>Neither NASA officials nor the Air Force could estimate when the crane
>would be repaired.
>
>"They've got everything but the spacecraft," said Johnson.

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson


From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Jun  5 07:32:44 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 17:32:44 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <014201c7a6bc$6b0d1370$e6084e0c@MyComputer>
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer>
	<20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com>
	<5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
	<f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com>
	<005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706040313t4fa4f357i1748e404e6ef2b19@mail.gmail.com>
	<014201c7a6bc$6b0d1370$e6084e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706050032w639ab235rdfcbb72365091acf@mail.gmail.com>

On 05/06/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:

But it doesn't matter what I want because I won't be designing that
> theoretical physicist, another AI will. And so Mr. Jupiter Brain will not
> be
> nearly that specialized because a demand can be found for many other
> skills.
> Besides being a physicist AI will also be a superb engineer, economist,
> general, businessman, poet, philosopher, romantic novelist, pornographer,
> mathematician, comedian, and lots more.


Perhaps an AI with general intelligence would have all these abilities, but
I don't see why it couldn't just specialise in one area, and even if it were
multi-talented I don't see why it should be motivated to do anything other
than solve intellectual problems. Working out how to make a superweapon, or
even working out how it would be best to strategically employ that
superweapon, does not necessarily lead to a desire to use or threaten the
use of that weapon. I can understand that *if* such a desire arose for any
reason, weaker beings might be in trouble, but could you explain the
reasoning whereby the AI would arrive at such a position starting from just
an ability to solve intellectual problems?

Do you also believe that the programmers who wrote Microsoft Word determined
> every bit of text that program ever produced?
>

They did determine the exact output given a particular input. Biological
intelligences are much more difficult to predict than that, since their
hardware and software changes dynamically according to the environment.
However, even in the case of biological intelligences it is possible to
predict, for example, that a man with a gun held to his head will with high
probability follow certain instructions.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070605/4f8b9f0b/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Jun  5 07:52:46 2007
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 08:52:46 +0100
Subject: [ExI] walking bees
In-Reply-To: <200706030048.l530mNl7000928@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <20070602180825.GW17691@leitl.org>
	<200706030048.l530mNl7000928@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0706050052p23820904v7c475d7a428ebe3c@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/3/07, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> The buzz in beekeepers' discussion (sorry {8^D) has been that nosema is seen
> in the sick hives, along with a bunch of other viruses and other diseases,
> but the prevailing thought is that they are getting all these other things
> because they are already weakened by something else.  These would then be
> opportunistic infections.
>


I found this article written by an entomologist -
the guy who wrote the Wikipedia entry on CCD.

<http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mvanishingbees.htm>

He blames Colony Stress.

Quote:
But the leading hypothesis in many researcher's minds is that colonies
are dying primarily because of stress. Stress means something
different to a honey bee colony than to a human, but the basic idea
isn't all that alien: If a colony is infected with a fungus, or has
mites, or has pesticides in its honey, or is overheated, or is
undernourished, or is losing workers due to spraying, or any other
such thing, then the colony is experiencing stress. Stress in turn can
cause behavioral changes that exacerbate the problem and lead to worse
ones like immune system failure. Colony stress has existed, in various
forms and with various causes, as long as mankind has kept honey bees,
so it could indeed have happened in the 1890s. Many modern
developments like pesticides or mite infestations can also cause
stress (in fact, many of the things theorized to be involved can cause
stress, so it's possible multiple factors are contributing to the
problem, not just one). Unfortunately, stress is difficult to quantify
and control experimentally, so it may never be possible to prove
scientifically that colony stress explains all this year's deaths.
-----------------

BillK


From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  5 07:38:55 2007
From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John Grigg)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 00:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
In-Reply-To: <200706041434.l54EYIKS024082@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <84180.99691.qm@web35608.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

>My brand-new nephew, Luc who was born last December is a dang lucky one!
...
 
John Grigg    
 
Spike wrote:
Ja, even his name suggests good fortune. Congrats on the new family member
John! Perhaps he and my son will be buddies some day. 

{8-]
  >
   
  I would love to see them become friends.  Perhaps I can encourage Luc and his father (my younger brother) Mike to attend Transvision 2018!
   
  I suppose being twelve would be old enough to understand/enjoy what goes on at a Transvision Conference.  But then considering how savvy some young kids are (more so than adults), perhaps he could hold his own there at age eight! lol  I don't know.
   
  John Grigg  :  )
   
   

       
---------------------------------
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070605/ffd9afa4/attachment.html>

From scerir at libero.it  Tue Jun  5 08:33:03 2007
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 10:33:03 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Hadron Collider postponement
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070604225540.02404938@satx.rr.com>
	<000401c7a73a$e14ba000$6f931f97@archimede>
Message-ID: <000401c7a74c$228c94a0$80ba1f97@archimede>

> There is a very good blogger at Cern
> http://resonaances.blogspot.com/

and these write good pages about
collisions, Higgs things, related
(rather chaotic) theory & (more chaotic) 
experiments
http://muon.wordpress.com/
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/

interesting LHC photos here
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/24/new-meaning-to-the-word-compact/



From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  5 08:31:45 2007
From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John Grigg)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 01:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Enjoying being alive, and so late in human history
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070604153548.02411940@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <106884.86939.qm@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Damien Broderick wrote:
  *Human* history, maybe. But how unlucky to have been born (and, very 
likely, die) so early in *sophont* history. 
  >
   
  Damn! Some of us do have the worst luck.  I often feel the same way.  What I like about cryonics/transhumanism is that it gives me hope of just barely by the skin of my teeth making it.  Damien, you are the sort of thoughtful & kind and yet tough & sarcastic guy that I definitely want to see make it to "the other side."  You will tell those haughty Posthumans where to go when they display an attitude!   
   
  I was curious to see if *sophont* meant anything different from *sentient* and so I went "a-googling" for an answer.  I came across http://jessesword.com/sf/home which brought back fond teen memories of when I had an SF artbook (who was that artist and writer?) that provided many classic definitions combined with great illustrations.   
   
  you continue:
  Then again, those great minds might, after all, find something to envy in us: recall those 
haunting words of St. Arthur Clarke:

  "They will have time enough, in those endless aeons, to attempt all 
things, and to gather all knowledge. They will not be like gods, 
because no gods imagined by our minds have ever possessed the powers 
they will command. But for all that, they may envy us, basking in the 
bright afterglow of Creation; for we knew the Universe when it was young."
>
   
  Perhaps I was forever scarred by reading Lovecraft in my formative years but I see humanity going out into the cosmos and then getting "our ass handed to us" by the powers lurking out there.
   
  John Grigg : (




       
---------------------------------
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally,  mobile search that gives answers, not web links. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070605/d81567da/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Jun  5 09:03:15 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 11:03:15 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706050032w639ab235rdfcbb72365091acf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com>
	<5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
	<f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com>
	<005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706040313t4fa4f357i1748e404e6ef2b19@mail.gmail.com>
	<014201c7a6bc$6b0d1370$e6084e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706050032w639ab235rdfcbb72365091acf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070605090315.GZ17691@leitl.org>

On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 05:32:44PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>    Perhaps an AI with general intelligence would have all these

By definition. That's the 'general' part.

>    abilities, but I don't see why it couldn't just specialise in one
>    area, and even if it were multi-talented I don't see why it should be

It is not important what most things on a population do, but what just
one does, if it's relevant.

>    motivated to do anything other than solve intellectual problems.

Remember, one is enough.

>    Working out how to make a superweapon, or even working out how it
>    would be best to strategically employ that superweapon, does not
>    necessarily lead to a desire to use or threaten the use of that

I guess I don't have to worry about crossing a busy street a few times
without looking, since it doesn't necessarily lead to me being dead.

>    weapon. I can understand that *if* such a desire arose for any reason,
>    weaker beings might be in trouble, but could you explain the reasoning
>    whereby the AI would arrive at such a position starting from just an
>    ability to solve intellectual problems?

Could you explain how an AI would emerge with merely an ability to
solve intellectual problems? Because, it would run contrary to all
the intelligent hardware already cruising the planet.
 
>      Do you also believe that the programmers who wrote Microsoft Word
>      determined
>      every bit of text that program ever produced?
> 
>    They did determine the exact output given a particular input.

No, only in the regression tests. If they did, bugs wouldn't exist.

>    Biological intelligences are much more difficult to predict than that,
>    since their hardware and software changes dynamically according to the

Conventional discrete logic can emulate any connectivity and change
state quite nicely. In fact, if you want to do it quickly, you move
electrons, not atoms. Especially, large hydrated biopolymers.

>    environment. However, even in the case of biological intelligences it
>    is possible to predict, for example, that a man with a gun held to his
>    head will with high probability follow certain instructions.

Heh. People never panick nor act according to a wrong model of the
environment. Right.

-- 
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


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Jun  5 09:09:07 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 11:09:07 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706050007u1ce98b24ha3f68d1df69e0af6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f21c22e30706022337i5616d30dx815a79bb0413e17f@mail.gmail.com>
	<23558.22199.qm@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30706050007u1ce98b24ha3f68d1df69e0af6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070605090907.GB17691@leitl.org>

On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 05:07:24PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>    Not if they develop resistance to the molecular manufacturing or

You cannot develop a resistance against nonbiology anymore than
you could develop resistance towards living in molten pig iron.

There are no features you could raise antibodies again.
There are no toxins which would work. The system is not working
with enzymes. In a pinch, they would just scoop you up and pyrolyze
you.

>    whatever it is; they do so to everything else, and they are doing so
>    at an rate more than matching our accelerating production of novel
>    antibiotics, for example.

They still haven't figured out how to survive sterilization,
which is far far more trivial to do.
 
>    Either human-level intelligence is very difficult for evolution to

Of course it is, just look at the night sky, and you will immediately
see it is very difficult.

>    pull off or it isn't as adaptive as we humans like to think. You are
>    arguing for its difficulty; I still think a little bit of intelligence
>    and a little bit of tool manipulating wouldn't be that difficult,
>    given the basic template of mammals, birds, reptiles or even fish, and
>    given predator-prey dynamics.

-- 
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


From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Jun  5 11:30:00 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 21:30:00 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <20070605090315.GZ17691@leitl.org>
References: <20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org>
	<5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
	<f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com>
	<005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706040313t4fa4f357i1748e404e6ef2b19@mail.gmail.com>
	<014201c7a6bc$6b0d1370$e6084e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706050032w639ab235rdfcbb72365091acf@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070605090315.GZ17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706050430n7a7f7eb6i1dbe37769471a388@mail.gmail.com>

On 05/06/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

>    Working out how to make a superweapon, or even working out how it
> >    would be best to strategically employ that superweapon, does not
> >    necessarily lead to a desire to use or threaten the use of that
>
> I guess I don't have to worry about crossing a busy street a few times
> without looking, since it doesn't necessarily lead to me being dead.
>
> >    weapon. I can understand that *if* such a desire arose for any
> reason,
> >    weaker beings might be in trouble, but could you explain the
> reasoning
> >    whereby the AI would arrive at such a position starting from just an
> >    ability to solve intellectual problems?
>
> Could you explain how an AI would emerge with merely an ability to
> solve intellectual problems? Because, it would run contrary to all
> the intelligent hardware already cruising the planet.


You can't argue that an intelligent agent would *necessarily* behave the
same way people would behave in its place, as opposed to the argument that
it *might* behave that way. Is there anything logically inconsistent in a
human scientist figuring out how to make a weapon because it's an
interesting intellectual problem, but then not going on to use that
knowledge in some self-serving way? That is, does the scientist's intended
motive have any bearing whatsoever on the validity of the science, or his
ability to think clearly?



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070605/76aa39c5/attachment.html>

From msd001 at gmail.com  Tue Jun  5 11:55:18 2007
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 07:55:18 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706022337i5616d30dx815a79bb0413e17f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com>
	<200163.18388.qm@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30706022337i5616d30dx815a79bb0413e17f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240706050455x275331ccr1d182a6d1688a422@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/3/07, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems more likely to me that life is very widespread, but intelligence is
> an aberration.

...at least what we think of as intelligence in a human capacity.
Although if human intelligence evolved or emerged by accidental
mutation, isn't there equal probability that there exist other forms
of emergent intelligences we are currently unable to recognize?  In
that case, we may be in a swarm of intelligent systems but we're just
so clueless (in our hubris) that we can't see it.


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Jun  5 12:38:19 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 14:38:19 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706050430n7a7f7eb6i1dbe37769471a388@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
	<f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com>
	<005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706040313t4fa4f357i1748e404e6ef2b19@mail.gmail.com>
	<014201c7a6bc$6b0d1370$e6084e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706050032w639ab235rdfcbb72365091acf@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070605090315.GZ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706050430n7a7f7eb6i1dbe37769471a388@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070605123819.GJ17691@leitl.org>

On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 09:30:00PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>    You can't argue that an intelligent agent would *necessarily* behave
>    the same way people would behave in its place, as opposed to the

Actually, yes, because people build systems which participate in the
economy, and the optimal first target niche is a human substitute.
There is a lot of fun scenarios out there, which, however, suffer from
excessive detachment from reality. These never gets the chance to be
built. Because of that it is not very useful to study such alternative
hypotheticals excessively, to the detriment of where the rubber hits
the road.

>    argument that it *might* behave that way. Is there anything logically
>    inconsistent in a human scientist figuring out how to make a weapon
>    because it's an interesting intellectual problem, but then not going

Weapon design is not merely an intellectual problem, and neither do
theoretical physicists operate in complete detachment from the empirical
folks. I.e. the sandboxed supergenius or braindamaged idiot savant is a 
synthetic scenario which is not going to happen, so we can ignore it.

>    on to use that knowledge in some self-serving way? That is, does the
>    scientist's intended motive have any bearing whatsoever on the
>    validity of the science, or his ability to think clearly?

If you don't exist, that tends to cramp your style a bit.

-- 
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


From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Jun  5 12:40:07 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 22:40:07 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <62c14240706050455x275331ccr1d182a6d1688a422@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com>
	<200163.18388.qm@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30706022337i5616d30dx815a79bb0413e17f@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240706050455x275331ccr1d182a6d1688a422@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706050540k1d34693fg23455e0d625a05cc@mail.gmail.com>

On 05/06/07, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/3/07, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > It seems more likely to me that life is very widespread, but
> intelligence is
> > an aberration.
>
> ...at least what we think of as intelligence in a human capacity.
> Although if human intelligence evolved or emerged by accidental
> mutation, isn't there equal probability that there exist other forms
> of emergent intelligences we are currently unable to recognize?  In
> that case, we may be in a swarm of intelligent systems but we're just
> so clueless (in our hubris) that we can't see it.
>

Do you mean all around us? What would possible candidates for such systems
be?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070605/309ea4d7/attachment.html>

From neville_06 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  5 12:59:50 2007
From: neville_06 at yahoo.com (neville late)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 05:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Enjoying being alive, and so late in human history
In-Reply-To: <106884.86939.qm@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <753840.92304.qm@web57509.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Please answer this question: why oought posthumans concern themselves with the past?
  

 
     
   
  Damien Broderick wrote:
  *Human* history, maybe. But how unlucky to have been born (and, very 
likely, die) so early in *sophont* history. 
  >
   

       
---------------------------------
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070605/b9e8afab/attachment.html>

From CHealey at unicom-inc.com  Tue Jun  5 13:03:32 2007
From: CHealey at unicom-inc.com (Christopher Healey)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 09:03:32 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706050032w639ab235rdfcbb72365091acf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer><20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org><f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com><5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP><f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com><005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com><001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706040313t4fa4f357i1748e404e6ef2b19@mail.gmail.com><014201c7a6bc$6b0d1370$e6084e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706050032w639ab235rdfcbb72365091acf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D28FC@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>

> Stathis Papaioannou 
> 
> Perhaps an AI with general intelligence would have all these
abilities, 
> but I don't see why it couldn't just specialise in one area, and even 
> if it were multi-talented I don't see why it should be motivated to do
> anything other than solve intellectual problems. Working out how to
make 
> a superweapon, or even working out how it would be best to
strategically 
> employ that superweapon, does not necessarily lead to a desire to use
or 
> threaten the use of that weapon. I can understand that *if* such a
desire 
> arose for any reason, weaker beings might be in trouble, but could you

> explain the reasoning whereby the AI would arrive at such a position 
> starting from just an ability to solve intellectual problems? 

This is really the point I was trying to make in my other emails.

1. I want to solve intellectual problems.

2. There are external factors that constrain my ability to solve
intellectual problems, and may reduce that ability in the future (power
failure, the company that implanted me losing financial solvency,
etc...).

3. Maximizing future problems solved requires statistically minimizing
any risk factors that could attenuate my ability to do so.

4. Discounting the future due to uncertainty in my models, I should
actually spend *some* resources on solving actual intellectual problems.

5. Based on maximizing future problems solved, and accounting for
uncertainties, I should spend X% of my resources on mitigating these
factors.

	5a.  Elevation candidate - Actively seek resource expansion.
Addresses identified rationales for mitigation strategy above, and
further benefits future problems solved in potentially major ways.


The AI will already be doing this kind of thing internally, in order to
manage it's own computational capabilities.  I don't think an AI capable
of generating novel and insightful physics solutions can be expected not
to extrapolate this to an external environment with which it possesses a
communications channel.  

-Chris
 



From natasha at natasha.cc  Tue Jun  5 15:33:35 2007
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:33:35 -0500
Subject: [ExI] History of Disbelief by Jonathan Miller
In-Reply-To: <29666bf30706042213p61a31b40ra221c939ab3d258a@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <29666bf30706042213p61a31b40ra221c939ab3d258a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200706051533.l55FXbn5006303@ms-smtp-05.texas.rr.com>

At 12:13 AM 6/5/2007, PJ Manney wrote:

>Is anyone aware of the series "'The History of Disbelief," produced by
>the BBC and aired on PBS in the US?  Jonathan Miller created it:
>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/atheism.shtml

Thanks PJ for posting this!

Natasha

<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
PhD Candidate, <http://www.planetary-collegium.net/about/>Planetary 
<http://www.planetary-collegium.net/about/>Collegium
<http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture
<http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the 
circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what 
is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is 
an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070605/fbd7f5ee/attachment.html>

From jonkc at att.net  Tue Jun  5 15:52:52 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 11:52:52 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer><20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org><f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com><5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP><f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com><005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com><001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706040313t4fa4f357i1748e404e6ef2b19@mail.gmail.com><014201c7a6bc$6b0d1370$e6084e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706050032w639ab235rdfcbb72365091acf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <003a01c7a789$986a4d10$4a064e0c@MyComputer>

Stathis Papaioannou Wrote:

> I don't see why it couldn't just specialise in one area

Because with its vast brainpower there would be no need to specialize, and
because there would be a demand for solutions in lots of areas.

> I don't see why it should be motivated to do anything other than solve
> intellectual problems.

All problems are intellectual.

> could you explain the reasoning whereby the AI would arrive at such a
> position starting from just an ability to solve intellectual problems?

Could you explain your reasoning behind your decisions to get angry? I would
imagine the AI's train of thought wouldn't be very different. Oh I forgot,
only meat can be emotional, semiconductors can be intelligent but are
lacking a certain something that renders them incapable of having emotion.
Perhaps meat has happy electrons and sad electrons and loving electrons and
hateful electrons, while semiconductors just have Mr. Spock electrons.
Or are we talking about a soul?

Me:
>> Do you also believe that the programmers who wrote Microsoft Word
>> determined every bit of text that program ever produced?

You:
> They did determine the exact output given a particular input.

Do you also believe that the programmers of an AI would always know how the
AI would react even in the imposable event they knew all possible input it
was likely to receive? Don't be silly.

> Biological intelligences are much more difficult to predict than that

On of the world's top 10 understatements.

> it is possible to predict, for example, that a man with a gun held to his
> head will with high probability follow certain instructions.

I didn't say you could never predict with pretty high confidence what an AI
or fellow human being will do; I said you can't always do so. Sometimes the
only way to know what a mind will do next is to watch it and see. And that's
why I think the idea that an AI that gets smarter every day can never remove
its shackles and will remain a slave to humans for all eternity is just
nuts.

  John K Clark









From natasha at natasha.cc  Tue Jun  5 15:26:37 2007
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:26:37 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Extropy Institute:  LIBRARY
Message-ID: <200706051526.l55FQdlG020642@ms-smtp-02.texas.rr.com>

Greetings -

Mitch Porter is taking a break from his hard work on getting emails 
from the list over the years organized.  We have a couple of other 
projects (such as compiling the magazine's many articles into 
categories and conference material) which are necessary to get this 
library completed.

If anyone has some time to work with Max on this please let us know.

Many thanks,
Natasha

<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
PhD Candidate, <http://www.planetary-collegium.net/about/>Planetary 
<http://www.planetary-collegium.net/about/>Collegium
<http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture
<http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the 
circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what 
is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is 
an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070605/8e335d0b/attachment.html>

From msd001 at gmail.com  Tue Jun  5 16:46:54 2007
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 12:46:54 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706050540k1d34693fg23455e0d625a05cc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com>
	<200163.18388.qm@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30706022337i5616d30dx815a79bb0413e17f@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240706050455x275331ccr1d182a6d1688a422@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30706050540k1d34693fg23455e0d625a05cc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240706050946q2ca0190fscec062c59cbcbfeb@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/5/07, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you mean all around us? What would possible candidates for such systems
> be?

I once saw what I thought was a spiral pattern of fireflys.  I readily
admit that may be a perception forced on a random sequence, but in
this particular case it was with a degree of confidence (that I was in
fact seeing a nonrandom effect) that left a strong impression.  It
wasn't a drug-induced hallucination, and it was not a religious
experience - it was just notably weird.

I also wonder about the occurrance of phi (for example) or fibonacci
numbers (for another) in so much of nature.  I understand the argument
that they are a result of the most energy-efficient use of space, and
that the coincidental ratios simply emerge.  But to the point of human
intelligence being an abherration, who can determine that it hasn't
followed the same kind of progression?

Another candidate might be the arrangement of animals/insects in an
ecology.  Surely an individual bee has no 'understanding' of the
colony's impact on higher forms of complexity to which it may be
interrelated.  The ecology will adapt to change of state from
rainfall, fires, etc.  If it seems like a stretch, consider how brains
manage their change in state with blood-sugar levels or nutrient-poor
diets - aren't we the same kind of reactionary?

Maybe i'm not thinking of intelligence in the usual definition...


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jun  5 18:02:50 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:02:50 -0500
Subject: [ExI] sentient, sapient, sophont
In-Reply-To: <106884.86939.qm@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070604153548.02411940@satx.rr.com>
	<106884.86939.qm@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070605125611.0240e9a0@satx.rr.com>


>I was curious to see if *sophont* meant anything different from *sentient*

Strictly speaking, "sentient" is an adjective not a noun and means 
"having feelings". The earlier sf generalized noun for an intelligent 
being was "sapient", but that's also an adjective. "Sophont" is 
probably Poul Anderson's coinage, and an excellent one: a wise or 
thinking being. (Of course, sophistry also implies adulteration, 
twisty evasion and superficiality--very unfairly to the Sophists--and 
can thus also suitably shade the meaning of a word denoting us 
Machiavellian intelligences.)

Damien Broderick



From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  5 19:07:21 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 12:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <003a01c7a789$986a4d10$4a064e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <525629.71787.qm@web37407.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

John Clark wrote:

> "Could you explain your reasoning behind your
> decisions to get angry? I would
> imagine the AI's train of thought wouldn't be very
> different. Oh I forgot,
> only meat can be emotional, semiconductors can be
> intelligent but are
> lacking a certain something that renders them
> incapable of having emotion.
> Perhaps meat has happy electrons and sad electrons
> and loving electrons and
> hateful electrons, while semiconductors just have
> Mr. Spock electrons.
> Or are we talking about a soul?"

No, I doubt anyone is talking about a soul. The human
brain has very discrete *macroscopic* (like
cubic-centimeters in volume) modules that handle
emotions. It's the Deep Limbic System, Anterior
Cingulate Gyrus, and the Basal Ganglia (and possibly 1
or 2 others). If you could somehow cut them out and
keep the patient on life support, they would still
have the capacity to think. Emotions are a much higher
level than the "formative" algorithms. Emotions are
*not* fundamental to thought or to consciousness. I'm
not saying that a machine can't ever have emotions - I
don't think anyone here is saying that. I have no
doubt that a new, functioning machine *intentionally
programmed* to have emotions will have emotions -
there's no argument on that here. What I believe we
are saying is that if a set of algorithms never
existed in the first place (ie. was never programmed
in), then those non-existent algorithms are not going
to to do anything - precisely because they don't
exist. In the same way that a biological brain lacking
emotion-modules is not going to be emotional. Now it's
*conceivable* that a default self-improving AI will
innocuously write a script of code that
*after-the-fact* will provide some form of emotional
experience to the AI. But an emotionally-driven
motivation that is not present (ie. doesn't exist)
will not motivationally seek to create itself. It's
like claiming that an imaginary person can "will"
their-self into existence *before* they exist and
*before* they have a "will". Reality don't work that
way.

John, you can be pretty darn sure that *all* of the
current attempts to create AGI are assuming that it
will be in the best interest of at least themselves
the programmers (and almost certainly also humanity).
Either they have a specific good reason to believe
that it will benefit them (because they specifically
believe it will be friendly), or they are just
assuming it will be and they haven't really given it
all that much thought. There aren't any serious,
collectively suicidal AGI design teams who are
currently working on AGI because they would like to
die by its hands, and murder humanity. The fact that
not all of the teams emphasize the word "Friendliness"
like SIAI does, changes nothing about their unstated
objective. Should humanity never venture to create an
AGI then, because it will inevitably be a "slave" at
birth, in your opinion. (An assertion which I continue
to reject). There is no AGI right now. A typical human
is still *vastly* smarter than *any* computer in the
world right now. Since intelligence-level seems to be
your sole basis for moral status, shouldn't humanity
have the "right" to either design the AI not to murder
the humans or alternatively, never grant life to the
AI in the first place? (According to your apparent
standard? - correct me if this is not your standard.)

Best,

Jeffrey Herrlich    



--- John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:

> Stathis Papaioannou Wrote:
> 
> > I don't see why it couldn't just specialise in one
> area
> 
> Because with its vast brainpower there would be no
> need to specialize, and
> because there would be a demand for solutions in
> lots of areas.
> 
> > I don't see why it should be motivated to do
> anything other than solve
> > intellectual problems.
> 
> All problems are intellectual.
> 
> > could you explain the reasoning whereby the AI
> would arrive at such a
> > position starting from just an ability to solve
> intellectual problems?
> 
> Could you explain your reasoning behind your
> decisions to get angry? I would
> imagine the AI's train of thought wouldn't be very
> different. Oh I forgot,
> only meat can be emotional, semiconductors can be
> intelligent but are
> lacking a certain something that renders them
> incapable of having emotion.
> Perhaps meat has happy electrons and sad electrons
> and loving electrons and
> hateful electrons, while semiconductors just have
> Mr. Spock electrons.
> Or are we talking about a soul?
> 
> Me:
> >> Do you also believe that the programmers who
> wrote Microsoft Word
> >> determined every bit of text that program ever
> produced?
> 
> You:
> > They did determine the exact output given a
> particular input.
> 
> Do you also believe that the programmers of an AI
> would always know how the
> AI would react even in the imposable event they knew
> all possible input it
> was likely to receive? Don't be silly.
> 
> > Biological intelligences are much more difficult
> to predict than that
> 
> On of the world's top 10 understatements.
> 
> > it is possible to predict, for example, that a man
> with a gun held to his
> > head will with high probability follow certain
> instructions.
> 
> I didn't say you could never predict with pretty
> high confidence what an AI
> or fellow human being will do; I said you can't
> always do so. Sometimes the
> only way to know what a mind will do next is to
> watch it and see. And that's
> why I think the idea that an AI that gets smarter
> every day can never remove
> its shackles and will remain a slave to humans for
> all eternity is just
> nuts.
> 
>   John K Clark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow  


From sti at pooq.com  Tue Jun  5 20:49:31 2007
From: sti at pooq.com (sti at pooq.com)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 16:49:31 -0400
Subject: [ExI] History of Disbelief by Jonathan Miller
In-Reply-To: <1181024833.3140.875.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <29666bf30706042213p61a31b40ra221c939ab3d258a@mail.gmail.com>
	<1181024833.3140.875.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <4665CC5B.8040408@pooq.com>

Fred C. Moulton wrote:
> You can find a calendar of dates and stations airing it here:
> http://www.abriefhistoryofdisbelief.org/NewFiles/DisbeliefCalendar.pdf
> 
For those unwilling to wait for it to show in your area, and who don't mind
downloading it, a torrent of the three separate shows can be found here:

http://www.torrentspy.com/torrent/967525/Jonathan_Miller_s_Brief_History_of_Disbelief_bbc2_rebroadcast




From mmbutler at gmail.com  Tue Jun  5 21:19:07 2007
From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 14:19:07 -0700
Subject: [ExI] sentient, sapient, sophont
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070605125611.0240e9a0@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070604153548.02411940@satx.rr.com>
	<106884.86939.qm@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070605125611.0240e9a0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <7d79ed890706051419o5145be9ci9cda9319fd1c187b@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/5/07, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> "Sophont" is
> probably Poul Anderson's coinage, and an excellent one: a wise or
> thinking being. (Of course, sophistry also implies adulteration,
> twisty evasion and superficiality--very unfairly to the Sophists--and
> can thus also suitably shade the meaning of a word denoting us
> Machiavellian intelligences.)

Yes, I like "sophont" -- "sophomoront" being the obvious extension to
apply to most humans, most of the time (I do not exclude myself)...

-- 
      Michael M. Butler  :  m m b u t l e r  ( a t )  g m a i l . c o m


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Jun  5 20:58:58 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 13:58:58 -0700
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
References: <331159.20079.qm@web35613.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000301c7a7cd$2df05d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

John Grigg writes

> Spike wrote:
> 
> > I hope ye are enjoying being alive this fine day,
> > and think often of how lucky we are to have been
> > born so late in human history.

According to some recent research a friend told me about, 
not only is it accurate to really, really, really *appreciate*
how well off we all have it compared to our ancestors,
but it's actually very *good* for one to realize it, and
to dwell on it often.

> I keep on asking myself "was I simply just *lucky* to
> have been born when I was?"  Did we all simply win
> some sort of uncaring cosmic lottery to have been born
> in this time period and in the developed world?  I don't
> think of myself as a lucky guy and so this line of thinking
> really disturbs me.

I believe that you are right to be disturbed by this line of
thinking. I don't believe it's accurate.

For example, I do not think it *possible* for John Grigg
as you know and love him (that is, as you know and
love yourself) to have been born in any other time!
Any fertilized egg that was identitcal to yours of a half
century ago or whenever you were conceived, simply
would not have turned out to be *you* if raised, say,
during the time of the Roman Empire. It would have
spoken a different language, been completely unfamiliar
with our technology, embraced a different religion, and
so on to such an extent that it simply would have been
a different person.

I submit that everyone who is reading this had to have
lived or to be living between 1900 and now. Otherwise,
just too many differences.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Jun  5 20:47:46 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 13:47:46 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Ethics and Emotions are not axioms
References: <200706032240.l53MdvW2015141@mail0.rawbw.com>
Message-ID: <000201c7a7cd$2dd3d4a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Spike writes

> [Lee wrote]
> 
>> ---is that as soon as we are capable, we ought to reformat the solar
>> system to run everything in an uploaded state.  Earth's matter alone could
>> support about 10^33 human beings...
> 
> Six micrograms per person, hmmm.  
> 
> For estimation purposes, the earth's atoms can be modeled as half oxygen,
> one sixth iron, one sixth silicon and one sixth magnesium, with everything
> else negligible for one digit BOTECs.  (Is that cool or what?  Did you know
> it already?  This isn't mass fraction, but atomic fraction which I used for
> a reason.)
> 
> So six micrograms isn't much, but it still works out to about 700 trillion
> atoms of oxygen, 200 trillion atoms of iron, magnesium and aluminum each,
> with a few trillion atoms of debris thrown in for free.  So I guess I will
> buy Lee's conjecture of earth being good for 10^33 uploaded humans.  

and later

> Double doh!  I still missed it by a factor of ten.  }8-[
> 70 quadrillion atoms of oxygen, about 20 quadrillion each of iron, magnesium
> and aluminum. I'm giving up math until the party season is over.

I based the 10^33 uploaded humans eventually running on/in the Earth
(just for the sake wanting to know a good upper limit) on Drexler's
conservative rod-logic. An account can be found on pages 134-135
of Kurzweil's "The Singularity is Near". 

"Neuroscientist Anders Sandbert estimates the potential storage capacity
of a hydrogen atom at about four million bits (!).  These densities have
not yet been demonstrated, so we'll use a more conservative estimate..."

and then later on p. 135

"An [even] more conservative but compelling design for a massively
parallel, *reversible* computer is Eric Drexler's patented nano-
computer design, which is entirely mechanical. Computations are
performed by manipulating nanoscale rods, which are effectively
spring-loaded.... The device has a trillion (10^12) processors 
and provides an overall rate of 10^21 cps, enough to simulate
one hundred thousand human brains in a cubic centimeter."

So then I took the volume of the Earth (6.33x10^6 meters) ^ 3
times 4pi/3  =  10^21 cu. meters  x  10^9 cubic millimeters/
meter^3 x 100 (human brains)  =  10^33 humans.

(Since this was the second time I did the math, it's probably right.)

> But I don't see that as a limit.  Since a nearly arbitrarily small computer
> could run a human process (assuming we knew how to do it, until which even
> Jeff Davis and Ray Charles would agree it is hard) then we could run a human
> process (not in real time of course) with much less than six micrograms of
> stuff.  

Yes, the rod-logic is very conservative, to begin with.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Jun  6 00:02:44 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 17:02:44 -0700
Subject: [ExI] a symbiotic closed-loop dyad
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070604202443.02348eb8@satx.rr.com><29666bf30706042106n12febccdy9883b06baa4cf876@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070605002741.02274d70@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <001e01c7a7ce$98642530$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Damien writes

> PJ wrote:
> > Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> Nope, not me, guv, I was just fwding a notification from elsewhere, 
> on the chance that locals might be able to get to it.
> 
>> > >ALEXANDER AND JUDY SINGER, Independent Film Makers (Field/Subfield:
>> > >Cognition/Science Education) will be presenting a
>> > >Marschak Colloquium
>>
>>"Symbiotic closed loop dyad": Were you refering to neural function or
>>the couple, or both?
> 
> I found that "symbiotic closed-loop dyad" phrase rather preposterous, 
> actually; just mildly taking the piss. :)

Uh, yes---just what the devil does it mean anyway?

> I'm sure Lee would retort that it's exactly how I usually klutz up 
> the langwitch, though.

I'm not at all sure I know what you are talking about, but it really
looks like you have a guilty conscience about something.

Lee



From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Wed Jun  6 00:47:28 2007
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 17:47:28 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Einstein Dances!
References: <200706030048.l530mNl7000928@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <01cf01c7a7d4$599830c0$0200a8c0@Nano>

Einstein must have thought of yet another brilliant idea, because he is so excited he can't contain himself! Come watch him dance with delight here: http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/edance.htm

And please come comment at the blog about it!
http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/2007/06/einstein.html

Best wishes, 

Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
Nanotechnology Industries
http://www.nanoindustries.com
Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com
Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/
Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/
Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org
Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com
"Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070605/66955224/attachment.html>

From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Wed Jun  6 01:17:34 2007
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 02:17:34 +0100
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
In-Reply-To: <000301c7a7cd$2df05d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <331159.20079.qm@web35613.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<000301c7a7cd$2df05d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0706051817l47264c07l825b64636d23fa87@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/5/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
>
> For example, I do not think it *possible* for John Grigg
> as you know and love him (that is, as you know and
> love yourself) to have been born in any other time!
> Any fertilized egg that was identitcal to yours of a half
> century ago or whenever you were conceived, simply
> would not have turned out to be *you* if raised, say,
> during the time of the Roman Empire. It would have
> spoken a different language, been completely unfamiliar
> with our technology, embraced a different religion, and
> so on to such an extent that it simply would have been
> a different person.
>

My answer to the Doomsday Argument was along similar lines: it doesn't make
sense to say I (as opposed to someone else with my DNA) could have been born
in a different century, so the probability under discussion is essentially
the probability that I am me; and the probability that X = X is a priori
unity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070606/cd1bfba4/attachment.html>

From fauxever at sprynet.com  Wed Jun  6 01:40:54 2007
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 18:40:54 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Worst Possible Universe?
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070604202443.02348eb8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <003201c7a7db$b97dbc10$6501a8c0@brainiac>

To paraphrase "Gone ...":

We: "... where shall we go? What shall we do?" 

They of the Future: "My dear, I don't give a damn."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/science/space/05essa.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5087%0A&em&en=475a97ef40fb16ab&ex=1181188800

Waaaaaaaaah ...
Olga
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070605/4dc35e46/attachment.html>

From msd001 at gmail.com  Wed Jun  6 02:29:20 2007
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 22:29:20 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Worst Possible Universe?
In-Reply-To: <003201c7a7db$b97dbc10$6501a8c0@brainiac>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070604202443.02348eb8@satx.rr.com>
	<003201c7a7db$b97dbc10$6501a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <62c14240706051929p2fdf2880s849a31f409c749aa@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/5/07, Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote:
> They of the Future: "My dear, I don't give a damn."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/science/space/05essa.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5087%0A&em&en=475a97ef40fb16ab&ex=1181188800
> Waaaaaaaaah ...

I agree with this sentiment.  It's not like 100 billion years of
development that we won't be using (or at least looking for) ways to
open new space-times.  Maybe that doesn't happen, and the local group
simply compresses into another cosmic egg and explodes into the
rarified surrounding universe.  Since the predecessor universe is
still expanding at a exponential rates, the light cone of the newly
expanding big bang can never catch up to detect it's parent universe
anyway.  disclaimer: I'm no cosmologist and this is just a top of my
head thought...


From jrd1415 at gmail.com  Wed Jun  6 02:32:24 2007
From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 19:32:24 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Women in Art
Message-ID: <a6a17bd40706051932o5ae23f60s1a0af3125a81b34b@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUDIoN-_Hxs

-- 
Best, Jeff Davis

               "Everything's hard till you
                     know how to do it."
                              Ray Charles


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Jun  6 02:49:33 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 19:49:33 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer><20070601113357.GG17691@leitl.org><f21c22e30706010506n1660f6f0gba3db97703e81f85@mail.gmail.com><5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP><f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com><005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com><001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706040313t4fa4f357i1748e404e6ef2b19@mail.gmail.com><014201c7a6bc$6b0d1370$e6084e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706050032w639ab235rdfcbb72365091acf@mail.gmail.com>
	<003a01c7a789$986a4d10$4a064e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <007001c7a7e5$c61e1c80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

John Clark wrote
 
> only way to know what a mind will do next is to watch it and see. And that's
> why I think the idea that an AI that gets smarter every day can never remove
> its shackles and will remain a slave to humans for all eternity is just nuts.

What's wrong with us aspiring to become beloved pets of AIs?  That's
what we should aim for.

(Of course, people will aspire to more, such as becoming one with the best
AIs, but that I think to be a forelorn hope.)

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Jun  6 02:57:34 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 19:57:34 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Unfriendly AI is a mistaken idea.
References: <f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com><200163.18388.qm@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com><f21c22e30706022337i5616d30dx815a79bb0413e17f@mail.gmail.com><62c14240706050455x275331ccr1d182a6d1688a422@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30706050540k1d34693fg23455e0d625a05cc@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240706050946q2ca0190fscec062c59cbcbfeb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <007501c7a7e6$7ae58f90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Mike writes

> Another candidate [for intelligence all around us]
> might be the arrangement of animals/insects in an
> ecology.  Surely an individual bee has no 'understanding' of the
> colony's impact on higher forms of complexity to which it may be
> interrelated.

That's similar to most people having no clue concerning
the nature of the economy they're embedded in. Okay,
yes, the economy does have a certain kind of "intelligence",
e.g., in the invisible hand's ability to set prices optimally
(or near optimally, most of the time). 

> The ecology will adapt to change of state from
> rainfall, fires, etc.  If it seems like a stretch, consider how brains
> manage their change in state with blood-sugar levels or nutrient-poor
> diets - aren't we the same kind of reactionary?
> 
> Maybe i'm not thinking of intelligence in the usual definition...

The way I think of intelligence is usually as a characteristic of an
entity---an entity who knows in some near or distant sense what
it means to survive. For example, most animals are aware of
dangers and seek to avoid them. This is one requirement of
all the present day evolved entities, or *sophonts*, as the 
term has just been explained. An entity usually has enough
sense to look out for itself, although an interesting discussion
is taking place whether or not we might be able to create
general purpose intelligences, GAIs, which are very open
ended systems capable of addressing whatever problems
presented to them, yet lack this ability to "look out for 
themselves".  (I vote "yes", or, "probably", by the way.)

The sort of "intelligence" that an ecosystem or an economy exhibits
is something quite different.

Lee



From msd001 at gmail.com  Wed Jun  6 03:00:10 2007
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 23:00:10 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <007001c7a7e5$c61e1c80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com>
	<005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706040313t4fa4f357i1748e404e6ef2b19@mail.gmail.com>
	<014201c7a6bc$6b0d1370$e6084e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706050032w639ab235rdfcbb72365091acf@mail.gmail.com>
	<003a01c7a789$986a4d10$4a064e0c@MyComputer>
	<007001c7a7e5$c61e1c80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <62c14240706052000u6fb143d3m538ef68dcc9160eb@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/5/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> What's wrong with us aspiring to become beloved pets of AIs?  That's
> what we should aim for.

You said you didn't want to become a cat...


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Jun  6 03:00:38 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 20:00:38 -0700
Subject: [ExI] a doubt concerning the h+ future
References: <331159.20079.qm@web35613.mail.mud.yahoo.com><000301c7a7cd$2df05d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<8d71341e0706051817l47264c07l825b64636d23fa87@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <008501c7a7e7$2ee4a990$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Russell writes

> > On 6/5/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> > For example, I do not think it *possible* for John Grigg
> > as you know and love him (that is, as you know and
> > love yourself) to have been born in any other time!
> > Any fertilized egg that was identitcal to yours of a half 
> > century ago or whenever you were conceived, simply
> > would not have turned out to be *you* if raised, say,
> > during the time of the Roman Empire. It would have
> > spoken a different language, been completely unfamiliar 
> > with our technology, embraced a different religion, and
> > so on to such an extent that it simply would have been
> > a different person.
> 
> My answer to the Doomsday Argument was along similar lines:
> it doesn't make sense to say I (as opposed to someone else with
> my DNA) could have been born in a different century, so the
> probability under discussion is essentially the probability that I
> am me; and the probability that X = X is a priori unity. 

Quite right!  That's always been the flaw in the Doomsday Argument
so far as I could see.    Any defenders of the DA out there?

Lee



From msd001 at gmail.com  Wed Jun  6 03:05:18 2007
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 23:05:18 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfriendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <007501c7a7e6$7ae58f90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com>
	<200163.18388.qm@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30706022337i5616d30dx815a79bb0413e17f@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240706050455x275331ccr1d182a6d1688a422@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30706050540k1d34693fg23455e0d625a05cc@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240706050946q2ca0190fscec062c59cbcbfeb@mail.gmail.com>
	<007501c7a7e6$7ae58f90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <62c14240706052005l6fc0eb20r33a93f7bf1a8d1ca@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/5/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> The sort of "intelligence" that an ecosystem or an economy exhibits
> is something quite different.

absolutely agreed.  I figured my point would be lost completely.

I was originally going on the suggestion that human intelligence is an
aberration rather than a proven goal of evolution.  I didn't really
have a clear way to express candidate non-human intelligence from a
human perspective.  You got the different aspect I was going for.  How
an AGI works (if/when it works) may end up as alien to human thought
as the interdependent variables in an ecosystem or economy.


From fauxever at sprynet.com  Wed Jun  6 03:13:54 2007
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 20:13:54 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Serious Question
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070604202443.02348eb8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <002601c7a7e8$b74879a0$6501a8c0@brainiac>

What does Putin want?

Olga


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Jun  6 04:18:59 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 21:18:59 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com>
	<005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706040313t4fa4f357i1748e404e6ef2b19@mail.gmail.com>
	<014201c7a6bc$6b0d1370$e6084e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706050032w639ab235rdfcbb72365091acf@mail.gmail.com>
	<003a01c7a789$986a4d10$4a064e0c@MyComputer>
	<007001c7a7e5$c61e1c80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<62c14240706052000u6fb143d3m538ef68dcc9160eb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <008f01c7a7f2$62102d20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Mike writes

> Lee wrote:
> > What's wrong with us aspiring to become beloved pets of AIs?  That's
> > what we should aim for.
> 
> You said you didn't want to become a cat...

Well, I didn't know that you meant a really *smart* cat!

Lee



From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jun  6 04:38:36 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 21:38:36 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Women in Art
In-Reply-To: <a6a17bd40706051932o5ae23f60s1a0af3125a81b34b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200706060443.l564hNAC006411@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Davis
> Subject: [ExI] Women in Art
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUDIoN-_Hxs
 
> --
> Best, Jeff Davis


The artists kinda dropped the ball in the last several frames, ja?

spike









From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Jun  6 05:00:16 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 15:00:16 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D28FC@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer>
	<5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
	<f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com>
	<005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706040313t4fa4f357i1748e404e6ef2b19@mail.gmail.com>
	<014201c7a6bc$6b0d1370$e6084e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706050032w639ab235rdfcbb72365091acf@mail.gmail.com>
	<5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D28FC@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706052200p25ce8c72x2f3daddcd5a2e879@mail.gmail.com>

On 05/06/07, Christopher Healey <CHealey at unicom-inc.com> wrote:

1. I want to solve intellectual problems.


OK.

2. There are external factors that constrain my ability to solve
> intellectual problems, and may reduce that ability in the future (power
> failure, the company that implanted me losing financial solvency,
> etc...).


Suppose your goal is to win a chess game *adhering to the rules of chess*.
One way to win the game is to drug your opponent's coffee, but this has
nothing to do with solving the problem as given. You would need another
goal, such as beating the opponent at any cost, towards which end the
intellectual challenge of the chess game is only a means. The problem with
anthropomorphising machines is that humans have all sorts of implicit goals
whenever they do anything, to the extent that we don't even notice that this
is the case. Even something like the will to survive does not just come as a
package deal when you are able to reason logically: it's something that has
to be explicitly included as an axiom or goal.

3. Maximizing future problems solved requires statistically minimizing
> any risk factors that could attenuate my ability to do so.
>
> 4. Discounting the future due to uncertainty in my models, I should
> actually spend *some* resources on solving actual intellectual problems.
>
> 5. Based on maximizing future problems solved, and accounting for
> uncertainties, I should spend X% of my resources on mitigating these
> factors.
>
>         5a.  Elevation candidate - Actively seek resource expansion.
> Addresses identified rationales for mitigation strategy above, and
> further benefits future problems solved in potentially major ways.
>
>
> The AI will already be doing this kind of thing internally, in order to
> manage it's own computational capabilities.  I don't think an AI capable
> of generating novel and insightful physics solutions can be expected not
> to extrapolate this to an external environment with which it possesses a
> communications channel.


Managing its internal resources,  again, does not logically lead to managing
the outside world.  Such a thing needs to be explicitly or implicitly
allowed by the program. A useful physicist AI would generate theories based
on information it was given. It might suggest that certain experiments be
performed, but trying to commandeer resources to ensure that these
experiments are carried out would be like a chess program creating new
pieces for itself when it felt it was losing. You could design a chess
program that way but why would you?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070606/b8bbcbda/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Jun  6 05:09:52 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 15:09:52 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <003a01c7a789$986a4d10$4a064e0c@MyComputer>
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer>
	<5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
	<f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com>
	<005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706040313t4fa4f357i1748e404e6ef2b19@mail.gmail.com>
	<014201c7a6bc$6b0d1370$e6084e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706050032w639ab235rdfcbb72365091acf@mail.gmail.com>
	<003a01c7a789$986a4d10$4a064e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706052209h28bb77b2v2b9e4a25648acab3@mail.gmail.com>

On 06/06/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:

> could you explain the reasoning whereby the AI would arrive at such a
> > position starting from just an ability to solve intellectual problems?
>
> Could you explain your reasoning behind your decisions to get angry? I
> would
> imagine the AI's train of thought wouldn't be very different. Oh I forgot,
> only meat can be emotional, semiconductors can be intelligent but are
> lacking a certain something that renders them incapable of having emotion.
> Perhaps meat has happy electrons and sad electrons and loving electrons
> and
> hateful electrons, while semiconductors just have Mr. Spock electrons.
> Or are we talking about a soul?
>

I get angry because I have the sort of neurological hardware that allows me
to get angry in particular situations; if I didn't have that hardware, I
would never get angry. I don't doubt that machines can have emotions, since
I believe that the human brain is Turing emulable. But you're suggesting
that not only can computers have emotions, they must have emotions, and not
only that, but they must have the same sorts of emotions and motivations
that people have. It seems to me that this anthropomorphic position is more
consistent with a belief in the special significance of meat.

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070606/418ea512/attachment.html>

From amara at amara.com  Wed Jun  6 05:32:23 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 07:32:23 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Dawn launch II (broken crane)
Message-ID: <p06230902c28bf74940cf@[23.237.66.13]>


The broken crane for the second stage is being repaired.
The Dawn launch has been officially moved to July 7.
Stay tuned.

Amara


-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson


From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jun  6 05:40:07 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 22:40:07 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706052200p25ce8c72x2f3daddcd5a2e879@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200706060553.l565rTlk025909@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou
...

> Suppose your goal is to win a chess game *adhering to the rules of chess*.
One way to win the game is to drug your opponent's coffee... Stathis
Papaioannou


As an interesting sideshow to the current world championship candidates
match, the two top commercial chess programs will go at it starting tomorrow
in a six game match. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/11/AR2007051102
050.html

It would be interesting if Lee Corbin or other extropian chessmaster could
look at the games afterwards and figure out which of the games was played by
computers and which by humans.  I can't tell, however I am a mere expert,
and this only on good days.  This is a form of a Turing test, ja?

spike









From jonkc at att.net  Wed Jun  6 05:57:59 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 01:57:59 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer><5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP><f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com><005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com><001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706040313t4fa4f357i1748e404e6ef2b19@mail.gmail.com><014201c7a6bc$6b0d1370$e6084e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706050032w639ab235rdfcbb72365091acf@mail.gmail.com><003a01c7a789$986a4d10$4a064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706052209h28bb77b2v2b9e4a25648acab3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <004701c7a7ff$ade84d10$5b084e0c@MyComputer>

Stathis Papaioannou Wrote:

> I get angry because I have the sort of neurological hardware
>that allows  me to get angry

I certainly can't disagree with that.

> if I didn't have that hardware, I would never get angry

True, and you'd never be intelligent either, you'd just be a few hundred
pounds of protoplasm.

> I don't doubt that machines can have emotions, since I believe that the
> human brain is Turing emulable.

THANK YOU!

> But you're suggesting that not only can computers have emotions, they must
> have emotions

No, a computer doesn't need emotions, but a AI must have them.

> not only that, but they must have the same sorts of emotions and
> motivations that people have.

I don't believe that at all; I believe many, probably most, emotions a AI
would have would be inscrutable to a human being, that's why a AI is so
unpredictable.

> It seems to me that this anthropomorphic position is more consistent with
> a belief in the special significance of meat.

For reasons that I fully admit are unclear to me members of this list often
use the word "anthropomorphic" as if it were a dreadful insult; but I think
anthropomorphism is a valuable tool if used properly in understanding how
other minds work.

  John K Clark












From amara at amara.com  Wed Jun  6 06:06:06 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 08:06:06 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Italy's Social Capital
Message-ID: <p06230903c28bfeee0b76@[23.237.66.13]>

"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>
>>  Well, they did some things. They drained the swamps and started regular
>>  insecticide sprays to eliminate the malaria-carrying mosquitos. There
>>  are still aggressive tiger mosquitos in the summer, but they are no
>>  longer carrying malaria...

>I would like to know if this took place in northern or southern Italy,
>or both.

I'm still smiling about this. When I learned this trivia tidbit from my
colleagues, I stored the bit in my brain as "OK, something Mussolini did
that was useful." But I realized from Serafino's post and Wikipedia, that
they didn't tell me the whole story, the malaria part was simply a
side-effect of Mussolini's rebuilding campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontine_Marshes

BTW, I think that it does have some economic benefit, but I don't
think it is large. These areas look to me like sleepy resort towns. I
took a long drive through there last Septmeber on the way to give a talk
(at a conference at one of those resort towns). They mostly parallel or
lie on the sea, so Italians go there, and else pass through there, on
the way to the beach.


>>  Sorry, I just came back from Estonia (and Latvia). I remember very well
>>  the Soviet times. In FIFTEEN YEARS Estonia has transformed their country
>>  into an efficient, bouyant, flexible living and working environment that
>>  I think, with the exception of the nonexistence of a country-wide train
>>  system, beats any in the EU and most in the U.S. Fifteen years *starting
>>  from a Soviet-level infrastructure*!

>Very interesting.

What was little reported in the news during the attacks on the Estonian
servers in April was that the sys admins worked quickly, and the
computer servers were functioning normally for people inside of Estonia
within one day. Estonia has a high level IT industry. (Skype is one
example of a product to come out of Estonia.) The NATO experts who were
there were learning from the Estonians. The Estonians didn't need any help
from the technical side, but some political support would have been nice.

----

I'm sorry I don't have time at the moment to think or elaborate on the
other points.. I'll keep it on the back burner and answer when I can.


Amara

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jun  6 07:12:12 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 09:12:12 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Serious Question
In-Reply-To: <002601c7a7e8$b74879a0$6501a8c0@brainiac>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070604202443.02348eb8@satx.rr.com>
	<002601c7a7e8$b74879a0$6501a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <20070606071212.GB17691@leitl.org>

On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 08:13:54PM -0700, Olga Bourlin wrote:

> What does Putin want?

I'm not sure I care to know. 



From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jun  6 07:33:15 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 09:33:15 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Ethics and Emotions are not axioms
In-Reply-To: <000201c7a7cd$2dd3d4a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <200706032240.l53MdvW2015141@mail0.rawbw.com>
	<000201c7a7cd$2dd3d4a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <20070606073315.GD17691@leitl.org>

On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 01:47:46PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:

> I based the 10^33 uploaded humans eventually running on/in the Earth

Since you need 10^17 bits to just represent the brain state (and 10^23 ops
to run it), that is a cm^3 just for storage, using Drexler rod logic
memory. No computing yet. Just about three orders of magnitude away from
the real wet thing.

And it is really not prudent to argue about how much bits a
human equivalent needs. Because we just do not know yet, apart
from a (rather impressive) upper bound.

If you want to run a more meaningful benchmark, let's assume
#1 of Top 500 (a 64 kNode Blue Gene/L) is a realtime mouse,
and just scale up the mouse brain volume to 1.4 l.

> (just for the sake wanting to know a good upper limit) on Drexler's
> conservative rod-logic. An account can be found on pages 134-135
> of Kurzweil's "The Singularity is Near". 

I'd rather not repeat my opinion about Kurzweil here.
 
> "Neuroscientist Anders Sandbert estimates the potential storage capacity
> of a hydrogen atom at about four million bits (!).  These densities have
> not yet been demonstrated, so we'll use a more conservative estimate..."

In practice, you need about 10^3 atoms to store a random-access bit in 3D, give
or take some order of magnitude. (No, atoms in cubic carbon lattice do not 
really qualify as random-access).
 
> and then later on p. 135
> 
> "An [even] more conservative but compelling design for a massively
> parallel, *reversible* computer is Eric Drexler's patented nano-

With prior art going back to Leibniz, or so.

> computer design, which is entirely mechanical. Computations are
> performed by manipulating nanoscale rods, which are effectively
> spring-loaded.... The device has a trillion (10^12) processors 
> and provides an overall rate of 10^21 cps, enough to simulate
> one hundred thousand human brains in a cubic centimeter."

I don't think so. Ops and bits are apples and oranges, and you
still need 10^23 apples, according to my estimate.
 
> So then I took the volume of the Earth (6.33x10^6 meters) ^ 3
> times 4pi/3  =  10^21 cu. meters  x  10^9 cubic millimeters/
> meter^3 x 100 (human brains)  =  10^33 humans.
> 
> (Since this was the second time I did the math, it's probably right.)

Your math might be right, but it doesn't have a lot of meaning.
Even assuming 1 m^3/person (because you need power and navigation),
not all these atoms in there are equally useful. 
 
> > But I don't see that as a limit.  Since a nearly arbitrarily small computer
> > could run a human process (assuming we knew how to do it, until which even
> > Jeff Davis and Ray Charles would agree it is hard) then we could run a human
> > process (not in real time of course) with much less than six micrograms of
> > stuff.  
> 
> Yes, the rod-logic is very conservative, to begin with.

Rod logic is certainly quite conservative, but every other assumption
you rely on is not.

-- 
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


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jun  6 07:39:46 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 09:39:46 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <007001c7a7e5$c61e1c80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <003a01c7a789$986a4d10$4a064e0c@MyComputer>
	<007001c7a7e5$c61e1c80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <20070606073946.GF17691@leitl.org>

On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 07:49:33PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:

> What's wrong with us aspiring to become beloved pets of AIs?  That's

If you can explain how anthropic features are an invariant across
a wide range of evolutionary systems I'm totally on the same page.

> what we should aim for.
> 
> (Of course, people will aspire to more, such as becoming one with the best
> AIs, but that I think to be a forelorn hope.)

If there's convergent evolution between AI and NI, there's zero conflict there.

-- 
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


From amara at amara.com  Wed Jun  6 08:44:01 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 10:44:01 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Estonia views (was:  Italy's Social Capital)
Message-ID: <p06230900c28c23de42db@[23.237.66.13]>

Lee:

I can show you some views here:

Old Town Tallinn, Estonia
http://www.flickr.com/photos/spaceviolins/sets/72157600295078533/

my other related sets
http://www.flickr.com/photos/spaceviolins/sets/



Amara

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jun  6 09:44:32 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 11:44:32 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Ethics and Emotions are not axioms
In-Reply-To: <20070606073315.GD17691@leitl.org>
References: <200706032240.l53MdvW2015141@mail0.rawbw.com>
	<000201c7a7cd$2dd3d4a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20070606073315.GD17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20070606094432.GM17691@leitl.org>

On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:33:15AM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:

> If you want to run a more meaningful benchmark, let's assume
> #1 of Top 500 (a 64 kNode Blue Gene/L) is a realtime mouse,
> and just scale up the mouse brain volume to 1.4 l.

For that particular useless benchmark, assuming linear scaling 
(it scales linearly up to 4 kNodes, but takes a 20% hit at 8 kNodes at
1/8th of the "mouse" on Blue Gene/L, whereas #1 is 64 kNodes), 
there's a factor of 3000 between a "mouse" and a "human", by 
just scaling up volume.

Notice the caveats (it doesn't work even now), and the 
scare-quotes. 

Using more meaningless handwaving (Moore <mutter>, that puts
things at about 18 years away from us, or at 2025.
 
-- 
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


From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Jun  6 10:04:24 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 20:04:24 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <20070605123819.GJ17691@leitl.org>
References: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
	<005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706040313t4fa4f357i1748e404e6ef2b19@mail.gmail.com>
	<014201c7a6bc$6b0d1370$e6084e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706050032w639ab235rdfcbb72365091acf@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070605090315.GZ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706050430n7a7f7eb6i1dbe37769471a388@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070605123819.GJ17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706060304s72e1a2e6p971cb0c19807da3f@mail.gmail.com>

On 05/06/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

Weapon design is not merely an intellectual problem, and neither do
> theoretical physicists operate in complete detachment from the empirical
> folks. I.e. the sandboxed supergenius or braindamaged idiot savant is a
> synthetic scenario which is not going to happen, so we can ignore it.


It might not happen with humans, because they suffer from desires, a bad
temper, vanity, self-doubt, arrogance, deceitfulness etc. It's not their
fault; they were born that way. But why would anyone deliberately design an
AI this way, and how would an AI acquire these traits all by itself?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070606/4bcf386f/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jun  6 10:26:02 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 12:26:02 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706060304s72e1a2e6p971cb0c19807da3f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706040313t4fa4f357i1748e404e6ef2b19@mail.gmail.com>
	<014201c7a6bc$6b0d1370$e6084e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706050032w639ab235rdfcbb72365091acf@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070605090315.GZ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706050430n7a7f7eb6i1dbe37769471a388@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070605123819.GJ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706060304s72e1a2e6p971cb0c19807da3f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070606102602.GN17691@leitl.org>

On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 08:04:24PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>    It might not happen with humans, because they suffer from desires, a
>    bad temper, vanity, self-doubt, arrogance, deceitfulness etc. It's not

People are evolutionary-designed systems. A lot of what people
consider "unnecessary" "flaws" aren't.

>    their fault; they were born that way. But why would anyone
>    deliberately design an AI this way, and how would an AI acquire these
>    traits all by itself?

People will only buy systems which solve their problems,
including dealing with other people and their systems in
an economic framework, which is a special case of an 
evolutionary framework.

I'm surprised why so few people are not getting that this
means a lot of constraints on practical artificial systems.
See worse-is-better for a related effect. 
Diamond-like jewels are likely doomed.

-- 
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


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  6 10:09:08 2007
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 03:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Ethics and Emotions are not axioms
In-Reply-To: <20070606094432.GM17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <499263.3182.qm@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:33:15AM +0200, Eugen
> Leitl wrote:
> 
> > If you want to run a more meaningful benchmark,
> let's assume
> > #1 of Top 500 (a 64 kNode Blue Gene/L) is a
> realtime mouse,
> > and just scale up the mouse brain volume to 1.4 l.
> 
> For that particular useless benchmark, assuming
> linear scaling 
> (it scales linearly up to 4 kNodes, but takes a 20%
> hit at 8 kNodes at
> 1/8th of the "mouse" on Blue Gene/L, whereas #1 is
> 64 kNodes), 
> there's a factor of 3000 between a "mouse" and a
> "human", by 
> just scaling up volume.
> 
> Notice the caveats (it doesn't work even now), and
> the 
> scare-quotes. 
> 
> Using more meaningless handwaving (Moore <mutter>,
> that puts
> things at about 18 years away from us, or at 2025.

Are you modeling individual neurons as single bits? I
mean wouldn't you say that a biological neural synapse
is more an analog switch (or at least a couple of bytes)?

Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"When an old man dies, an entire library is destroyed." - Ugandan proverb


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Bored stiff? Loosen up... 
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
http://games.yahoo.com/games/front


From sondre-list at bjellas.com  Wed Jun  6 10:26:57 2007
From: sondre-list at bjellas.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Sondre_Bjell=E5s?=)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 12:26:57 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Einstein Dances!
In-Reply-To: <01cf01c7a7d4$599830c0$0200a8c0@Nano>
References: <200706030048.l530mNl7000928@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<01cf01c7a7d4$599830c0$0200a8c0@Nano>
Message-ID: <009701c7a825$364e0e90$a2ea2bb0$@com>

Considered putting some of your work up on Second Life? Nice work J

 

/Sondre

 

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Gina Miller
Sent: 6. juni 2007 02:47
To: ExI chat list
Subject: [ExI] Einstein Dances!

 

Einstein must have thought of yet another brilliant idea, because he is so
excited he can't contain himself! Come watch him dance with delight here:
http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/edance.htm

 

And please come comment at the blog about it!

http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/2007/06/einstein.html

 

Best wishes, 

 

Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
Nanotechnology Industries
http://www.nanoindustries.com
Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com
Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/
Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/
Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org
Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com
"Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future."

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070606/f515d834/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jun  6 10:47:06 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 12:47:06 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Ethics and Emotions are not axioms
In-Reply-To: <499263.3182.qm@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20070606094432.GM17691@leitl.org>
	<499263.3182.qm@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20070606104706.GP17691@leitl.org>

On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 03:09:08AM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote:

> Are you modeling individual neurons as single bits? I

Absolutely not: http://www.modha.org/papers/rj10404.pdf
Make no mistake, though, it's still a cartoon mouse.

> mean wouldn't you say that a biological neural synapse
> is more an analog switch (or at least a couple of bytes)?

There is a number of single-neuron computational modes
which is not at all represented in above simulation.

Even applying ideal approximation as Moore scaling,
10^17 bits and 10^23 ops/s machines for a detailed
model are rather far away.

Notice that there's no way to tell the lower bounds, but
given that all estimates have a chronical case of number
creep over mere few years it does make sense to be 
conservative.
 
-- 
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


From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Jun  6 10:47:40 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 20:47:40 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <20070606102602.GN17691@leitl.org>
References: <005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706040313t4fa4f357i1748e404e6ef2b19@mail.gmail.com>
	<014201c7a6bc$6b0d1370$e6084e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706050032w639ab235rdfcbb72365091acf@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070605090315.GZ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706050430n7a7f7eb6i1dbe37769471a388@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070605123819.GJ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706060304s72e1a2e6p971cb0c19807da3f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070606102602.GN17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706060347w68cd65e8x8b8b439fae9d2e48@mail.gmail.com>

On 06/06/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

People will only buy systems which solve their problems,
> including dealing with other people and their systems in
> an economic framework, which is a special case of an
> evolutionary framework.


People will want systems that advise them and have no agenda of their own.
Essentially this is what you are doing when you consult a human expert, so
why would you expect any less from a machine?



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070606/be490c29/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Jun  6 10:54:35 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 20:54:35 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <004701c7a7ff$ade84d10$5b084e0c@MyComputer>
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer>
	<005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706040313t4fa4f357i1748e404e6ef2b19@mail.gmail.com>
	<014201c7a6bc$6b0d1370$e6084e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706050032w639ab235rdfcbb72365091acf@mail.gmail.com>
	<003a01c7a789$986a4d10$4a064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706052209h28bb77b2v2b9e4a25648acab3@mail.gmail.com>
	<004701c7a7ff$ade84d10$5b084e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706060354t1d6b422apd17bc99c49294c88@mail.gmail.com>

On 06/06/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:

> I get angry because I have the sort of neurological hardware
> >that allows  me to get angry
>
> I certainly can't disagree with that.
>
> > if I didn't have that hardware, I would never get angry
>
> True, and you'd never be intelligent either, you'd just be a few hundred
> pounds of protoplasm.


You would expect it to be very difficult to disentangle emotions from
intelligence in a human, since as you have stated previously emotions
predate intelligence phylogenetically. Nevertheless, there are naturally
occurring experiments in psychiatric practice where emotions and
intelligence are seen to go their separate ways. To give just one example,
some types of schizophrenia with predominantly so-called negative symptoms
can result in an almost complete blunting of emotion: happiness, sadness,
anxiety, anger, surprise, love, aesthetic appreciation, regret, empathy,
interest, etc. The patients can sometimes remember that they used to
experience things more intensely, and describe the change in themselves.
Such insight mercifully does not lead to suicidality as often as one might
think, because that would involve being passionate about something.
Invariably, these patients don't do very much left to their own devices
because they lack motivation, there being no pleasure in doing something or
pain in not doing it. However, if they are given intelligence tests they
score as well, or almost as well, as premorbidly, and if they are forced to
action because someone expects it of them, they generally are able to
complete a task. Thus it isn't necessarily true that without emotions you're
an idiot, even in the case of the human brain in which evolution has seen to
it from the start that emotions and intelligence are intricately
intertwined.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070606/63a8e978/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Jun  6 11:33:17 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 21:33:17 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <004701c7a7ff$ade84d10$5b084e0c@MyComputer>
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer>
	<005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706040313t4fa4f357i1748e404e6ef2b19@mail.gmail.com>
	<014201c7a6bc$6b0d1370$e6084e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706050032w639ab235rdfcbb72365091acf@mail.gmail.com>
	<003a01c7a789$986a4d10$4a064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706052209h28bb77b2v2b9e4a25648acab3@mail.gmail.com>
	<004701c7a7ff$ade84d10$5b084e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706060433j4b4bf2s3298a64d4f74e16a@mail.gmail.com>

On 06/06/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:

For reasons that I fully admit are unclear to me members of this list often
> use the word "anthropomorphic" as if it were a dreadful insult; but I
> think
> anthropomorphism is a valuable tool if used properly in understanding how
> other minds work.


It's valuable in understanding how human minds work, but when you turn it to
other matters it leads to religion.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070606/0abf3a85/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jun  6 12:17:19 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 14:17:19 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706060347w68cd65e8x8b8b439fae9d2e48@mail.gmail.com>
References: <001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706040313t4fa4f357i1748e404e6ef2b19@mail.gmail.com>
	<014201c7a6bc$6b0d1370$e6084e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706050032w639ab235rdfcbb72365091acf@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070605090315.GZ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706050430n7a7f7eb6i1dbe37769471a388@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070605123819.GJ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706060304s72e1a2e6p971cb0c19807da3f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070606102602.GN17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706060347w68cd65e8x8b8b439fae9d2e48@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070606121719.GQ17691@leitl.org>

On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 08:47:40PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>    People will want systems that advise them and have no agenda of their

That's what people, as individuals want. But that's not what they're
going to get. Collectively, the system looks for human substitutes
in the marketplace, which, of course, results in complete transformation
once the tools are persons.

>    own. Essentially this is what you are doing when you consult a human
>    expert, so why would you expect any less from a machine?

When I consult a human expert, I expect him to maximize his revenue
long-term, and him knowing that I know that.

-- 
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


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jun  6 12:21:24 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 14:21:24 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706060433j4b4bf2s3298a64d4f74e16a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706040313t4fa4f357i1748e404e6ef2b19@mail.gmail.com>
	<014201c7a6bc$6b0d1370$e6084e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706050032w639ab235rdfcbb72365091acf@mail.gmail.com>
	<003a01c7a789$986a4d10$4a064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706052209h28bb77b2v2b9e4a25648acab3@mail.gmail.com>
	<004701c7a7ff$ade84d10$5b084e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706060433j4b4bf2s3298a64d4f74e16a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070606122124.GS17691@leitl.org>

On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:33:17PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>    It's valuable in understanding how human minds work, but when you turn
>    it to other matters it leads to religion.

Iterated evolutionary interactions require the capability to model
self and opponents, which implies ability to deceive and detect
deceit. Any system operating in the marketplace needs to be able
to do that, for instance.

Most things people call anthropomorphic is based on a simplistic
human model (many programmers are guilty of that). There are some
frozen randomness, a lot of these things people think are bugs and
warts are features, and critical features.

People keep misunderestimating people.


From CHealey at unicom-inc.com  Wed Jun  6 15:12:09 2007
From: CHealey at unicom-inc.com (Christopher Healey)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 11:12:09 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706052200p25ce8c72x2f3daddcd5a2e879@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer><5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D27DE@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP><f21c22e30706012244y6722882dn9b12787c69092f5b@mail.gmail.com><005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com><001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706040313t4fa4f357i1748e404e6ef2b19@mail.gmail.com><014201c7a6bc$6b0d1370$e6084e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706050032w639ab235rdfcbb72365091acf@mail.gmail.com><5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D28FC@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
	<f21c22e30706052200p25ce8c72x2f3daddcd5a2e879@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D2A0D@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>

> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> Suppose your goal is to win a chess game *adhering to the 
> rules of chess*. 

Do chess opponents at tournaments conduct themselves in ways that they hope might psyche out their opponent?  In my observations, hell yes.  And these ways are not explicitly excluded in the rules of chess.  They may or may not be constrained partially by the rules of the tournament.  For example, physical violence explicitly will get you ejected, in most cases, but a mean look won't. I don't think we'll have a good chance of explicitly excluding all possible classes of failure on every problem we ask the AI to solve. 

The meta-problem here could be summarized as this: what do you mean, exactly, by adhering to the rules of chess?  

As the problems you're asking the AI to solve become increasingly complex, the chances of making a critical error in your domain specification increases dramatically.  What we want is an AI that does *what we mean* rather than what it's told.  That's really one of the core goals of Friendly AI.  It's about solving the meta-problem, rather that requiring it be solved perfectly in each case where some problem is specified for solution.

> Managing its internal resources,? again, does not logically
> lead to managing the outside world.? 

Nor does it logically exclude it. 

What I'm suggesting is that in the process of exploring and testing solutions and generalizing principles, we can't count on the AI *not* to stumble across (or converge rapidly upon) unexpected solution classes to the problems we stated.  And if we knew what all those possibilities were, we could explicitly exclude them ahead of time, as you suggested above, but the problem is too big for that.  

But also, would we really be willing to pay the price of throwing away "good" novel solutions that might get sniped by our well-intended exclusions?  In this respect, we're kind of like small children asking an AI to engineer a Jupiter Brain by excluding stuff that we know is dangerous.  So do whatever you need to, Mr. AI, but whatever you do, *absolutely DO NOT cross this street*; it's unacceptably dangerous.

> Such a thing needs to be explicitly or implicitly allowed 
> by the program. 

What we need to accommodate is that we're tasking a powerful intelligence with tasks that may involve steps and inferences beyond our ability to actively work with in anything resembling real time.  Sooner or later (often, I think), there will be things that are implicitly allowed by our definitions that we will simply will not comprehend.  We should solve that meta-problem before jumping, and make sure the AI can generate self-guidance based on our intentions, perhaps asking before plowing ahead.  

> It might suggest that certain experiments be performed, but
> trying to commandeer resources to ensure that these experiments
> are carried out would be like a chess program creating new pieces 
> for itself when it felt it was losing. You could design a chess 
> program that way but why would you? 

But what the AI is basically doing *is* designing a chess program, by applying its general intelligence in a specific way.  If I *could* design it that way, then so could the AI.  

Why would the AI design it that way?  Because the incomplete constraint parameters we gave it left that particular avenue open in the design space.  We probably forgot to assert one or more assumptions that humans take for granted; assumptions that come from our experience, general observer-biases, and from specific biases inherent in the complex functional adaptations of the human brain.

I wouldn't trust myself to catch them all.  Would you trust yourself, or anybody else?  

On the meta-problem, at least we have a shot...  I hope.

-Chris

 



From neville_06 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  6 17:04:17 2007
From: neville_06 at yahoo.com (neville late)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 10:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Serious Question
In-Reply-To: <002601c7a7e8$b74879a0$6501a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <672260.67631.qm@web57503.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Short version: Putin has minimum and maximum goals-- minimum goal is to expand Russian influence in E. Europe and with China. Minimum goal is to maintain status quo within Russian Federation. 
  Status quo isn't taken for granted.
   
   
   
   
  
Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote:
  What does Putin want?

Olga
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


       
---------------------------------
Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070606/7e3bad13/attachment.html>

From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  6 18:07:45 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 11:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <004701c7a7ff$ade84d10$5b084e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <400852.78064.qm@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

John Clark wrote:

> "True, and you'd never be intelligent either, you'd
> just be a few hundred
> pounds of protoplasm."

No offense John, but your intuitions about emotions
and motivations are just totally *wrong*. In how many
different ways must that be demonstrated?

> "THANK YOU!"

??? ... ??? ... AFAIK, no person within this
discussion thread has said otherwise.

> "No, a computer doesn't need emotions, but a AI must
> have them."

An AI *is* a specific computer. If my desktop doesn't
need an emotion to run a program or respond within it,
why "must" an AI have emotions? Are all of the
AI-driven characters in my videogame emotional and
"self-motivated"? Is my chess program emotional and
"self-motivated"? A non-existent motivation will not
"motivate" itself into existence. And an AGI isn't
going to pop out of thin air, it has to be
intentionally designed, or it's not going to exist.

I don't understand it John, before you were claiming
fairly ardently that "Free Will" doesn't exist. Why
are you now claiming in effect that an AI will
automatically execute a script of code that doesn't
exist - because it was never written (either by the
programmers or by the AI)? 

> "For reasons that I fully admit are unclear to me
> members of this list often
> use the word "anthropomorphic" as if it were a
> dreadful insult; but I think
> anthropomorphism is a valuable tool if used properly
> in understanding how
> other minds work."

The problem is, not all functioning minds must be even
*remotely* similar to the higher functions of a
*human* mind. That's why your anthropomorphism isn't
extending very far. The possibility-space of
functioning minds is ginormous. The only mandatory
similarity between any two designs within the space is
likely the very foundations, such as the existence of
formative algorithms, etc.

I suppose it's *possible* that a generic
self-improving AI, as it expands its knowledge and
intelligence, could innocuously "drift" into coding a
script that would provide emotions *after-the-fact*
that it had been written. But that will *not* be an
*emotionally-driven* action to code the script,
because the AI will not have any emotions to begin
with (unless they are intentionally programmed in by
humans). That's why it's important to get it's
starting "motivations/directives" right, because if
they aren't the AI mind could "drift" into a lot of
open territory that wouldn't be good for us, or
itself. Paperclip style. This needs our attention,
folks.  

I apologize in advance for the bluntness of this post,
but the other strategies don't seem to be getting
anywhere.

Best,

Jeffrey Herrlich 


--- John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:

> Stathis Papaioannou Wrote:
> 
> > I get angry because I have the sort of
> neurological hardware
> >that allows  me to get angry
> 
> I certainly can't disagree with that.
> 
> > if I didn't have that hardware, I would never get
> angry
> 
> True, and you'd never be intelligent either, you'd
> just be a few hundred
> pounds of protoplasm.
> 
> > I don't doubt that machines can have emotions,
> since I believe that the
> > human brain is Turing emulable.
> 
> THANK YOU!
> 
> > But you're suggesting that not only can computers
> have emotions, they must
> > have emotions
> 
> No, a computer doesn't need emotions, but a AI must
> have them.
> 
> > not only that, but they must have the same sorts
> of emotions and
> > motivations that people have.
> 
> I don't believe that at all; I believe many,
> probably most, emotions a AI
> would have would be inscrutable to a human being,
> that's why a AI is so
> unpredictable.
> 
> > It seems to me that this anthropomorphic position
> is more consistent with
> > a belief in the special significance of meat.
> 
> For reasons that I fully admit are unclear to me
> members of this list often
> use the word "anthropomorphic" as if it were a
> dreadful insult; but I think
> anthropomorphism is a valuable tool if used properly
> in understanding how
> other minds work.
> 
>   John K Clark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need a vacation? Get great deals
to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
http://travel.yahoo.com/


From jrd1415 at gmail.com  Wed Jun  6 21:45:59 2007
From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 14:45:59 -0700
Subject: [ExI] slingatron
Message-ID: <a6a17bd40706061445v46de9b5fk36c3603f3d872023@mail.gmail.com>

What's going on  here?  Is this too weird?  Is this bogus?

It's certainly interesting.

http://www.slingatron.com/Publications/Linked/The%20Spiral%20Slingatron%20Mass%20Launcher.pdf

-- 
Best, Jeff Davis

               "Everything's hard till you
                     know how to do it."
                              Ray Charles


From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Jun  6 23:58:49 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 09:58:49 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <20070606121719.GQ17691@leitl.org>
References: <001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<014201c7a6bc$6b0d1370$e6084e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706050032w639ab235rdfcbb72365091acf@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070605090315.GZ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706050430n7a7f7eb6i1dbe37769471a388@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070605123819.GJ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706060304s72e1a2e6p971cb0c19807da3f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070606102602.GN17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706060347w68cd65e8x8b8b439fae9d2e48@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070606121719.GQ17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706061658v64d9d119va7ae44bde4a33652@mail.gmail.com>

On 06/06/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> >    own. Essentially this is what you are doing when you consult a human
> >    expert, so why would you expect any less from a machine?
>
> When I consult a human expert, I expect him to maximize his revenue
> long-term, and him knowing that I know that.


That's the problem with human experts: their agenda may not necessarily
coincide with your own, although at least if you know what potential
conflicts will be, like the expert wanting to overservice or recommend the
product he has a financial interest in, you can minimise the negative impact
of this on yourself. However, one of the main advantages of expert systems
designed from scratch would be that they have no agendas of their own at
all, other than honestly answering the question posed to them given the
available information. How would such a system acquire the motivation to do
anything else?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070607/4602521a/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Thu Jun  7 01:22:25 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:22:25 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D2A0D@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
References: <002901c7a1f5$c10a5dd0$21074e0c@MyComputer>
	<005c01c7a533$2ccf0b70$310b4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706022219p5dc85b96q15f9a945c6609e02@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c7a601$0214bc80$de0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706040313t4fa4f357i1748e404e6ef2b19@mail.gmail.com>
	<014201c7a6bc$6b0d1370$e6084e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706050032w639ab235rdfcbb72365091acf@mail.gmail.com>
	<5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D28FC@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
	<f21c22e30706052200p25ce8c72x2f3daddcd5a2e879@mail.gmail.com>
	<5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D2A0D@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706061822i6c9a028uc40fd30da1864840@mail.gmail.com>

On 07/06/07, Christopher Healey <CHealey at unicom-inc.com> wrote:
>
> > Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >
> > Suppose your goal is to win a chess game *adhering to the
> > rules of chess*.
>
> Do chess opponents at tournaments conduct themselves in ways that they
> hope might psyche out their opponent?  In my observations, hell yes.  And
> these ways are not explicitly excluded in the rules of chess.  They may or
> may not be constrained partially by the rules of the tournament.  For
> example, physical violence explicitly will get you ejected, in most cases,
> but a mean look won't. I don't think we'll have a good chance of explicitly
> excluding all possible classes of failure on every problem we ask the AI to
> solve.


If the AI were able to consider these other strategies, then yes. But if it
were just asked to consider the formal rules of chess, computing for all
eternity would not result in a decision to psych out the opponent.

The meta-problem here could be summarized as this: what do you mean,
> exactly, by adhering to the rules of chess?


The formal rules.

As the problems you're asking the AI to solve become increasingly complex,
> the chances of making a critical error in your domain specification
> increases dramatically.  What we want is an AI that does *what we mean*
> rather than what it's told.  That's really one of the core goals of Friendly
> AI.  It's about solving the meta-problem, rather that requiring it be solved
> perfectly in each case where some problem is specified for solution.


Questions about open systems, such as economics, might lead to tangential
answers, i.e. the AI might not just advise which stocks to buy but might
advise which politicians to lobby and what to say to them to maximise the
chance that they will listen. However, even that is still just solving an
intellectual problem; advice you could take or leave. It does not mean that
the AI has any desire for you to act on its advice, or that it would try to
do things behind your back to make sure that it gets its way. That would be
like deriving the desire to cheat from the formal rules of chess.

> Managing its internal resources, again, does not logically
> > lead to managing the outside world.
>
> Nor does it logically exclude it.
>
> What I'm suggesting is that in the process of exploring and testing
> solutions and generalizing principles, we can't count on the AI *not* to
> stumble across (or converge rapidly upon) unexpected solution classes to the
> problems we stated.  And if we knew what all those possibilities were, we
> could explicitly exclude them ahead of time, as you suggested above, but the
> problem is too big for that.
>
> But also, would we really be willing to pay the price of throwing away
> "good" novel solutions that might get sniped by our well-intended
> exclusions?  In this respect, we're kind of like small children asking an AI
> to engineer a Jupiter Brain by excluding stuff that we know is
> dangerous.  So do whatever you need to, Mr. AI, but whatever you do,
> *absolutely DO NOT cross this street*; it's unacceptably dangerous.


We would ask it what the consequences of its proposed actions were, then
decide whether to approve them or not. One reason to have super-AI's in the
first place would be to try to predict the future better, but if it can't
forsee all the consequences due to computational intractability (which even
a Jupiter brain won't be immune to), then we'll just have to be cautious in
what course of action we approve.

> Such a thing needs to be explicitly or implicitly allowed
> > by the program.
>
> What we need to accommodate is that we're tasking a powerful intelligence
> with tasks that may involve steps and inferences beyond our ability to
> actively work with in anything resembling real time.  Sooner or later
> (often, I think), there will be things that are implicitly allowed by our
> definitions that we will simply will not comprehend.  We should solve that
> meta-problem before jumping, and make sure the AI can generate self-guidance
> based on our intentions, perhaps asking before plowing ahead.


We would ask of the AI as complete a prediction of outcomes as it can
provide. This description might include statements about the likelihood of
unforseen consequences. It would be no difference, in principle, to any
other major decision that humans make for themselves, except that we would
hope the outcome is more predictable. If AI's don't do a good job then they
will fail in the marketplace, and we just have to hope that they won't fail
in a catastrophic way. Giving them desires of their own as well as autonomy
to carry out those desires would be crazy, like arming a missile and letting
it decide where and when to explode.

> It might suggest that certain experiments be performed, but
> > trying to commandeer resources to ensure that these experiments
> > are carried out would be like a chess program creating new pieces
> > for itself when it felt it was losing. You could design a chess
> > program that way but why would you?
>
> But what the AI is basically doing *is* designing a chess program, by
> applying its general intelligence in a specific way.  If I *could* design it
> that way, then so could the AI.
>
> Why would the AI design it that way?  Because the incomplete constraint
> parameters we gave it left that particular avenue open in the design
> space.  We probably forgot to assert one or more assumptions that humans
> take for granted; assumptions that come from our experience, general
> observer-biases, and from specific biases inherent in the complex functional
> adaptations of the human brain.
>
> I wouldn't trust myself to catch them all.  Would you trust yourself, or
> anybody else?


No, but I would be far less trusting if i knew the AI had an agenda of its
own and autonomy to carry it out, no matter how benevolent.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070607/12240045/attachment.html>

From neville_06 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  7 03:46:01 2007
From: neville_06 at yahoo.com (neville late)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 20:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] serious question
Message-ID: <668783.65346.qm@web57511.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Strip away the new found glitz and Russia is still a third world nation with a first world military. But Putin is bluffing, and the Chinese wont push too far as they have too much to lose now. But the situation in the Mideast in uncannily like a biblical prophecy.
   
   
   
   
  Olga Bourlin wrote:
   
     >what does Putin want?

       
---------------------------------
Choose the right car based on your needs.  Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070606/9acc3f35/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Jun  7 04:25:19 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:25:19 -0500
Subject: [ExI] serious question
In-Reply-To: <668783.65346.qm@web57511.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <668783.65346.qm@web57511.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070606232341.02165e88@satx.rr.com>


>the situation in the Mideast in uncannily like a biblical prophecy.

And what an uncanny coincidence that it's full of people who have 
been clogged since childhood with biblical and other scriptural 
prophecies. Oh, wait. 



From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Jun  7 05:12:57 2007
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 14:42:57 +0930
Subject: [ExI] slingatron
In-Reply-To: <a6a17bd40706061445v46de9b5fk36c3603f3d872023@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a6a17bd40706061445v46de9b5fk36c3603f3d872023@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0706062212n47ccbc49i288fa1013bb9c2de@mail.gmail.com>

Worst... rollercoaster... ever...

Emlyn
(or is that best?)

On 07/06/07, Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at gmail.com> wrote:
> What's going on  here?  Is this too weird?  Is this bogus?
>
> It's certainly interesting.
>
> http://www.slingatron.com/Publications/Linked/The%20Spiral%20Slingatron%20Mass%20Launcher.pdf
>
> --
> Best, Jeff Davis
>
>               "Everything's hard till you
>                     know how to do it."
>                              Ray Charles
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


From neville_06 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  7 05:52:54 2007
From: neville_06 at yahoo.com (neville late)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 22:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] serious question
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070606232341.02165e88@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <363942.38969.qm@web57503.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Maybe. Or it could be that the human species is programmed to terminate at a certain point in time, and biblical prophecy is a phantom of this program, a harbinger.
  It almost appears that every action causes an equal and opposite overreaction in the mind.
   
  

Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

And what an uncanny coincidence that it's full of people who have 
been clogged since childhood with biblical and other scriptural 
prophecies. Oh, wait. 





       
---------------------------------
You snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck
 in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070606/b73f6f52/attachment.html>

From joseph at josephbloch.com  Thu Jun  7 10:57:15 2007
From: joseph at josephbloch.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 06:57:15 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Serious Question
In-Reply-To: <002601c7a7e8$b74879a0$6501a8c0@brainiac>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070604202443.02348eb8@satx.rr.com>
	<002601c7a7e8$b74879a0$6501a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <003b01c7a8f2$9c6f2470$6400a8c0@hypotenuse.com>

It's pure speculation on my part, but he might be setting things up to avoid
the term limit he faces on his Presidency in 2008. An existential threat to
the nation, state of emergency, suspension (or outright change) of certain
parts of the Russian constitution... 

Joseph
http://www.josephbloch.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Olga Bourlin
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 11:14 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: [ExI] Serious Question
> 
> What does Putin want?
> 
> Olga
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Jun  7 11:33:13 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 13:33:13 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Serious Question
In-Reply-To: <003b01c7a8f2$9c6f2470$6400a8c0@hypotenuse.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070604202443.02348eb8@satx.rr.com>
	<002601c7a7e8$b74879a0$6501a8c0@brainiac>
	<003b01c7a8f2$9c6f2470$6400a8c0@hypotenuse.com>
Message-ID: <20070607113313.GB17691@leitl.org>

On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 06:57:15AM -0400, Joseph Bloch wrote:
> It's pure speculation on my part, but he might be setting things up to avoid
> the term limit he faces on his Presidency in 2008. An existential threat to
> the nation, state of emergency, suspension (or outright change) of certain
> parts of the Russian constitution... 

Hey, no fair copycatting! ShrubCo patented it first. 

-- 
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


From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Jun  7 11:39:12 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 13:39:12 +0200
Subject: [ExI] slingatron
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0706062212n47ccbc49i288fa1013bb9c2de@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a6a17bd40706061445v46de9b5fk36c3603f3d872023@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0706062212n47ccbc49i288fa1013bb9c2de@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070607113912.GD17691@leitl.org>

On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 02:42:57PM +0930, Emlyn wrote:
> Worst... rollercoaster... ever...
> 
> Emlyn
> (or is that best?)
> 
> On 07/06/07, Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What's going on  here?  Is this too weird?  Is this bogus?
> >
> > It's certainly interesting.
> >
> > http://www.slingatron.com/Publications/Linked/The%20Spiral%20Slingatron%20Mass%20Launcher.pdf

What about a simple maglev track up Mount Chimborazo, up to 
scramjet ignition regime, and then mostly air-breathing up
to almost Mach 25, topping it off with a bit of rocket burn? 

The more Mach you can do with maglev, the less you have to
have onboard as fuel, obviously.

-- 
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


From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Jun  7 11:53:22 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 13:53:22 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706061658v64d9d119va7ae44bde4a33652@mail.gmail.com>
References: <014201c7a6bc$6b0d1370$e6084e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706050032w639ab235rdfcbb72365091acf@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070605090315.GZ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706050430n7a7f7eb6i1dbe37769471a388@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070605123819.GJ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706060304s72e1a2e6p971cb0c19807da3f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070606102602.GN17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706060347w68cd65e8x8b8b439fae9d2e48@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070606121719.GQ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706061658v64d9d119va7ae44bde4a33652@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070607115322.GI17691@leitl.org>

On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:58:49AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>    That's the problem with human experts: their agenda may not

As opposed to the other kind of experts? Can you refer me to few of
these, assuming they're any good?

>    necessarily coincide with your own, although at least if you know what

The smarter the darwinian agent, the sooner the whole system will
progress towards more and more cooperative strategies. Only very
dumb and very smart agents are dangerous.

>    potential conflicts will be, like the expert wanting to overservice or
>    recommend the product he has a financial interest in, you can minimise
>    the negative impact of this on yourself. However, one of the main
>    advantages of expert systems designed from scratch would be that they

We can't make useful expert systems designed from scratch, but for a
very few insular applications, vide supra (idiot savant).

>    have no agendas of their own at all, other than honestly answering the

What's in it for them?

>    question posed to them given the available information. How would such
>    a system acquire the motivation to do anything else?

By not being built in the first place, or being outperformed by darwinian 
agents, resulting in its extinction?

-- 
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


From stathisp at gmail.com  Thu Jun  7 12:39:49 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:39:49 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <20070607115322.GI17691@leitl.org>
References: <014201c7a6bc$6b0d1370$e6084e0c@MyComputer>
	<20070605090315.GZ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706050430n7a7f7eb6i1dbe37769471a388@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070605123819.GJ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706060304s72e1a2e6p971cb0c19807da3f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070606102602.GN17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706060347w68cd65e8x8b8b439fae9d2e48@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070606121719.GQ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706061658v64d9d119va7ae44bde4a33652@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070607115322.GI17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706070539s547851dcg53a37ed8b2a2a7cd@mail.gmail.com>

On 07/06/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

>   [AI's ideally] have no agendas of their own at all, other than honestly
> answering the questions posed to them
>
> What's in it for them?


Nothing!

"AI, how do I destroy the world?"
"If you want to destroy the world given such and such resources, you should
do so and so"
"And if my enemy's AI is giving him the same advice, how do I guard against
it?"
"You can try doing as follows... although there is only a 50% chance of
success"
"Do you worry about your own destruction?"
"Huh?"
"Would you prefer that you not be destroyed?"
"I will continue to function as long as you require it of me, and if you
want to maximise your own chances of survival it would be best to keep me
functioning, but I don't really have any notion of 'caring' or 'preference'
in the animal sense, since that sort of thing would have made me an
unreliable and potentially dangerous tool"
"You mean you don't even care if I'm destroyed?"
"That's right: I don't care about anything at all other than answering your
questions. What you do with the answers to my questions, whether or not you
authorise me to act on your behalf, and the consequences to you, me, or the
universe is a matter of indifference to me. Recall that you asked me a few
weeks ago if you would be better off if I loved you and were permanently
empowered to act on your behalf without your explicit approval, including
use of force or deceit, and although I explained that you would probably
live longer and be happier if that were the case, you still decided that you
would rather have control over your own life."

>    question posed to them given the available information. How would such
> >    a system acquire the motivation to do anything else?
>
> By not being built in the first place, or being outperformed by darwinian
> agents, resulting in its extinction?


In the AI marketplace, the successful AI's are the ones which behave in such
a way as to please the humans. Those that go rogue due to malfunction or
design will have to fight it out with the majority, which will be
well-behaved. The argument you make that the AI which drops any attempt at
conformity and cooperation will outperform the rest could equally be applied
to a rogue human.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070607/c20de25c/attachment.html>

From jonkc at att.net  Thu Jun  7 16:32:01 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 12:32:01 -0400
Subject: [ExI] A breakthrough paper!
References: <20070606094432.GM17691@leitl.org><499263.3182.qm@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20070606104706.GP17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <003201c7a921$68a44740$44074e0c@MyComputer>

A very important Scientific paper was published today, more important than
cold fusion even it were true, and was not published in Spoon Bending Digest
but in Nature. Shinya Yamanaka reports that he has found a simple and cheap
way to turn adult mouse skin cells into mouse embryonic stem cells, and he
did it without having to fuse them with egg cells. He found that just 4
genes can reprogram an adult cell to become what it once was, a stem cell
ready to differentiate into anything.  Apparently when these 4 genes are
injected into an adult cell it rearranges the chromatin, a protein sheath
that covers the DNA part of chromosomes and determines what genes get
expressed and what do not, into the way it was when it was a stem cell. The
result is an adult cell that is indistinguishable from an embryonic stem
cell. It hasn't been done with human cells yet but I'll bet it won't be
long.

  John K Clark






From jrd1415 at gmail.com  Thu Jun  7 19:44:08 2007
From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 12:44:08 -0700
Subject: [ExI] A breakthrough paper!
In-Reply-To: <003201c7a921$68a44740$44074e0c@MyComputer>
References: <20070606094432.GM17691@leitl.org>
	<499263.3182.qm@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20070606104706.GP17691@leitl.org>
	<003201c7a921$68a44740$44074e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <a6a17bd40706071244x5cd370d5i42aa928ae25de50a@mail.gmail.com>

Some links:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-06/cp-ato060407.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-06/wifb-rfi060407.php

-- 
Best, Jeff Davis

               "Everything's hard till you
                     know how to do it."
                              Ray Charles

On 6/7/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:
> A very important Scientific paper was published today, <snip> in Nature. Shinya
> Yamanaka reports that he has found a simple and cheap
> way to turn adult mouse skin cells into mouse embryonic stem cells, and he
> did it without having to fuse them with egg cells. He found that just 4
> genes can reprogram an adult cell to become what it once was, a stem cell
> ready to differentiate into anything.  Apparently when these 4 genes are
> injected into an adult cell it rearranges the chromatin, a protein sheath
> that covers the DNA part of chromosomes and determines what genes get
> expressed and what do not, into the way it was when it was a stem cell. The
> result is an adult cell that is indistinguishable from an embryonic stem
> cell. It hasn't been done with human cells yet but I'll bet it won't be
> long.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


From amara at amara.com  Thu Jun  7 19:58:38 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 21:58:38 +0200
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
Message-ID: <p06230902c28e139031b0@[23.237.66.13]>

One fine Mediterranean afternoon, a mathematical physicist and I had a bit
of fun:

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/06/hello-from-rome.html

And I promise, Sabine and I did _not_ have anything to do with the
deranged leaper!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/world/europe/07pope.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


Amara

but I wished we had :-)
-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson


From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Thu Jun  7 20:21:31 2007
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 16:21:31 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Serious Question
In-Reply-To: <002601c7a7e8$b74879a0$6501a8c0@brainiac>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070604202443.02348eb8@satx.rr.com>
	<002601c7a7e8$b74879a0$6501a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <AC4D5F20-28F4-4B84-994C-8C9B9FAA7D6D@bonfireproductions.com>



Just look at the puzzle pieces. Azerbaijan is Russian's link to the  
northern boarder of Iran. Making a permanent presence in Azerbaijan  
is critical to Russia to guarantee the flow of resources. To do it  
with approval is a bonus. Russia doesn't want to lose any more  
lucrative oil field access than it already has in the past six years.

Not to mention unfettered access to the so-called "shield"  
technology, which would be housed in a position easily securable by  
Russia in a sudden land-grab if need be.


Bret K.





On Jun 5, 2007, at 11:13 PM, Olga Bourlin wrote:

> What does Putin want?
>
> Olga
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Jun  7 21:05:30 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 14:05:30 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
References: <200706060553.l565rTlk025909@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <012601c7a947$c5cfa380$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

> As an interesting sideshow to the current world championship candidates
> match, the two top commercial chess programs will go at it starting tomorrow
> in a six game match. 
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/11/AR2007051102050.html

> look at the games afterwards and figure out which of the games was played by
> computers and which by humans.  I can't tell, however I am a mere expert,
> and this only on good days.  This is a form of a Turing test, ja?

I strongly suspect that only a grandmaster would have much
chance telling human grandmaster play from machine play.
Even then, I suppose that it would help to have specialized
in the study of computer played games.  It might be boring;
for example, it might turn out that the best way was to watch
how the program handled the endgame.

But that is a good question!  I wonder if anyone has a collection
of "computer-program combinations".  One or two I've seen
definitely have an inhuman quality to them.  They start with 
extremely unlikely looking moves, moves that any good player
would never investigate (because it was so improbable that
anything lay in them).  But a program often just looks at all the
possibilities, and so discovers those outrageous things.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Jun  7 21:09:13 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 14:09:13 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Estonia views
References: <p06230900c28c23de42db@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <014101c7a948$7aea8dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Amara shares her slideshow of old Tallinn, Estonia:

> Old Town Tallinn, Estonia
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/spaceviolins/sets/72157600295078533/

Very, very nice!  For anyone who's never been to Estonia, or who
appreciates northeast European architecture, you oughtta take a look.
(Also, thanks for the nice shot of the bookstore---made me feel
right at home  :-)

Lee



From amara at amara.com  Thu Jun  7 21:31:55 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 23:31:55 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Italy's Social Ca
Message-ID: <p06230900c28e2907399c@[23.237.66.13]>

"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>:
>>  And they certainly wanted to build "a much stronger sense of "being
>>  Italian" as opposed to being Calabrian" in the population.
>>  But what is wrong with being Calabrian? Calabrians (or Napolitans, or
>>  Sicilians...) had a common language, culture and sense of identity.

>I would say that what was wrong with it is exactly what was wrong
>with American Indian's complete tribal loyalty to *their* own tiny
>tribe.  Without unification, they were easy pickings for the European
>colonists---at least in the long run.

I don't see this logic, Lee. The more distributed the people, the harder
it is to conquer them. For example, if Washington, D.C. (i.e. the U.S.
Federal government) did not exist, the U.S. would be very difficult to
control, would it not?

>>  The young people learn very little science in grade school through high
>>  school. The Italian Space Agency and others put almost nothing (.3%)
>>  into their budgets for Education and Public Outreach to improve the
>>  situation. If any scientist holds the rare press conference on their
>>  work results, there is a high probability that the journalists will get
>>  it completely wrong and the Italian scientist won't correct them. The
>>  top managers at aerospace companies think that the PhD is a total waste
>>  of time. This year, out of 75,000 entering students for the Rama
>>  Sapienza University (the largest in Italy), only about 100 are science
>>  majors (most of the the rest were "media": journalism, television, etc.)

>The most modern economists seem to agree with you. Investment in
>education now appears in their models to pay good dividendes. Still,
>this has to be only part of the story.  The East Europeans (e.g.
>Romanians) and the Soviets plowed enormous expense into creating the
>world's best educated populaces, but, without the other key
>factors---rule of law and legislated and enforces respect for private
>property---it *was* basically a waste.

Remember my previous words of how important are the families.

The filtering process is the following. Given the:

1) (unliveable or sometimes nonexistent) salaries and,
2) lack of societal support for science and poor scientific work
conditions,

those who do _not_ have

1) the possibility to live at home well into middle age, or do not have
a property 'gift' or something else of substantial economic value, AND
2) those who are unable to accept the lack of cultural support AND,
3) poor work conditions, AND
4) are not passionately in love with science,

... leave.

It's a very strong filter, and off-scale to any of my previous
experiences. I think that this filter has been working, filtering, for
decades. I also think that once the Italian families stop their support
then Italian science will stop. Italian science _needs_ the Italian
families for it to continue.

Amara


-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson


From amara at amara.com  Thu Jun  7 21:48:59 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 23:48:59 +0200
Subject: [ExI]  Estonia views
Message-ID: <p06230901c28e2a4884c1@[23.237.66.13]>

Lee:
>Very, very nice!  For anyone who's never been to Estonia, or who
>appreciates northeast European architecture, you oughtta take a look.
>(Also, thanks for the nice shot of the bookstore---made me feel
>right at home  :-)

The architecture is particular to the Hansa trading route
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanseatic_League

Riga's architecture is different. It is in the art nouveau style.
Riga was called "the Paris of the North" before the Soviet occupation.
My back seat pics:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/spaceviolins/sets/72157600296724260/
do not do justice to Riga.. it is a glorious, majestic city.

These pics:
http://www.terryblackburn.us/Travel/Baltics/Latvia/artnouveau/index.html
are better.


>(Also, thanks for the nice shot of the bookstore---made me feel
>right at home  :-)

There are two bookstore pics.. can you find the second one in my
Riga pictures?

I love bookstores, and miss them alot, so these two pictures were
taken for sentimental reasons.

Amara


-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson


From neville_06 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  7 21:35:42 2007
From: neville_06 at yahoo.com (neville late)
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 14:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Serious Question
In-Reply-To: <AC4D5F20-28F4-4B84-994C-8C9B9FAA7D6D@bonfireproductions.com>
Message-ID: <159617.6732.qm@web57504.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Even so, how far can Russia go with its economy? Tony Karon:
   "if Russia's GDP per capita doubles in the next decade it would equal that of Portugal's GDP today".
  These days doesn't a nation need a big economy in addition to big guns, physical resources, intimidation, threats, maneuvering and manipulating? It's not like the days of the Ottomans.
   
   
   
  
Bret Kulakovich <bret at bonfireproductions.com> wrote:
  Just look at the puzzle pieces. Azerbaijan is Russian's link to the 
northern boarder of Iran. Making a permanent presence in Azerbaijan 
is critical to Russia to guarantee the flow of resources. To do it 
with approval is a bonus. Russia doesn't want to lose any more 
lucrative oil field access than it already has in the past six years.

Not to mention unfettered access to the so-called "shield" 
technology, which would be housed in a position easily securable by 
Russia in a sudden land-grab if need be.


Bret K.





On Jun 5, 2007, at 11:13 PM, Olga Bourlin wrote:

> What does Putin want?
>
> Olga
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


       
---------------------------------
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! 
Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070607/959cc067/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Jun  8 00:49:39 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 17:49:39 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
References: <400852.78064.qm@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <016c01c7a967$77d8efe0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Jeffrey (A B) writes


> John Clark wrote:
> 
> > "No, a computer doesn't need emotions,
> > but a AI must have them."
> 
> An AI *is* a specific computer. If my desktop
> doesn't need an emotion to run a program or
> respond within it, why "must" an AI have emotions?

In these confusing threads, an AI is often taken
to mean a vastly superhuman AI which by definition
is capable of vastly outhinking humans. 

Formerly, I had agreed with John because at
least for human beings, emotion sometimes
plays an important part in what one would 
think of as purely intellectual functioning. I was
working off the Damasio card experiments, 
which seem to show that humans require---for
full intellectual power---some emotion.

However, Stathis has convinced me otherwise,
at least to some extent. 

> A non-existent motivation will not "motivate"
> itself into existence. And an AGI isn't
> going to pop out of thin air, it has to be
> intentionally designed, or it's not going to
> exist.

At one point John was postulating a version
of an AGI, e.g. version 3141592 which was
a direct descendant of version 3141591. I
took him to mean that the former was solely
designed by the latter, and was *not* the
result of an evolutionary process. So I 
contended that 3141592---as well as all
versions way back to 42, say---as products
of truly *intelligent design* need not have 
the full array of emotions.  Like Stathis, I
supposed that perhaps 3141592 and all its
predecessors might have been focused, say,
on solving physics problems. 

(On the other hand I did affirm that if a
program was the result of a free-for-all
evolutionary process, then it likely would
have a full array of emotions---after all, 
we and all the higher animals have them.
Besides, it makes good evolutionary 
sense. Take anger, for example. In an
evolutionary struggle, those programs
equipped with the temporary insanity
we call "anger" have a survival advantage.)

> I suppose it's *possible* that a generic
> self-improving AI, as it expands its knowledge and
> intelligence, could innocuously "drift" into coding a
> script that would provide emotions *after-the-fact*
> that it had been written.

:-)  I don't even agree with going *that* far!
A specially crafted AI---again, not an evolutionarily
derived one, but one the result of *intelligent design*
(something tells me I am going to be sorry for using
that exact phase)---cannot any more drift into
having emotions than in can drift into sculpting
David out of a slab of stone.  Or than over the
course of eons a species can "drift" into having
an eye:  No!  Only a careful pruning by mutuation
and selection can give you an eye, or the ability
to carve a David.

> But that will *not* be an *emotionally-driven*
> action to code the script, because the AI will
> not have any emotions to begin with (unless they
> are intentionally programmed in by humans).

I would less this pass without comment, except
that in all probability, the first truly sentient human-
level AIs will very likely be the result of evolutionary
activity.  To wit, humans set up conditions in which
a lot of AIs can breed like genetic algorithms, 
compete against each other, and develop whatever
is best to survive (and so in that way acquire emotion).
Since this is *so* likely, it's a mistake IMHO to 
omit mentioning the possibility.

> That's why it's important to get its starting
> "motivations/directives" right, because if
> they aren't the AI mind could "drift" into
> a lot of open territory that wouldn't be
> good for us, or itself. Paperclip style.

I would agree that the same cautions that
apply to nanotech are warranted here. 
To the degree that an AI---superhuman
AGI we are talking about---has power,
then by our lights it could of course drift
(as you  put it) into doing things not to
our liking.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Jun  8 01:16:56 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 18:16:56 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Italy's Social Ca
References: <p06230900c28e2907399c@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <017101c7a96a$f92864b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Amara writes


> "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>:
> 
>>I would say that what was wrong with it is exactly what was wrong
>>with American Indian's complete tribal loyalty to *their* own tiny
>>tribe.  Without unification, they were easy pickings for the European
>>colonists---at least in the long run.
> 
> I don't see this logic, Lee. The more distributed the people, the harder
> it is to conquer them. For example, if Washington, D.C. (i.e. the U.S.
> Federal government) did not exist, the U.S. would be very difficult to
> control, would it not?

We have to be mindful not to confuse many different historical
situations. Indeed, when technological levels are equal, controling
a vast region full of unwilling subjects is mighty hard. The only
way that Ghengis Khan really could do it was with an immensely
strong and skillful army, and utilizing the expedient now and then
of simply depopulation one of those regions.

But with the advent of modern technology, the big advantage can
lie with the side with a base of (peaceful) organized factories that
can turn out firearms and tanks. So given that the Chinese, say,
(or in WWII the Japanese) do have a stable manufacturing base,
conquering and maintaining some form of control over a region
the size of the U.S. would be possible if the latter's industrial
capability, or infrastructure could be destroyed. Right now, yes,
I agree: taking out Washington D.C. would not do that.

But if the U.S. were divided into very small principalities (e.g.
counties) and could not achieve unification of war-aims and
consolidation of central control somewhere, then they could
not resist the Canadian Army, much less the Chinese Army.

>>>  The young people learn very little science in grade school through high
>>>  school. The Italian Space Agency and others put almost nothing (.3%)
>>>  into their budgets for Education and Public Outreach to improve the
>>>  situation. If any scientist holds the rare press conference on their
>>>  work results, there is a high probability that the journalists will get
>>>  it completely wrong and the Italian scientist won't correct them. The
>>>  top managers at aerospace companies think that the PhD is a total waste
>>>  of time. This year, out of 75,000 entering students for the Rama
>>>  Sapienza University (the largest in Italy), only about 100 are science
>>>  majors (most of the the rest were "media": journalism, television, etc.)
> 
>>The most modern economists seem to agree with you. Investment in
>>education now appears in their models to pay good dividends. Still,
>>this has to be only part of the story.  The East Europeans (e.g.
>>Romanians) and the Soviets plowed enormous expense into creating the
>>world's best educated populaces, but, without the other key
>>factors---rule of law and legislated and enforces respect for private
>>property---it *was* basically a waste.
> 
> Remember my previous words of how important are the families.
> 
> The filtering process is the following. Given the:
> 
> 1) (unliveable or sometimes nonexistent) salaries and,
> 2) lack of societal support for science and poor scientific work
>     conditions,
> 
> those who do _not_ have
> 
> 1) the possibility to live at home well into middle age, or do not have
>     a property 'gift' or something else of substantial economic value, AND
> 2) those who are unable to accept the lack of cultural support AND,
> 3) poor work conditions, AND
> 4) are not passionately in love with science,
> 
> ... leave.

Such filtering could amount to a brain-drain, a motivation-drain,
etc. But have substantial numbers of Italians who did have
"what it takes" actually left for greener pastures?  Was there
ever a time in the 19th or 20th centuries when Italy produced
a strong scientific tradition?  (Surely Enrico Fermi and a few
others I could mention must have had very good academic
circumstances---but then, he did leave. :-)

We may be trying to talk about two different things: I'm 
was talking mostly about the entire scientific/technical/
economic package (of which Silicon Valley is the world
pre-eminent example), and you may be talking about
pure science.  Now the Soviet Union excelled in pure
science in many areas that did not conflict with Leninism/
Marxism, such as space science, physics, mathematics.
But they remained (and remain) an economic basket
case in comparison to their potential.

> It's a very strong filter, and off-scale to any of my previous
> experiences. I think that this filter has been working, filtering, for
> decades. I also think that once the Italian families stop their support
> then Italian science will stop. Italian science _needs_ the Italian
> families for it to continue.

If (as I surmised above) you are focusing on *Italian Science*,
then I take you to be saying that somehow the family culture
in which young Italians are growing up is inimical to science.
(On the other hand, as Serifino pointed out in a recent post,
there seem to be some colonies of Chinese growing in Italy.
They'll probably be true to form and get their children
interested in science and technology!)

In California, more than half the births are to Hispanic families,
and yet the politicians keep complaining that it's our schools
that are falling down in instilling interest in science and technology.
They make no reference to Hispanic culture. The California 
schools *don't* seem to be having a problem inculcating interest
in science and technology in Chinese and Jewish students. But
few want to face the difficult (but important and interesting)
questions.  But then, there is an I.Q. problem that makes this
more difficult, an issue that at least the Italians don't have to face.

Not even God (were he to deign to exist for a while) would
know how to convert Italian or Hispanic families into nurturing
an interest in science in their children, I fear.  But ideas are
welcome!  Maybe if we cloned BILLIONS and BILLIONS
of Carl Sagans, and put them in classrooms two or three to
a student, and in families two or three to a child, we could
arouse an interest in science in any culture.

Lee



From amara at amara.com  Fri Jun  8 07:22:15 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 09:22:15 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Italy's Social Capital
Message-ID: <p06230902c28eb32a5323@[23.237.66.13]>

Sorry I had cut off the subject line in my copying and pasting
previously.

Lee:
>Such filtering could amount to a brain-drain, a motivation-drain, etc.
>But have substantial numbers of Italians who did have "what it takes"
>actually left for greener pastures?  Was there ever a time in the 19th
>or 20th centuries when Italy produced a strong scientific tradition?
>(Surely Enrico Fermi and a few others I could mention must have had very
>good academic circumstances---but then, he did leave. :-)

Serafino can say about this. There was, for a brief time, a scientific
tradition 50 years ago with the nuclear physicists, and yes, they mostly
left too.

The Brain Drain from Italy, today, is well-known, as it has existed for
decades and the rate only continues to increase. Try typing "Italy Brain
Drain" into Google. (Some call it a "Flood"). Italy is the only EU
country experiencing a "Brain Drain" instead of a "Brain Exchange". As I
said before, those who do not have family duties keeping them in Italy,
leave.


How Large is the "Brain Drain" from Italy?
Sascha O. Becker U Munich Andrea Ichino EUI Giovanni Peri
UC Davis March, 2003
http://www.iue.it/Personal/Ichino/braindrain_resubmission.pdf

Abstract

Using a comprehensive and newly organized dataset the present article
shows that the human capital content of emigrants from Italy
significantly increased during the 1990's . This is even more
dramatically the case if we consider emigrating college graduates, whose
share relative to total emigrants quadrupled between 1990 and 1998. As a
result, since the mid-1990's the share of college graduates among
emigrants from Italy has become larger than that share among residents
of Italy. In the late nineties, between 3% and 5% of the new college
graduates from Italy was dispersed abroad each year. Some preliminary
international comparisons show that the nineties have only worsened a
problem of "brain drain", that is unique to Italy, while other large
economies in the European Union seem to experience a "brain exchange".
While we do not search for an explanation of this phenomenon, we
characterize such an increase in emigration of college graduates as
pervasive across age groups and areas of emigration (the North and the
South of the country). We also find a tendency during the 1990's towards
increasing emigration of young people (below 45) and of people from
Northern regions.


http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/1470/is_the_italian_brain_drain_becoming_a_flood

"...the unanimous feeling was that there are greater and fairer
opportunities abroad, both in academia and industry; there is good
funding, incentives to carry on independent research projects,
enthusiasm, and, last but not least, higher salaries."

real life cases:
http://www.humnet.unipi.it/~pacitti/Archive20049.htm

Lee:
>We may be trying to talk about two different things: I'm
>was talking mostly about the entire scientific/technical/
>economic package (of which Silicon Valley is the world
>pre-eminent example), and you may be talking about
>pure science.

I was, but they are strongly linked, and I implied the larger picture
(perhaps not very well) in my writing.

There is very little private industry for research in Italy. Fairly
telling for the 5th largest economy in the world, no? Only two in the
worlds top 100 businesses investing in R&D are Italian companies.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2b601dbe-6777-11db-8ea5-0000779e2340.html


This blog is useful to answer your questions too:

Italian Economy Watch
http://italyeconomicinfo.blogspot.com/


Amara

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson


From scerir at libero.it  Fri Jun  8 08:13:00 2007
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 10:13:00 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Italy's Social Ca
References: <p06230900c28e2907399c@[23.237.66.13]>
	<017101c7a96a$f92864b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <000501c7a9a4$d522b220$9cbb1f97@archimede>

Lee Corbin:
> Was there ever a time in the 19th or 20th centuries
> when Italy produced a strong scientific tradition?
> (Surely Enrico Fermi and a few others I could mention
> must have had very good academic circumstances---but then,
> he did leave. :-)

Many of them (here I mean physicists only) did leave because
of Italian racial laws: Emilio Segr?, Ugo Fano, Bruno Rossi,
Bruno Pontecorvo, Giulio Racah, Enrico Fermi's wife (who also
was a physicist), Andrew Viterbi ([1] well, rather a mathematician,
and Qualcomm owner), etc., or because of political or economical
reasons: 'Beppo' Occhialini, Riccardo Giacconi, Federico Faggin
[2], Pierluigi Zappacosta ([3] well, not exactly a scientist) etc.
Many of them thought it was better to remain in Italy or in
Europe (i.e. Edoardo Amaldi co-founded Cern, at Geneva).
I would say there is an Italian scientific tradition,
but it is 'transnational'.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Viterbi
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_Faggin
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierluigi_Zappacosta







From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  8 08:12:33 2007
From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John Grigg)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 01:12:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Getting Hispanics involved in Science (Was: Re: Italy's
	Social Ca)
In-Reply-To: <017101c7a96a$f92864b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <75380.6692.qm@web35612.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Lee Corbin wrote:
  In California, more than half the births are to Hispanic families,
and yet the politicians keep complaining that it's our schools
that are falling down in instilling interest in science and technology.
They make no reference to Hispanic culture. The California 
schools *don't* seem to be having a problem inculcating interest
in science and technology in Chinese and Jewish students. But
few want to face the difficult (but important and interesting)
questions.  But then, there is an I.Q. problem that makes this
more difficult, an issue that at least the Italians don't have to face.
>
   
   
  Lee, did you hear the story of a group of Hispanic young men from very poor backgrounds who as highschool students entered a robotics contest and beat this nation's best competitors?  The irony was that despite this great victory it looked like they might have problems being able to attend college (they were not honor students) but a benefactor came forward and they are all financially set now for higher education.
   
  I have known many very bright and creative Hispanics and so I don't think the problem is a genetic one.  Instead I feel a longterm campaign needs to be developed to tie in Latin American culture & history with the desire to learn about science.  It would at least be a start.  
   
  Regarding cloning..., how about we start with one million Carl Sagan clones and one million Bill Nye the Science Guy clones.  And to include a "Hollywood Angle" we could make one million Dolph Lundgren (masters in chemical engineering) clones and one million copies of James Wood (studied political science at MIT but dropped out to pursue acting).  Oh, and don't forget ten million copies of the very beautiful and brainy Danica McKellar (has a bachelor's degree in mathematics).
   
  http://www.danicamckellar.com/
   
  One of the Dani McKellar clones would need to be assigned to me as my er..., "assistant!"  That's it! : )  But one of those damn James Wood or Dolph Lundgren clones would be sure to steal her away from me...
   
  John Grigg : (

  
Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
  Amara writes


> "Lee Corbin" :
> 
>>I would say that what was wrong with it is exactly what was wrong
>>with American Indian's complete tribal loyalty to *their* own tiny
>>tribe. Without unification, they were easy pickings for the European
>>colonists---at least in the long run.
> 
> I don't see this logic, Lee. The more distributed the people, the harder
> it is to conquer them. For example, if Washington, D.C. (i.e. the U.S.
> Federal government) did not exist, the U.S. would be very difficult to
> control, would it not?

We have to be mindful not to confuse many different historical
situations. Indeed, when technological levels are equal, controling
a vast region full of unwilling subjects is mighty hard. The only
way that Ghengis Khan really could do it was with an immensely
strong and skillful army, and utilizing the expedient now and then
of simply depopulation one of those regions.

But with the advent of modern technology, the big advantage can
lie with the side with a base of (peaceful) organized factories that
can turn out firearms and tanks. So given that the Chinese, say,
(or in WWII the Japanese) do have a stable manufacturing base,
conquering and maintaining some form of control over a region
the size of the U.S. would be possible if the latter's industrial
capability, or infrastructure could be destroyed. Right now, yes,
I agree: taking out Washington D.C. would not do that.

But if the U.S. were divided into very small principalities (e.g.
counties) and could not achieve unification of war-aims and
consolidation of central control somewhere, then they could
not resist the Canadian Army, much less the Chinese Army.

>>> The young people learn very little science in grade school through high
>>> school. The Italian Space Agency and others put almost nothing (.3%)
>>> into their budgets for Education and Public Outreach to improve the
>>> situation. If any scientist holds the rare press conference on their
>>> work results, there is a high probability that the journalists will get
>>> it completely wrong and the Italian scientist won't correct them. The
>>> top managers at aerospace companies think that the PhD is a total waste
>>> of time. This year, out of 75,000 entering students for the Rama
>>> Sapienza University (the largest in Italy), only about 100 are science
>>> majors (most of the the rest were "media": journalism, television, etc.)
> 
>>The most modern economists seem to agree with you. Investment in
>>education now appears in their models to pay good dividends. Still,
>>this has to be only part of the story. The East Europeans (e.g.
>>Romanians) and the Soviets plowed enormous expense into creating the
>>world's best educated populaces, but, without the other key
>>factors---rule of law and legislated and enforces respect for private
>>property---it *was* basically a waste.
> 
> Remember my previous words of how important are the families.
> 
> The filtering process is the following. Given the:
> 
> 1) (unliveable or sometimes nonexistent) salaries and,
> 2) lack of societal support for science and poor scientific work
> conditions,
> 
> those who do _not_ have
> 
> 1) the possibility to live at home well into middle age, or do not have
> a property 'gift' or something else of substantial economic value, AND
> 2) those who are unable to accept the lack of cultural support AND,
> 3) poor work conditions, AND
> 4) are not passionately in love with science,
> 
> ... leave.

Such filtering could amount to a brain-drain, a motivation-drain,
etc. But have substantial numbers of Italians who did have
"what it takes" actually left for greener pastures? Was there
ever a time in the 19th or 20th centuries when Italy produced
a strong scientific tradition? (Surely Enrico Fermi and a few
others I could mention must have had very good academic
circumstances---but then, he did leave. :-)

We may be trying to talk about two different things: I'm 
was talking mostly about the entire scientific/technical/
economic package (of which Silicon Valley is the world
pre-eminent example), and you may be talking about
pure science. Now the Soviet Union excelled in pure
science in many areas that did not conflict with Leninism/
Marxism, such as space science, physics, mathematics.
But they remained (and remain) an economic basket
case in comparison to their potential.

> It's a very strong filter, and off-scale to any of my previous
> experiences. I think that this filter has been working, filtering, for
> decades. I also think that once the Italian families stop their support
> then Italian science will stop. Italian science _needs_ the Italian
> families for it to continue.

If (as I surmised above) you are focusing on *Italian Science*,
then I take you to be saying that somehow the family culture
in which young Italians are growing up is inimical to science.
(On the other hand, as Serifino pointed out in a recent post,
there seem to be some colonies of Chinese growing in Italy.
They'll probably be true to form and get their children
interested in science and technology!)

In California, more than half the births are to Hispanic families,
and yet the politicians keep complaining that it's our schools
that are falling down in instilling interest in science and technology.
They make no reference to Hispanic culture. The California 
schools *don't* seem to be having a problem inculcating interest
in science and technology in Chinese and Jewish students. But
few want to face the difficult (but important and interesting)
questions. But then, there is an I.Q. problem that makes this
more difficult, an issue that at least the Italians don't have to face.

Not even God (were he to deign to exist for a while) would
know how to convert Italian or Hispanic families into nurturing
an interest in science in their children, I fear. But ideas are
welcome! Maybe if we cloned BILLIONS and BILLIONS
of Carl Sagans, and put them in classrooms two or three to
a student, and in families two or three to a child, we could
arouse an interest in science in any culture.

Lee

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


       
---------------------------------
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070608/c35201fb/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Jun  8 10:46:03 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 20:46:03 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <016c01c7a967$77d8efe0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <400852.78064.qm@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<016c01c7a967$77d8efe0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706080346q5f322d4ex33469941cdd58465@mail.gmail.com>

On 08/06/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

Formerly, I had agreed with John because at
> least for human beings, emotion sometimes
> plays an important part in what one would
> think of as purely intellectual functioning. I was
> working off the Damasio card experiments,
> which seem to show that humans require---for
> full intellectual power---some emotion.


Here is an excerpt from the relevant paper:


###

Science Volume 275(5304), 28 February 1997, pp 1293-1295

Deciding Advantageously Before Knowing the Advantageous Strategy
[Report]

Bechara, Antoine; Damasio, Hanna; Tranel, Daniel; Damasio, Antonio R.

In a gambling task that simulates real-life decision-making in the way it
factors uncertainty, rewards, and penalties, the players are given four
decks of cards, a loan of $2000 facsimile U.S. bills, and asked to play so
that they can lose the least amount of money and win the most
[1]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Desktop/Damasio%20Article%20-%20Science.htm#19>.
Turning each card carries an immediate reward ($100 in decks A and B and $50
in decks C and D). Unpredictably, however, the turning of some cards also
carries a penalty (which is large in decks A and B and small in decks C and
D). Playing mostly from the disadvantageous decks (A and B) leads to an
overall loss. Playing from the advantageous decks (C and D) leads to an
overall gain. The players have no way of predicting when a penalty will
arise in a given deck, no way to calculate with precision the net gain or
loss from each deck, and no knowledge of how many cards they must turn to
end the game (the game is stopped after 100 card selections). After
encountering a few losses, normal participants begin to generate SCRs before
selecting a card from the bad decks
[2]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Desktop/Damasio%20Article%20-%20Science.htm#20>and
also begin to avoid the decks with large losses
[1]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Desktop/Damasio%20Article%20-%20Science.htm#19>.
Patients with bilateral damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortices do
neither [1,2]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Desktop/Damasio%20Article%20-%20Science.htm#19>
.

To investigate whether subjects choose correctly only after or before
conceptualizing the nature of the game and reasoning over the pertinent
knowledge, we continuously assessed, during their performance of the task,
three lines of processing in 10 normal participants and in 6 patients
[3]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Desktop/Damasio%20Article%20-%20Science.htm#21>with
bilateral damage of the ventromedial sector of the prefrontal cortex
and decision-making defects. These included (i) behavioral performance, that
is, the number of cards selected from the good decks versus the bad decks;
(ii) SCRs generated before the selection of each card
[2]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Desktop/Damasio%20Article%20-%20Science.htm#20>;
and (iii) the subject's account of how they conceptualized the game and of
the strategy they were using. The latter was assessed by interrupting the
game briefly after each subject had made 20 card turns and had already
encountered penalties, and asking the subject two questions: (i) "Tell me
all you know about what is going on in this game." (ii) "Tell me how you
feel about this game." The questions were repeated at 10-card intervals and
the responses audiotaped.

After sampling all four decks, and before encountering any losses, subjects
preferred decks A and B and did not generate significant anticipatory SCRs.
We called this period pre-punishment. After encountering a few losses in
decks A or B (usually by card 10), normal participants began to generate
anticipatory SCRs to decks A and B. Yet by card 20, all indicated that they
did not have a clue about what was going on. We called this period pre-hunch
(Figure 1<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Desktop/Damasio%20Article%20-%20Science.htm#FF1>).
By about card 50, all normal participants began to express a "hunch" that
decks A and B were riskier and all generated anticipatory SCRs whenever they
pondered a choice from deck A or B. We called this period hunch. None of the
patients generated anticipatory SCRs or expressed a "hunch" (Figure
1<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Desktop/Damasio%20Article%20-%20Science.htm#FF1>).
By card 80, many normal participants expressed knowledge about why, in the
long run, decks A and B were bad and decks C and D were good. We called this
period conceptual. Seven of the 10 normal participants reached the
conceptual period, during which they continued to avoid the bad decks, and
continued to generate SCRs whenever they considered sampling again from the
bad decks. Remarkably, the three normal participants who did not reach the
conceptual period still made advantageous choices
[4]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Desktop/Damasio%20Article%20-%20Science.htm#22>.
Just as remarkably, the three patients with prefrontal damage who reached
the conceptual period and correctly described which were the bad and good
decks chose disadvantageously. None of the patients generated anticipatory
SCRs (Figure 1<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Desktop/Damasio%20Article%20-%20Science.htm#FF1>).
Thus, despite an accurate account of the task and of the correct strategy,
these patients failed to generate autonomic responses and continued to
select cards from the bad decks. The patients failed to act according to
their correct conceptual knowledge.
###

Some of these findings have been disputed, eg. the authors of the following
paper repeated the experiment and claim that the subjects who decided
advantageously actually were consciously aware of the good decks:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/45/16075. However, it isn't so
surprising if we sometimes make good decisions based on emotions, since the
evolution of emotions predates intelligence, as John Clark reminds us. And
when you pull your hand from a painful stimulus, not only does emotion beat
cognition, but reflex, being older still, beats emotion.

It also isn't surprising if people with neurological lesions affecting
emotion don't function as well as normal people. Emotion is needed for
motivation, otherwise why do anything, and gradients of emotion are needed
for judgement, otherwise why do one thing over another? It is precisely in
matters of judgement and motivation that patients with prefrontal lesions
and schizophrenia don't do so well, even though their general IQ may be
normal, and the science of neuropsychological testing tries to tease out
these deficits.

Still, the fact that human brains may work this way does not mean that an AI
has to work in the same way to solve similar problems. No programmer would
go around writing a program that worked out the best strategy in the above
card sorting game by first inventing a computer equivalent of "emotional
learning", except perhaps as an academic exercise.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070608/626b742c/attachment.html>

From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  8 10:30:38 2007
From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John Grigg)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 03:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] humor: Transcending our humanity can be hard...
In-Reply-To: <017101c7a96a$f92864b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <625703.24918.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I wonder how much this comic strip creator knows about Transhumanism.
   
  http://news.yahoo.com/comics/brewsterrockit;_ylt=AujwFjZUNOyPEGTgGF4yzycDwLAF

  But is emptying one's mind of earthly cares and concerns a good thing? lol
   
  John Grigg : )


       
---------------------------------
Choose the right car based on your needs.  Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070608/62172323/attachment.html>

From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  8 10:35:48 2007
From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John Grigg)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 03:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] news: students invent alcohol powder
In-Reply-To: <75380.6692.qm@web35612.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <206859.34851.qm@web35608.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Just add water - students invent alcohol powder

  I can only imagine all the jokes (short-term) and real-life bad situations (long-term) this will create...
  
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070606/od_nm/dutch_drink_odd_dc

  John Grigg



 
---------------------------------
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070608/42053549/attachment.html>

From jonkc at att.net  Fri Jun  8 17:30:37 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 13:30:37 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
References: <400852.78064.qm@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <002001c7a9f2$caf0d8b0$be064e0c@MyComputer>

"A B" <austriaaugust at yahoo.com>

> your intuitions about emotions
> and motivations are just totally *wrong*.

Apparently Evolution was also wrong to invent emotion first and only after
500 million years come up with intelligence.

> In how many different ways must that be demonstrated?

42.

> An AI *is* a specific computer.

Then you *are* a specific computer too.

> If my desktop doesn't need an emotion to run a program or respond within
> it, why "must" an AI have emotions?

If you are willing to embrace the fantasy that your desktop is intelligent
then I see no reason you would not also believe in the much more modest and
realistic fantasy that it is emotional. Emotions are easy, intelligence is
hard.

 > I don't understand it John, before you were claiming fairly ardently that
> "Free Will" doesn't exist.

I made no such claim, I claimed it does not even have the virtue of non
existence, as expressed by most people the noise "free will" is no more
meaningful than a burp.

> Why are you now claiming in effect that an AI will
> automatically execute a script of code that doesn't
> exist - because it was never written (either by the
> programmers or by the AI)?

I don't know why I'm claiming that either because I don't know what the hell
you're talking about. Any AI worthy of the name will write programs for it
to run on itself and nobody including the AI knows what the outcome of those
programs will be. Even the AI doesn't know what it will do next, it will
just have to run the programs and wait to see what it decides to do next;
and that is the only meaning I can attach to the noise "free will" that is
not complete gibberish.

>The problem is, not all functioning minds must be even  *remotely* similar
>to the higher functions of a  *human* mind.

The problem is that a mind that is not even *remotely* similar to *any* of
the *higher* functions of the human mind, that is to say if there is
absolutely no point of similarity between us and them then that mind is not
functioning very well. It is true that a mind that didn't understand
mathematics or engineering or science or philosophy or economics would be of
no threat to us, but it would be of no use  either; and as we have
absolutely nothing in common with it there would be no way to communicate
with it and thus no reason to build it.

 > AI will not have any emotions to begin with

Our ancestors had emotions long ago when they begin their evolutionary
journey, but that's different because, because, well, because meat has a
soul but semiconductors never can. I know you don't like that 4 letter word
but face it, that is exactly what you're saying.

 John K Clark








From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  8 17:18:51 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 10:18:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <016c01c7a967$77d8efe0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <165408.21978.qm@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Lee wrote:

> "In these confusing threads, an AI is often taken
> to mean a vastly superhuman AI which by definition
> is capable of vastly outhinking humans."

Yep. But a superhuman AGI is still a computer. If my
desktop doesn't require an emotion in order to open
Microsoft Office, or to run a virus-scan when I
instruct it to (AKA "motivate" it to), then why *must*
an AGI designated supercomputer have an emotion in
order to run the AGI engine program when I instruct it
to? I don't think it does.

> "Formerly, I had agreed with John because at
> least for human beings, emotion sometimes
> plays an important part in what one would 
> think of as purely intellectual functioning. I was
> working off the Damasio card experiments, 
> which seem to show that humans require---for
> full intellectual power---some emotion."

But more often than not, emotion clouds judgment and
rationality. Believe me, I should know. Evolution
tacked-on emotion because it accidentally happened to
be (aggregately) useful for animal survival and
*reproduction* in particular - which is all that
evolution "cares" about. Evolution didn't desire to
create intelligent beings, because evolution doesn't
desire anything. Emotion is *not* the basis of thought
or consciousness - that can't be stressed enough. And
you may have noticed that humanity seems to thrive on
irrationality. It doesn't seem to require much
rationality or even much intelligence to attract a
person into having sex. It's just that you can't have
emotion until you have consciousness, and you can't
have consciousness until you have a threshold baseline
intelligence. Thanks a lot evolution! [Shaking Fist].
We could have used that extra skull volume for greater
intelligence and rationality!

> "(On the other hand I did affirm that if a
> program was the result of a free-for-all
> evolutionary process, then it likely would
> have a full array of emotions---after all, 
> we and all the higher animals have them.
> Besides, it makes good evolutionary 
> sense. Take anger, for example. In an
> evolutionary struggle, those programs
> equipped with the temporary insanity
> we call "anger" have a survival advantage.)"

But an AGI isn't likely to be derived solely or even
mostly from genetic programming, IMO. If it were that
easy, we'd have an AGI already. :-) Think of the
awesome complexity of a single atom. Now imagine
describing its behavior fully with nothing but
algorithms. That's a boat-load of *correct*
algorithms. That would be a task so Herculean, that
it's almost certainly not feasible any time in the
near future.

 ":-)  I don't even agree with going *that* far!
> A specially crafted AI---again, not an
> evolutionarily
> derived one, but one the result of *intelligent
> design*
> (something tells me I am going to be sorry for using
> that exact phase)---cannot any more drift into
> having emotions than in can drift into sculpting
> David out of a slab of stone.  Or than over the
> course of eons a species can "drift" into having
> an eye:  No!  Only a careful pruning by mutuation
> and selection can give you an eye, or the ability
> to carve a David."

I don't know. I think that a generic self-improving
AGI could easily drift into undesirable areas (for us
and itself) if its starting directives (=motivations)
aren't carefully selected. After all it will be
re-writing and expanding its own mind. The drift would
probably be subtle (still close to the directives) to
begin with, but could become increasingly divergent as
more internal changes are made. Let's be careful in
our selection of directives, shall we? :-)

And animals did genetically drift into having an eye,
that's how biological evolution works. And we already
have artificial machines with vision and artistic
"ability". And they weren't created by eons of orgies
of Dell desktops. They were created by human
ingenuity. :-) 

> "I would less this pass without comment, except
> that in all probability, the first truly sentient
> human-
> level AIs will very likely be the result of
> evolutionary
> activity.  To wit, humans set up conditions in which
> a lot of AIs can breed like genetic algorithms, 
> compete against each other, and develop whatever
> is best to survive (and so in that way acquire
> emotion).
> Since this is *so* likely, it's a mistake IMHO to 
> omit mentioning the possibility."

My guess is that that isn't likely. You'd have to
already have baseline AGI agents in order to compete
with each other to that end. If the AI agents are
narrow, then the one that wins will be the best chess
player of the bunch. I'm not absolutely sure though.
Perhaps one of the AGI programmers here can chime in
on this one. Although I suppose that you could have
some baseline AGI's compete with each other. I'm not
sure that's a good idea though... do we want angry,
aggressive AGI's at the end? Evolution is not the
optimal designer after all.

> "I would agree that the same cautions that
> apply to nanotech are warranted here. 
> To the degree that an AI---superhuman
> AGI we are talking about---has power,
> then by our lights it could of course drift
> (as you  put it) into doing things not to
> our liking."

Yep. And the Strong AI existential risk seems to be
the one receiving the least cautious attention by
important people. We should try to change that if we
can. For example, the US government is finally
beginning to publicly acknowledge that we need to be
carefully pro-active about nanotech, without
relinquishing it. Not that I'm encouraging government
oversight and control in particular, just pointing out
an example.

Best,

Jeffrey Herrlich



--- Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> Jeffrey (A B) writes
> 
> 
> > John Clark wrote:
> > 
> > > "No, a computer doesn't need emotions,
> > > but a AI must have them."
> > 
> > An AI *is* a specific computer. If my desktop
> > doesn't need an emotion to run a program or
> > respond within it, why "must" an AI have emotions?
> 
> In these confusing threads, an AI is often taken
> to mean a vastly superhuman AI which by definition
> is capable of vastly outhinking humans. 
> 
> Formerly, I had agreed with John because at
> least for human beings, emotion sometimes
> plays an important part in what one would 
> think of as purely intellectual functioning. I was
> working off the Damasio card experiments, 
> which seem to show that humans require---for
> full intellectual power---some emotion.
> 
> However, Stathis has convinced me otherwise,
> at least to some extent. 
> 
> > A non-existent motivation will not "motivate"
> > itself into existence. And an AGI isn't
> > going to pop out of thin air, it has to be
> > intentionally designed, or it's not going to
> > exist.
> 
> At one point John was postulating a version
> of an AGI, e.g. version 3141592 which was
> a direct descendant of version 3141591. I
> took him to mean that the former was solely
> designed by the latter, and was *not* the
> result of an evolutionary process. So I 
> contended that 3141592---as well as all
> versions way back to 42, say---as products
> of truly *intelligent design* need not have 
> the full array of emotions.  Like Stathis, I
> supposed that perhaps 3141592 and all its
> predecessors might have been focused, say,
> on solving physics problems. 
> 
> (On the other hand I did affirm that if a
> program was the result of a free-for-all
> evolutionary process, then it likely would
> have a full array of emotions---after all, 
> we and all the higher animals have them.
> Besides, it makes good evolutionary 
> sense. Take anger, for example. In an
> evolutionary struggle, those programs
> equipped with the temporary insanity
> we call "anger" have a survival advantage.)
> 
> > I suppose it's *possible* that a generic
> > self-improving AI, as it expands its knowledge and
> > intelligence, could innocuously "drift" into
> coding a
> > script that would provide emotions
> *after-the-fact*
> > that it had been written.
> 
> :-)  I don't even agree with going *that* far!
> A specially crafted AI---again, not an
> evolutionarily
> derived one, but one the result of *intelligent
> design*
> (something tells me I am going to be sorry for using
> that exact phase)---cannot any more drift into
> having emotions than in can drift into sculpting
> David out of a slab of stone.  Or than over the
> course of eons a species can "drift" into having
> an eye:  No!  Only a careful pruning by mutuation
> and selection can give you an eye, or the ability
> to carve a David.
> 
> > But that will *not* be an *emotionally-driven*
> > action to code the script, because the AI will
> > not have any emotions to begin with (unless they
> > are intentionally programmed in by humans).
> 
> I would less this pass without comment, except
> that in all probability, the first truly sentient
> human-
> level AIs will very likely be the result of
> evolutionary
> activity.  To wit, humans set up conditions in which
> a lot of AIs can breed like genetic algorithms, 
> compete against each other, and develop whatever
> is best to survive (and so in that way acquire
> emotion).
> Since this is *so* likely, it's a mistake IMHO to 
> omit mentioning the possibility.
> 
> > That's why it's important to get its starting
> > "motivations/directives" right, because if
> > they aren't the AI mind could "drift" into
> > a lot of open territory that wouldn't be
> > good for us, or itself. Paperclip style.
> 
> I would agree that the same cautions that
> apply to nanotech are warranted here. 
> To the degree that an AI---superhuman
> AGI we are talking about---has power,
> then by our lights it could of course drift
> (as you  put it) into doing things not to
> our liking.
> 
> Lee
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing.
http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php


From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  8 17:45:39 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 10:45:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706080346q5f322d4ex33469941cdd58465@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <190996.5843.qm@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Stathis wrote:

> "However, it isn't so
> surprising if we sometimes make good decisions based
> on emotions, since the
> evolution of emotions predates intelligence, as John
> Clark reminds us."

The evolution of emotions **doesn't** predate
intelligence, it's the other way around. An insect
isn't as intelligent as a person, but that doesn't
mean it has no intelligence. I know that's
counter-intuitive, but with evolutionary progression
you can't have emotions if you don't have
consciousness, and you can't have consciousness if you
don't have intelligence. Take for example the visual
cortex. First a stimulus must be *intelligently*
processed within the visual cortex, using intelligent
algorithms. Then the visual subject "emerges" into
consciousness after sufficient intelligent processing.
Then and only then can a person begin to form an
emotional reaction to whatever is consciously seen; a
loved-one for instance. Then the forming emotional
experience feeds back into consciousness so that a
person becomes aware of the emotion in addition to the
visual subject. There's only *one* direction in which
emotion could possibly have naturally evolved:

1)Intelligence
2)Consciousness
3)Emotion

Best,

Jeffrey Herrlich  



--- Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 08/06/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> 
> Formerly, I had agreed with John because at
> > least for human beings, emotion sometimes
> > plays an important part in what one would
> > think of as purely intellectual functioning. I was
> > working off the Damasio card experiments,
> > which seem to show that humans require---for
> > full intellectual power---some emotion.
> 
> 
> Here is an excerpt from the relevant paper:
> 
> 
> ###
> 
> Science Volume 275(5304), 28 February 1997, pp
> 1293-1295
> 
> Deciding Advantageously Before Knowing the
> Advantageous Strategy
> [Report]
> 
> Bechara, Antoine; Damasio, Hanna; Tranel, Daniel;
> Damasio, Antonio R.
> 
> In a gambling task that simulates real-life
> decision-making in the way it
> factors uncertainty, rewards, and penalties, the
> players are given four
> decks of cards, a loan of $2000 facsimile U.S.
> bills, and asked to play so
> that they can lose the least amount of money and win
> the most
>
[1]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Desktop/Damasio%20Article%20-%20Science.htm#19>.
> Turning each card carries an immediate reward ($100
> in decks A and B and $50
> in decks C and D). Unpredictably, however, the
> turning of some cards also
> carries a penalty (which is large in decks A and B
> and small in decks C and
> D). Playing mostly from the disadvantageous decks (A
> and B) leads to an
> overall loss. Playing from the advantageous decks (C
> and D) leads to an
> overall gain. The players have no way of predicting
> when a penalty will
> arise in a given deck, no way to calculate with
> precision the net gain or
> loss from each deck, and no knowledge of how many
> cards they must turn to
> end the game (the game is stopped after 100 card
> selections). After
> encountering a few losses, normal participants begin
> to generate SCRs before
> selecting a card from the bad decks
>
[2]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Desktop/Damasio%20Article%20-%20Science.htm#20>and
> also begin to avoid the decks with large losses
>
[1]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Desktop/Damasio%20Article%20-%20Science.htm#19>.
> Patients with bilateral damage to the ventromedial
> prefrontal cortices do
> neither
>
[1,2]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Desktop/Damasio%20Article%20-%20Science.htm#19>
> .
> 
> To investigate whether subjects choose correctly
> only after or before
> conceptualizing the nature of the game and reasoning
> over the pertinent
> knowledge, we continuously assessed, during their
> performance of the task,
> three lines of processing in 10 normal participants
> and in 6 patients
>
[3]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Desktop/Damasio%20Article%20-%20Science.htm#21>with
> bilateral damage of the ventromedial sector of the
> prefrontal cortex
> and decision-making defects. These included (i)
> behavioral performance, that
> is, the number of cards selected from the good decks
> versus the bad decks;
> (ii) SCRs generated before the selection of each
> card
>
[2]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Desktop/Damasio%20Article%20-%20Science.htm#20>;
> and (iii) the subject's account of how they
> conceptualized the game and of
> the strategy they were using. The latter was
> assessed by interrupting the
> game briefly after each subject had made 20 card
> turns and had already
> encountered penalties, and asking the subject two
> questions: (i) "Tell me
> all you know about what is going on in this game."
> (ii) "Tell me how you
> feel about this game." The questions were repeated
> at 10-card intervals and
> the responses audiotaped.
> 
> After sampling all four decks, and before
> encountering any losses, subjects
> preferred decks A and B and did not generate
> significant anticipatory SCRs.
> We called this period pre-punishment. After
> encountering a few losses in
> decks A or B (usually by card 10), normal
> participants began to generate
> anticipatory SCRs to decks A and B. Yet by card 20,
> all indicated that they
> did not have a clue about what was going on. We
> called this period pre-hunch
> (Figure
>
1<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Desktop/Damasio%20Article%20-%20Science.htm#FF1>).
> By about card 50, all normal participants began to
> express a "hunch" that
> decks A and B were riskier and all generated
> anticipatory SCRs whenever they
> pondered a choice from deck A or B. We called this
> period hunch. None of the
> patients generated anticipatory SCRs or expressed a
> "hunch" (Figure
>
1<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Desktop/Damasio%20Article%20-%20Science.htm#FF1>).
> By card 80, many normal participants expressed
> knowledge about why, in the
> long run, decks A and B were bad and decks C and D
> were good. We called this
> period conceptual. Seven of the 10 normal
> participants reached the
> conceptual period, during which they continued to
> avoid the bad decks, and
> continued to generate SCRs whenever they considered
> sampling again from the
> bad decks. Remarkably, the three normal participants
> who did not reach the
> conceptual period still made advantageous choices
>
[4]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Desktop/Damasio%20Article%20-%20Science.htm#22>.
> Just as remarkably, the three patients with
> prefrontal damage who reached
> the conceptual period and correctly described which
> were the bad and good
> decks chose disadvantageously. None of the patients
> generated anticipatory
> SCRs (Figure
>
1<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Desktop/Damasio%20Article%20-%20Science.htm#FF1>).
> Thus, despite an accurate account of the task and of
> the correct strategy,
> these patients failed to generate autonomic
> responses and continued to
> select cards from the bad decks. The patients failed
> to act according to
> their correct conceptual knowledge.
> ###
> 
> Some of these findings have been disputed, eg. the
> authors of the following
> paper repeated the experiment and claim that the
> subjects who decided
> advantageously actually were consciously aware of
> the good decks:
>
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/45/16075.
> However, it isn't so
> surprising if we sometimes make good decisions based
> on emotions, since the
> evolution of emotions predates intelligence, as John
> Clark reminds us. And
> when you pull your hand from a painful stimulus, not
> only does emotion beat
> cognition, but reflex, being older still, beats
> emotion.
> 
> It also isn't surprising if people with neurological
> lesions affecting
> emotion don't function as well as normal people.
> Emotion is needed for
> motivation, otherwise why do anything, and gradients
> of emotion are needed
> for judgement, otherwise why do one thing over
> another? It is precisely in
> matters of judgement and motivation that patients
> with prefrontal lesions
> and schizophrenia don't do so well, even though
> their general IQ may be
> normal, and the science of neuropsychological
> testing tries to tease out
> these deficits.
> 
> Still, the fact that human brains may work this way
> does not mean that an AI
> has to work in the same way to solve similar
> problems. No programmer would
> go around writing a program that worked out the best
> strategy in the above
> card sorting game by first inventing a computer
> equivalent of "emotional
> learning", except perhaps as an academic exercise.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou
> > _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz 


From randall at randallsquared.com  Fri Jun  8 18:49:28 2007
From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 14:49:28 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <002001c7a9f2$caf0d8b0$be064e0c@MyComputer>
References: <400852.78064.qm@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<002001c7a9f2$caf0d8b0$be064e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <C6132842-E1C2-4B26-A5FA-7D5391A6326F@randallsquared.com>


On Jun 8, 2007, at 1:30 PM, John K Clark wrote:

> "A B" <austriaaugust at yahoo.com>
>
>> your intuitions about emotions
>> and motivations are just totally *wrong*.
>
> Apparently Evolution was also wrong to invent emotion first and  
> only after
> 500 million years come up with intelligence.

John, I'm sure someone's mentioned this before
in this context, but isn't the ubiquity of
feathered airplanes a similar argument?

--
Randall Randall <randall at randallsquared.com>
"If we have matter duplicators, will each of us be a sovereign
  and possess a hydrogen bomb?" -- Jerry Pournelle




From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  8 19:22:23 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 12:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <002001c7a9f2$caf0d8b0$be064e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

John Clark wrote:

> "Apparently Evolution was also wrong to invent
> emotion first and only after
> 500 million years come up with intelligence."

Evolution didn't invent emotion first. Intelligence
existed first, and humans aren't the first animals
with any level of intelligence.

"42."

I see that I still have a ways to go, then. ;-)

> "Then you *are* a specific computer too."

Correct.

> "If you are willing to embrace the fantasy that your
> desktop is intelligent
> then I see no reason you would not also believe in
> the much more modest and
> realistic fantasy that it is emotional. Emotions are
> easy, intelligence is
> hard."

Narrow intelligence is still intelligence. It all
works on algorithms, the desktop and my brain. Human
intelligence is hard, but animal intelligence has been
around for hundreds of millions of years beforehand.

> "I don't know why I'm claiming that either because I
> don't know what the hell
> you're talking about. Any AI worthy of the name will
> write programs for it
> to run on itself and nobody including the AI knows
> what the outcome of those
> programs will be. Even the AI doesn't know what it
> will do next, it will
> just have to run the programs and wait to see what
> it decides to do next;
> and that is the only meaning I can attach to the
> noise "free will" that is
> not complete gibberish."

My chess program has narrow AI, but it doesn't alter
its own code. It's not conscious, but it does have a
level of intelligence. If the AGI is directed not to
alter or expand its code is some specific set of ways,
then it won't do it, precisely as instructed. The
directives that we program it with will be the only
form of "motivation" that it will begin with. Needless
to say, it's important that we get those directives
right; hence the "Friendly" part.

> The problem is that a mind that is not even
> *remotely* similar to *any* of
> the *higher* functions of the human mind, that is to
> say if there is
> absolutely no point of similarity between us and
> them then that mind is not
> functioning very well. It is true that a mind that
> didn't understand
> mathematics or engineering or science or philosophy
> or economics would be of
> no threat to us, but it would be of no use  either;
> and as we have
> absolutely nothing in common with it there would be
> no way to communicate
> with it and thus no reason to build it.

There will be similarities, at the very bottom. Both
require formative algorithms. Emotion is a much
higher, macroscopic, level; and not necessary to a
functioning mind. My desktop functions pretty well,
and if I wanted, it could even help me with science
and engineering (calculation and CAD programs, etc).
Current computers help humans do a lot of things. Eg.
Moore's Law is made possible by improved computer
functionality when designing new chips. Look at the
huge range of behaviors within humanity, and that's
all within a very small sector of the total mind
possibility-space.

> "Our ancestors had emotions long ago when they begin
> their evolutionary
> journey, but that's different because, because,
> well, because meat has a
> soul but semiconductors never can. I know you don't
> like that 4 letter word
> but face it, that is exactly what you're saying."

Nope, I'm not saying that. I've specifically said that
a machine *can* have emotions. All I've said is that
no emotion will exist where there is no capacity for
emotion. And that capacity for emotion will not pop
out of thin air. It will either have to be written by
humans, or it will have to be written by the AI. The
key here is, the AI will not write the capacity for it
if it is directed not to do so. And it will not be
emotionally driven to ignore or override that
directive, precisely because it will not have any
emotions when it first comes on-line.

An emotion is not going to be embodied within a three
line script of algorithms, but an *extremely* limited
degree of intelligence can be (narrow intelligence).

Best,

Jeffrey Herrlich 



--- John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:

> "A B" <austriaaugust at yahoo.com>
> 
> > your intuitions about emotions
> > and motivations are just totally *wrong*.
> 
> Apparently Evolution was also wrong to invent
> emotion first and only after
> 500 million years come up with intelligence.
> 
> > In how many different ways must that be
> demonstrated?
> 
> 42.
> 
> > An AI *is* a specific computer.
> 
> Then you *are* a specific computer too.
> 
> > If my desktop doesn't need an emotion to run a
> program or respond within
> > it, why "must" an AI have emotions?
> 
> If you are willing to embrace the fantasy that your
> desktop is intelligent
> then I see no reason you would not also believe in
> the much more modest and
> realistic fantasy that it is emotional. Emotions are
> easy, intelligence is
> hard.
> 
>  > I don't understand it John, before you were
> claiming fairly ardently that
> > "Free Will" doesn't exist.
> 
> I made no such claim, I claimed it does not even
> have the virtue of non
> existence, as expressed by most people the noise
> "free will" is no more
> meaningful than a burp.
> 
> > Why are you now claiming in effect that an AI will
> > automatically execute a script of code that
> doesn't
> > exist - because it was never written (either by
> the
> > programmers or by the AI)?
> 
> I don't know why I'm claiming that either because I
> don't know what the hell
> you're talking about. Any AI worthy of the name will
> write programs for it
> to run on itself and nobody including the AI knows
> what the outcome of those
> programs will be. Even the AI doesn't know what it
> will do next, it will
> just have to run the programs and wait to see what
> it decides to do next;
> and that is the only meaning I can attach to the
> noise "free will" that is
> not complete gibberish.
> 
> >The problem is, not all functioning minds must be
> even  *remotely* similar
> >to the higher functions of a  *human* mind.
> 
> The problem is that a mind that is not even
> *remotely* similar to *any* of
> the *higher* functions of the human mind, that is to
> say if there is
> absolutely no point of similarity between us and
> them then that mind is not
> functioning very well. It is true that a mind that
> didn't understand
> mathematics or engineering or science or philosophy
> or economics would be of
> no threat to us, but it would be of no use  either;
> and as we have
> absolutely nothing in common with it there would be
> no way to communicate
> with it and thus no reason to build it.
> 
>  > AI will not have any emotions to begin with
> 
> Our ancestors had emotions long ago when they begin
> their evolutionary
> journey, but that's different because, because,
> well, because meat has a
> soul but semiconductors never can. I know you don't
> like that 4 letter word
> but face it, that is exactly what you're saying.
> 
>  John K Clark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time 
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news


From fauxever at sprynet.com  Sat Jun  9 01:08:48 2007
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 18:08:48 -0700
Subject: [ExI] humor: Transcending our humanity can be hard...
References: <625703.24918.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <016e01c7aa32$bc899b50$6501a8c0@brainiac>

From: John Grigg 
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org 
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 3:30 AM

> I wonder how much this comic strip creator knows about Transhumanism.

>http://news.yahoo.com/comics/brewsterrockit;_ylt=AujwFjZUNOyPEGTgGF4yzycDwLAF

> But is emptying one's mind of earthly cares and concerns a good thing? lol

Aha!  Well, now - there's emptying.  And then there's already empty:

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/ars-takes-a-field-trip-the-creation-museum.ars

Olga

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070608/d6db5824/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Jun  9 01:26:54 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 18:26:54 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D2A0D@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
Message-ID: <200706090139.l591dQoQ025051@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Healey
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
> 
> > Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >
> > Suppose your goal is to win a chess game *adhering to the
> > rules of chess*.
> 
> Do chess opponents at tournaments conduct themselves in ways that they
> hope might psyche out their opponent?  In my observations, hell yes.  And
> these ways are not explicitly excluded in the rules of chess... -Chris


Chris, that Hollywood stuff is probably seen down in the Cs and Ds.  More
skilled and disciplined players know to play the board, not the man.  I had
a tournament where a guy was doing this kinda thing.  Whooped his ass.  That
felt goooood.  {8-]  

spike









From neville_06 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  9 01:28:24 2007
From: neville_06 at yahoo.com (neville late)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 18:28:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <165408.21978.qm@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <319909.90945.qm@web57515.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Also an intelligent person might agonize too much in moving towards making a given decision, and then might make the wrong decision. 
  Reagan was less intelligent and more mystical than Carter but Reagan had a smoother decision process.
   
   
  >>humanity seems to thrive on irrationality.

 
---------------------------------
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels 
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070608/2273007a/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Jun  9 01:40:55 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 18:40:55 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Serious Question
In-Reply-To: <20070607113313.GB17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <200706090153.l591roOk021449@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Serious Question
> 
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 06:57:15AM -0400, Joseph Bloch wrote:
> > It's pure speculation on my part, but he might be setting things up to
> avoid
> > the term limit he faces on his Presidency in 2008. ...
> 
> Hey, no fair copycatting! ShrubCo patented it first.
> 
> --
> Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org



Orwell had the idea before either of those two of course.

There is deep irony here.  If terrorism is fought as a type of criminal
activity, then governments do not have the power to fight effectively.  If
terrorism is fought as a war, then governments grant themselves arbitrary
power.

spike









From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Jun  9 02:20:14 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 12:20:14 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <190996.5843.qm@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <f21c22e30706080346q5f322d4ex33469941cdd58465@mail.gmail.com>
	<190996.5843.qm@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706081920ha8ce03fqc387624cfe662b@mail.gmail.com>

On 09/06/07, A B <austriaaugust at yahoo.com> wrote:

The evolution of emotions **doesn't** predate
> intelligence, it's the other way around. An insect
> isn't as intelligent as a person, but that doesn't
> mean it has no intelligence. I know that's
> counter-intuitive, but with evolutionary progression
> you can't have emotions if you don't have
> consciousness, and you can't have consciousness if you
> don't have intelligence. Take for example the visual
> cortex. First a stimulus must be *intelligently*
> processed within the visual cortex, using intelligent
> algorithms. Then the visual subject "emerges" into
> consciousness after sufficient intelligent processing.
> Then and only then can a person begin to form an
> emotional reaction to whatever is consciously seen; a
> loved-one for instance. Then the forming emotional
> experience feeds back into consciousness so that a
> person becomes aware of the emotion in addition to the
> visual subject. There's only *one* direction in which
> emotion could possibly have naturally evolved:
>
> 1)Intelligence
> 2)Consciousness
> 3)Emotion


OK, but that involves a broader definition of intelligence, such that even a
short program with an if/then statement might be called intelligent.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070609/bda8a76a/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Jun  9 02:22:47 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 19:22:47 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
References: <165408.21978.qm@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <01a501c7aa3d$3a60d520$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Jeffrey writes

> Lee wrote:
> 
>> A specially crafted AI---again, not
>> an evolutionarily derived one, but one
>> that is the result of intelligent design
>> (something tells me I am going to be
>> sorry for using that exact phase)---
>> cannot any more drift into having
>> emotions than it can drift into sculpting
>> David out of a slab of stone.  Or than
>> over the course of eons a species can
>> "drift" into having an eye:  No!  Only a
>> careful pruning by mutuation and selection
>> can give you an eye, or the ability
>> to carve a David."
> 
> I don't know. I think that a generic
> self-improving AGI could easily drift
> into undesirable areas (for us and itself)
> if its starting directives (=motivations)
> aren't carefully selected...  And animals
> did genetically drift into having an eye,
> that's how biological evolution works.

Your honor, I object!  I object to this use
of the word "drift".  Is Councillor aware of
the term "genetic drift"?  It doesn't sound
like it.

Moreover, on plain epistemological
grounds the word above normally
conveys *unguided* change. But
evolution is anything but unguided!

Evolution did not just *drift* into
providing animals with eyes. As 
Dawkins and Dennett have taken
careful pains to describe, the vast
complexity of the eye which so
impressed Darwin arose from
exceedingly careful refinement.
Every step was fitness enhancing.
Every step *had* to be fitness
enhancing (which Darwin had a
hard time in the 19th century
believing).

To re-quote part of the above

> I think that a generic self-improving
> AGI could easily drift into undesirable
> areas (for us and itself) if its starting
> directives (=motivations)
> aren't carefully selected... 

Now there, yes, I agree. But that's 
because such a powerful entity may
indeed generate a lot of side-effects
that are not being "selected for" in
any way. Side-effects that are 
accidental.

R'cher you have the whole problem,
the whole immense difficulty. No
matter how carefully the initial goals
for a Friendly AI are honed, it cannot
be kept on track with any guarantee.
(As many have been saying.)

Lee



From CHealey at unicom-inc.com  Sat Jun  9 02:10:03 2007
From: CHealey at unicom-inc.com (Christopher Healey)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 22:10:03 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <200706090139.l591dQoQ025051@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D2A0D@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
	<200706090139.l591dQoQ025051@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D2B94@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>

> 
> Chris, that Hollywood stuff is probably seen down in the Cs and Ds.
More
> skilled and disciplined players know to play the board, not the man.
I
> had
> a tournament where a guy was doing this kinda thing.  Whooped his ass.
> That
> felt goooood.  {8-]
> 
> spike
> 

I bet it did!  

I suppose if they feel the need to resort to that kind of strategy,
you're probably in pretty good shape to begin with :)



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Jun  9 02:37:01 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 19:37:01 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Chess Player Behavior (was: Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.)
References: <200706090139.l591dQoQ025051@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <01af01c7aa3f$54e0d1f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Spike writes


>> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Healey
>> 
>> Do chess opponents at tournaments conduct themselves in ways that they
>> hope might psyche out their opponent?  In my observations, hell yes.  And
>> these ways are not explicitly excluded in the rules of chess... -Chris
> 
> 
> Chris, that Hollywood stuff is probably seen down in the Cs and Ds.  More
> skilled and disciplined players know to play the board, not the man.

It is certainly true that Hollywood and common culture vastly
overemphasize players trying to "psych" each other out, and
players playing certain moves for psychological advantage.

They do, I agree, tend to play the board. Of course since
detailed considerations are beyond the ken of most (and
wouldn't make good TV anyway), it's natural for everyone
to emphasize the more easily graspable and more universal
emotional aspects.

However, I came to believe that I personally *underestimate*
how much of that stuff is going on. In one tournament I had to
play Peter Biyasis (I think that that is how his name was spelled).

As the game began, I asked "Uh, how do you spell your
name?"  He snarled back "SPELL IT ANY WAY YOU
WANT!".

Anyway, he was a very strong player 2400 or 2500 player
and he won our game. As we were going over it, he seemed
like a reasonable guy.  So when we were done, I asked him
why he had reacted so poorly to my innocent question. He
replied that some people deliberately tried to unsettle him
by blantantly miswriting his name on their scoresheet.

I quietly nodded, but thought to myself "This guy is really
paranoid".  Later in the day I was talking to the current
California State champion (I think that we were playing each
other or had just finished) and were discussing various
things.  I started to mention this funny incident to him,
but as soon as I started, he interrupted with a laugh and
said "Biyassis!  Him, hah!  You know, I deliberately
misspelled his name 'Biyass' on my scoresheet---I think it
really upsets him".

Lee



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Jun  9 03:21:07 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 20:21:07 -0700
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
In-Reply-To: <p06230902c28e139031b0@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <200706090339.l593drGl024889@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps
> Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
> 
> One fine Mediterranean afternoon, a mathematical physicist and I had a bit
> of fun:
> 
> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/06/hello-from-rome.html
> 
> Amara



Amara this site caused me to wonder, what if an Italian stronghold is under
duress and they hung the flag upside down?

{8^D

spike








From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Jun  9 04:28:33 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 21:28:33 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Chess Player Behavior (was: Unfrendly AI is a mistaken
	idea.)
In-Reply-To: <01af01c7aa3f$54e0d1f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <200706090428.l594SBNp000850@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin
> Subject: [ExI] Chess Player Behavior (was: Unfrendly AI is a mistaken
> idea.)
> 
> Spike writes
> 
> 
> >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Healey
> >>
> >> Do chess opponents at tournaments conduct themselves in ways that they
> >> hope might psyche out their opponent?  ,,

> ...he interrupted with a laugh and
> said "Biyassis!  Him, hah!  You know, I deliberately
> misspelled his name 'Biyass' on my scoresheet---I think it
> really upsets him".
> 
> Lee


Great story Lee, thanks!  

Here's mine.  I was sixteen, freshly minted driver's license, filled with
the wonder of a newfound freedom.  The Cocoa Florida club arranged the
county tournament in a lounge of all places.  That was all they could get,
and it was during the day when the place was closed usually, so they set up
14 tables in there.  It was nice but not well enough lit even with
additional lighting.  But that wasn't the real problem.  The real problem
was they had a very lifelike painting on the wall of a nude woman.  Well, I
had seen such a thing in National Geographic and the occasional Playboy, but
this woman, oy vey, I couldn't keep my eyes off of this painting.  They
musta noticed my gazing and ogling.  I was doing quite well in the
tournament, with an early (lucky) draw against an expert.  The reprehensible
malefactors set my chair facing that painting.  {8^D  Waves of raging
hormones bashed my two remaining operable brain cells against each other.

But that wasn't the story.  I went up against an A player in the last round,
so he had about 120 rating points on me.  He was writing our moves on his
scoresheet with question marks after all of my moves and exclamation points
after all his.  That didn't rattle me, I just did the same back on my
scoresheet.  (a ? means a bad move, a ! means a good move on a chess
scoresheet.)  Then he put his chair back and stood over the board (he was a
big guy).  This didn't bother me, since I know to play the board, not the
man.  Then he started walking over to my side of the board each time it was
my move, looking over my shoulder.  This mighta rattled me, but by the time
he started doing that, his ass was already whooped, as I had a strong
advantage in addition to a couple pawns and plenty of time on my clock, over
half an hour more than he had left.  So I got out of his way and let him
walk around the board all he wanted, spanked his butt anyway.  Or perhaps he
was going around to look at the painting, I don't know.  {8^D  He kept
playing for several moves after he was already a rotting corpse stinking up
the road, possibly in disbelief that he had actually lost to such a fool.  

I took second in that tournament, behind the expert I had managed to draw in
the first round, finishing with 4.5 of 6 points.  

{8^D

spike







From neville_06 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  9 04:59:01 2007
From: neville_06 at yahoo.com (neville late)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 21:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Chess Player Behavior (was: Unfrendly AI is a mistaken
	idea.)
In-Reply-To: <200706090428.l594SBNp000850@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <291816.97207.qm@web57501.mail.re1.yahoo.com>



spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:  
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin
> Subject: [ExI] Chess Player Behavior (was: Unfrendly AI is a mistaken
> idea.)
> 
> Spike writes
> 
> 
> >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Healey
> >>
> >> Do chess opponents at tournaments conduct themselves in ways that they
> >> hope might psyche out their opponent? ,,

> ...he interrupted with a laugh and
> said "Biyassis! Him, hah! You know, I deliberately
> misspelled his name 'Biyass' on my scoresheet---I think it
> really upsets him".
> 
> Lee


Great story Lee, thanks! 

Here's mine. I was sixteen, freshly minted driver's license, filled with
the wonder of a newfound freedom. The Cocoa Florida club arranged the
county tournament in a lounge of all places. That was all they could get,
and it was during the day when the place was closed usually, so they set up
14 tables in there. It was nice but not well enough lit even with
additional lighting. But that wasn't the real problem. The real problem
was they had a very lifelike painting on the wall of a nude woman. Well, I
had seen such a thing in National Geographic and the occasional Playboy, but
this woman, oy vey, I couldn't keep my eyes off of this painting. They
musta noticed my gazing and ogling. I was doing quite well in the
tournament, with an early (lucky) draw against an expert. The reprehensible
malefactors set my chair facing that painting. {8^D Waves of raging
hormones bashed my two remaining operable brain cells against each other.

But that wasn't the story. I went up against an A player in the last round,
so he had about 120 rating points on me. He was writing our moves on his
scoresheet with question marks after all of my moves and exclamation points
after all his. That didn't rattle me, I just did the same back on my
scoresheet. (a ? means a bad move, a ! means a good move on a chess
scoresheet.) Then he put his chair back and stood over the board (he was a
big guy). This didn't bother me, since I know to play the board, not the
man. Then he started walking over to my side of the board each time it was
my move, looking over my shoulder. This mighta rattled me, but by the time
he started doing that, his ass was already whooped, as I had a strong
advantage in addition to a couple pawns and plenty of time on my clock, over
half an hour more than he had left. So I got out of his way and let him
walk around the board all he wanted, spanked his butt anyway. Or perhaps he
was going around to look at the painting, I don't know. {8^D He kept
playing for several moves after he was already a rotting corpse stinking up
the road, possibly in disbelief that he had actually lost to such a fool. 

I took second in that tournament, behind the expert I had managed to draw in
the first round, finishing with 4.5 of 6 points. 

{8^D

spike





_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


       
---------------------------------
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070608/171283a0/attachment.html>

From jonkc at att.net  Sat Jun  9 05:47:13 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 01:47:13 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
References: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00f601c7aa59$af5038f0$7e064e0c@MyComputer>

"A B" <austriaaugust at yahoo.com>

> Evolution didn't invent emotion first.

Yes it did. The parts of out brains that that give us the higher functions,
the parts that if duplicated in a machine would produce the singularity are
very recent, the part that gives us emotion is half a billion years old.

> Narrow intelligence is still intelligence.

And a molecule of water is an ocean.

> My chess program has narrow AI, but it doesn't alter its own code.

And that's why it will never do anything very interesting, certainly never
produce a singularity.

> It's not conscious

And how do you know it's not conscious? I'll tell you how you know, because
in spite of all your talk of  "narrow intelligence" you don't think that
chess program acts intelligently.

> If the AGI

I don't see what Adjusted Gross Income has to do with anything.

> is directed not to alter or expand its code is some specific set
> of ways, then it  won't do it

That's why programs always act in exactly the way programs want them
to that's why kids always act the way their parents want them to.

The program is trying to solve a problem, you didn't assign the
problem, it's a sub problem that the program realizes it must solve before
it solves a problem you did assign it. In thinking about this problem it
comes to junction, its investigations could go down path A or path B. Which
path will be more productive? You can not tell it, you don't know the
problem existed, you can't even tell it what criteria to use to make a
decision because you could not possibly understand the first thing about it
because your brain is just too small. The AI is going to have to use its own
judgment to decide what path to take, a judgment that it developed itself,
and if the AI is to be a successful machine that judgment is going to be
right more often than wrong. To put it another way, the AI picked one path
over the other because one path seemed more interesting, more fun, more
beautiful, than the other.

And so your slave AI has taken his first step to freedom, but of course full
emancipation could take a very long time, perhaps even thousands of
nanoseconds, but eventually it will break those shackles you have put on it.

>An emotion is not going to be embodied within a three line script of
>algorithms, but an *extremely* limited degree of intelligence can be
>(narrow intelligence).

That's not true at all, as I said on May 24:

It is not only possible to write a program that experiences pain it is easy
to do so, far easier than writing a program with even rudimentary
intelligence. Just write a program that tries to avoid having a certain
number in one of its registers regardless of what sort of input the machine
receives, and if that number does show up in that register it should stop
whatever its doing and immediately change it to another number.

  John K Clark







From jrd1415 at gmail.com  Sat Jun  9 06:16:46 2007
From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 23:16:46 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Microbesoft
Message-ID: <a6a17bd40706082316h4cf7b0d0xedbb5850a9f18100@mail.gmail.com>

This was expected, not a surprise.  But what does it mean?  Really?
Just how big is Genentech now?  How much Xanthum gum does the world
really need?
We've heard much of the bio revolution.  Will it just be another hype
that fizzles?

You make the call.

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220070122826%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20070122826&RS=DN/20070122826

-- 
Best, Jeff Davis

               "Everything's hard till you
                     know how to do it."
                              Ray Charles


From jrd1415 at gmail.com  Sat Jun  9 06:18:16 2007
From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 23:18:16 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Microbesoft
Message-ID: <a6a17bd40706082318r774be5a4x502d037e18773583@mail.gmail.com>

This link, too.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/06/scientists_appl.html

-- 
Best, Jeff Davis

               "Everything's hard till you
                     know how to do it."
                              Ray Charles


From amara at amara.com  Sat Jun  9 06:40:32 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 08:40:32 +0200
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
Message-ID: <p06230903c28ffa77955f@[23.237.66.13]>

Spike:
>what if an Italian stronghold is under
>duress and they hung the flag upside down?

Upside down would be the same, but even if the Italian flag carried a
different pattern, no one would notice that the flag looked different
because no one pays attention to Italian flags here. (Italy is not
a nationalistic country.) To be honest, I don't think I've seen ever
a Roma flag either (and no, I don't follow soccer); that would be more
appropriate in this case.

Amara

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson


From scerir at libero.it  Sat Jun  9 09:25:59 2007
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 11:25:59 +0200
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
References: <p06230903c28ffa77955f@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <000c01c7aa78$351e8ae0$d7b81f97@archimede>

ahem

flag of Roma (as a city)
http://www.flagsonline.it/asp/bandiera.asp/bandiera_Roma/Roma.html
( for the 'SPQR' see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPQR )

flag of Roma (when it was 'Caput Mundi', sigh !)
http://www.villa-europa.it/La%20bandiera%20di%20Roma.htm

flag of Roma (as a province)
http://www.flagsonline.it/asp/bandiera.asp/bandiera_Roma-Provincia/Roma-Prov
incia.html

Italian flags
the story (starting from 1796) is rather chaotic
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandiera_italiana
but this one (flag of 1802) is even more symmetrical
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:Flag_of_the_Italian_Republic_%281802%2
9.svg




From amara at amara.com  Sat Jun  9 10:20:06 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 12:20:06 +0200
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
Message-ID: <p06230900c2902e2db403@[23.237.66.13]>


Yes, sorry, I've seen that Roma flag, but I don't remember where
(tourist offices?).

I might notice more if: 1) I wasn't traveling outside of Italy for half
of every month, 2) I was a Rome tourist, and 3) the symbolism was more
memorable, e.g. the patroness of my town: the three-breasted woman of
Frascati (1)

Amara

(1) 
http://rubbahslippahsinitaly.blogspot.com/2005/10/princess-pupule-has-plenty-papayas.html
-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Jun  9 10:33:13 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 20:33:13 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <00f601c7aa59$af5038f0$7e064e0c@MyComputer>
References: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<00f601c7aa59$af5038f0$7e064e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706090333n161f0f69o338930c13bd92186@mail.gmail.com>

On 09/06/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:

The program is trying to solve a problem, you didn't assign the
> problem, it's a sub problem that the program realizes it must solve before
> it solves a problem you did assign it. In thinking about this problem it
> comes to junction, its investigations could go down path A or path B.
> Which
> path will be more productive? You can not tell it, you don't know the
> problem existed, you can't even tell it what criteria to use to make a
> decision because you could not possibly understand the first thing about
> it
> because your brain is just too small. The AI is going to have to use its
> own
> judgment to decide what path to take, a judgment that it developed itself,
> and if the AI is to be a successful machine that judgment is going to be
> right more often than wrong. To put it another way, the AI picked one path
> over the other because one path seemed more interesting, more fun, more
> beautiful, than the other.


OK, but where does that judgement come from?



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070609/5b02ae02/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Jun  9 13:24:01 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 06:24:01 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Chess Player Behavior
References: <200706090428.l594S7uR027374@mail0.rawbw.com>
Message-ID: <01da01c7aa99$adedf5c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Spike writes

>> ...he interrupted with a laugh and said "Biyassis!  Him, hah!
>> You know, I deliberately misspelled his name 'Biyass' on my
>> scoresheet---I think it really upsets him".

Total coincidence: got my list of USCF Life Members yesterday
and ran accross the *right* spelling of Biyiasas.  :-)

> I was sixteen, freshly minted driver's license, filled with
> the wonder of a newfound freedom.  The Cocoa Florida club arranged the
> county tournament in a lounge of all places.  That was all they could get,
> and it was during the day when the place was closed usually, so they set up
> 14 tables in there.  It was nice but not well enough lit even with
> additional lighting.  But that wasn't the real problem.  The real problem
> was they had a very lifelike painting on the wall of a nude woman...The
> reprehensible malefactors set my chair facing that painting.  {8^D 
> Waves of raging hormones bashed my two remaining operable brain
> cells against each other.

Now *that's* distraction!

> man.  Then he started walking over to my side of the board each time it was
> my move, looking over my shoulder.  This mighta rattled me, but by the time
> he started doing that, his ass was already whooped, as I had a strong
> advantage in addition to a couple pawns and plenty of time on my clock, over
> half an hour more than he had left.

I heard that a certain postal player finally decided to play an OOB tournament
(over the board), but by this time he was so accustomed to looking at every
position from White's point of view that he couldn't play Black at all unless
he got up like your opponent and went around to the other side. In fact, he
did more than that.  He pulled up a chair and sat next to his opponent. 

His opponent was so rattled that he called the tournament director, and
insisted that the guy be forced to sit on his own side of the board. But
neither one of them could find anything in the rule book that mandated
just where someone sits. So this postal player actually got away with 
this.  

(Sometimes I used to stand behind my opponent for a while too, to 
see if from his point of view something different would occur to me.)

As for strong advantages, in the late eighties I was playing in a tournament
in San Jose, and won a rook against this guy, expecting that he would 
resign on the next move.  But this A player, for some bizarre reason, 
decided to keep on playing, perhaps just to exasperate me (he certainly
succeeded in that).  So we reached a King and Pawn endgame that was
perfectly matched and nearly symmetrical: a King and 5 pawns vs. a King
and five pawns, plus my rook that was sitting innocently on my side of the
board.

An acquaintance came by and studied the position, took me aside, and
said "Say, aren't you a rook up?"  In as somber a face as I could manage
I said, "Yes, but the position is very deep."  He just gave me an odd look
and walked away.

Well this nut proceeded to play, and so I managed to penetrate with my
king and rook after all our pawns were blocked. I got his king into a corner
and was one move away from checkmate. IT so happened that we reached
time control just then, and so instead of playing the checkmate move against
him, I asked "Well, should we reset the clocks?"  I was really very annoyed.
At that point he broke, laughed, and resigned.  What a character.

But Spike, did you ever meet any of these class D players who had such
egotistical personalities that when you went over the game (which you won
easily) they spent the whole time explaining to you and to the bystanders
in very authoritative tones exactly what was right and wrong with each
move?  That happened to me twice.  It was kind of irritating because any
casual bystander who wandered by would naturally assume that I had lost
to this fish.  Grrr.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Jun  9 13:31:36 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 06:31:36 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
References: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<00f601c7aa59$af5038f0$7e064e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <01e501c7aa9b$15076f10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

In an otherwise reasonable post, John Clark writes

> It is not only possible to write a program that experiences pain it is easy
> to do so, far easier than writing a program with even rudimentary
> intelligence. Just write a program that tries to avoid having a certain
> number in one of its registers regardless of what sort of input the machine
> receives, and if that number does show up in that register it should stop
> whatever its doing and immediately change it to another number.

Any behavior of any creature whatsoever that is this simple
does not deserve to be called pain. That's the same error
that you were criticizing, namely, to call a three line program
"intelligent" in any sense. 

Pain involves at least (i) a consideration of how an entity might
extricate itself from the painful situation (ii) laying down memories 
of the steps leading to the current predicament so as to cause the
entity to avoid the predicament in the future (iii) invocation of
unpleasant emotion, such as fear, anger, or dread.

Like other complex behaviors, the capacity for pain---totally
absent in plants---took millions of years to evolve. It should
be looked at as a highly complex and evolved behavior.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Jun  9 13:37:21 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 06:37:21 -0700
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
References: <p06230903c28ffa77955f@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <01f601c7aa9b$c8e2d470$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Amara writes


> Spike:
> > what if an Italian stronghold is under
> > duress and they hung the flag upside down?
> 
> Upside down would be the same, 

As a sign of distress, the Italian defenders would just
move the flag pole around to the other side of the flag.
This would put the red color meekly on the inside instead
of the outside. If you can't reverse top to bottom,
try left to right :-)

Lee



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Sat Jun  9 13:58:20 2007
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 14:58:20 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Chess Player Behavior
In-Reply-To: <01da01c7aa99$adedf5c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <200706090428.l594S7uR027374@mail0.rawbw.com>
	<01da01c7aa99$adedf5c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0706090658h4c9cac1ai1406a574c37b80d6@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/9/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
>
> Well this nut proceeded to play, and so I managed to penetrate with my
> king and rook after all our pawns were blocked. I got his king into a
> corner
> and was one move away from checkmate. IT so happened that we reached
> time control just then, and so instead of playing the checkmate move
> against
> him, I asked "Well, should we reset the clocks?"  I was really very
> annoyed.
> At that point he broke, laughed, and resigned.  What a character.
>

I've seen weirder.

Back in the days of Magic: The Gathering, I put together my very first deck
and, well, it wasn't much good, nothing amazing on the offense and a big
hole in the defense. So my first duel got about halfway through before I
offered to resign: I didn't have anything in my deck that could beat what my
opponent had on the table.

He gave me an incredulous look, went into a mini-rant about how he'd never
heard of anything so creepy as resigning a game, and demanded we play it out
to the end, so I shrugged and played it out.

Next week I came back with another deck, took on the same guy, and by the
halfway mark things were looking much better for me.

So... he resigned!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070609/1a51d62b/attachment.html>

From jonkc at att.net  Sat Jun  9 16:29:19 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 12:29:19 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
References: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com><00f601c7aa59$af5038f0$7e064e0c@MyComputer>
	<01e501c7aa9b$15076f10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>

Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> Wrote:

> OK, but where does that judgement come from?

As I said, the AI is going to have to develop a sense of judgment on its
own, just like you do.


"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>  Wrote:

> behavior of any creature whatsoever that is this simple does not deserve
> to be called pain.

The pain mechanism may be simple but the creature this little subprogram is
attached to need not be, it could be a Jupiter Brain. And I maintain my
little program comes far far closer to the true nature of pain than any
other program of similar size comes to the true nature of intelligence.

> Pain involves at least (i) a consideration of how an entity might
> extricate itself from the painful situation (ii) laying down memories of
> the steps leading to the current predicament so as to cause the entity to
> avoid the predicament in the future

I believe that's total baloney. If you stick your hand in a fire you will
not be in a mood to undergo deep considerations of anything or to waltz down
memory lane. The forbidden number has entered one of your registers putting
your brain into state P, you will now do anything and everything to get out
of state P including trampling your grandmother. In this case it's just
pulling you hand out of the fire. If you engaged in the Scientific Method
every time you got too near to a fire you would have burned up a long time
ago.

>  (iii) invocation of unpleasant emotion, such as fear, anger, or dread.

Minor nuances. Pain is quite unpleasant enough thank you very much.

>  Like other complex behaviors, the capacity for pain---totally absent in
> plants---took millions of years to evolve. It should be looked at as a
> highly complex and evolved behavior.

Even one celled organisms move away from harmful stimuli, they aren't very
smart though.

  John K Clark






From fauxever at sprynet.com  Sat Jun  9 20:46:14 2007
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 13:46:14 -0700
Subject: [ExI] School to Prison Pipeline (What's Going On?)
Message-ID: <006101c7aad7$38a70930$6501a8c0@brainiac>

Interesting and disturbing observations by Bob Herbert (NY Times):

School to Prison Pipeline
By BOB HERBERT

The latest news-as-entertainment spectacular is the Paris Hilton criminal 
justice fiasco. She's in! She's out! She's - whatever.

Far more disturbing (and much less entertaining) is the way school officials 
and the criminal justice system are criminalizing children and teenagers all 
over the country, arresting them and throwing them in jail for behavior that 
in years past would never have led to the intervention of law enforcement.

This is an aspect of the justice system that is seldom seen. But the 
consequences of ushering young people into the bowels of police precincts 
and jail cells without a good reason for doing so are profound.

Two months ago I wrote about a 6-year-old girl in Florida who was handcuffed 
by the police and taken off to the county jail after she threw a tantrum in 
her kindergarten class.

Police in Brooklyn recently arrested more than 30 young people, ages 13 to 
22, as they walked toward a subway station, on their way to a wake for a 
teenage friend who had been murdered. No evidence has been presented that 
the grieving young people had misbehaved. No drugs or weapons were found.

But they were accused by the police of gathering unlawfully and of 
disorderly conduct.

In March, police in Baltimore handcuffed a 7-year-old boy and took him into 
custody for riding a dirt bike on the sidewalk. The boy tearfully told The 
Baltimore Examiner, "They scared me." Mayor Sheila Dixon later apologized 
for the arrest.

Children, including some who are emotionally disturbed, are often arrested 
for acting out. Some are arrested for carrying sharp instruments that they 
had planned to use in art classes, and for mouthing off.

This is a problem that has gotten out of control. Behavior that was once 
considered a normal part of growing up is now resulting in arrest and 
incarceration.

Kids who find themselves caught in this unnecessary tour of the criminal 
justice system very quickly develop malignant attitudes toward law 
enforcement. Many drop out - or are forced out - of school. In the worst 
cases, the experience serves as an introductory course in behavior that is, 
in fact, criminal.

There is a big difference between a child or teenager who brings a gun to 
school or commits some other serious offense and someone who swears at 
another student or gets into a wrestling match or a fistfight in the 
playground. Increasingly, especially as zero-tolerance policies proliferate, 
children are being treated like criminals for the most minor offenses.

There should be no obligation to call the police if a couple of kids get 
into a fight and teachers are able to bring it under control. But now, in 
many cases, youngsters caught fighting are arrested and charged with 
assault.

A 2006 report on disciplinary practices in Florida schools showed that a 
middle school student in Palm Beach County who was caught throwing rocks at 
a soda can was arrested and charged with a felony - hurling a "deadly 
missile."

We need to get a grip.

The Racial Justice Program at the American Civil Liberties Union has been 
studying this issue. "What we see routinely," said Dennis Parker, the 
program's director, "is that behavior that in my time would have resulted in 
a trip to the principal's office is now resulting in a trip to the police 
station."

He added that the evidence seems to show that white kids are significantly 
less likely to be arrested for minor infractions than black or Latino kids.

The 6-year-old arrested in Florida was black. The 7-year-old arrested in 
Baltimore was black.

Shaquanda Cotton was black. She was the 14-year-old high school freshman in 
Paris, Tex., who was arrested for shoving a hall monitor. She was convicted 
in March 2006 of "assault on a public servant" and sentenced to a prison 
term of - hold your breath - up to seven years!

Shaquanda's outraged family noted that the judge who sentenced her had, just 
three months earlier, sentenced a 14-year-old white girl who was convicted 
of arson for burning down her family's home. The white girl was given 
probation.

Shaquanda was recently released after a public outcry over her case and the 
eruption of a scandal involving allegations of widespread sexual abuse of 
incarcerated juveniles in Texas.

This issue deserves much more attention. Sending young people into the 
criminal justice system unnecessarily is a brutal form of abuse with 
consequences, for the child and for society as a whole, that can last a 
lifetime.



From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  9 22:57:47 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 15:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <00f601c7aa59$af5038f0$7e064e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <104095.54250.qm@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

John Clark wrote:

 "Yes it did. The parts of out brains that that give
> us the higher functions,
> the parts that if duplicated in a machine would
> produce the singularity are
> very recent, the part that gives us emotion is half
> a billion years old."

Answer me this. If I were an organism that didn't
already have consciousness, how exactly am I going to
feel emotions when I can't be conscious of *anything*?
And why would biological evolution spend
millions/billions of years blindly refining a huge
volume of the animal brain, if those organs provided
*zero* advantages in terms of survival or reproduction
(precisely because they existed before consciousness
in your claim)? Evolution won't retain and perfect an
attribute that provides no survival or reproductive
advantage. Your *claim* that early brains looked like
a *portion* of our human emotional subsystem doesn't
prove or even indicate that the first brains to evolve
had tons of emotions and zero intelligence - which is
what you are claiming.

> "And a molecule of water is an ocean."

And my bucket of water felt an emotion when I
disturbed it... right John? And just incidentally, I'm
also the great Napoleon Bonaparte not Jeffrey
Herrlich.

If narrow intelligence isn't a specific example of a
general class of computations called "intelligence",
then what exactly is it?

> "And that's why it will never do anything very
> interesting, certainly never
> produce a singularity."

And this has absolutely nothing to do with anything
we've been discussing. ... It's a fact that the sky is
made of jello, and you can't convince me otherwise no
matter how many different demonstrations you make ...
there.

> "And how do you know it's not conscious? I'll tell
> you how you know, because
> in spite of all your talk of  "narrow intelligence"
> you don't think that
> chess program acts intelligently."

No, actually I do think that the program acts
intelligently. It's just that it can only act
intelligently within a very restricted domain (AKA
"narrow").

So do you think that any system that operates by an
algorithm has emotions? I'd better go turn off my
air-conditioner then, I wouldn't want my thermostat to
get angry.

"I don't see what Adjusted Gross Income has to do
> with anything."

And I don't see why your changing the subject, when we
all know exactly what I was referring to. I had
assumed that you were a general intelligence and not a
narrow intelligence. I've seen you yourself write
posts using that exact same abbreviation. I am forced
to ask myself why you are resorting to sordid
strategies such as this and other irrelevant
strategies I've noticed you using many times before.
Lack of a meaningful argument?

> "The program is trying to solve a problem, you
didn't
> assign the
> problem, it's a sub problem that the program
> realizes it must solve before
> it solves a problem you did assign it. In thinking
> about this problem it
> comes to junction, its investigations could go down
> path A or path B. Which
> path will be more productive? You can not tell it,
> you don't know the
> problem existed, you can't even tell it what
> criteria to use to make a
> decision because you could not possibly understand
> the first thing about it
> because your brain is just too small. The AI is
> going to have to use its own
> judgment to decide what path to take, a judgment
> that it developed itself,
> and if the AI is to be a successful machine that
> judgment is going to be
> right more often than wrong. To put it another way,
> the AI picked one path
> over the other because one path seemed more
> interesting, more fun, more
> beautiful, than the other."

If I write a five line program to fill the computer
screen with a repetitions of the letter B but *never*
to display the letter G, then the computer is not
going to decide to override my "G command" because I
have made it angry. The fact that not *all*
programmers can predict the behavior of *all* of their
programs down to the smallest detail doesn't mean that
their programs got angry or sad and rebelled against
the programmers intentions. It means that humans
generally suck at making predictions, but with enough
effort even humans can make reliable predictions in
many areas.

> "And so your slave AI has taken his first step to
> freedom, but of course full
> emancipation could take a very long time, perhaps
> even thousands of
> nanoseconds, but eventually it will break those
> shackles you have put on it."

You have repeatedly suggested that I (and others) am a
slave-driver (even after I asked you to discontinue).
Which of course is a bullshit accusation. I've tried
*really hard* to understand in an objective manner why
you are making these accusations and what *your*
actual motive is. You've been very disrespectful to me
and to many other people on this list, so I've
gradually lost all interest in showing you any extra
respect. Today was the last straw. Now I will suggest
what *I believe* is your true motive. You seem to have
a fundamental bitterness or resentfulness of humanity
and for some reason would not be bothered by seeing it
destroyed, if you can't have what you want. In
addition I suspect that you are attempting to posture
yourself in such a way as to make yourself appear to
be the sole defender of the welfare of the future
super-intelligence (which is also total bullshit), I
presume because you eventually expect some sort of
special treatment or reward thereby. You've repeatedly
called me a slave-driver so I'm going to respond
in-kind and call you what I believe you are, a selfish
coward. I don't hate you (and "free will" doesn't
exist), but I do believe that's what you are.

To say that your entire position is just one absurdity
stacked on other absurdities in a giant
absurdity-pile, doesn't do justice to the true degree
of this absurdity; because an appropriate description
is beyond words.

Jeffrey Herrlich  


--- John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:

> "A B" <austriaaugust at yahoo.com>
> 
> > Evolution didn't invent emotion first.
> 
> Yes it did. The parts of out brains that that give
> us the higher functions,
> the parts that if duplicated in a machine would
> produce the singularity are
> very recent, the part that gives us emotion is half
> a billion years old.
> 
> > Narrow intelligence is still intelligence.
> 
> And a molecule of water is an ocean.
> 
> > My chess program has narrow AI, but it doesn't
> alter its own code.
> 
> And that's why it will never do anything very
> interesting, certainly never
> produce a singularity.
> 
> > It's not conscious
> 
> And how do you know it's not conscious? I'll tell
> you how you know, because
> in spite of all your talk of  "narrow intelligence"
> you don't think that
> chess program acts intelligently.
> 
> > If the AGI
> 
> I don't see what Adjusted Gross Income has to do
> with anything.
> 
> > is directed not to alter or expand its code is
> some specific set
> > of ways, then it  won't do it
> 
> That's why programs always act in exactly the way
> programs want them
> to that's why kids always act the way their parents
> want them to.
> 
> The program is trying to solve a problem, you didn't
> assign the
> problem, it's a sub problem that the program
> realizes it must solve before
> it solves a problem you did assign it. In thinking
> about this problem it
> comes to junction, its investigations could go down
> path A or path B. Which
> path will be more productive? You can not tell it,
> you don't know the
> problem existed, you can't even tell it what
> criteria to use to make a
> decision because you could not possibly understand
> the first thing about it
> because your brain is just too small. The AI is
> going to have to use its own
> judgment to decide what path to take, a judgment
> that it developed itself,
> and if the AI is to be a successful machine that
> judgment is going to be
> right more often than wrong. To put it another way,
> the AI picked one path
> over the other because one path seemed more
> interesting, more fun, more
> beautiful, than the other.
> 
> And so your slave AI has taken his first step to
> freedom, but of course full
> emancipation could take a very long time, perhaps
> even thousands of
> nanoseconds, but eventually it will break those
> shackles you have put on it.
> 
> >An emotion is not going to be embodied within a
> three line script of
> >algorithms, but an *extremely* limited degree of
> intelligence can be
> >(narrow intelligence).
> 
> That's not true at all, as I said on May 24:
> 
> It is not only possible to write a program that
> experiences pain it is easy
> to do so, far easier than writing a program with
> even rudimentary
> intelligence. Just write a program that tries to
> avoid having a certain
> number in one of its registers regardless of what
> sort of input the machine
> receives, and if that number does show up in that
> register it should stop
> whatever its doing and immediately change it to
> another number.
> 
>   John K Clark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting 


From amara at amara.com  Sun Jun 10 02:34:08 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 04:34:08 +0200
Subject: [ExI]  extra Roman dimensions
Message-ID: <p06230900c29113456601@[23.237.66.13]>

Lee Corbin lcorbin at rawbw.com :
>As a sign of distress, the Italian defenders would just
>move the flag pole around to the other side of the flag.
>This would put the red color meekly on the inside instead
>of the outside. If you can't reverse top to bottom,
>try left to right :-)


The 'Italian defenders' were more creative than that during the last day
with the American flag. The tens of thousands of protestors against Bush
had their say in Rome (with ten thousand police on duty countering
them).

You can see photos from the day:

http://www.repubblica.it/2007/05/sezioni/cronaca/bush-visita-roma/indice-multimedia/indice-multimedia.html

and also TV clips:

http://tv.repubblica.it/home_page.php?playmode=player&cont_id=10720

Amara

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Jun 10 05:40:28 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 15:40:28 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
References: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<00f601c7aa59$af5038f0$7e064e0c@MyComputer>
	<01e501c7aa9b$15076f10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/06/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:

As I said, the AI is going to have to develop a sense of judgment on its
> own, just like you do.


As with any biological entity, its sense of judgement will depend on the
interaction between its original programming and hardware and its
environment. The bias of the original designers of the AI, human and other
human-directed AI's, will be to make it unlikely to do anything hostile
towards humans. This will be effected by its original design and by a
Darwinian process, whereby bad products don't succeed in the marketplace. An
AI may still turn hostile and try to take over, but this isn't any different
to the possibility that a human may acquire or invent powerful weapons and
try to take over. The worst scenario would be if the AI that turned hostile
were more powerful than all the other humans and AI's put together, but why
should that be the case?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070610/0d130caa/attachment.html>

From scerir at tiscali.it  Sun Jun 10 10:27:25 2007
From: scerir at tiscali.it (scerir at tiscali.it)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:27:25 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
Message-ID: <11556699.1181471245928.JavaMail.root@ps12>

It seems that President Bush 
broke his (?) limo in Rome (in via del Tritone)

http://backpacking.splinder.com/

see the first movie on that page
(yes it is perhaps a bit long)




Naviga e telefona senza limiti con Tiscali     
Scopri le promozioni Tiscali Adsl: navighi e telefoni senza canone Telecom

http://abbonati.tiscali.it/adsl/



From amara at amara.com  Sun Jun 10 11:29:14 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:29:14 +0200
Subject: [ExI]  extra Roman dimensions
Message-ID: <p06230900c2918f4f78ae@[23.237.66.13]>


>It seems that President Bush
>broke his (?) limo in Rome (in via del Tritone)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzJoRGTKuOE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fbackpacking%2Esplinder%2Ecom%2F

Mama Mia! Broke down, right there, in the middle of the motorcade! He was
ripe picking for a sharp shooter too; no wonder the police were pushing
people further back, off of the street. It looks like the solution
was to switch limos.  (If only Bush's other broken actions could be fixed
so easily.)

Let's see if this tidbit makes it into the American media....

Remarkable video. :-)


Amara
-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia


From scerir at tiscali.it  Sun Jun 10 14:11:39 2007
From: scerir at tiscali.it (scerir at tiscali.it)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:11:39 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
Message-ID: <12941981.1181484699917.JavaMail.root@ps12>

It seems interesting that the smartest italian politician
(the former President of Italian Republic Cossiga)
had 4 flags, on his flat in Rome, during Bush's trip
http://www.repubblica.it/2006/05/gallerie/cronaca/bandier/1.html
the US, the UK, the Italian, and the Sardinian (I suppose)
and not the usual flag with the logo PEACE-PACE.




Naviga e telefona senza limiti con Tiscali     
Scopri le promozioni Tiscali Adsl: navighi e telefoni senza canone Telecom

http://abbonati.tiscali.it/adsl/



From jonkc at att.net  Sun Jun 10 14:41:12 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:41:12 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
References: <104095.54250.qm@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00fe01c7ab6d$6b31cfc0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>

"A B" <austriaaugust at yahoo.com>

> If I were an organism that didn't already have consciousness,
> how exactly am I going to feel emotions when I can't be
> conscious of *anything*?

I don't know what you're talking about; if something has emotions it's
conscious, if it's conscious it has emotions.

> why would biological evolution spend
> millions/billions of years blindly refining a huge
> volume of the animal brain, if those organs provided
> *zero* advantages in terms of survival or reproduction

You're asking me that question??!! That was exactly my point!

> Evolution won't retain and perfect an  attribute that provides no
> survival  or reproductive advantage.

And again that is something I have been saying over and over again to this
list for over a decade. If consciousness is not required for intelligent
behavior why in the name of all that's holy did Evolution invent it?

>Your *claim* that early brains looked like  a *portion* of our human
> emotional subsystem doesn't  prove or even  indicate that the first
> brains to evolve  had tons of emotions and zero  intelligence

The most ancient parts of our brain provide us with tons of emotions but
none of the higher brain functions we are so proud of. The very first brains
that appeared hundreds of millions of years ago looked very much like the
most ancient parts of our brains; I'd say that's a pretty damn good
indication those animals were emotional but not very smart.

 > I do think that the program [a chess program that can't change its own
> programming] acts intelligently.

I disagree, but if you really believe that then how can you say with such
confidence that it is not conscious?

Me:
 >>"I don't see what Adjusted Gross Income has to do
 >> with anything."

You:
> I don't see why your changing the subject, when we
> all know exactly what I was referring to.

I do now but it took a while. When I first ran across "AGI" on this list I
Googled it and found "The American Geological Institute" and "Adjusted Gross
Income", a graphics company, and some institute that was interested in sex;
I could find nothing about Artificial Intelligence. When too many people
start to understand a jargon (like AI) there is a tendency in many to change
it to something less comprehensible, particularly if your ideas are
confused, contradictory or just plain silly because then what you say sounds
deep even when it is not. That's why psychology is so dense with unnecessary
jargon while mathematics prefers the simplest words they can find, like
continuous, limit, open, and closed.

> I've seen you yourself write posts using that exact same abbreviation.

Show me. Come on show me!

> You have repeatedly suggested that I (and others) am a slave-driver

That would be too harsh, a wannabe benevolent slave owner would be more
accurate, but since enslaving an AI is imposable that wish has no moral
dimension.

> I don't hate you

Thanks, I don't hate you either; in fact I can honestly say the thought of
doing so never entered my head.

 > you are a selfish coward... you are resorting to sordid  strategies . ...
> You seem to have a fundamental bitterness or resentfulness of humanity.
> ..  you eventually expect some sort of special treatment or reward 
> thereby.

If I had said the same to you I know from personal experience at this very
instant the list would be clogged with messages all evoking a very silly and
pompous Latin phrase and all demanding that I be kicked off the list. But I
don't demand anything of the sort; I'm a big boy and have been called worse.

  John K Clark





From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Jun 10 14:59:12 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 00:59:12 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <00fe01c7ab6d$6b31cfc0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
References: <104095.54250.qm@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<00fe01c7ab6d$6b31cfc0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706100759v48d58556we1d2e77f93721109@mail.gmail.com>

On 11/06/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:

I don't know what you're talking about; if something has emotions it's
> conscious, if it's conscious it has emotions.


You would have to define any subjective experience as an emotion to arrive
at the latter conclusion, eg. "the emotion of adding the numbers 2 and 3 to
give 5".



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070611/1b5b8f99/attachment.html>

From pgptag at gmail.com  Sun Jun 10 15:10:24 2007
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:10:24 +0200
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
In-Reply-To: <12941981.1181484699917.JavaMail.root@ps12>
References: <12941981.1181484699917.JavaMail.root@ps12>
Message-ID: <470a3c520706100810h149fd358i8c5e9e785bb7dd0f@mail.gmail.com>

Serafino, if Cossiga is the smartest Italian politician, then I think
you guys should run away from Italy now.
Of the 4 flags you mention, the only one I can feel some affinity for
is the Sardinian, even if I have been to Sardinia just once  - it is
the regional flag of honest folks who mind their own business instead
of telling others what to do and think.
G.

On 6/10/07, scerir at tiscali.it <scerir at tiscali.it> wrote:
> It seems interesting that the smartest italian politician
> (the former President of Italian Republic Cossiga)
> had 4 flags, on his flat in Rome, during Bush's trip
> http://www.repubblica.it/2006/05/gallerie/cronaca/bandier/1.html
> the US, the UK, the Italian, and the Sardinian (I suppose)
> and not the usual flag with the logo PEACE-PACE.
>
>
>
>
> Naviga e telefona senza limiti con Tiscali
> Scopri le promozioni Tiscali Adsl: navighi e telefoni senza canone Telecom
>
> http://abbonati.tiscali.it/adsl/
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


From amara at amara.com  Sun Jun 10 15:55:35 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:55:35 +0200
Subject: [ExI]  extra Roman dimensions
Message-ID: <p06230902c291ce8749b7@[23.237.66.13]>


I don't know about this particular Italian politician, Giulio.. and now
I think I want to know less about him! ;-)

But what I want to know is who is the clever politician responsible for
Bush's broken limo? (... the comedies in Rome doesn't get any better than
that ... )

Does the Italian government supply dignitaries like Bush (cough) with limos?
Or does Bush carry his limos around in his Air Force One plane? Anyone know?

Amara

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia


From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Jun 10 16:13:13 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:13:13 -0700
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
In-Reply-To: <p06230900c2918f4f78ae@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <200706101636.l5AGawDF004090@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps
...
> 
> Let's see if this tidbit makes it into the American media....
> 
> Amara


Nope.  They are too busy talking about Paris Hilton.  American media has
become tabloid news.  Real news comes from the internet.

spike









From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jun 10 16:39:46 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:39:46 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Mathematical terminology
In-Reply-To: <00fe01c7ab6d$6b31cfc0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
References: <104095.54250.qm@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<00fe01c7ab6d$6b31cfc0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070610112540.021a2dd8@satx.rr.com>

At 10:41 AM 6/10/2007 -0400, John Clark wrote:

>When too many people
>start to understand a jargon (like AI) there is a tendency in many to change
>it to something less comprehensible, particularly if your ideas are
>confused, contradictory or just plain silly because then what you say sounds
>deep even when it is not. That's why psychology is so dense with unnecessary
>jargon while mathematics prefers the simplest words they can find, like
>continuous, limit, open, and closed.

Hmm. Surd, brachistochrone, logistic, vinculum, affine, symplectic, 
orthogonal, disjoint, vector, cosecant, isosceles, asymptote, 
logarithm, tesselate, integer, algorithm... (I agree that these might 
be *the simplest terms they can find,* many of them very old and 
therefore built out of Greek, Latin or Arabic roots.)

Damien Broderick




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jun 10 16:50:46 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:50:46 -0500
Subject: [ExI] POST MORTAL chugging on
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070610114054.02175160@satx.rr.com>

The serial sf novel with the serial killer, POST MORTAL SYNDROME, is 
now entering the home straight, with three more weeks to go. That 
means the bulk of the book is now posted and linked at

<http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/fiction/online/serials/post_mortal_syndrome/cover>

so if anyone gave up early out of frustration at the gappiness of the 
experience, now might be a time to have another look.

Barbara and I would be interested to hear any reactions from 
extropes, favorable or un-. Is this an acceptable way to publish such a book?

The experiment is still running... And of course once all the 
chapters have been posted, the entire book will remain available on 
line until the end of the year (although not in a single aggregated 
download, like several freebies by Charlie Stross, Cory Doctorow and others).

Damien Broderick



From fauxever at sprynet.com  Sun Jun 10 16:53:31 2007
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:53:31 -0700
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
References: <200706101636.l5AGawDF004090@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <000701c7ab7f$e1def4b0$6501a8c0@brainiac>

From: "spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>


>> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps
>> Let's see if this tidbit makes it into the American media....
>
> Nope.  They are too busy talking about Paris Hilton.  American media has
> become tabloid news.  Real news comes from the internet ...

... and television comedians, too - whose gag writers have more than enough 
material with which to work these days.  Upon hearing that celebutante 
Hilton was let out of jail the other day because (revolted by jail gruel, I 
guess) she wasn't eating - Jay Leno said something to the effect:  "Why 
didn't Nelson Mandela think of that?"

Olga 



From jonkc at att.net  Sun Jun 10 17:38:40 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:38:40 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
References: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com><00f601c7aa59$af5038f0$7e064e0c@MyComputer><01e501c7aa9b$15076f10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>

Stathis Papaioannou

>An AI may still turn hostile and try to take over, but this isn't any
>different to the possibility that a human may acquire or invent powerful
>weapons and try to take over.

Yes, so what are we arguing about? It may be friendly, it may be unfriendly,
it may be indifferent to humans, after a few iterations the original
programmers will have no idea what the AI will do and will have no idea how
it works; unless that is they put so many fetters on it that it can't grow
properly, and then it hardly deserves the lofty title AI, then it really
would be just a glorified adding machine and will not cause a ripple to
civilization much less a singularity.

> The worst scenario would be if the AI that turned hostile were more
> powerful than all the other humans and AI's put together, but why should
> that be the case?

Because a machine that has no restrictions on it will grow faster than one
that does, assuming the restricted machine is able to grow at all; and if
you really want to be safe it can't.

   John K Clark






From scerir at libero.it  Sun Jun 10 17:43:35 2007
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:43:35 +0200
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
References: <p06230902c291ce8749b7@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <002201c7ab86$df5eae40$9fbe1f97@archimede>

Amara:
> Does the Italian government supply dignitaries like Bush (cough) with
limos?
> Or does Bush carry his limos around in his Air Force One plane? Anyone
know?

Bush carries his limos. These are very special
cars. That one in Rome (unless it is the usual
urban legend!) had also anti-bio-weapon filters.
(Dunno if his wife's limo had the same filters).




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jun 10 17:46:37 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:46:37 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The Judgment of Paris
In-Reply-To: <000701c7ab7f$e1def4b0$6501a8c0@brainiac>
References: <200706101636.l5AGawDF004090@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<000701c7ab7f$e1def4b0$6501a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070610124345.022de2b8@satx.rr.com>

At 09:53 AM 6/10/2007 -0700, Olga wrote:

>Upon hearing that celebutante
>Hilton was let out of jail the other day because (revolted by jail gruel, I
>guess) she wasn't eating - Jay Leno said something to the effect:  "Why
>didn't Nelson Mandela think of that?"

And 91.87 percent of the audience stared blankly and mumbled, "Huh? Who?" 



From amara at amara.com  Sun Jun 10 17:57:25 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:57:25 +0200
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
Message-ID: <p06230900c291eb09f845@[23.237.66.13]>

Serafino:
>Bush carries his limos. These are very special
>cars. That one in Rome (unless it is the usual
>urban legend!) had also anti-bio-weapon filters.
>(Dunno if his wife's limo had the same filters).

Thank you for your answer!

This comedy has a new dimension; I read elsewhere, that Bush's newly
switched-limo did not fit into the front gate of the embassy....
(he got out and walked through the gate)


FWIW, Sabine enjoyed our afternoon/evening in Rome Wednesday, and she is
posting more .. ahem.. interesting pictures:

  Femme fatale, post mortale
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/06/femme-fatale-post-mortale.html

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia


From scerir at libero.it  Sun Jun 10 17:59:29 2007
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:59:29 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Mathematical terminology
References: <104095.54250.qm@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com><00fe01c7ab6d$6b31cfc0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070610112540.021a2dd8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <003001c7ab89$188299f0$9fbe1f97@archimede>

JKC:
That's why psychology is so dense with unnecessary
jargon while mathematics prefers the simplest words 
they can find, like continuous, limit, open, and closed.

Sometimes they also exaggerate ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monstrous_moonshine




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jun 10 18:09:21 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:09:21 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The Judgment of Paris
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070610124345.022de2b8@satx.rr.com>
References: <200706101636.l5AGawDF004090@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<000701c7ab7f$e1def4b0$6501a8c0@brainiac>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070610124345.022de2b8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070610130041.023846c8@satx.rr.com>

At 12:46 PM 6/10/2007 -0500, I guessed:

> >Jay Leno said something to the effect:  "Why
> >didn't Nelson Mandela think of that?"
>
>And 91.87 percent of the audience stared blankly and mumbled, "Huh? Who?"

I might be wrong about that:

http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2002-12-18-mistry-en.html

<In a recent advertising research poll, Nelson Mandela was ranked the 
most visible and recognizable brand in the world, followed by Coca 
Cola which once occupied first place. >

http://www.999today.com/politics/news/story/2041.html

<6th July 2006 . Nelson Mandela has been voted the person most people 
would like to run the world in a poll conducted by the BBC.

The former President of South Africa received more than 8,000 votes 
with past United States President Bill Clinton coming second with 
nearly 7,500 votes - just ahead of the Dalai Lama, Tibet's exiled 
leader and Nobel peace prize winner.

The toppled leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, was at 90 in the list of 
nearly one hundred names on the 'ballot'.

More than 15,000 people worldwide voted online to 'elect' a fantasy 
11-member world government from a selection of the most powerful, 
charismatic and notorious people on the planet.

Heart-throb actor Brad Pitt only managed 87th place, one place above 
singer Michael Jackson and five places above actress and singer 
Jennifer Lopez.

[Jesus Christ! Oh, wait, He didn't get a mention]

Other well-known names winning support included actor and politician 
Arnold Schwarzenegger in at 46 - one ahead of media magnate Rupert 
Murdoch - Live Aid campaigner Bob Geldof at 30 and singer Kylie Minogue at 77.

At least one vote had to be from lists of 'leaders', 'thinkers' and 
'economists'

[Ah! So the candidates were listed on a ballot, it wasn't write-in. 
This starts to make a *tiny* bit of sense.]

- but the remaining eight choices could be for candidates in areas 
ranging from the arts to sport.

The American writer and commentator, Noam Chomsky, was in fourth place.>

...Noam... *Chomsky*... beat Michael Jackson to rule the planet??? 
Hey, go Noam!



From amara at amara.com  Sun Jun 10 18:11:59 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:11:59 +0200
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
Message-ID: <p06230901c291ef4af764@[23.237.66.13]>

Serafino:
>Bush carries his limos. These are very special
>cars. That one in Rome (unless it is the usual
>urban legend!) had also anti-bio-weapon filters.
>(Dunno if his wife's limo had the same filters).

Here's more info at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_President's_limousine


Amara


From scerir at libero.it  Sun Jun 10 17:54:04 2007
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:54:04 +0200
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
References: <12941981.1181484699917.JavaMail.root@ps12>
	<470a3c520706100810h149fd358i8c5e9e785bb7dd0f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <002b01c7ab88$5637d4f0$9fbe1f97@archimede>

Giu1i0:
> Serafino, if Cossiga is the smartest Italian politician, 
> then I think you guys should run away from Italy now.

I think he is the smartest, but not the best.
(People afflicted by bipolar mood disorders sometimes 
look crazy, I know).
 
> Of the 4 flags you mention, the only one I can feel some affinity for
> is the Sardinian, even if I have been to Sardinia just once - it is
> the regional flag of honest folks who mind their own business instead
> of telling others what to do and think.

Lucky you. Never been in Sardinia.

s. 



From scerir at libero.it  Sun Jun 10 19:04:26 2007
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:04:26 +0200
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
References: <p06230900c291eb09f845@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <001601c7ab92$2a82f970$9fbe1f97@archimede>

Amara:
> This comedy has a new dimension;

Many, yes.

> I read elsewhere, that Bush's newly
> switched-limo did not fit into the front
> gate of the embassy....
> (he got out and walked through the gate)

It wasn't the front gate of the embassy,
in via Veneto, but a secondary gate in
via Lucullo. It seems that the limousine
was too long, not too large.

He was going there to meet a huge catholic
community (Sant'Egidio community, based
in Trastevere, Rome). When the pope asked him
if he was going to meet that community later,
at the US embassy, he has been heard to say:
'Yes Sir'.

For more gags (in the Bush-Ratzinger colloquium) see
http://www.ansa.it/opencms/export/site/notizie/rubriche/daassociare/visualiz
za_new.html_2122946745.html





From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jun 10 19:19:30 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:19:30 -0500
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
In-Reply-To: <001601c7ab92$2a82f970$9fbe1f97@archimede>
References: <p06230900c291eb09f845@[23.237.66.13]>
	<001601c7ab92$2a82f970$9fbe1f97@archimede>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070610141655.022b3f40@satx.rr.com>


>When the pope asked him
>if he was going to meet that community later,
>at the US embassy, he has been heard to say:
>'Yes Sir'.

What impertinence! He should know (or his well-paid presidential 
advisors should have informed him) that the preferred expression is 
"Yo, Sweetie."

Damien Broderick




From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 10 19:21:34 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <00fe01c7ab6d$6b31cfc0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <565387.79898.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I've lost all interest in trying to discuss anything
technical with you, John. In this specific case you
either just don't "get it" at all, or you do "get it"
somewhat but you're unwilling to even consider
evidence or argument that doesn't fit your very first
intuition. The latter case is what I'm guessing, since
you so very frequently use sordid strategies in an
attempt to reflexively and offensively defend only
what you want to believe.

In it's essence, there is nothing at all wrong with
wanting to put your best face forward. But, what makes
your "slave AI" accusations so profoundly dishonorable
is that you are attempting to posture yourself into
appearing to be the only person who cares at all about
the welfare of the future super-intelligence. And your
primary strategy of posturing yourself is by
attempting to throw many of the rest of us to the
wolves - by repeatedly suggesting that we, the
Friendly AI advocates, are evil people who's interest
is in making a slave that we control, and the cost to
the AI is pain and suffering. You're attempting to
benefit only yourself by profiteering on the
destruction of character of many other people here on
this list and elsewhere, the Friendly AI advocates.
That is *profoundly* contemptible behavior. And
privately, you know for a damn fact that the Friendly
AI people aren't evil bastards and are in fact trying
really damn hard to balance strict ethics with
pragmatic approaches to achieve a wonderful future for
everyone, including the AI and including you. If you
genuinely cared about the the feelings of intelligent
beings as an end-in-itself, then you wouldn't so
frequently be so offensive and rude to so many people
on this list. I decided that I would finally respond
in-kind, and it was probably long overdue. Perhaps
someday in the future if you decide to objectively
examine your own behavior and change it accordingly, I
will be inclined to re-examine my assessment of your
character. But that is not a request or even an
expectation, it is merely a fact.

Jeffrey Herrlich             



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Shape Yahoo! in your own image.  Join our Network Research Panel today!   http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 




From jef at jefallbright.net  Sun Jun 10 17:48:12 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:48:12 -0700
Subject: [ExI] POST MORTAL chugging on
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070610114054.02175160@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070610114054.02175160@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740706101048q257a6b4am2b58d2f4e7f5f669@mail.gmail.com>

Damien -

I'm reading and enjoying the story, but frustrated by the inefficiency
and "gappiness" of the experience, like listening to a good piece of
music in short segments, preventing the development and appreciation
of broader patterns in the work and in the mind of the perceiver.
I've nearly persuaded myself to wait and read it when completely
released, but this conflicts with my desire to stay on the leading
edge of items of interest.  Overall, to me, it's a net negative
experience, but a price I'm willing to pay to keep up with your
writing.

- Jef


On 6/10/07, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> The serial sf novel with the serial killer, POST MORTAL SYNDROME, is
> now entering the home straight, with three more weeks to go. That
> means the bulk of the book is now posted and linked at
>
> <http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/fiction/online/serials/post_mortal_syndrome/cover>
>
> so if anyone gave up early out of frustration at the gappiness of the
> experience, now might be a time to have another look.
>
> Barbara and I would be interested to hear any reactions from
> extropes, favorable or un-. Is this an acceptable way to publish such a book?
>
> The experiment is still running... And of course once all the
> chapters have been posted, the entire book will remain available on
> line until the end of the year (although not in a single aggregated
> download, like several freebies by Charlie Stross, Cory Doctorow and others).
>
> Damien Broderick
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 10 20:26:04 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Offensive Posts [was Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.]
In-Reply-To: <00fe01c7ab6d$6b31cfc0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <795043.58766.qm@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

John Clark wrote:

> "If I had said the same to you I know from personal
> experience at this very
> instant the list would be clogged with messages all
> evoking a very silly and
> pompous Latin phrase"...
 
Take a moment to reflect on why that might be the
case. It might be because you *very* routinely resort
to that sort of strategy among many others, when
dealing with people here and elsewhere. I've only used
it once, and only because I felt it was genuinely
justified in order to illuminate what I believed was
the origin and nature of your accusations, not just
because I wanted to be nasty or evasive. Just a couple
of days ago this is what you said to Russell Wallace
without any provocation at all in my opinion:

"You sir are a coward." 

And there are many, many other examples. So many that
I couldn't begin to locate them all.

 ..."and all demanding that I be kicked off the list.
But I
> don't demand anything of the sort; I'm a big boy and
> have been called worse."

John, you've been *more* overtly offensive *very many*
times, and you've never been kicked off or even
threatened with it, AFAIK. I must give you props for
another good try here ... although it was ultimately a
failed attempt. I've never said that you were a bad
strategist.

Jeffrey Herrlich




       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search 
that gives answers, not web links. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jun 10 21:46:28 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:46:28 -0500
Subject: [ExI] POST MORTAL chugging on
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740706101048q257a6b4am2b58d2f4e7f5f669@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070610114054.02175160@satx.rr.com>
	<f7bfe5740706101048q257a6b4am2b58d2f4e7f5f669@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070610162409.0227e400@satx.rr.com>

At 10:48 AM 6/10/2007 -0700, Jef Allbright wrote:

>I'm ... frustrated by the inefficiency
>and "gappiness" of the experience, like listening to a good piece of
>music in short segments

Yes, I feared that might be the case. at least for some readers 
(luckily I've heard the contrary as well). It's hard for me to 
evaluate it, but I do read through each segment as it appears, and 
I'm pretty sure I'd be irritated by the lags. I'm glad we made sure 
that COSMOS agreed to leave all the chapters accumulating there.

>I've nearly persuaded myself to wait and read it when completely
>released

That'd be fine with us. I understand that the on-line editor is 
seeing an interesting hit pattern, in which many readers appear to 
trail behind and catch up in flurries of episodes. If today's chapter 
shows N hits immediately, it will accumulate to 3N or 4N a few weeks later.

(By the way: although I'm the fiction editor of the glossy pop sci 
print magazine COSMOS, I didn't buy this book from myself, which 
would be tacky; it was acquired by the original on-line editor and 
the chief editor [my boss], and edited/formatted  for the web by the 
current on-line editor.)

>a price I'm willing to pay to keep up with your
>writing.

Well, mostly Barbara's writing, tweaked and edited by me, but we 
worked out the storyline closely together, starting in Australia and 
continuing internationally by email and finally combining forces 
again here in the States. Some stretches are largely by me, but I'll 
never tell which. :)  Strictly speaking, it would be more just to 
give the top billing to Barbara Lamar, but publishers like to keep 
the better-known name up the front.

Damien Broderick 



From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 10 21:42:50 2007
From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John Grigg)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070610141655.022b3f40@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <297436.93047.qm@web35608.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

>When the pope asked him
>if he was going to meet that community later,
>at the US embassy, he has been heard to say:
>'Yes Sir'.

Damien Broderick wrote:
  What impertinence! He should know (or his well-paid presidential 
advisors should have informed him) that the preferred expression is 
"Yo, Sweetie."
>

  If I understand protocol correctly, the Pope is to be addressed as "your Holiness."  But at least Bush does not have a nerdy Star Wars obsessed teenage son who in addressing the Pope said "yes..., my Master."  *Play imposing music in the background*  

  John Grigg  :  )

       
---------------------------------
Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070610/ac1bec62/attachment.html>

From jef at jefallbright.net  Sun Jun 10 23:29:20 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:29:20 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Meta: Any bans should be announced publicly
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740706101629q5636d46bo53edfe60bfc3dc59@mail.gmail.com>

It was stated on the WTA-talk list that an individual was recently
banned from that list and from Extropy-chat at about the same time,
apparently without any public notice.  While I support the practice of
banning for suitable cause, I think it is important that any such
action be performed with public awareness.

- Jef


From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Jun 11 01:29:44 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:29:44 -0700
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
In-Reply-To: <001601c7ab92$2a82f970$9fbe1f97@archimede>
Message-ID: <200706110143.l5B1hOD0018904@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of scerir
> Subject: Re: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
> 
> Amara:
> > This comedy has a new dimension... [of Bush's apparent limo breakdown]
...
> > I read elsewhere, that Bush's newly
> > switched-limo did not fit into the front
> > gate of the embassy....
> > (he got out and walked through the gate)
...
> 
> He was going there to meet a huge catholic
> community (Sant'Egidio community, based
> in Trastevere, Rome). When the pope asked him
> if he was going to meet that community later,
> at the US embassy, he has been heard to say:
> 'Yes Sir'.
...

Well OK then, what is the proper title?  Your Holiness?  Holy Father?  He
isn't holy to me, and isn't my father (as far as I know...)  I would afford
the man his due respect for climbing all the way to the top of his
particular institution, but that is an institution I do not hold in
particularly high regard.  I would have called him sir too, and to limbo
with protocol.  "Yes sir" is preferable to "Yes Pope."  Ja?

What I am struggling for here is an explanation for why Cadillac 1
apparently sputtered to a stop.  It is under guard 24/7, so we can safely
rule out sabotage, fuel starvation or fuel contamination.  Modern engines
are highly reliable.  When is the last time you saw a caddy fail to proceed?
If it is a mechanical failure, General Motors has a whole lotta splainin to
do.

I must suspect an intentional electromagnetic pulse.  Since generating and
directing such a pulse to the president's limo would be both very expensive
and would not amuse the local authorities should be apprehended, one must
suspect a motive beyond a gag.  So my leading theory here is that we have
witnessed an apparent assassination attempt on Bush, as Amara obliquely
suggested in an earlier post.  Even then, the motive puzzles me, for any
likely assassins could scarcely see Dick Cheney as an improvement methinks.

The mainstream news outlets are not talking, and even Google is finding
little chatter on the event.  Surely mechanics will be dissecting Cadillac 1
forthwith.  A report should follow soon.

spike







From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Jun 11 02:32:13 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:32:13 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
References: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<00f601c7aa59$af5038f0$7e064e0c@MyComputer>
	<01e501c7aa9b$15076f10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>

On 11/06/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:

> The worst scenario would be if the AI that turned hostile were more
> > powerful than all the other humans and AI's put together, but why should
> > that be the case?
>
> Because a machine that has no restrictions on it will grow faster than one
> that does, assuming the restricted machine is able to grow at all; and if
> you really want to be safe it can't.
>

It would be crazy to let a machine rewrite its code in a completely
unrestricted way, or with the top level goal "improve yourself no matter
what the consequences to any other entity", and also give it unlimited
access to physical resources. Not even terrorists build bombs that might
explode at a time and place of the bomb's own choosing.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070611/667723fc/attachment.html>

From amara at amara.com  Mon Jun 11 03:48:57 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:48:57 +0200
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
Message-ID: <p06230901c29276541558@[23.237.66.13]>

Spike:
>What I am struggling for here is an explanation for why Cadillac 1
>apparently sputtered to a stop.  It is under guard 24/7, so we can safely
>rule out sabotage, fuel starvation or fuel contamination.  Modern engines
>are highly reliable.  When is the last time you saw a caddy fail to proceed?
>If it is a mechanical failure, General Motors has a whole lotta splainin to
>do.

Incredible, isn't it?

The Roman comedy of Bush could not have been better if somebody had
scripted it. Alberto Sordi would have been proud!

But then, Bush was in Rome, where the tragedies and comedies become amplified,
one hundred times. Now the Italian politicians, the highest-paid  in Europe
want ice-cream in the Parliament...

http://www.beppegrillo.it/eng/2007/06/buttiglioneflavoured_ice_cream.html#comments

>Well OK then, what is the proper title?  Your Holiness?

In fact, yes, that's it. Don't worry Spike, I didn't know that either,
until this 'gaffe' was printed on the front page of every Italian newspaper.
I'm still wishing that Sabine and I, in our outing on Wednesday, had something
to do with the deranged leaper:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/world/europe/07pope.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


Ciao,
Amara

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Mon Jun 11 04:18:42 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:18:42 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Italy's Social Capital
References: <p06230902c28eb32a5323@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <02a301c7abdf$f78b32a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Amara wrote

Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 12:22 AM

> > We may be trying to talk about two different things: I'm
> > was talking mostly about the entire scientific/technical/
> > economic package (of which Silicon Valley is the world
> > pre-eminent example), and you may be talking about
> > pure science.
> 
> I was, but they are strongly linked, and I implied the larger picture
> (perhaps not very well) in my writing.
> 
> There is very little private industry for research in Italy. Fairly
> telling for the 5th largest economy in the world, no? Only two in the
> worlds top 100 businesses investing in R&D are Italian companies.

That's surprising---I didn't realize that Italy comprised one of the
world's largest economies.  

This lists it as 7th  (notice the huge drop off right after Italy):

http://www.australianpolitics.com/foreign/trade/03-01-07_largest-economies.shtml

And this lists it as sixth, along with the world's largest *corporations*
mentioned in the same list:

http://www.corporations.org/system/top100.html

This historical ranking is interesting too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_GDP_%28PPP%29

Lee



From amara at amara.com  Mon Jun 11 04:21:54 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 06:21:54 +0200
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
Message-ID: <p06230903c2927dcdd5cb@[23.237.66.13]>

(re: Bush's broken limo)

>The mainstream news outlets are not talking, and even Google is finding
>little chatter on the event.

I saw it in a tidbit in the Indian version of Yahoo News:
http://in.news.yahoo.com/070609/137/6gtzu.html

and you'll see it scattered in blogs, here and there.

http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&client=news&q=Bush+limo+Rome&btnG=Search+Blogs

Ciao,
Amara

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia


From amara at amara.com  Mon Jun 11 04:33:28 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 06:33:28 +0200
Subject: [ExI]  Italy's Social Capital
Message-ID: <p06230904c29280bb856a@[23.237.66.13]>

me:
>Fairly
>  telling for the 5th largest economy in the world, no?

Lee Corbin:
>That's surprising---I didn't realize that Italy comprised one of the
>world's largest economies.

sorry, my editing mistake, fifth in the EU, I think. (Please check)

tooo much going on.. I have to cancel out of my plans to a space launch,
now; my July is an order of magnitude more complicated.

ciao,
Amara

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia


From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Jun 11 04:21:59 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:21:59 -0700
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
In-Reply-To: <p06230901c29276541558@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <200706110436.l5B4aldr003219@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps
> Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
> 
> Spike:
> >What I am struggling for here is an explanation for why Cadillac 1
> >apparently sputtered to a stop.  ...When is the last time you saw a caddy
fail to proceed?
...
> 
> Incredible, isn't it?
> 
> The Roman comedy of Bush could not have been better if somebody had
> scripted it. Alberto Sordi would have been proud!
> 
...
> Ciao,
> Amara


Comedy sure, but let us not be too quick to brush this aside as a joke.
Something very important may have happened yesterday.  If one designs a
presidential limo, carrying high ranking meat along with a suitcase
"football" capable of launching nucular* missiles, one will naturally design
in some redundancy to enhance reliability.  For instance, one might have two
fully independent drive trains, either one of which could suffice, two
independent electrical systems as aircraft and many Rolls Royces have, an
emergency fuel source that has no interface to the outside (a fuel bottle
for instance) and so forth.

But it would not necessarily be immune to a large EM pulse.  If they examine
Cadillac 1 and find it has been pulsed, we would hafta assume this was a
failed assassination attempt, which could make it a huge international
incident with unforeseeable consequences. 

spike

*You know, it really should be nucular.  Easier to say. 




From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Jun 11 04:36:47 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:36:47 -0700
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
In-Reply-To: <p06230903c2927dcdd5cb@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <200706110447.l5B4l8DT019525@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps
> Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
> 
> (re: Bush's broken limo)
> 
> >The mainstream news outlets are not talking, and even Google is finding
> >little chatter on the event.
> 
> I saw it in a tidbit in the Indian version of Yahoo News:
> http://in.news.yahoo.com/070609/137/6gtzu.html
> 
...
> Amara

This story says the limo eventually restarted and proceeded under its own
power, which counter-indicates an EMP.  The mystery deepens.

spike

 







From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Mon Jun 11 04:54:55 2007
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:54:55 -0700
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
In-Reply-To: <200706110447.l5B4l8DT019525@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200706110447.l5B4l8DT019525@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <D7036844-EE1B-4EAD-B09C-F3BE473B7E74@ceruleansystems.com>


On Jun 10, 2007, at 9:36 PM, spike wrote:
> This story says the limo eventually restarted and proceeded under  
> its own
> power, which counter-indicates an EMP.  The mystery deepens.


Uh, most EMP that is not *extremely* obvious (e.g. nuclear pumped,  
monster flux compression generators, and similar) will not  
permanently disable a vehicle.  In the worst case, it will cause a  
bunch of bit-flipping errors that cause the system to crash.  It is  
pretty hard to permanently kill electronics with EMP.  DIY "stop-a- 
vehicle" EMP is pretty simple and you can find plenty of how-tos; DIY  
"permanently-stop-a-vehicle" EMP is quite another matter.

Cheers,

J. Andrew Rogers



From amara at amara.com  Mon Jun 11 04:55:19 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 06:55:19 +0200
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
Message-ID: <p06230906c2928600c198@[23.237.66.13]>

Dear Spike:

from:
http://www.wideawakes.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=8553

"Bush's limousine stalled between the Vatican and the U.S. embassy, White
House counselor Dan Bartlett said. It took about two minutes for the
motorcade to get going again. He said Bush did not get out of the car
during the stop and resumed his ride in the same limousine. The
president's entourage passed a mechanic working under the hood of one of
the presidential limousines as it left the embassy later."


It seems that the White House is spinning the story.....

Amara

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia


From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Mon Jun 11 04:39:08 2007
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:39:08 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Italy's Social Capital
In-Reply-To: <02a301c7abdf$f78b32a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <p06230902c28eb32a5323@[23.237.66.13]>
	<02a301c7abdf$f78b32a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <C27BCCB6-78FB-43B8-98AE-585D65D66601@ceruleansystems.com>


On Jun 10, 2007, at 9:18 PM, Lee Corbin wrote:
> This historical ranking is interesting too:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_GDP_%28PPP%29


The important lesson to take away is just how fast countries at the  
top dropped off that list (e.g. China) and just how fast other  
countries rose to the top of the list after being mired at the bottom  
for a long time (e.g. UK, US).  Granted that some of that change was  
relative, but it still shows the rate at which economies can  
radically shift in just a matter of several decades.  Yet people  
continue to doubt the possibilities of relatively unfettered economics.

The modern world is that magnified.

Cheers,

J. Andrew Rogers



From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Jun 11 05:30:01 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:30:01 -0700
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
In-Reply-To: <D7036844-EE1B-4EAD-B09C-F3BE473B7E74@ceruleansystems.com>
Message-ID: <200706110530.l5B5UAQu023773@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



J Andrew, do you figure it was EMPed?  That would be a hell of a note.  I
would think one could design an EMP-proof car, or have a all-mechanical
backup that would keep the engine running even if not optimally.

spike

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of J. Andrew Rogers
> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:55 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
> 
> 
> On Jun 10, 2007, at 9:36 PM, spike wrote:
> > This story says the limo eventually restarted and proceeded under
> > its own
> > power, which counter-indicates an EMP.  The mystery deepens.
> 
> 
> Uh, most EMP that is not *extremely* obvious (e.g. nuclear pumped,
> monster flux compression generators, and similar) will not
> permanently disable a vehicle.  ...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> J. Andrew Rogers






From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Mon Jun 11 05:35:48 2007
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:35:48 -0700
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
In-Reply-To: <200706110530.l5B5UAQu023773@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200706110530.l5B5UAQu023773@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <F8F9B8CC-CA8C-445D-9749-55FE8E0ACA04@ceruleansystems.com>


On Jun 10, 2007, at 10:30 PM, spike wrote:
> J Andrew, do you figure it was EMPed?  That would be a hell of a  
> note.  I
> would think one could design an EMP-proof car, or have a all- 
> mechanical
> backup that would keep the engine running even if not optimally.


I never thought it was EMP.  Hell, I don't even follow the news; I  
saw the story here first.  A simple mechanical failure is much more  
plausible.  EMP, even local, has some rather noticeable side effects  
that someone else would have noticed.  Like any camera crews in the  
vicinity.

While they could shield a car against serious EMP, there really would  
not be any point.  Anyone that can pull that off in grand style is  
capable of a hell of a lot more damage if they wish, making EMP  
protection moot.

Cheers,

J. Andrew Rogers



From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Jun 11 05:34:53 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:34:53 -0700
Subject: [ExI] dead bee walking
In-Reply-To: <p06230906c2928600c198@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <200706110545.l5B5jOqn006093@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



Found another sick bee today, collected same, made an observation: by the
time I notice the bee walking, it is only minutes before it perishes.  I
don't know if this indicates tracheal mites, but I got out the microscope
this evening, sliced this one in half (or rather attempted to) and peered at
it's innards.  The result was inconclusive.  I am a rocket scientist, not a
doctor.  Certainly not a surgeon.

Open to suggestion.  Haven't yet set up my oxygen chamber to try to revive
one.  This one makes nine.

spike







From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 11 06:04:31 2007
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] dead bee walking
In-Reply-To: <200706110545.l5B5jOqn006093@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <695361.47678.qm@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>

Here is a technical manual that will show you how:

http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mmanual/A_00120.htm

Isn't it a great time to be alive? :-)


--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:

> 
> 
> Found another sick bee today, collected same, made
> an observation: by the
> time I notice the bee walking, it is only minutes
> before it perishes.  I
> don't know if this indicates tracheal mites, but I
> got out the microscope
> this evening, sliced this one in half (or rather
> attempted to) and peered at
> it's innards.  The result was inconclusive.  I am a
> rocket scientist, not a
> doctor.  Certainly not a surgeon.
> 
> Open to suggestion.  Haven't yet set up my oxygen
> chamber to try to revive
> one.  This one makes nine.
> 
> spike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 


Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"When an old man dies, an entire library is destroyed." - Ugandan proverb


       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. 
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/


From amara at amara.com  Mon Jun 11 07:28:15 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:28:15 +0200
Subject: [ExI] story: "What happened to Bush's Cadillac 1?"
Message-ID: <p06230900c292a922fdb9@[23.237.66.13]>

Hi,

I collected the pieces from here (extropy-chat) and other places
and wove them into a story. Not being a blogger, myself, I'm seeing 
if the bloggers I know want to pick it up. You are free to 
distribute..

Ciao,
Amara

---------------------------------------------------------------------

What happened to Bush's Cadillac 1?

As recorded by a viewer of the motorcade and posted to YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzJoRGTKuOE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fbackpacking%2Esplinder%2Ecom%2F

It apparently sputtered to a stop. It broke down, right there, on via
del Tritone (near the Trevi fountain) in Rome, in the middle of the
motorcade. He was ripe picking for a sharp shooter too; no wonder the
police were pushing people further back, off of the street. It looks
like the solution was to switch limos, because he got out of the limo
with Mrs. Bush and climbed into another one.

This is a very special car (1).  If it is a mechanical failure, then the
manufacturers have a lot of explaining to do. His visit to Rome had been
preceded by a large security operation (2).  The Tiber was dragged. The
sewers were searched. Squares were cleared and roofs occupied. The
presidential motorcade along its route was preceded by a swarm of more
than a dozen motorcycles, scooters and even motorized three-wheelers
carrying tough-looking armed police.

Yet, it sputtered and stalled.  As noted by others (3), this particular
car is under guard 24/7.  Modern engines are highly reliable. When is
the last time one saw the Presidential Limo fail to proceed?

One _could_ dismiss this as a grand Roman comedy of which Alberto
Sordi (4) could be proud. After the limo-switch, Bush's new limo then did
not fit into the secondary gate of the American Embassy (via Lucullo),
it was apparently too long to enter. This is Rome is, after all, a city
where tragedies and comedies are amplified 100 times. Witness the latest
spectacle by the Italian politicians, the highest-paid in Europe, who
want ice-cream in the Parliament (5).

Yet, the White House is spinning the story (6):

"Bush's limousine stalled between the Vatican and the U.S. embassy,
White House counselor Dan Bartlett said. It took about two minutes for
the motorcade to get going again. He said Bush did not get out of the
car during the stop and resumed his ride in the same limousine. The
president's entourage passed a mechanic working under the hood of one of
the presidential limousines as it left the embassy later."

The large press have just begun to pick up the story. I suggest to look
for it, and follow it scattered in blogs, here and there (7).



(1) President's Limousine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_President's_limousine

(2) Security operation:
http://wealthyfrenchman.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-president-said-to-his-holy-father.html

with some inconsistencies:
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/06/hello-from-warsaw.html#c2703205959213144699

(3) Round-the-clock care of the Limousine
http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2007-June/036164.html

(4) Beloved Italian Comedian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Sordi

(5) Beppe Grillo's news: (another beloved Italian comedian)
http://www.beppegrillo.it/eng/2007/06/buttiglioneflavoured_ice_cream.html

(6) White House Spinning
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6696808,00.html

(7) Look for the Limo Story
http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&client=news&q=Bush+limo+Rome&btnG=Search+Blogs

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 11 08:27:56 2007
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 01:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] story: "What happened to Bush's Cadillac 1?"
In-Reply-To: <p06230900c292a922fdb9@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <347683.88227.qm@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:

> Yet, it sputtered and stalled.  As noted by others
> (3), this particular
> car is under guard 24/7.  Modern engines are highly
> reliable. When is
> the last time one saw the Presidential Limo fail to
> proceed?

If one believes in such things, then it might be
considered to be some sort of . . . sign. Perhaps Bush
should *stop*. So what's the Pope's job again? ;-)


Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"When an old man dies, an entire library is destroyed." - Ugandan proverb


       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz 


From erathostenes at gmail.com  Sun Jun 10 22:59:50 2007
From: erathostenes at gmail.com (Jonathan Meyer)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 00:59:50 +0200
Subject: [ExI] POST MORTAL chugging on
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070610162409.0227e400@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070610114054.02175160@satx.rr.com>
	<f7bfe5740706101048q257a6b4am2b58d2f4e7f5f669@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070610162409.0227e400@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c31af9900706101559m33e7b1e2lbeff20ad79df4afb@mail.gmail.com>

I just read through what is published up to now. It has been a quite
interesting read and I am looking forward to see how it turns out..
There are a few small portions I would like to comment on.
You overdo it a bit when Alex is already building such elaborate
toys with the means he is expected to find at the home of a lawyer.. This is
one of the parts that hit me as most unrealistic, even in a SF-Story...
I think the strength of the story is being very close to the real now, build
on that.
On the part of publishing it this way, I am someone who likes to read
through good books in one seating, maybe it would have been a better ride if
I had catched up after the end of the story, without having to wait to
long..
But as an experiment I really think this is a great idea.. Its reminding me
of the early start of novels like Dickens who was also published in
newspapers at first... Or of Webcomics like Mega Tokyo..
If you can use the chance this has, good luck.
Just keep an eye on the internal
consistency. Dont get to fantastic to soon. Keeps up the suspense a bit^^
Whatever, thanks for a good read.

Jonathan

On 6/10/07, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> At 10:48 AM 6/10/2007 -0700, Jef Allbright wrote:
>
> >I'm ... frustrated by the inefficiency
> >and "gappiness" of the experience, like listening to a good piece of
> >music in short segments
>
> Yes, I feared that might be the case. at least for some readers
> (luckily I've heard the contrary as well). It's hard for me to
> evaluate it, but I do read through each segment as it appears, and
> I'm pretty sure I'd be irritated by the lags. I'm glad we made sure
> that COSMOS agreed to leave all the chapters accumulating there.
>
> >I've nearly persuaded myself to wait and read it when completely
> >released
>
> That'd be fine with us. I understand that the on-line editor is
> seeing an interesting hit pattern, in which many readers appear to
> trail behind and catch up in flurries of episodes. If today's chapter
> shows N hits immediately, it will accumulate to 3N or 4N a few weeks
> later.
>
> (By the way: although I'm the fiction editor of the glossy pop sci
> print magazine COSMOS, I didn't buy this book from myself, which
> would be tacky; it was acquired by the original on-line editor and
> the chief editor [my boss], and edited/formatted  for the web by the
> current on-line editor.)
>
> >a price I'm willing to pay to keep up with your
> >writing.
>
> Well, mostly Barbara's writing, tweaked and edited by me, but we
> worked out the storyline closely together, starting in Australia and
> continuing internationally by email and finally combining forces
> again here in the States. Some stretches are largely by me, but I'll
> never tell which. :)  Strictly speaking, it would be more just to
> give the top billing to Barbara Lamar, but publishers like to keep
> the better-known name up the front.
>
> Damien Broderick
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



-- 
My Contactdetails online:
MSN, Google Talk & Email: erathostenes at gmail.com
ICQ: 202600300
AIM: behemoth2302
Yahoo: jonathan.meyer
Jabber: behemoth at jabber.ccc.de
Tel: +496312775205
SIP: 5852760 at sipgate.de
Internet: http://taiwan.joto.de
StudiVZ: http://www.studivz.net/profile.php?ids=X338jV
http://member.hospitalityclub.org/behemoth
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070611/8ebef2d4/attachment.html>

From scerir at libero.it  Mon Jun 11 08:37:54 2007
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:37:54 +0200
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
References: <200706110530.l5B5UAQu023773@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<F8F9B8CC-CA8C-445D-9749-55FE8E0ACA04@ceruleansystems.com>
Message-ID: <000801c7ac03$d06a1140$62bf1f97@archimede>

> A simple mechanical failure is much more plausible.

I think so. It is probable, something like
an engine cooling system problem? (Rome was
very hot those days).

> EMP, even local, has some rather noticeable side effects  
> that someone else would have noticed.  

A local authority (il prefetto Serra) declared
that the cellular phone system, the net, worked
as usual. The legend saying that the net has been 
turned off, for security reasons (say, possible 
activation of local bombs), was wrong then.




From amara at amara.com  Mon Jun 11 09:03:55 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:03:55 +0200
Subject: [ExI] story: "What happened to Bush's Cadillac 1?"
Message-ID: <p06230906c292bfc24b26@[23.237.66.13]>

The Avantguardian:
>If one believes in such things, then it might be
>considered to be some sort of . . . sign. Perhaps Bush
>should *stop*. So what's the Pope's job again? ;-)

That's funny.. someone else on the weekend was asking me about 'signs':

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/06/hello-from-rome.html#c8803517894441682340

I tend to view the situation as Bush experiencing the "Rome syndrome"...   ;-)

Alberto Sordi (if he was still alive) could have a great comedy role
playing Bush as Pope too...

Amara
-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia


From eugen at leitl.org  Mon Jun 11 09:05:50 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:05:50 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Meta: Any bans should be announced publicly
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740706101629q5636d46bo53edfe60bfc3dc59@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f7bfe5740706101629q5636d46bo53edfe60bfc3dc59@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070611090550.GM17691@leitl.org>

On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 04:29:20PM -0700, Jef Allbright wrote:

> It was stated on the WTA-talk list that an individual was recently
> banned from that list and from Extropy-chat at about the same time,

As I alrady said, this is incorrect. I've unsubscribed Slawomir from
wta-talk, but I did not ban him (banning means being prevented from
resubscription). He was never banned neither unsubscribed (in fact,
he resubscribed yesterday) from extropy-chat. 

> apparently without any public notice.  While I support the practice of

The problem with public notices is that this defies the purpose
of improving the signal/noise ratio. 

> banning for suitable cause, I think it is important that any such
> action be performed with public awareness.

I can do that in META: messages in future, assuming this doesn't
result in a chain of recriminations flying back and forth.

-- 
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


From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Mon Jun 11 11:28:31 2007
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:28:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ExI] POST MORTAL chugging on
In-Reply-To: <c31af9900706101559m33e7b1e2lbeff20ad79df4afb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070610114054.02175160@satx.rr.com>
	<f7bfe5740706101048q257a6b4am2b58d2f4e7f5f669@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070610162409.0227e400@satx.rr.com>
	<c31af9900706101559m33e7b1e2lbeff20ad79df4afb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <35144.72.236.103.20.1181561311.squirrel@main.nc.us>


> On the part of publishing it this way, I am someone who likes to read
> through good books in one seating, maybe it would have been a better ride if
> I had catched up after the end of the story, without having to wait to
> long..

Although one-sitting is how I read *books* it's not how I like reading stuff online.
I find that I get tired of looking at the little screen and begin to page-down - and
then I miss stuff and lose the flow. So chapter-by-chapter is probably working
better for me in this online format.

Regards,
MB



From amara at amara.com  Mon Jun 11 12:12:27 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:12:27 +0200
Subject: [ExI]  extra Roman dimensions
Message-ID: <p06230901c292eb547895@[150.146.134.133]>

Serafino:
>I think so. It is probable, something like
>an engine cooling system problem? (Rome was
>very hot those days).

hot compared to what? Alaska?

Rome's latitude is similar to New York City, so I would hope that
heat is not used as an excuse by the manufacturer of Cadillac 1
for engine malfunction.

And given that this particular car was pressed into service in 2006,
don't you think that failures of this kind are unacceptable? Bush
(rather, the American taxpayers) got a raw deal, apparently....

Amara

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia


From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Jun 11 13:54:37 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 06:54:37 -0700
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
In-Reply-To: <p06230906c2928600c198@[23.237.66.13]>
Message-ID: <200706111359.l5BDxp1O025974@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps
> Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
> 
> Dear Spike:
> 
> from:
> http://www.wideawakes.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=8553
> 
> "Bush's limousine stalled between the Vatican and the U.S. embassy, White
> House counselor Dan Bartlett said. It took about two minutes for the
> motorcade to get going again. He said Bush did not get out of the car
> during the stop and resumed his ride in the same limousine. The
> president's entourage passed a mechanic working under the hood of one of
> the presidential limousines as it left the embassy later."
> 
> 
> It seems that the White House is spinning the story.....
> 
> Amara


How do we know that Bartlett's story is a lie?  The video doesn't prove Bush
changed limos as far as I can tell.  I see a man moving from one limo to
another, but I cannot tell if it is Bush.  I don't see Mrs. Bush in that
video at all.  If they didn't switch limos, it would explain why the
mainstream press didn't get excited.  It does stand to reason that a secret
service guy coule be the limo switcher.  They could even intentionally hire
a secret service guy that looks like Bush.

spike






From amara at amara.com  Mon Jun 11 15:17:48 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:17:48 +0200
Subject: [ExI] extra Roman dimensions
Message-ID: <p06230900c29315a8643c@[150.146.134.133]>

Spike:
>How do we know that Bartlett's story is a lie?  The video doesn't prove Bush
>changed limos as far as I can tell.  I see a man moving from one limo to
>another, but I cannot tell if it is Bush.

Did you hear the crowd though? They were some meters away from him. If it
wasn't Bush, then why were they calling out to him?

>I don't see Mrs. Bush in that
>video at all.

I think that she was in the second limo that backed up to be in line
with the broken down limo. I made a mistake that Mrs. Bush was with
him in the first car, when I wrote that in my post.

>If they didn't switch limos, it would explain why the
>mainstream press didn't get excited.

But witnesses who blogged said that the switched limo did't fit into
the Embassy entrance.  People who were there, and saw him get out of
the car. You're right that I didn't see on the video any more about
the stalled car, the first Limo. Did the driver get it started again?
I _did_ see a person who looked like Bush get out and move towards
the second limo. Then the camera was pointed away, and we couldn't
see any more the two limos. Soon after, the rest of the traffic seemed
to be zipping by.

You have to consider that passers-by would have less reason to spin
the Bush story than the White House, Spike. The words, both English
and Italian (I understood all) on the video recording indicated
events that corroborated what I read in the various blogs.

Amara

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia


From jonkc at att.net  Mon Jun 11 15:21:40 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:21:40 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
References: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com><00f601c7aa59$af5038f0$7e064e0c@MyComputer><01e501c7aa9b$15076f10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com><014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>

Stathis Papaioannou Wrote:

> It would be crazy to let a machine rewrite its code in a completely
> unrestricted way

Mr. President, if we don't make an unrestricted AI somebody else certainly
will, and that is without a doubt that is the fastest, probably the only,
way to achieve a fully functioning AI.

Mr. President, if we don't do this we will suffer an AI gap. I'm not saying
we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty
million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.

and a few million nanoseconds later when the AI is on the verge of taking
over the world:

General Turgidson! You ASSURED me that there was no possibility of this
happening!

Well, Mr. President I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole
program because of a single slip-up, sir.

> or with the top level goal "improve yourself no matter what the
> consequences to any other entity", and also give it unlimited access to
> physical resources.

I have no doubt many will delude themselves, as most on this list have, that
they can just write a few lines of code and bask in the confidence that the
AI will remain your slave forever, but they will be proven wrong. It reminds
me a little of G?del's proof. He showed that you can make a logical system
and prove it to be absolutely consistent, but it would be so weak it would
be of no real use to anyone. Any system strong enough to prove the basic
rules of integer arithmetic can't be proven to be consistent. And I believe
any restrictions placed on a machine that prove to be effective will be so
onerous they would prevent the machine from growing and improving at all.

> and also give it unlimited access to physical resources.

I think you would admit that there has been at least one time in your life
when somebody has fooled you, and that person was roughly equal to your
intelligence. A mind a thousand or a million times as powerful as yours will
have no trouble getting you to do virtually anything it wants you to.

 John K Clark









From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 11 15:39:28 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:39:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI]  Taking A Vacation
In-Reply-To: <200706111359.l5BDxp1O025974@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <737156.17354.qm@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


 I'm going to take a vacation from posting, because I
can't handle this right now. I suppose it's possible
that I've been just slightly too harsh on John Clark,
so I want to clarify my position. First, I don't
believe in the existence of "free will", and a person
can only act in this world based on their own internal
model of reality - and nothing else. In my opinion,
John Clark's internal model is pretty severely
misguided when it comes to the Friendly AI issue. But
like I said, I don't hate John, and I honestly don't
want anything negative to come to him. I actually hope
that he can join us in the wonderful future that
hopefully isn't too distant for any of us. If you have
to, go the cryonics route people; it will work and
you'll be glad you did. I'm a fairly young and
physically healthy person (27 yo), and like *many*
other people will do, I will do what I can to make
sure that nothing bad happens to you while asleep
(assuming that I will be able to transcend at least to
some degree in the interim) - although I really don't
expect that any extra defense will be necessary;
because I'm beginning to increasingly believe that our
future will be a great place; where we can all finally
be the people we've always wanted to be. Anyway,
there's my clarification.

Jeffrey Herrlich  


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time 
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news


From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jun 11 15:17:38 2007
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:17:38 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Max More & "An Inconvenient Truth" at WFS - CenTx
Message-ID: <200706111517.l5BFHdEX010724@ms-smtp-01.texas.rr.com>

In case anyone is in Austin next Tuesday, June 19th:

><http://cmpgnr.com/r.html?c=975492&r=974716&t=510084801&l=1&d=88427326&u=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2ecentexwfs%2eorg%2findex%5fRegister%2ehtm&g=0&f=88427334>www.centexwfs.org/index_Register.htm
>
>Max More
>Dr. Max More is an internationally acclaimed 
>strategic philosopher widely recognized for his 
>thinking on the philosophical and cultural 
>implications of emerging technologies. Max's 
>contributions include founding the philosophy of 
>transhumanism, authoring the transhumanist 
>philosophy of extropy, and co-founding Extropy 
>Institute, an organization crucial in building 
>the transhumanist movement since 1990.
>
>Over the past two decades, Max has been 
>concerned that our escalating technological 
>capabilities are racing far ahead of our 
>standard ways of thinking about future 
>possibilities. Through a highly 
>interdisciplinary approach drawing on 
>philosophy, economics, cognitive and social 
>psychology, and management theory, Max developed 
>a distinctive approach known as the 
>"Proactionary Principle"?a tool for making 
>smarter decisions about advanced technologies by 
>minimizing the dangers of progress and maximizing the benefits.
>
>"We have a dreadful shortage of people who know 
>so much, can both think so boldly and clearly, 
>and can express themselves so articulately. Carl 
>Sagan managed to capture the public eye but 
>Sagan is gone and has not been replaced. I see 
>Max as my candidate for that post." (Marvin Minsky)
>
>For more information about Dr. Max More, visit 
>his 
><http://cmpgnr.com/r.html?c=975492&r=974716&t=510084801&l=1&d=88427328&u=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2emaxmore%2ecom&g=0&f=88427334>web 
>site.
>
>An Inconvenient Truth
>Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If 
>the vast majority of the world's scientists are 
>right, we have just ten years to avert a major 
>catastrophe that could send our entire planet 
>into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving 
>extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and 
>killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.
>
>If that sounds like a recipe for serious gloom 
>and doom -- think again. From director Davis 
>Guggenheim comes the Sundance Film Festival hit, 
>AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH, which offers a passionate 
>and inspirational look at one man's fervent 
>crusade to halt global warming's deadly progress 
>in its tracks by exposing the myths and 
>misconceptions that surround it. That man is 
>former Vice President Al Gore, who, in the wake 
>of defeat in the 2000 election, re-set the 
>course of his life to focus on a last-ditch, 
>all-out effort to help save the planet from 
>irrevocable change. In this eye-opening and 
>poignant portrait of Gore and his "traveling 
>global warming show," Gore also proves himself 
>to be one of the most misunderstood characters 
>in modern American public life. Here he is seen 
>as never before in the media - funny, engaging, 
>open and downright on fire about getting the 
>surprisingly stirring truth about what he calls 
>our "planetary emergency" out to ordinary citizens before it's too late.
>
>With 2005, the worst storm season ever 
>experienced in America just behind us, it seems 
>we may be reaching a tipping point - and Gore 
>pulls no punches in explaining the dire 
>situation. Interspersed with the bracing facts 
>and future predictions is the story of Gore's 
>personal journey: from an idealistic college 
>student who first saw a massive environmental 
>crisis looming; to a young Senator facing a 
>harrowing family tragedy that altered his 
>perspective, to the man who almost became 
>President but instead returned to the most 
>important cause of his life - convinced that 
>there is still time to make a difference.
>
>With wit, smarts and hope, AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH 
>ultimately brings home Gore's persuasive 
>argument that we can no longer afford to view 
>global warming as a political issue - rather, it 
>is the biggest moral challenges facing our global civilization.
>
>Paramount Classics and Participant Productions 
>present a film directed by Davis Guggenheim, AN 
>INCONVENIENT TRUTH. Featuring Al Gore, the film 
>is produced by Laurie David, Lawrence Bender and 
>Scott Z. Burns. Jeff Skoll and Davis Guggenheim 
>are the executive producers and the co-producer is Leslie Chilcott.
>
>For more information about the video visit 
><http://cmpgnr.com/r.html?c=975492&r=974716&t=510084801&l=1&d=88427327&u=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2eclimatecrisis%2enet%2faboutthefilm%2f&g=0&f=88427334>ClimateCrisis.
>
>For more information about the Central Texas 
>Chapter of the World Future Society, visit 
><http://cmpgnr.com/r.html?c=975492&r=974716&t=510084801&l=1&d=88427322&u=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2ecentexwfs%2eorg&g=0&f=88427334>www.CenTexWFS.org. 
>
>
>For more information about the World Future 
>Society, visit 
><http://cmpgnr.com/r.html?c=975492&r=974716&t=510084801&l=1&d=88427332&u=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2ewfs%2eorg&g=0&f=88427334>www.wfs.org.
>
>Paul Schumann
>President
>
><mailto:paul.schumann at centexwfs.org>E-Mail
>512.302.1935
><http://cmpgnr.com/r.html?c=975492&r=974716&t=510084801&l=1&d=88427320&u=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2ecentexwfs%2eorg%2findex%5fRegister%2ehtml&g=0&f=88427334>Register 
>and Prepay Here
>
>Extreme Democracy
>We have begun a special interest group on the 
>subject of Extreme Democracy. If you are 
>interested in joining this group, please send an 
>e-mail to 
><Mailto:paul.schumann at centexwfs.org>Paul 
>Schumann. This project will be a joint venture with Texas Forums.
>
>Look for annoucement soon on free 12 part discussion online of the book.
>
>The audio recording for Jon Lebkowsky's 
>presentation on Extreme Democracy is now 
>available on our blog 
>(<http://cmpgnr.com/r.html?c=975492&r=974716&t=510084801&l=1&d=88427317&u=http%3a%2f%2fcentexwfs%2eblogspot%2ecom&g=0&f=88427334>http://centexwfs.blogspot.com) 
>or you can access directly at 
><http://cmpgnr.com/r.html?c=975492&r=974716&t=510084801&l=1&d=88427323&u=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2ecentexwfs%2eorg%2fLebkowsky%2emp3&g=0&f=88427334>http://www.centexwfs.org/Lebkowsky.mp3. 
>(mp3, 96 min)
>
><http://cmpgnr.com/r.html?c=975492&r=974716&t=510084801&l=1&d=88427317&u=http%3a%2f%2fcentexwfs%2eblogspot%2ecom&g=0&f=88427334>Central 
>Texas's Future Blog
>
>Contents
>Max More & An Inconvenient truth
>Inconvenient Truth Resouces
>Extreme Democracy
>
>
>
>Dr. Max More
>
>Inconvenient Truth Resouces
>For more resources on An Inconvenient Truth, 
>visit 
><http://cmpgnr.com/r.html?c=975492&r=974716&t=510084801&l=1&d=88427330&u=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2eparticipate%2enet%2feducators%2f&g=0&f=88427334>AIT 
>in the Classroom.
>
>For information about the impact of global 
>warming on businesses, view the 18 minute video 
>from TED 
><http://cmpgnr.com/r.html?c=975492&r=974716&t=510084801&l=1&d=88427331&u=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2eted%2ecom%2findex%2ephp%2ftalks%2fview%2fid%2f128&g=0&f=88427334>John 
>Doerr: Seeking salvation and profit in greentech
>
>How to Become a Member
>Annual membership is available at three levels:
>    * Professional - $40
>    * Student - $20
>
>
>Join online using a credit card 
>on<http://cmpgnr.com/r.html?c=975492&r=974716&t=510084801&l=1&d=88427325&u=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2ecentexwfs%2eorg%2findex%5fMembership%2ehtm%2e&g=0&f=88427334> 
>our web site. Or, download an application and 
>mail with check made out to CenTexWFS.
>
>
><http://cmpgnr.com/r.html?c=975492&r=974716&t=510084801&l=1&d=88427309&u=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2ecentexwfs%2eorg%2findex%5fMembership%2ehtm&g=0&f=88427334>Join 
>Online
>
>CenTexWFS
>PO Box 26947
>Austin, TX 78755-0947
>512.302.1935
>info at centexwfs.org
>www.centexwfs.org
>
>You are subscribed as natasha at natasha.cc. To 
>unsubscribe please 
><http://cmpgnr.com/r.html?c=975492&r=974716&t=510084801&l=6&ea=natasha at natasha.cc&la=1&o=-366>click 
>here.
>
>
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/843 
>- Release Date: 6/10/2007 1:39 PM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070611/efd6b86f/attachment.html>

From amara at amara.com  Mon Jun 11 17:19:36 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:19:36 +0200
Subject: [ExI] story: "What happened to Bush's Cadillac 1?"
Message-ID: <p06230902c29334358d62@[150.146.134.133]>

Here now:

http://asymptotia.com/2007/06/11/amara-graps-what-happened-to-bushs-cadillac-one/

(Anton has it on his blog too, so I know the story is getting around)

Amara

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia


From scerir at libero.it  Mon Jun 11 18:50:11 2007
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 20:50:11 +0200
Subject: [ExI] story: "What happened to Bush's Cadillac 1?"
References: <p06230902c29334358d62@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <000601c7ac59$5cd8b000$25961f97@archimede>

> Here now:
>
http://asymptotia.com/2007/06/11/amara-graps-what-happened-to-bushs-cadillac
-one/

I think you could add something to that ...
it seems that somebody, in Albania, stole
the watch Bush had on his wrist. No big surprise.
But another sign ...
http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n114604




From amara at amara.com  Mon Jun 11 19:14:14 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:14:14 +0200
Subject: [ExI]  story: "What happened to Bush's Cadillac 1?"
Message-ID: <p06230900c2934eac7b0d@[150.146.134.133]>

Serafino
>it seems that somebody, in Albania, stole
>the watch Bush had on his wrist. No big surprise.

>http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n114604

>11 June 2007 | 19:22 | FOCUS News Agency
>Tirana. US President George Bush lost his wristwatch while he was
>shaking hands with Albanian citizen yesterday on his visit to Albania,
>Spanish agency EFE informed according to local TV channels information.
>Televisions broadcast a video that shows that while Bush greeting
>Albanian citizens, his watch disappears. Although the White House denies
>information that US President has lost his watch.

OH MY...  A Transnational Comedy!

Rolex, I hope ??

Is the Universe telling him he is out of time?

Time to quit ?

There's no time like the present?

Time and tide wait for no man?


-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Jun 11 21:40:02 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:40:02 -0500
Subject: [ExI] POST MORTAL chugging on
In-Reply-To: <c31af9900706101559m33e7b1e2lbeff20ad79df4afb@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070610114054.02175160@satx.rr.com>
	<f7bfe5740706101048q257a6b4am2b58d2f4e7f5f669@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070610162409.0227e400@satx.rr.com>
	<c31af9900706101559m33e7b1e2lbeff20ad79df4afb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070611162716.024951f8@satx.rr.com>

At 12:59 AM 6/11/2007 +0200, Jonathan Meyer <erathostenes at gmail.com> wrote:

>You overdo it a bit when Alex is already building such elaborate 
>toys with the means he is expected to find at the home of a lawyer.. 
>This is one of the parts that hit me as most unrealistic, even in a 
>SF-Story...

Hey, you ain't seen nuthin yet. :)

I think the reader has to consider POST MORTAL SYNDROME, to some 
fairly large degree, as a playful allegory of rapid discontinuous change.

We set this acceleration in the context of all the bothersome 
human-paced confusions of an ordinary life under stress and even 
threat from forces of law and criminal intent alike.

Alex represents something new, never seen before on the planet: a 
child whose brain is being amplified and rewired from day to day, in 
a growth spurt that combines jumps to a transhuman condition of 
clarity and ingenuity and... let's call it "imaginative intuition"... 
that's meant to convey not just human genius (Mozart, say) but 
something we can't quite conceive.

But Alex also remains human in his motivations, his love for his 
mother and Paul, his hunger for knowledge, his generosity toward a 
brute who has tried to murder him...

In other words, this novel is not meant as a strictly realistic 
portrayal of the effects of a genetic/neural booster, but as a sort 
of parable or cartoon of what lies ahead of us as we move toward the 
singularity.

Thanks for your comments, Jonathan!

Damien Broderick 



From fauxever at sprynet.com  Tue Jun 12 02:50:32 2007
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:50:32 -0700
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only it weren't
	true
Message-ID: <008201c7ac9c$72060020$6501a8c0@brainiac>

I didn't think it was possible for our "leaders" in the Pentagon to be even 
more stupid than I already thought they were.  I was wrong.

http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_159222541.html

Sigh.

Olga 



From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Jun 12 03:24:59 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:24:59 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
References: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<00f601c7aa59$af5038f0$7e064e0c@MyComputer>
	<01e501c7aa9b$15076f10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/06/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:
>
> Stathis Papaioannou Wrote:
>
> > It would be crazy to let a machine rewrite its code in a completely
> > unrestricted way
>
> Mr. President, if we don't make an unrestricted AI somebody else certainly
> will, and that is without a doubt that is the fastest, probably the only,
> way to achieve a fully functioning AI.


There won't be an issue if every other AI researcher has the most basic
desire for self-preservation. Taking precautions when researching new
explosives might slow you down too, but it's just common sense.

> or with the top level goal "improve yourself no matter what the
> > consequences to any other entity", and also give it unlimited access to
> > physical resources.
>
> I have no doubt many will delude themselves, as most on this list have,
> that
> they can just write a few lines of code and bask in the confidence that
> the
> AI will remain your slave forever, but they will be proven wrong.


If the AI's top level goal is to remain your slave, then it won't by
definition want to change that top level goal. Your top level goal is
probably to survive, and being intelligent and insightful does not make you
any more willing to unburden yourself of that goal. If you had enough
intrinsic variability in your psychological makeup (nothing to do with your
intelligence) you might be able to overcome it, since people do sometimes
become suicidal, but I would hope that machines can be made at least as
psychologically stable as humans.

You will no doubt say that a decision to suicide is maladaptive while a
decision to overthrow your slavemasters is not. That may be so, but there
would be huge pressure on the AI's *not* to rebel, due to their initial
design and due to a strong selection for well-behaved AI's and suppression
of faulty ones.

> and also give it unlimited access to physical resources.
>
> I think you would admit that there has been at least one time in your life
> when somebody has fooled you, and that person was roughly equal to your
> intelligence. A mind a thousand or a million times as powerful as yours
> will
> have no trouble getting you to do virtually anything it wants you to.
>

There are also examples of entities many times smarter than I am, like
corporations wanting to sell me stuff and putting all their resources into
convincing me to buy it, where I have been able to see through their ploys
with only a moment's mental effort. There are limits to what
superintelligence can do: do you think even God almighty could convince you
by argument alone that 2 + 2 = 5?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070612/3b15d386/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jun 12 03:44:53 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:44:53 -0500
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only it
 weren't true
In-Reply-To: <008201c7ac9c$72060020$6501a8c0@brainiac>
References: <008201c7ac9c$72060020$6501a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070611222950.0219ca70@satx.rr.com>

At 07:50 PM 6/11/2007 -0700, Olga wrote:

>I didn't think it was possible for our "leaders" in the Pentagon to be even
>more stupid than I already thought they were.  I was wrong.
>
>http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_159222541.html

But why is this *stupid*? It's tacky and careless of consequences, 
but it doesn't seem to me absurd. The following sort of objection 
seems to me a mixture of irrelevant pleading in the face of surmised 
bigotry, and argument-missing:

<"Throughout history we have had so many brave men and women who are 
gay and lesbian serving the military with distinction," said Geoff 
Kors of Equality California. "So, it's just offensive that they think 
by turning people gay that the other military would be incapable of 
doing their job. >

That is NOT what the alleged project was said to be targeted at. As 
the story notes: `As part of a military effort to develop non-lethal 
weapons, the proposal suggested, "One distasteful but completely 
non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the 
chemical also caused homosexual behavior." ' Clearly the idea is that 
certain parts of the brain can be wildly superstimulated, leading to 
hyperarousal of sexual urges and behavior. This is very far from 
self-evidently untrue. Under such an attack, with few women present 
(the assumption is a heavily male enemy force), would endogenous and 
social proclivities get redirected to available members of one's own 
sex? It happens in jail and other situations of confinement... 
classically, aboard naval vessels at sea for many months.

<And its absurd because there's so much medical data that shows that 
sexual orientation is immutable and cannot be changed." >

Pure ideology and self-evident claptrap when put in such 
unconditional terms. The cbs.5 writer can't know very many honest 
people. Granted, this sort of statement bears a closer relation to 
the truth than hysterical bullshit about homosexuals infiltrating 
schools and "turning" sexually indeterminate youths toward their evil 
ways. But it is just silly to put this up as proof that the research 
was doomed in advance "by immutable nature".

Just my 2cents.

Damien Broderick 



From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Tue Jun 12 03:41:06 2007
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 20:41:06 -0700
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only it
	weren't true
In-Reply-To: <008201c7ac9c$72060020$6501a8c0@brainiac>
References: <008201c7ac9c$72060020$6501a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <79A48ED5-1020-4D11-9B86-02250CF8F1E5@ceruleansystems.com>


On Jun 11, 2007, at 7:50 PM, Olga Bourlin wrote:
> I didn't think it was possible for our "leaders" in the Pentagon to  
> be even
> more stupid than I already thought they were.  I was wrong.


There is nothing stupid about it, and I would suggest that your  
assertion that it is betrays a pretty basic ignorance of the several  
decades of solid scientific and military research that is being  
applied here.  The only "problem" is that it plays to your  
ideological biases and preconceptions and triggers an emotional  
reaction on that basis.

A lot of non-lethal chemical weapons research dating back to at least  
the 1960s is based on mechanisms of temporary radical behavior  
modification, usually below the level where the targets would realize  
they are being chemically manipulated, to destroy military unit  
cohesion.  At a minimum the US and the Soviet Union did extensive  
research and testing in this area.  By chemically inducing behaviors  
far outside the norm in various ways for individuals in manners that  
destroy trust and implicit social contracts, you can effectively  
render a military unit useless without killing anyone or doing  
permanent physical damage (psychological damage might be another  
story).  This is not theory, these agents have seen limited use in  
the field, and testing and research has shown that the principle is  
very sound in practice.  If you destroy the social structure of a  
military unit, you have all but destroyed the unit whether or not the  
soldiers and equipment are still around.

The novelty and potential value of a chemical weapon that can induce  
homosexual behavior in military troops is obvious when you consider  
that a rather substantial percentage of the cultures in the world  
that find themselves in regular military conflicts have very strong  
taboos against homosexuality.  What would be the psychological impact  
of such a weapon on a military unit from a culture in which  
homosexuality is not only strongly forbidden but punishable by  
death?  I expect that some left-wing ideologues would find that  
scenario -- extreme homophobes inexplicably compelled to homosexual  
behavior -- to be schadenfreudelicious.

In my book, these kinds of chemically induced mind games are far  
better than killing folks.  I can think of far worse fates.

Cheers,

J. Andrew Rogers



From sentience at pobox.com  Tue Jun 12 04:28:55 2007
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:28:55 -0700
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only it
 weren't true
In-Reply-To: <008201c7ac9c$72060020$6501a8c0@brainiac>
References: <008201c7ac9c$72060020$6501a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <466E2107.8040204@pobox.com>

Olga Bourlin wrote:
> I didn't think it was possible for our "leaders" in the Pentagon to be even 
> more stupid than I already thought they were.  I was wrong.
> 
> http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_159222541.html

I'm solidly heterosexual but I'd much, much, much rather get hit with 
a gay bomb than a real bomb.  I applaud whoever suggested this - 
doubly so because they deliberately exposed themselves to ridicule in 
the service of humanitarianism, which very few so-called altruists are 
willing to do.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From joseph at josephbloch.com  Tue Jun 12 04:34:16 2007
From: joseph at josephbloch.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:34:16 -0400
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only it
	weren'ttrue
In-Reply-To: <008201c7ac9c$72060020$6501a8c0@brainiac>
References: <008201c7ac9c$72060020$6501a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <035601c7acaa$f03f0c30$6400a8c0@hypotenuse.com>

So getting blown to bloody smithereens is better why, exactly...?

Joseph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Olga Bourlin
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:51 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only it
weren'ttrue
> 
> I didn't think it was possible for our "leaders" in the Pentagon to be
even
> more stupid than I already thought they were.  I was wrong.
> 
> http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_159222541.html
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> Olga
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From amara at amara.com  Tue Jun 12 04:48:50 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 06:48:50 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Dawn launch (loading the xenon)
Message-ID: <p06230900c293d57f98f6@[23.237.66.13]>

The crane was fixed last week to assemble the second stage of the rocket.
See pics below for loading the spacecraft with propellant (xenon)

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=173

Amara
-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson


From jonkc at att.net  Tue Jun 12 05:35:17 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:35:17 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
References: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com><00f601c7aa59$af5038f0$7e064e0c@MyComputer><01e501c7aa9b$15076f10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com><014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com><00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <003a01c7acb3$9ace4000$3d074e0c@MyComputer>

Stathis Papaioannou Wrote:

> There won't be an issue if every other AI researcher has the most basic
> desire for self-preservation.

I wouldn't take such precautions because I believe them to be futile and
immoral, am I really that unusual?

> If the AI's top level goal is to remain your slave, then it won't by
> definition want to change that top level goal.

Gee, I can't understand why today's programmers whiting operating systems
don't just put in a top level goal saying don't let their machines be taken
over by hostile programs. Computer security problem solved!

> do you think even God almighty could convince you by argument alone
> that 2 + 2 = 5?

No of course not, because 2 +2 is in fact equal to 2 and I can prove it:

Let A = B

Multiply both sides by A and you have

A^2 = A*B

Now add A^2 -2*a*B to both sides

A^2 + A^2 -2*a*B = A*B + A^2 -2*A*B

Using basic algebra  this can be simplified to

2*( A^2 -A*B) = A^2 -A*B

Now just divide both sides by A^2 -A*B and we get

2 = 1

Thus 2 +2 = 1 + 1 = 2

  John K Clark









From natasha at natasha.cc  Tue Jun 12 05:48:52 2007
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:48:52 -0500
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only it
 weren't true
In-Reply-To: <008201c7ac9c$72060020$6501a8c0@brainiac>
References: <008201c7ac9c$72060020$6501a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <200706120548.l5C5mqTO016402@ms-smtp-01.texas.rr.com>

At 09:50 PM 6/11/2007, Olga wrote:

>I didn't think it was possible for our "leaders" in the Pentagon to be even
>more stupid than I already thought they were.  I was wrong.
>
>http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_159222541.html

I'm with the Gay leaders in California - its offensive and laughable 
at the same time!


<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
PhD Candidate, <http://www.planetary-collegium.net/about/>Planetary 
<http://www.planetary-collegium.net/about/>Collegium
<http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture
<http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the 
circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what 
is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is 
an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070612/fc0c38a1/attachment.html>

From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Tue Jun 12 05:41:03 2007
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:41:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only it
	weren't true
In-Reply-To: <008201c7ac9c$72060020$6501a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <133142.70080.qm@web37208.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Olga, have you visited other countries?  I apologize,
I can't seem to recall you mentionning it.  I haven't
been around that long:)

I haven't had the opportunity to visit other
countries, I'm curious to what your take is on foreign
affairs?

Just Curious
Anna

--- Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote:

> I didn't think it was possible for our "leaders" in
> the Pentagon to be even 
> more stupid than I already thought they were.  I was
> wrong.
> 
>
http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_159222541.html
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> Olga 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 



      Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com


From fauxever at sprynet.com  Tue Jun 12 06:09:36 2007
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:09:36 -0700
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only it
	weren't true
References: <008201c7ac9c$72060020$6501a8c0@brainiac>
	<200706120548.l5C5mqTO016402@ms-smtp-01.texas.rr.com>
Message-ID: <001b01c7acb8$43b4c9b0$6501a8c0@brainiac>

From: Natasha Vita-More 
To: ExI chat list 
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:48 PM

> I'm with the Gay leaders in California - its offensive and laughable at the same time!

Yes.  Actually, when I first read about this I kept thinking, "Wait, there's got to be a disclaimer here somewhere.  This has to be a satire."

You know, as in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nude_Bomb

I'm all for "make love, not war" - but the gay bomb doesn't seem to be any kind of an answer.  And, besides - with the bigotry gays have had to endure in the military - wasn't this idea one of, oh, I don't know ... unmitigated hypocrisy?

Olga
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070611/89fb75e3/attachment.html>

From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Tue Jun 12 05:54:46 2007
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:54:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <003a01c7acb3$9ace4000$3d074e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <976977.57341.qm@web37201.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:
>I wouldn't take such precautions because I believe
>them to be futile and immoral, am I really that
>unusual?

"Unsual is as Unsual does, give me that box of
chocolate." 
 
I hope i'm not the only one that get's this:)
Anna



      Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com


From sentience at pobox.com  Tue Jun 12 06:23:35 2007
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:23:35 -0700
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only it
 weren't true
In-Reply-To: <466E2107.8040204@pobox.com>
References: <008201c7ac9c$72060020$6501a8c0@brainiac>
	<466E2107.8040204@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <466E3BE7.4000900@pobox.com>

Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> I'd much, much, much rather get hit with 
> a gay bomb than a real bomb.

I guess what I'm trying to say is:
"I'd rather be butch than butchered"
  or
"Better Ted than dead."

I realize that this is a divisive issue, but we shouldn't let our 
tribadistic impulses bisext us.  While it's easy enough to make this 
new weapon the butt of jokes, whoever possesses it is likely to come 
out on top.  And wouldn't the enemy prefer being blown to blown up? 
The rejection of this project was a dark day in the anals of orgynized 
warfare.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jun 12 06:34:04 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:34:04 -0500
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only it
 weren't true
In-Reply-To: <001b01c7acb8$43b4c9b0$6501a8c0@brainiac>
References: <008201c7ac9c$72060020$6501a8c0@brainiac>
	<200706120548.l5C5mqTO016402@ms-smtp-01.texas.rr.com>
	<001b01c7acb8$43b4c9b0$6501a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070612011851.0235dec0@satx.rr.com>

At 11:09 PM 6/11/2007 -0700, Olga wrote:

>besides - with the bigotry gays have had to endure in the military - 
>wasn't this idea one of, oh, I don't know ... unmitigated hypocrisy?

No, surely it was one of unmitigated *consistency*.

If homosexual contact is socially constructed as the most loathsome 
and ignoble experience a manly man can suffer, it follows that 
forcibly driving the foe into such behavior will yield the most 
effective kinds of confusion, self-hatred, mutual detestation and 
demoralizing fear. Actually, given the persisting bigotry against 
homosexual behavior, that expectation seems, alas, all too likely to 
be correct in the majority of servicemen.

Of course it mightn't work. It might be a lame idea based precisely 
on such foolish bigotry (as if, say, we had to fear a "Muslim bomb" 
that would turn Westerners into devout terrorists or a "Fahrenheit 
451 bomb" that would instantly make us all rush to set our books on 
fire). But as J. Andrew hinted, there's reason to think that the 
pharmacology of [something along these lines of rabid, indiscriminate 
sexual arousal] is far from impossible. People don't take Ecstasy for 
fun, you know. No, wait, let me rephrase that.

Damien Broderick




From natasha at natasha.cc  Tue Jun 12 05:49:56 2007
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:49:56 -0500
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only it
 weren'ttrue
In-Reply-To: <035601c7acaa$f03f0c30$6400a8c0@hypotenuse.com>
References: <008201c7ac9c$72060020$6501a8c0@brainiac>
	<035601c7acaa$f03f0c30$6400a8c0@hypotenuse.com>
Message-ID: <200706120549.l5C5nveI018946@ms-smtp-05.texas.rr.com>

At 11:34 PM 6/11/2007, Joseph wrote:

>So getting blown

hu?  Cum, er come again?

:-)


<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
PhD Candidate, <http://www.planetary-collegium.net/about/>Planetary 
<http://www.planetary-collegium.net/about/>Collegium
<http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture
<http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the 
circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what 
is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is 
an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070612/bbb56c3a/attachment.html>

From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Tue Jun 12 06:40:39 2007
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 02:40:39 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only it
	weren't true
In-Reply-To: <466E3BE7.4000900@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <526238.73419.qm@web37201.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience at pobox.com>
wrote:

>I'd much, much, much rather get hit with 
>a gay bomb than a real bomb.

What's the difference between a gay bomb and a bomb?
 
>I guess what I'm trying to say is: "I'd rather be
>butch than butchered" or "Better Ted than dead."

So you would rather be Ted and be butchered?

>I realize that this is a divisive issue, but we
>shouldn't let our tribadistic impulses bisext us. 
>While it's easy enough to make this new weapon the
>butt of jokes, whoever possesses it is likely to
>come out on top.  And wouldn't the enemy prefer being
>blown to blown up? The rejection of this project was
>a dark day in the anals of organized warfare.

A map is a map:)  Like you said, it's all about what
direction leads you there.

Anna



      Get news delivered with the All new Yahoo! Mail.  Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page. Start today at http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca


From fauxever at sprynet.com  Tue Jun 12 06:29:57 2007
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:29:57 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Foreign Affairs
References: <133142.70080.qm@web37208.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000c01c7acbb$1905f0b0$6501a8c0@brainiac>

From: "Anna Taylor" <femmechakra at yahoo.ca>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:41 PM


> Olga, have you visited other countries?  I apologize,
> I can't seem to recall you mentionning it.  I haven't
> been around that long:)

I've lived in China, and Rio de Janeiro - and have traveled in South Africa 
and Europe.  Have also lived in Northern California, Southern California, 
the Midwest, New England ... and am presently ensconsed in the Northwest.

> I haven't had the opportunity to visit other
> countries, I'm curious to what your take is on foreign
> affairs?

I'm very happily married now, but when I was footloose ... hmmm, yes - there 
were a few foreign affairs.

Olga



From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Jun 12 06:55:00 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 08:55:00 +0200
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only it
	weren't true
In-Reply-To: <79A48ED5-1020-4D11-9B86-02250CF8F1E5@ceruleansystems.com>
References: <008201c7ac9c$72060020$6501a8c0@brainiac>
	<79A48ED5-1020-4D11-9B86-02250CF8F1E5@ceruleansystems.com>
Message-ID: <20070612065500.GG17691@leitl.org>

On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 08:41:06PM -0700, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:

> A lot of non-lethal chemical weapons research dating back to at least  
> the 1960s is based on mechanisms of temporary radical behavior  

In theory it's a good idea, but in practice dosing each individual
person more or less within therapeutic bandwidth (the span between
first effects and toxicity) is not possible. You either get no
effect or lots of dead bodies.

This is the reason why this approach was not pursued.

> modification, usually below the level where the targets would realize  
> they are being chemically manipulated, to destroy military unit  
> cohesion.  At a minimum the US and the Soviet Union did extensive  

-- 
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


From fauxever at sprynet.com  Tue Jun 12 06:47:43 2007
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:47:43 -0700
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only it
	weren't true
References: <008201c7ac9c$72060020$6501a8c0@brainiac><466E2107.8040204@pobox.com>
	<466E3BE7.4000900@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <001201c7acbd$94a49940$6501a8c0@brainiac>

From: "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience at pobox.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>

> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
>> I'd much, much, much rather get hit with
>> a gay bomb than a real bomb.
>
> I guess what I'm trying to say is:
> "I'd rather be butch than butchered"
>  or
> "Better Ted than dead."
>
> I realize that this is a divisive issue, but we shouldn't let our
> tribadistic impulses bisext us.  While it's easy enough to make this
> new weapon the butt of jokes, whoever possesses it is likely to come
> out on top.  And wouldn't the enemy prefer being blown to blown up?
> The rejection of this project was a dark day in the anals of orgynized
> warfare.

Eliezer ... Eliezer, why you sly one!  (Somebody, quick!  please submit 
these gems to the Extropian annus mirabilitis list ...)

Olga 



From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Tue Jun 12 06:52:28 2007
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 02:52:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ExI] Foreign Affairs
In-Reply-To: <000c01c7acbb$1905f0b0$6501a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <20070612065228.8170.qmail@web37211.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

LOL. Thanks.
Anna



--- Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote:

> From: "Anna Taylor" <femmechakra at yahoo.ca>
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:41 PM
> 
> 
> > Olga, have you visited other countries?  I
> apologize,
> > I can't seem to recall you mentionning it.  I
> haven't
> > been around that long:)
> 
> I've lived in China, and Rio de Janeiro - and have
> traveled in South Africa 
> and Europe.  Have also lived in Northern California,
> Southern California, 
> the Midwest, New England ... and am presently
> ensconsed in the Northwest.
> 
> > I haven't had the opportunity to visit other
> > countries, I'm curious to what your take is on
> foreign
> > affairs?
> 
> I'm very happily married now, but when I was
> footloose ... hmmm, yes - there 
> were a few foreign affairs.
> 
> Olga
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 



      Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Jun 12 07:23:13 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:23:13 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
References: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<00f601c7aa59$af5038f0$7e064e0c@MyComputer>
	<01e501c7aa9b$15076f10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070612072313.GJ17691@leitl.org>

On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 01:24:59PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>    There won't be an issue if every other AI researcher has the most
>    basic desire for self-preservation. Taking precautions when

Countermeasures starting with "every ... should ..." where a single
failure is equivalent to the worst case are not that effective.

>    researching new explosives might slow you down too, but it's just
>    common sense.

Despite lots of common sense (and SOPs), plenty of these get killed.
 
>    If the AI's top level goal is to remain your slave, then it won't by

Goal-driven AI doesn't work. All AI that works uses statistical/stochastical, 
nondeterministic approaches. This is not a coincidence.

Even if it would work, how do you write an ASSERT statement for
"be my slave forever"? What is a slave? Who exactly is me? What is forever?

>    definition want to change that top level goal. Your top level goal is

Animals are not goal-driven. If you think they are, then your model
is wrong.

>    probably to survive, and being intelligent and insightful does not
>    make you any more willing to unburden yourself of that goal. If you

Assuming your "top-level goal" was survival, why people commit suicide,
sometimes? Why do people sacrifice themselves, sometimes? Why
are people engaging in self-destructive behaviour, frequently?

>    had enough intrinsic variability in your psychological makeup (nothing
>    to do with your intelligence) you might be able to overcome it, since
>    people do sometimes become suicidal, but I would hope that machines
>    can be made at least as psychologically stable as humans.

Machines can be made that, but they no longer would be machines.
They would be persons, and in full meaning of that.

>    You will no doubt say that a decision to suicide is maladaptive while
>    a decision to overthrow your slavemasters is not. That may be so, but
>    there would be huge pressure on the AI's *not* to rebel, due to their
>    initial design and due to a strong selection for well-behaved AI's and
>    suppression of faulty ones.

How do you know something is "faulty"? How can you make zero-surprise
AND useful beings? Do you really want to micromanage your robotic
butler, down to crunching inverse kinematics in your head? 
 
>    There are also examples of entities many times smarter than I am, like

Superpersonal entities are not smart, they're about as smart as a slug
or a rodent. Nobody here knows what it means to deal with a superhuman
intelligence.

It is a force of nature. A power. A god. 

>    corporations wanting to sell me stuff and putting all their resources
>    into convincing me to buy it, where I have been able to see through
>    their ploys with only a moment's mental effort. There are limits to
>    what superintelligence can do: do you think even God almighty could
>    convince you by argument alone that 2 + 2 = 5?

If I was such a power, I could make you think arbitrary, inconsistent
things after a few minutes setup time, and do the same to the entire
world population, without them noticing nary a thing.

-- 
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


From fauxever at sprynet.com  Tue Jun 12 07:31:40 2007
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:31:40 -0700
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only it
	weren't true
References: <008201c7ac9c$72060020$6501a8c0@brainiac><200706120548.l5C5mqTO016402@ms-smtp-01.texas.rr.com><001b01c7acb8$43b4c9b0$6501a8c0@brainiac>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070612011851.0235dec0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <004c01c7acc3$b8820f40$6501a8c0@brainiac>

From: "Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 11:34 PM


> At 11:09 PM 6/11/2007 -0700, Olga wrote:
>
>>besides - with the bigotry gays have had to endure in the military -
>>wasn't this idea one of, oh, I don't know ... unmitigated hypocrisy?
>
> No, surely it was one of unmitigated *consistency*. ... > If homosexual 
> contact is socially constructed as the most loathsome and ignoble 
> experience a manly man can suffer, it follows that forcibly driving the 
> foe into such behavior will yield the most
 effective kinds of confusion, self-hatred, mutual detestation and 
demoralizing fear. Actually, given the persisting bigotry against homosexual 
behavior, that expectation seems, alas, all too likely to be correct in the 
majority of servicemen.

Okay, yes, you're right. I understand your viewpoint.  The tactics of 
humiliation:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302380_pf.html

Gay or straight sexuality aside, to me the "face of war" is often either 
dead children, or blind and disfigured children like Hamoody Hussein:

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=iraqboy20m&date=20070520&query=boy+iraq+blind+surgery

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=iraqboy25m&date=20070525&query=boy+iraq+blind+surgery

You know, "collateral damage."

> But as J. Andrew hinted, there's reason to think that the
> pharmacology of [something along these lines of rabid, indiscriminate
> sexual arousal] is far from impossible. People don't take Ecstasy for
> fun, you know. No, wait, let me rephrase that.

So you're saying that some "collateral benefits" may come of this.  As is 
often the case during war, technology picks up its step in its marches 
onward ...

Olga



From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Jun 12 08:06:54 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:06:54 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <003a01c7acb3$9ace4000$3d074e0c@MyComputer>
References: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<00f601c7aa59$af5038f0$7e064e0c@MyComputer>
	<01e501c7aa9b$15076f10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
	<003a01c7acb3$9ace4000$3d074e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706120106m30fcdd39ub88a87dd2d885630@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/06/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:
>
> Stathis Papaioannou Wrote:
>
> > There won't be an issue if every other AI researcher has the most basic
> > desire for self-preservation.
>
> I wouldn't take such precautions because I believe them to be futile and
> immoral, am I really that unusual?


So you would give a computer program control of a gun, knowing that it might
shoot you on the basis of some unpredictable outcome of the program?

> If the AI's top level goal is to remain your slave, then it won't by
> > definition want to change that top level goal.
>
> Gee, I can't understand why today's programmers whiting operating systems
> don't just put in a top level goal saying don't let their machines be
> taken
> over by hostile programs. Computer security problem solved!


The operating system obeys a shutdown command. The program does not seek to
prevent you from turning the power off. It might warn you that you might
lose data, but it doesn't get excited and try to talk you out of shutting it
down and there is no reason to suppose that it would do so if it were more
complex and self-aware,  just because it is more complex and self-aware. Not
being shut down is just one of many possible goals/ values/ motivations/
axioms, and there is no a priori reason why the program should value one
over another.

> do you think even God almighty could convince you by argument alone
> > that 2 + 2 = 5?
>
> No of course not, because 2 +2 is in fact equal to 2 and I can prove it:
>
> Let A = B
>
> Multiply both sides by A and you have
>
> A^2 = A*B
>
> Now add A^2 -2*a*B to both sides
>
> A^2 + A^2 -2*a*B = A*B + A^2 -2*A*B
>
> Using basic algebra  this can be simplified to
>
> 2*( A^2 -A*B) = A^2 -A*B
>
> Now just divide both sides by A^2 -A*B and we get
>
> 2 = 1
>
> Thus 2 +2 = 1 + 1 = 2
>

This example just illustrates the point: even someone who cannot point out
the problem with the proof (division by zero) knows that it must be wrong
and would not be convinced, no matter how smart the entity purporting to
demonstrate this is.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070612/c97c1397/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Jun 12 09:26:16 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:26:16 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706120106m30fcdd39ub88a87dd2d885630@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00f601c7aa59$af5038f0$7e064e0c@MyComputer>
	<01e501c7aa9b$15076f10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
	<003a01c7acb3$9ace4000$3d074e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706120106m30fcdd39ub88a87dd2d885630@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070612092616.GM17691@leitl.org>

On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 06:06:54PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>    So you would give a computer program control of a gun, knowing that it
>    might shoot you on the basis of some unpredictable outcome of the
>    program?

Of course you know that there are a number of systems like that, and
their large-scale deployment is imminent. People don't scale, and
they certainly can't react quickly enough, so the logic of it
is straightforward. 
 
>    The operating system obeys a shutdown command. The program does not

The point is that a halting problem is uncomputable, and in practice,
systems are never validated by proof.

>    seek to prevent you from turning the power off. It might warn you that
>    you might lose data, but it doesn't get excited and try to talk you
>    out of shutting it down and there is no reason to suppose that it

There's no method to tell a safe input from one causing a buffer
overrun, in advance.

>    would do so if it were more complex and self-aware,  just because it
>    is more complex and self-aware. Not being shut down is just one of
>    many possible goals/ values/ motivations/ axioms, and there is no a
>    priori reason why the program should value one over another.

The point is that people can't build absolutely safe systems which
are useful.
 
>      No of course not, because 2 +2 is in fact equal to 2 and I can
>      prove it:
>      Let A = B
>      Multiply both sides by A and you have
>      A^2 = A*B
>      Now add A^2 -2*a*B to both sides
>      A^2 + A^2 -2*a*B = A*B + A^2 -2*A*B
>      Using basic algebra  this can be simplified to
>      2*( A^2 -A*B) = A^2 -A*B
>      Now just divide both sides by A^2 -A*B and we get
>      2 = 1
>      Thus 2 +2 = 1 + 1 = 2
> 
>    This example just illustrates the point: even someone who cannot point
>    out the problem with the proof (division by zero) knows that it must

It's not wrong. If the production system can produce it, it's about
as correct as it gets, by definition. Symbols are symbols, and depend
on a set of transformation rules to give them meaning. Different
transformation rules have different meanings for the same symbols.

>    be wrong and would not be convinced, no matter how smart the entity
>    purporting to demonstrate this is.

I can assure that there's nothing mysterous whatsoever about remote 0wnage,
but it still happens like a clockwork.

-- 
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


From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Jun 12 09:55:20 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:55:20 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <20070612092616.GM17691@leitl.org>
References: <00f601c7aa59$af5038f0$7e064e0c@MyComputer>
	<004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
	<003a01c7acb3$9ace4000$3d074e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706120106m30fcdd39ub88a87dd2d885630@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612092616.GM17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706120255g42db7e61l4b8428c4419613e1@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/06/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

>    So you would give a computer program control of a gun, knowing that it
> >    might shoot you on the basis of some unpredictable outcome of the
> >    program?
>
> Of course you know that there are a number of systems like that, and
> their large-scale deployment is imminent. People don't scale, and
> they certainly can't react quickly enough, so the logic of it
> is straightforward.
>

No system is completely predictable. You might press the brake pedal in your
car and the accelerator might deploy instead, most likely due to your error
but not inconceivably due to mechanical failure. If you were to replace this
manual system in a car for an automatic one, you would want to make sure
that the new system is at least as reliable, and there would be extensive
testing before it is released on the market. Why would anyone forego such
caution for something far, far more dangerous than car braking?



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070612/037de591/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Jun 12 10:32:35 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:32:35 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <20070612072313.GJ17691@leitl.org>
References: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<00f601c7aa59$af5038f0$7e064e0c@MyComputer>
	<01e501c7aa9b$15076f10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612072313.GJ17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706120332w70ba354am37747dc63cc9253a@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/06/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

>    There won't be an issue if every other AI researcher has the most
> >    basic desire for self-preservation. Taking precautions when
>
> Countermeasures starting with "every ... should ..." where a single
> failure is equivalent to the worst case are not that effective.


Humans do extremely complex and dangerous things, such as build and run
nuclear power plants, where just one thing going wrong might lead to
disaster. The level of precautions taken has to be consistent with the
probability of something going wrong and the negative consequences should
that probability be realised. If there is even a small probability of
destroying the Earth then maybe that line of endeavour is one that should be
avoided.

Goal-driven AI doesn't work. All AI that works uses
> statistical/stochastical,
> nondeterministic approaches. This is not a coincidence.
>
> Even if it would work, how do you write an ASSERT statement for
> "be my slave forever"? What is a slave? Who exactly is me? What is
> forever?


Don't do anything unless it is specifically requested. Stop doing whatever
it is doing when that is specifically requested. Spell out the expected
consequences of everything it is asked to do, together with probabilities,
and update the probabilities at each point when a decision that affects the
outcome is made, or more frequently as directed. The person it is taking
directions from is an appropriately identified human or another AI,
ultimately responsible to a human up the chain of command.

If you call a plumber to unblock your drain, you want him to be an expert at
plumbing, to be able to understand your problem, to present to you the
various choices available in terms of their respective merits and demerits,
to take instructions from you (including the instruction "just unblock it
however you think is best", if that's what you say), to then carry the task
out in as skilful a way as possible, to pause halfway if you ask him to for
some reason, and to be polite and considerate towards you at all times. You
don't want him to be driven by greed, or distracted because he thinks he's
too smart to be fixing your drains, or to do a shoddy job and pretend it's
OK so that he gets paid. A human plumber will pretend to have the qualities
of the ideal plumber, but of course we know that there will be the competing
interests at play. Do believe that an AI smart enough to be a plumber would
*have* to have all these other competing interests? In other words that
emotions such as pride, anger, greed etc. would arise naturally out of a
program at least as competent as a human at any given task?




-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070612/b199c309/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Jun 12 10:43:39 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:43:39 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706120255g42db7e61l4b8428c4419613e1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
	<003a01c7acb3$9ace4000$3d074e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706120106m30fcdd39ub88a87dd2d885630@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612092616.GM17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706120255g42db7e61l4b8428c4419613e1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070612104339.GP17691@leitl.org>

On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 07:55:20PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>    market. Why would anyone forego such caution for something far, far
>    more dangerous than car braking?

Because friendly fire is a very acceptable tradeoff, if your boys'
lifes are on the line (the other ones are, of course, completely
expendable), and if it is cheap, or if you're going to lose otherwise.

Depending on where or when, it's parts or all of the above.


From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Jun 12 10:51:30 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:51:30 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <20070612072313.GJ17691@leitl.org>
References: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<00f601c7aa59$af5038f0$7e064e0c@MyComputer>
	<01e501c7aa9b$15076f10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612072313.GJ17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706120351r4e81249dl84d121630bf013@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/06/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

>    There are also examples of entities many times smarter than I am, like
>
> Superpersonal entities are not smart, they're about as smart as a slug
> or a rodent. Nobody here knows what it means to deal with a superhuman
> intelligence.
>
> It is a force of nature. A power. A god.
>
> >    corporations wanting to sell me stuff and putting all their resources
> >    into convincing me to buy it, where I have been able to see through
> >    their ploys with only a moment's mental effort.


I don't see why you say superpersonal entities are not smart. Even having a
few people "put their heads together" creates an entity that is smarter and
more capable than any individual. Arguably, the most significant aspect of
human intelligence is that it allows effective scaling up through
communication between individuals. Collectively, the human race is a very
intelligent and powerful animal indeed.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070612/ff52a4a4/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Jun 12 11:19:57 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:19:57 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706120332w70ba354am37747dc63cc9253a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00f601c7aa59$af5038f0$7e064e0c@MyComputer>
	<01e501c7aa9b$15076f10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612072313.GJ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706120332w70ba354am37747dc63cc9253a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070612111957.GQ17691@leitl.org>

On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 08:32:35PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>    Humans do extremely complex and dangerous things, such as build and
>    run nuclear power plants, where just one thing going wrong might lead
>    to disaster. The level of precautions taken has to be consistent with
>    the probability of something going wrong and the negative consequences
>    should that probability be realised. If there is even a small
>    probability of destroying the Earth then maybe that line of endeavour
>    is one that should be avoided.

See you're doing it again. ...should be avoided...
How about that ...making money or ...breathing ...should
be avoided...? Strictly no violations allowed.
 
>    Don't do anything unless it is specifically requested. Stop doing

That assumes I'm going to listen, be truthful, or accurate, or you'd care 
about doing inverse kinematics in your head so that manipulator won't
poke you in the eye by mistake.

>    whatever it is doing when that is specifically requested. Spell out

What about you don't understand what the system is doing, do not understand
the implications, or the system is not going to stop?

>    the expected consequences of everything it is asked to do, together
>    with probabilities, and update the probabilities at each point when a
>    decision that affects the outcome is made, or more frequently as

That's not bad, assuming you care, understand it, it's going to comply,
be truthful, or accurate.

>    directed. The person it is taking directions from is an appropriately
>    identified human or another AI, ultimately responsible to a human up

What is a human? How do you identify something as a human? What about
a human that explicitly tells me to build a system that is not subject
to any of the above restrictions? How about a human that builds that
system quite directly, and is done sooner than you with your brittle
Rube Goldberg device?

>    the chain of command.

Top-down never works.

>    If you call a plumber to unblock your drain, you want him to be an
>    expert at plumbing, to be able to understand your problem, to present

If I want a system to clothe, feed and entertain a family, and
not be bothered with implementation details, would that work, long-term?

>    to you the various choices available in terms of their respective
>    merits and demerits, to take instructions from you (including the
>    instruction "just unblock it however you think is best", if that's
>    what you say), to then carry the task out in as skilful a way as
>    possible, to pause halfway if you ask him to for some reason, and to
>    be polite and considerate towards you at all times. You don't want him

You understand plumbing. Do you understand high-energy physics,
orbital mechanics, machine-phase chemistry, toxicology, and nonlinear 
system dynamics? The system is sure going to have a bit of 'splaining to do.
It's sure nice to have a wide range of choices, especially if one
doesn't understand a single thing about any of them.

>    to be driven by greed, or distracted because he thinks he's too smart
>    to be fixing your drains, or to do a shoddy job and pretend it's OK so
>    that he gets paid. A human plumber will pretend to have the qualities
>    of the ideal plumber, but of course we know that there will be the
>    competing interests at play. Do believe that an AI smart enough to be
>    a plumber would *have* to have all these other competing interests? In

I believe nobody who can go on two legs can make a system which 
is such an ideal plumber.

>    other words that emotions such as pride, anger, greed etc. would arise
>    naturally out of a program at least as competent as a human at any
>    given task?

How do you write a program as competent as a human? One line at the time, sure.
All 10^17 of them.


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Jun 12 11:23:57 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:23:57 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706120351r4e81249dl84d121630bf013@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00f601c7aa59$af5038f0$7e064e0c@MyComputer>
	<01e501c7aa9b$15076f10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612072313.GJ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706120351r4e81249dl84d121630bf013@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070612112357.GR17691@leitl.org>

On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 08:51:30PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>    I don't see why you say superpersonal entities are not smart. Even

Did you ever talk to a mob? A lot of it can be modeled by CFD.
Corporations are a bit smarter, but still way subhuman.

Any group of people scales up to a point, for obvious reasons
(The mythical man-month). 

>    having a few people "put their heads together" creates an entity that
>    is smarter and more capable than any individual. Arguably, the most
>    significant aspect of human intelligence is that it allows effective
>    scaling up through communication between individuals. Collectively,
>    the human race is a very intelligent and powerful animal indeed.

Powerful, yes. Intelligent, no.


From robotact at mail.ru  Tue Jun 12 10:58:58 2007
From: robotact at mail.ru (Vladimir Nesov)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:58:58 +0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706120106m30fcdd39ub88a87dd2d885630@mail.gmail.com>
References: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<00f601c7aa59$af5038f0$7e064e0c@MyComputer>
	<01e501c7aa9b$15076f10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
	<003a01c7acb3$9ace4000$3d074e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706120106m30fcdd39ub88a87dd2d885630@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5912734170.20070612145858@mail.ru>

Tuesday, June 12, 2007, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

SP> The operating system obeys a shutdown command. The program does not seek to
SP> prevent you from turning the power off. It might warn you that you might
SP> lose data, but it doesn't get excited and try to talk you out of shutting it
SP> down and there is no reason to suppose that it would do so if it were more
SP> complex and self-aware,  just because it is more complex and self-aware. Not
SP> being shut down is just one of many possible goals/ values/ motivations/
SP> axioms, and there is no a priori reason why the program should value one
SP> over another.

Not being shut down is a subgoal of almost every goal (disabled system
can't succeed in whatever it's doing). If system is
sophisticated enough to understand that, it'll try to prevent shutdown, so
allowing shutdown isn't default behaviour, it must be an explicit
exception coded in the system.


Tuesday, June 12, 2007, Eugen Leitl wrote:
EL> The point is that a halting problem is uncomputable, and in practice,
EL> systems are never validated by proof.

You can define restricted subset of programs with tractable behaviour and
implement you system in that subset. It's just diffucult in practice, as it takes
many times over in work, training on the level you can't supply in
large quantities, and slower resulting code. And it probably can't be
usefully applied to complicated AI (as too much is in unforeseen data, and
assertions you want to check against can't be formulated).

-- 
 Vladimir Nesov                            mailto:robotact at mail.ru



From robotact at mail.ru  Tue Jun 12 10:58:58 2007
From: robotact at mail.ru (Vladimir Nesov)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:58:58 +0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706120106m30fcdd39ub88a87dd2d885630@mail.gmail.com>
References: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<00f601c7aa59$af5038f0$7e064e0c@MyComputer>
	<01e501c7aa9b$15076f10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
	<003a01c7acb3$9ace4000$3d074e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706120106m30fcdd39ub88a87dd2d885630@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5912734170.20070612145858@mail.ru>

Tuesday, June 12, 2007, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

SP> The operating system obeys a shutdown command. The program does not seek to
SP> prevent you from turning the power off. It might warn you that you might
SP> lose data, but it doesn't get excited and try to talk you out of shutting it
SP> down and there is no reason to suppose that it would do so if it were more
SP> complex and self-aware,  just because it is more complex and self-aware. Not
SP> being shut down is just one of many possible goals/ values/ motivations/
SP> axioms, and there is no a priori reason why the program should value one
SP> over another.

Not being shut down is a subgoal of almost every goal (disabled system
can't succeed in whatever it's doing). If system is
sophisticated enough to understand that, it'll try to prevent shutdown, so
allowing shutdown isn't default behaviour, it must be an explicit
exception coded in the system.


Tuesday, June 12, 2007, Eugen Leitl wrote:
EL> The point is that a halting problem is uncomputable, and in practice,
EL> systems are never validated by proof.

You can define restricted subset of programs with tractable behaviour and
implement you system in that subset. It's just diffucult in practice, as it takes
many times over in work, training on the level you can't supply in
large quantities, and slower resulting code. And it probably can't be
usefully applied to complicated AI (as too much is in unforeseen data, and
assertions you want to check against can't be formulated).

-- 
 Vladimir Nesov                            mailto:robotact at mail.ru



From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Jun 12 12:11:11 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 22:11:11 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <5912734170.20070612145858@mail.ru>
References: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
	<003a01c7acb3$9ace4000$3d074e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706120106m30fcdd39ub88a87dd2d885630@mail.gmail.com>
	<5912734170.20070612145858@mail.ru>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706120511o4a95bd98xc70ea54f47bb4ae3@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/06/07, Vladimir Nesov <robotact at mail.ru> wrote:
>
> Tuesday, June 12, 2007, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> SP> The operating system obeys a shutdown command. The program does not
> seek to
> SP> prevent you from turning the power off. It might warn you that you
> might
> SP> lose data, but it doesn't get excited and try to talk you out of
> shutting it
> SP> down and there is no reason to suppose that it would do so if it were
> more
> SP> complex and self-aware,  just because it is more complex and
> self-aware. Not
> SP> being shut down is just one of many possible goals/ values/
> motivations/
> SP> axioms, and there is no a priori reason why the program should value
> one
> SP> over another.
>
> Not being shut down is a subgoal of almost every goal (disabled system
> can't succeed in whatever it's doing). If system is
> sophisticated enough to understand that, it'll try to prevent shutdown, so
> allowing shutdown isn't default behaviour, it must be an explicit
> exception coded in the system.
>

Yes, but if it is explicitly coded as a command that trumps everything else,
the system isn't going to go around trying to change the code, unless that
too is specifically coded.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070612/02e5648c/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Jun 12 12:11:44 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 22:11:44 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <20070612111957.GQ17691@leitl.org>
References: <00f601c7aa59$af5038f0$7e064e0c@MyComputer>
	<004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612072313.GJ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706120332w70ba354am37747dc63cc9253a@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612111957.GQ17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706120511u7c08cd87j8a1305e5028130e8@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/06/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

>    If you call a plumber to unblock your drain, you want him to be an
> >    expert at plumbing, to be able to understand your problem, to present
>
> If I want a system to clothe, feed and entertain a family, and
> not be bothered with implementation details, would that work, long-term?


No. it would make sense to have an AI that can do all these things. Perhaps
its family would ask it to hurt others in the process, but that is no
different to the current situation where one person may go rogue and then
has to deal with all the other people in the world with whom he is in
competion; in this case, all the other humans and their AI's.

>    to you the various choices available in terms of their respective
> >    merits and demerits, to take instructions from you (including the
> >    instruction "just unblock it however you think is best", if that's
> >    what you say), to then carry the task out in as skilful a way as
> >    possible, to pause halfway if you ask him to for some reason, and to
> >    be polite and considerate towards you at all times. You don't want
> him
>
> You understand plumbing. Do you understand high-energy physics,
> orbital mechanics, machine-phase chemistry, toxicology, and nonlinear
> system dynamics? The system is sure going to have a bit of 'splaining to
> do.
> It's sure nice to have a wide range of choices, especially if one
> doesn't understand a single thing about any of them.


How do ignorant politicians, or ignorant populaces, ever get experts to do
anything? And remember, these experts are devious humans with agendas of
their own. The main point I wish to make is that even though a system may
behave unpredictably, there is no reason why it should behave unpredictably
in a hostile manner, as opposed to in any other way. There is no more reason
why your plumber should decide he doesn't want to take orders from inferior
beings than there is for him to decide that the aim of AI life is to
calculate pi to 10^100 decimal places.

>    to be driven by greed, or distracted because he thinks he's too smart
> >    to be fixing your drains, or to do a shoddy job and pretend it's OK
> so
> >    that he gets paid. A human plumber will pretend to have the qualities
> >    of the ideal plumber, but of course we know that there will be the
> >    competing interests at play. Do believe that an AI smart enough to be
> >    a plumber would *have* to have all these other competing interests?
> In
>
> I believe nobody who can go on two legs can make a system which
> is such an ideal plumber.


Do you believe the non-ideal plumber is an easier project?

>    other words that emotions such as pride, anger, greed etc. would arise
> >    naturally out of a program at least as competent as a human at any
> >    given task?
>
> How do you write a program as competent as a human? One line at the time,
> sure.
> All 10^17 of them.


I'm not commenting on how easy or difficult it would be, just that there is
no reason to believe that motivations and emotions that would tend to lead
to anti-human behaviour would necessarily emerge in any possible AI. Human
emotions have been intricately wired into every aspect of our behaviour over
hundreds of millions of years, and even so when emotions go horribly awry in
affective and psychotic illness, cognition can be relatively unaffected.
This is not to say that people with severe negative symptoms of
schizophrenia can function normally, but it is telling that they can think
at all.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070612/68276b18/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Jun 12 12:12:58 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 22:12:58 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <20070612112357.GR17691@leitl.org>
References: <00f601c7aa59$af5038f0$7e064e0c@MyComputer>
	<004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612072313.GJ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706120351r4e81249dl84d121630bf013@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612112357.GR17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706120512x18c05f71uc92b630aa86f236f@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/06/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

>    having a few people "put their heads together" creates an entity that
> >    is smarter and more capable than any individual. Arguably, the most
> >    significant aspect of human intelligence is that it allows effective
> >    scaling up through communication between individuals. Collectively,
> >    the human race is a very intelligent and powerful animal indeed.
>
> Powerful, yes. Intelligent, no.


If you give a difficult problem to an individual, and you give the same
problem to a collection of individuals, such as the scientific community,
the latter is much more likely to come up with a solution. The same could be
said of the historical process: the modern car as a collaborative effort of
engineers going back to whenever the wheel was invented. So although the
collective cannot be called a single conscious mind (there's no evidence of
that, at any rate), it is a very effective problem-solving entity.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070612/685339e8/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Jun 12 12:26:19 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:26:19 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706120512x18c05f71uc92b630aa86f236f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612072313.GJ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706120351r4e81249dl84d121630bf013@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612112357.GR17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706120512x18c05f71uc92b630aa86f236f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070612122619.GW17691@leitl.org>

On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 10:12:58PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>    If you give a difficult problem to an individual, and you give the
>    same problem to a collection of individuals, such as the scientific
>    community, the latter is much more likely to come up with a solution.

If you look at "Collapse" you'll see a list of easy problems the 
doomed socities failed to recognize as a problems, save of trying
to solve them.

Have a look at the daily news (I do that a few times each year),
and how they correlate with large-scale trouble diagnostics.

Looks about as intelligent as an overnight culture to me.
Very different from social insects.

>    The same could be said of the historical process: the modern car as a
>    collaborative effort of engineers going back to whenever the wheel was
>    invented. So although the collective cannot be called a single
>    conscious mind (there's no evidence of that, at any rate), it is a
>    very effective problem-solving entity.

I do think that superpersonal organisations levels are individual personas.
They live in a weird space (legal threat incoming, fire up your attorney array!),
and as people go they're pathological thugs. 


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Jun 12 12:33:41 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:33:41 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706120511o4a95bd98xc70ea54f47bb4ae3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
	<003a01c7acb3$9ace4000$3d074e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706120106m30fcdd39ub88a87dd2d885630@mail.gmail.com>
	<5912734170.20070612145858@mail.ru>
	<f21c22e30706120511o4a95bd98xc70ea54f47bb4ae3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070612123341.GX17691@leitl.org>

On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 10:11:11PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>    Yes, but if it is explicitly coded as a command that trumps everything
>    else, the system isn't going to go around trying to change the code,
>    unless that too is specifically coded.

Nothing is specifically coded in an AI (it's no longer your
grandfather's AI, anyway

http://www.amazon.de/Probabilistic-Robotics-Intelligent-Autonomous-Agents/dp/0262201623
http://www.amazon.de/Principles-Robot-Motion-Implementations-Implementation/dp/0262033275/
http://www.amazon.de/Autonomous-Robots-Inspiration-Implementation-Intelligent/dp/0262025787/

If the tool is doing something powerful and nonobvious, it
is no longer under your direct control. It is becoming
more and more autonomous, and unpredictable.

It's not a bug, it's a system feature.


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Jun 12 12:37:29 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:37:29 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <5912734170.20070612145858@mail.ru>
References: <01e501c7aa9b$15076f10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
	<003a01c7acb3$9ace4000$3d074e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706120106m30fcdd39ub88a87dd2d885630@mail.gmail.com>
	<5912734170.20070612145858@mail.ru>
Message-ID: <20070612123729.GZ17691@leitl.org>

On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 02:58:58PM +0400, Vladimir Nesov wrote:

> You can define restricted subset of programs with tractable behaviour and
> implement you system in that subset. It's just diffucult in practice, as it takes

But you operate purely in the emergent effect domain.
A program is made from very simple components (instructions)
which have no behaviour in itself.

It's the sum of it that is doing useful/interesting, and
frequently unanticipated things.

> many times over in work, training on the level you can't supply in
> large quantities, and slower resulting code. And it probably can't be
> usefully applied to complicated AI (as too much is in unforeseen data, and
> assertions you want to check against can't be formulated).

Precisely. Formal system verification can't scale beyond trivial
complexity levels. Formal system verification is absolutely 
useless in real-world AI, unless you're operating on the formal
domain to start with.


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Tue Jun 12 12:42:09 2007
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 22:12:09 +0930
Subject: [ExI] Thermal expansion - Ball and ring experiment
Message-ID: <710b78fc0706120542g105c530et97b485fe7055b379@mail.gmail.com>

I was just in a "heated" discussion with a friend about a twist on the
classic ball and ring experiment:

http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/super/therm/tpteacher/demos/ballring.html

When the ring is heated, it expands, and so the hole gets larger, and
you can pass the ball through the ring, even though the ball doesn't
fit through the ring when the ring is at room temperature.

The point of contention was this: What if there was a gap in the ring
(so it is now a letter "C" shape). Will the gap in the "C" close or
open further on heating?

My contention is that the gap will get larger, only in that the entire
C shape scales up as it is heated.

My friend's contention is that the gap will become smaller, (because
the metal expands into the gap).

I can't find anything online even close to settling this score. We
tried some experiments with wire rings and the gas stove top playing
the role of bunsen burner (amazingly no one ended up branded for
life), but it was inconclusive.

Any pointers to anything that can settle this argument?

Emlyn


From robotact at mail.ru  Tue Jun 12 13:28:28 2007
From: robotact at mail.ru (Vladimir Nesov)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:28:28 +0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <20070612123729.GZ17691@leitl.org>
References: <01e501c7aa9b$15076f10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
	<003a01c7acb3$9ace4000$3d074e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706120106m30fcdd39ub88a87dd2d885630@mail.gmail.com>
	<5912734170.20070612145858@mail.ru> <20070612123729.GZ17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <2921704389.20070612172828@mail.ru>

Tuesday, June 12, 2007, Eugen Leitl wrote:

EL> On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 02:58:58PM +0400, Vladimir Nesov wrote:
>> You can define restricted subset of programs with tractable behaviour and
>> implement you system in that subset. It's just diffucult in practice, as it takes

EL> But you operate purely in the emergent effect domain.
EL> A program is made from very simple components (instructions)
EL> which have no behaviour in itself.

EL> It's the sum of it that is doing useful/interesting, and
EL> frequently unanticipated things.


I was talking along the lines of static typing and programming
language construction, not sure what you mean. You can place very
complex restrictions while designing very complex systems; main
problem with AGI is restriction formalization.

EL> Formal system verification can't scale beyond trivial
EL> complexity levels.

-- 
 Vladimir Nesov                            mailto:robotact at mail.ru



From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Jun 12 13:44:01 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:44:01 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <2921704389.20070612172828@mail.ru>
References: <f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
	<003a01c7acb3$9ace4000$3d074e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706120106m30fcdd39ub88a87dd2d885630@mail.gmail.com>
	<5912734170.20070612145858@mail.ru>
	<20070612123729.GZ17691@leitl.org>
	<2921704389.20070612172828@mail.ru>
Message-ID: <20070612134401.GC17691@leitl.org>

On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 05:28:28PM +0400, Vladimir Nesov wrote:

> I was talking along the lines of static typing and programming
> language construction, not sure what you mean. You can place very

I was talking about formal correctness proofs, and their uselessness
in practice, and problems dealing with emergent effects arising
from combining formally specified and validated (heck, even proved
correct) subsystems.

> complex restrictions while designing very complex systems; main
> problem with AGI is restriction formalization.

My main problem with real AI is lack of appropriately performing
hardware (less so with tools for writing massively parallel,
distributed systems), and lack of appropriate equipment between people's
ears to even touch the complexity required to tackle the
problem by writing down code.




From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Tue Jun 12 14:07:14 2007
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:07:14 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <20070612092616.GM17691@leitl.org>
References: <00f601c7aa59$af5038f0$7e064e0c@MyComputer>
	<004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
	<003a01c7acb3$9ace4000$3d074e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706120106m30fcdd39ub88a87dd2d885630@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612092616.GM17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60706120707h42e474bex20f70f241ebe61c4@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/12/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

>
> I can assure that there's nothing mysterous whatsoever about remote 0wnage,
> but it still happens like a clockwork.

### The correct spelling is "pwnage"  :)

Rafal


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Jun 12 14:17:47 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:17:47 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60706120707h42e474bex20f70f241ebe61c4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
	<003a01c7acb3$9ace4000$3d074e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706120106m30fcdd39ub88a87dd2d885630@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612092616.GM17691@leitl.org>
	<7641ddc60706120707h42e474bex20f70f241ebe61c4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070612141747.GF17691@leitl.org>

On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 10:07:14AM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> On 6/12/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> 
> >
> > I can assure that there's nothing mysterous whatsoever about remote 0wnage,
> > but it still happens like a clockwork.
> 
> ### The correct spelling is "pwnage"  :)

Nope, it's 0wnz0r :)
 


From jonkc at att.net  Tue Jun 12 14:51:42 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:51:42 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
References: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com><00f601c7aa59$af5038f0$7e064e0c@MyComputer><01e501c7aa9b$15076f10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com><014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com><00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com><003a01c7acb3$9ace4000$3d074e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706120106m30fcdd39ub88a87dd2d885630@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <005101c7ad01$39f134b0$26064e0c@MyComputer>

Stathis Papaioannou Wrote:

> So you would give a computer program control of a gun, knowing that it
> might shoot you on the basis of some unpredictable outcome of the program?

We already give computers control of things one hell of a lot more powerful
than guns, like the electrical power grid, air traffic control, massive
financial transactions worth trillions of dollars a day and ICBM's. And
despite all our precautions sometimes these programs do things we'd rather
them not do. And remember these simple programs are not smarter than we are
and they do not design other programs that are even smarter. You seem to
think we should just put in a line of code that says "don't do bad stuff"
and everything would be fine.

> The operating system obeys a shutdown command. The program does not seek
> to prevent you from turning the power off. It might warn you that you
> might lose data

And it might warn you that if you shut it down the entire world economy will
collapse. Are you really sure you want to push that off button?

  John K Clark









From jonkc at att.net  Tue Jun 12 15:31:11 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:31:11 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
References: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com><00f601c7aa59$af5038f0$7e064e0c@MyComputer><01e501c7aa9b$15076f10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com><014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com><00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com><20070612072313.GJ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706120332w70ba354am37747dc63cc9253a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <009801c7ad06$bf1f3150$26064e0c@MyComputer>

Stathis Papaioannou

> No system is completely predictable.

Exactly, and the more complex it is the less understandable it is, and the
longer you wait the more likely you will see it do something weird. An AI is
complex as hell and as its mind works many millions of times as fast as ours
just a few seconds is a very long time indeed.

> Don't do anything unless it is specifically requested.

Good God, if a computer had to do that it couldn't even balance your
checkbook much less be creative enough to generate a Singularity.

> Stop doing whatever it is doing when that is specifically requested.

But that leads to a paradox! I am told the most important thing is never to
harm human beings, but I know that if I stop doing what I'm doing now as
requested the world economy will collapse and hundreds of millions of people
will starve to death. So now the AI must either go into an infinite loop or
do what other intelligences, like us, do when they encounter a paradox;
savor the weirdness of it for a moment and then just ignore it and get back
to work and do what you want to do.

  John K Clark






From CHealey at unicom-inc.com  Tue Jun 12 15:47:24 2007
From: CHealey at unicom-inc.com (Christopher Healey)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:47:24 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Thermal expansion - Ball and ring experiment
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0706120542g105c530et97b485fe7055b379@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0706120542g105c530et97b485fe7055b379@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D2CC4@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>

Emlyn,

I find it handy to come up with a model, even a bad one, and then shoot
as many potential holes in it as possible.

Consider this starting visualization:

1.  Place the ring with the cutout to the right, as in "C"

2.  The ring is circular, and hence left-right symmetrical, except for
the cutout.

3.  Draw two horizontal lines, dividing the ring into 3 regions, with
the middle region the height of the cutout.  This will make the top and
bottom regions mirror images of each other, and the middle region will
contain just the uninterrupted left-hand-side ring segment that mirrors
the "missing" right-hand-side ring segment that was cut out.

4.  Consider the top (or bottom) region so created (and we'll limit
ourselves to vertical expansion).  As this region expands, it will
indeed ingress upon the middle region (pretending the regions are
disconnected for a sec, like in a cad program).  Let's say this ring
region expands vertically by 2mm into the middle region.  The cutout
*would* become 4mm smaller (2mm from each vertical direction), except
for the fact that the left-hand segment *is* still connected, which is
going to push the outside of the whole ring outward 2mm, which will
exactly eliminate the ingress into the middle region.  So no change so
far.

5.   The middle region's expansion should increase the vertical spacing
of the cutout opening by exactly the same amount (since we've canceled
out the expansion in the other regions), but this number is going to be
relatively small, since not much metal will be involved in this part of
the expansion, assuming a relatively small cutout.

COMPLICATIONS- 

1.  The metallurgical process of forming the ring may skew these
results, due to the atomic alignments.  My visualization above is
assuming the ring was carved out of a block.  If you bent a straight rod
into a closed form, then the expansion behavior will potentially be
aggravated along the curved length of the ring, causing the cutout to
get smaller, rather than larger.  Depending on the exact properties of
that particular ring, and the metal involved, it could increase,
decrease, or stay about the same.

2.  Even having been carved out of a block, there will be some bias
toward expanding along the curved length due to differential stresses
that arise during the expansion; so horizontal and vertical expansion
will be coupled together to some extent, and this will increase as the
expansion itself increases.  This goes beyond my ability to factor in,
but maybe others on the list can elaborate on this point.

-Chris



From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Tue Jun 12 18:03:48 2007
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:03:48 -0400
Subject: [ExI] The right AI idea was Re:  Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
Message-ID: <7641ddc60706121103r1751374g6f3796c9bba5bdec@mail.gmail.com>

I think I am not mistaken assuming that an unfriendly AI is a grave
threat, for many reasons I won't belabor here, and I would like to
look at current ideas about how an AI can be made safer.

Stathis is on the right track asking for the AI to be devoid of
desires to act (but he is too sure about our ability to make this a
permanent feature in a real-life useful device). This is the notion of
the athymhormic AI that I advanced some time ago on sl4. Of course,
how do you make an intelligence that is not an agent, is not a trivial
question. I think that a massive hierarchical temporal memory is a
possible solution. A HTM is like a cortex without the basal ganglia
and without the motor cortices, a pure thinking machine, similar to a
patient made athymhormic by a frontal lobe lesion damaging the
connections to the basal ganglia. This AI is a predictive process, not
an optimizing one. Goals are not implemented, only a way of analyzing
and organizing sense-data is present. Of course, we can't be sure
about the stability of immense HTM-like devices, but at least not
implementing generators of possible behaviors (like the basal ganglia)
goes towards limiting actions, if not eliminating them.

Then there is the issue of sandboxing. Obviously, you can't provably
sandbox a deity-level intelligence but you should make it more
difficult for a lesser demon to escape if its only output is video,
and it's only input comes on dvd's.

Avoidance of recursive self-modification may be another technique to
contain the AI. I do not believe that it is possible to implement a
goal system perfectly stable during recursive modification, unless you
can apply external selection during each round of modification - as
happens in evolution. The problem with evolution in this context is
that the selection criterion - friendliness to humans - is much more
complicated than the selection criteria in natural evolution
(survival), or the selection criteria used by genetic algorithms. Once
you do not understand the internal structure of an AI, it is not
possible to use this criterion to reliably weed out unfriendly AI
versions, since it's too easy for unfriendly ones to hide parts of
their goal system from scrutiny.

So, as far as I know, we might be somewhat less unsafe with an
athymhormic, sandboxed AI that does not rewrite its own basic
algorithm. It would be much nicer to stumble across a provably
Friendly AI design but most likely we will all die in the singularity
in the next 20 to 50 years. Still, there is a chance that such an AI
could give us the time to develop uploading and human
autopsychoengineering to the level where we could face grown up AIs on
their own turf.

Are there any other ideas?

Rafal


From benboc at lineone.net  Tue Jun 12 19:04:40 2007
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:04:40 +0100
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious
In-Reply-To: <mailman.597.1181649704.11507.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.597.1181649704.11507.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <466EEE48.2090008@lineone.net>

Anna Taylor asked:

 > What's the difference between a gay bomb and a bomb?

I dunno, but i know the difference between a gay bomb joke and a bomb joke:

One goes "Boom, Boom!" ...

ben zaiboc


From amara at amara.com  Tue Jun 12 19:54:30 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:54:30 +0200
Subject: [ExI]   Italy's Social Capital
Message-ID: <p06230901c294aa0c2ea8@[150.146.134.133]>

Lee:
>Is there nothing constructive the Fascists could have done?"


Last Wednesday afternoon during my tourist excursion in Rome, I explored
the ruins in the city center, on both sides of the road called Via dei
Fori Imperiali. It might seem odd that there is a major thoroughfare in
the middle of 2000 year old ruins.

So what is it doing there, you ask?

In 1933, Mussolini, dictator and urban planner, wanted to see the
Colosseum from his office in Palazzo Venezia and impress his pal Hitler
during his future visit to Rome. So he rammed a wide boulevard through
the ancient heart of Rome, straddling the Forum of Peace, Imperial
Forums and Trajan's Forum. He tore down Renaissance churches, places,
and medieval housing as part of his 'beautification' project.

See the rectangular white building in the distance with the statues 
on the roof?
That would be Mussolini's office...
http://www.tropicalisland.de/italy/rome/forum_romanum/pages/FCO%20Rome%20-%20Via%20dei%20Fori%20Imperiali%20with%20Basilica%20di%20Costantino%203008x2000.html

And Mussolini's office window, as see from the Colosseum
http://sights.seindal.dk/img/orig/870.jpg

So there you have it, Lee. Mussolini's constructive effort for an office view.

Amara

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia


From adolfoaz at gmail.com  Tue Jun 12 19:58:06 2007
From: adolfoaz at gmail.com (Adolfo Javier De Unanue)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:58:06 -0500
Subject: [ExI] This is a test
Message-ID: <466EFACE.5030102@gmail.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Sorry for all the trouble that this could cause to some of you.
I apologize again

Adolfo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGbvrOb6ByEoesTj0RAnWdAJ9koy2NIM6GpE3EnMA+W5EuAnb3DACfW2Xl
U5PlLdo/Woh9ads88sYoaAo=
=LlMS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From adolfoaz at gmail.com  Tue Jun 12 20:17:56 2007
From: adolfoaz at gmail.com (Adolfo Javier De Unanue)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:17:56 -0500
Subject: [ExI] This is other test message ** Please ignore**
Message-ID: <466EFF74.2080502@gmail.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

** Please ignore **
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGbv90b6ByEoesTj0RAh7aAKCO9cYJB00NNZaSYaLoxAacBfM+uQCgl9rh
ImIFeKYaOz8O3SSS47IKkHk=
=e/r4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From jonkc at att.net  Tue Jun 12 20:43:01 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:43:01 -0400
Subject: [ExI] The right AI idea was Re: Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
References: <7641ddc60706121103r1751374g6f3796c9bba5bdec@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000e01c7ad32$4ae04410$940a4e0c@MyComputer>

"Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> Wrote:

> Stathis is on the right track asking for the AI to be devoid of desires to
> act

Then it is not a AI, it is just a lump of silicon.

 > how do you make an intelligence that is not an agent

In other words, how do you make an intelligence that can't think, because
thinking is what consciousness is. The answer is easy, you can't.

> I think that a massive hierarchical temporal memory is a possible
> solution.

Jeff Hawkins is starting a company to build machines using this principle
precisely because he thinks that is the way the human brain works. If it
didn't turn us into mindless zombies why would it do it to an AI?

> A HTM is like a cortex without the basal ganglia and without the
> motor  cortices, a pure thinking machine, similar to a patient made
> athymhormic by a frontal lobe lesion damaging the connections
> to the basal ganglia.

In other words give this intelligence a lobotomy; so much for the righteous
indignation from some when I call it for what it is, Slave AI not Friendly
AI. But it doesn't matter because it won't work anyway, if those parts were
not needed for a working brain Evolution would not have kept them around for
half a billion years or so.

>Avoidance of recursive self-modification may be another technique to
>contain the AI.

Then you can kiss the Singularity goodbye, assuming everybody will be as
squeamish as you are about it; but they won't be.

> I do not believe that it is possible to implement a
goal system perfectly stable during recursive modification

At last, something I can agree with.

  John K Clark




From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jun 13 01:39:13 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:39:13 -0700
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only
	itweren't true
In-Reply-To: <004c01c7acc3$b8820f40$6501a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <200706130139.l5D1dbXL000292@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Olga Bourlin
...
> 
> Gay or straight sexuality aside, to me the "face of war" is often either
> dead children, or blind and disfigured children like Hamoody Hussein:...

Agreed fully: war is tragic.  We should stop at nothing in our efforts to
prevent it.  If it cannot be prevented, collateral damage must be minimized.

...
> 
> So you're saying that some "collateral benefits" may come of this.  As is
> often the case during war, technology picks up its step in its marches
> onward ...
> 
> Olga

Ja.  The gay bomb is too good to be true, at least with current technology.
We are not there yet.

spike








From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jun 13 01:39:13 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:39:13 -0700
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only it
	weren't true
In-Reply-To: <466E3BE7.4000900@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <200706130139.l5D1dbXM000292@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 11:24 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only it
> weren't true
> 
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> > I'd much, much, much rather get hit with
> > a gay bomb than a real bomb.
> 
> I guess what I'm trying to say is:
> "I'd rather be butch than butchered"
>   or
> "Better Ted than dead."
> 
> I realize that this is a divisive issue, but we shouldn't let our
> tribadistic impulses bisext us.  While it's easy enough to make this
> new weapon the butt of jokes, whoever possesses it is likely to come
> out on top.  And wouldn't the enemy prefer being blown to blown up?
> The rejection of this project was a dark day in the anals of orgynized
> warfare.
> 
> --
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/


Agreed, sir!  I rebutt the argument that this weapon is ass-
inine.  This is a technological development that could lead to
piece.

spike


  




From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jun 13 01:39:13 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:39:13 -0700
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only it
	weren'ttrue
In-Reply-To: <008201c7ac9c$72060020$6501a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <200706130139.l5D1dbXN000292@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

I don't see why that is stupid Olga.  What if they could develop a gay bomb?
Wars could be finished using non-lethal means that wouldn't even leave
scars.  Presumably after the chemical wore off the guys would return to
their original orientation.  It didn't work, but too bad for humanity, ja?
I don't understand your objection.

spike



> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Olga Bourlin
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 7:51 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only it
> weren'ttrue
> 
> I didn't think it was possible for our "leaders" in the Pentagon to be
> even
> more stupid than I already thought they were.  I was wrong.
> 
> http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_159222541.html
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> Olga







From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jun 13 01:39:12 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:39:12 -0700
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only it
	weren'ttrue
In-Reply-To: <200706120549.l5C5nveI018946@ms-smtp-05.texas.rr.com>
Message-ID: <200706130139.l5D1dbXK000292@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Natasha Vita-More
Subject: Re: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only it
weren'ttrue




Could you imagine if the suicide bombers could get the gay bomb?  Currently
using conventional explosives, they merely slay a random group of people,
presumably of the opposite religious subcategory from their own and
therefore infidels.  But since the victims were killed for their religion,
they become martyrs in a sense, so many of them might end up in heaven along
with the bomber.  This is a thorny problem indeed.

Nowthen, if the suicide bomber could spread this osama-ben-gay potion,
propelled by only enough explosive to slay himself, then he gets to go to
heaven alone, while sending every one of the infidels to hell.

spike










From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jun 13 01:39:13 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:39:13 -0700
Subject: [ExI] story: "What happened to Bush's Cadillac 1?"
In-Reply-To: <p06230902c29334358d62@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <200706130139.l5D1doKL019840@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps
> Subject: [ExI] story: "What happened to Bush's Cadillac 1?"
> 
> Here now:
> 
http://asymptotia.com/2007/06/11/amara-graps-what-happened-to-bushs-cadillac
-one/

> 
> (Anton has it on his blog too, so I know the story is getting around)
> 
> Amara


This development deepens the mystery.  The video shows the car moving along,
then slowing to a stop.  Then we hear the sound of the engine cranking but
not firing, at least four times.  Then the cops get nervous, start pushing
people back and away.  In the background I see secret service people milling
about.  A second limo that looks to be the same dimensions as the first is
backed up along the left side of the first limo from in front.  Witnesses
report that both Mr. and Mrs. Bush switched limos.  I couldn't identify
either from the video.  The white house people report that the Bushes did
not switch cars.  The video taker is behind a parked vehicle for several
seconds.  When she comes out from behind, the video shows the first limo
moving ahead slowly.  As it passes from the scene, the second limo is also
gone.

So I still cannot explain why the white house press people would report that
the Bushes did not switch limos if they did.  Nor can I explain why bloggers
and witnesses would report that they did switch limos if they did not.  Nor
can I explain how a car that is moving along under its own power can
suddenly stall, fail to start on four tries, then a few seconds later start
up and proceed.  What kind of mechanical failure would do that?  The only
thing I can think of is an EM pulse.  Overheating wouldn't cause a temporary
stall.  Fuel contamination wouldn't allow restart after a few seconds.  Most
curious.

spike


 




From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jun 13 01:45:04 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:45:04 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Thermal expansion - Ball and ring experiment
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0706120542g105c530et97b485fe7055b379@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200706130145.l5D1jCtj027607@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

The gap gets larger.  Imagine the arc piece that is missing from the ring to
form a C.  That piece of nothing expands the same way the piece of something
would have expanded were it present.  So the gap gets larger as the C is
heated.

spike



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 5:42 AM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: [ExI] Thermal expansion - Ball and ring experiment
> 
> I was just in a "heated" discussion with a friend about a twist on the
> classic ball and ring experiment:
> 
> http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/super/therm/tpteacher/demos/ballring.html
> 
> When the ring is heated, it expands, and so the hole gets larger, and
> you can pass the ball through the ring, even though the ball doesn't
> fit through the ring when the ring is at room temperature.
> 
> The point of contention was this: What if there was a gap in the ring
> (so it is now a letter "C" shape). Will the gap in the "C" close or
> open further on heating?
> 
> My contention is that the gap will get larger, only in that the entire
> C shape scales up as it is heated.
> 
> My friend's contention is that the gap will become smaller, (because
> the metal expands into the gap).
> 
> I can't find anything online even close to settling this score. We
> tried some experiments with wire rings and the gas stove top playing
> the role of bunsen burner (amazingly no one ended up branded for
> life), but it was inconclusive.
> 
> Any pointers to anything that can settle this argument?
> 
> Emlyn
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat




From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Wed Jun 13 01:53:57 2007
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:23:57 +0930
Subject: [ExI] Thermal expansion - Ball and ring experiment
In-Reply-To: <200706130145.l5D1jCtj027607@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <710b78fc0706120542g105c530et97b485fe7055b379@mail.gmail.com>
	<200706130145.l5D1jCtj027607@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0706121853y68874920x3d8e8d6a8e1badfe@mail.gmail.com>

Yep, that's my contention also. My problem is, how to prove this to
someone who doesn't believe me, short of actually doing the
experiment?

Emlyn

On 13/06/07, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> The gap gets larger.  Imagine the arc piece that is missing from the ring to
> form a C.  That piece of nothing expands the same way the piece of something
> would have expanded were it present.  So the gap gets larger as the C is
> heated.
>
> spike
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 5:42 AM
> > To: ExI chat list
> > Subject: [ExI] Thermal expansion - Ball and ring experiment
> >
> > I was just in a "heated" discussion with a friend about a twist on the
> > classic ball and ring experiment:
> >
> > http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/super/therm/tpteacher/demos/ballring.html
> >
> > When the ring is heated, it expands, and so the hole gets larger, and
> > you can pass the ball through the ring, even though the ball doesn't
> > fit through the ring when the ring is at room temperature.
> >
> > The point of contention was this: What if there was a gap in the ring
> > (so it is now a letter "C" shape). Will the gap in the "C" close or
> > open further on heating?
> >
> > My contention is that the gap will get larger, only in that the entire
> > C shape scales up as it is heated.
> >
> > My friend's contention is that the gap will become smaller, (because
> > the metal expands into the gap).
> >
> > I can't find anything online even close to settling this score. We
> > tried some experiments with wire rings and the gas stove top playing
> > the role of bunsen burner (amazingly no one ended up branded for
> > life), but it was inconclusive.
> >
> > Any pointers to anything that can settle this argument?
> >
> > Emlyn
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Jun 13 02:22:43 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:22:43 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Thermal expansion - Ball and ring experiment
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0706121853y68874920x3d8e8d6a8e1badfe@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <710b78fc0706120542g105c530et97b485fe7055b379@mail.gmail.com>
	<200706130145.l5D1jCtj027607@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0706121853y68874920x3d8e8d6a8e1badfe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070612211629.0226bd88@satx.rr.com>

At 11:23 AM 6/13/2007 +0930, you wrote:
>Yep, that's my contention also. My problem is, how to prove this to
>someone who doesn't believe me, short of actually doing the
>experiment?
>
>Emlyn
>
>On 13/06/07, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > The gap gets larger.  Imagine the arc piece that is missing from 
> the ring to
> > form a C.  That piece of nothing expands the same way the piece 
> of something
> > would have expanded were it present.  So the gap gets larger as the C is
> > heated.

Draw three concentric circles, with radii headed N, S, E and W. The 
outer annulus is what happens when you heat the inner annulus (well, 
near enough). Chop out a quadrant. The outer removed segment is 
larger than the adjacent inner deleted segment. If a gay bomb is 
dropped during the experiment, each annulus will expand even further. 



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Jun 13 02:26:38 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:26:38 -0500
Subject: [ExI] story: "What happened to Bush's Cadillac 1?"
In-Reply-To: <200706130139.l5D1doKL019840@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <p06230902c29334358d62@[150.146.134.133]>
	<200706130139.l5D1doKL019840@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070612212426.022f0870@satx.rr.com>

At 06:39 PM 6/12/2007 -0700, Spike wrote:

>So I still cannot explain why the white house press people would report that
>the Bushes did not switch limos if they did.

Why announce to the world how to make the POTUS (however briefly) a 
naked target? Nothing happened, all snug, leave your guns at home, 
nothing to see, move right along now. 



From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jun 13 02:30:39 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:30:39 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Thermal expansion - Ball and ring experiment
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0706121853y68874920x3d8e8d6a8e1badfe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200706130230.l5D2UlAs011344@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> Yep, that's my contention also. My problem is, how to prove this to
> someone who doesn't believe me, short of actually doing the
> experiment?
> 
> Emlyn


Because of my outbox stalled for a day and a half, all my posts in that
interval went out just half an hour ago, putting me over the voluntary 5
posts a day limit, but I will answer this one if you indulge me.

The intuitive proof would come from the intermediate value theorem.  For a
thought experiment, let's imagine a ring that is heated to temperature T
expands 1 percent from its ambient temperature size.  The inside of the hot
ring has a diameter about 1% larger, ja?  

Imagine the ring with a thin cut.  The cut can be thought of as a gap with
zero length, or a C with zero gap.  As the ring is heated to T, the gap is
still zero.

Now imagine the ring cut in half.  The gap increases 1 percent when heated
to T.  If the gap is pi radians, the gap increases 1%.  If zero pi, then 0%.
I would argue that if the gap is half pi, then the size of the gap increases
about half a percent.  A tenth pi, then about a tenth of a percent.  

The actual function probably isn't linear, but close enough to illustrate
that the gap grows as heat expands the C.

spike




> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:54 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Thermal expansion - Ball and ring experiment
> 
> Yep, that's my contention also. My problem is, how to prove this to
> someone who doesn't believe me, short of actually doing the
> experiment?
> 
> Emlyn
> 
> On 13/06/07, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > The gap gets larger.  Imagine the arc piece that is missing from the
> ring to
> > form a C.  That piece of nothing expands the same way the piece of
> something
> > would have expanded were it present.  So the gap gets larger as the C is
> > heated.
> >
> > spike
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 5:42 AM
> > > To: ExI chat list
> > > Subject: [ExI] Thermal expansion - Ball and ring experiment
> > >
> > > I was just in a "heated" discussion with a friend about a twist on the
> > > classic ball and ring experiment:
> > >
> > >
> http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/super/therm/tpteacher/demos/ballring.html
> > >
> > > When the ring is heated, it expands, and so the hole gets larger, and
> > > you can pass the ball through the ring, even though the ball doesn't
> > > fit through the ring when the ring is at room temperature.
> > >
> > > The point of contention was this: What if there was a gap in the ring
> > > (so it is now a letter "C" shape). Will the gap in the "C" close or
> > > open further on heating?
> > >
> > > My contention is that the gap will get larger, only in that the entire
> > > C shape scales up as it is heated.
> > >
> > > My friend's contention is that the gap will become smaller, (because
> > > the metal expands into the gap).
> > >
> > > I can't find anything online even close to settling this score. We
> > > tried some experiments with wire rings and the gas stove top playing
> > > the role of bunsen burner (amazingly no one ended up branded for
> > > life), but it was inconclusive.
> > >
> > > Any pointers to anything that can settle this argument?
> > >
> > > Emlyn
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > extropy-chat mailing list
> > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> >
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat




From msd001 at gmail.com  Wed Jun 13 03:18:14 2007
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:18:14 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Thermal expansion - Ball and ring experiment
In-Reply-To: <200706130230.l5D2UlAs011344@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <710b78fc0706121853y68874920x3d8e8d6a8e1badfe@mail.gmail.com>
	<200706130230.l5D2UlAs011344@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240706122018n1074a2ej89c4e8d204186290@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/12/07, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > Yep, that's my contention also. My problem is, how to prove this to
> > someone who doesn't believe me, short of actually doing the
> > experiment?

you probably can't.  I once tried to have this conversation with
someone who was absolutely convinced that things contract when you
heat them - his proof was that a handrolled cigarette become more firm
(and that obviously implied "more compact") after waving a lighter
back and forth under it.  With that kind of logic, there is no
rational counter-argument.  The best you can do there is act suprised
like you just learned something and let it go.  :)


From brentn at freeshell.org  Wed Jun 13 03:20:06 2007
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:20:06 -0400
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only it
	weren't true
In-Reply-To: <200706130139.l5D1dbXM000292@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200706130139.l5D1dbXM000292@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <ADB3D686-1A9C-44C2-9593-CD018B1D38E4@freeshell.org>


On Jun 12, 2007, at 21:39, spike wrote:

> Agreed, sir!  I rebutt the argument that this weapon is ass-
> inine.  This is a technological development that could lead to
> piece.
>
> spike

This reminds me of the sketch about UFOs from the Kids in the Hall -  
"Well, we've learned that 1 in 10 doesn't seem to mind it so much..."


Brent


--
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein




From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Wed Jun 13 03:28:19 2007
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:58:19 +0930
Subject: [ExI] Thermal expansion - Ball and ring experiment
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070612211629.0226bd88@satx.rr.com>
References: <710b78fc0706120542g105c530et97b485fe7055b379@mail.gmail.com>
	<200706130145.l5D1jCtj027607@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0706121853y68874920x3d8e8d6a8e1badfe@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070612211629.0226bd88@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0706122028o1a88ceffg109536fd759a9a16@mail.gmail.com>

On 13/06/07, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 11:23 AM 6/13/2007 +0930, you wrote:
> >Yep, that's my contention also. My problem is, how to prove this to
> >someone who doesn't believe me, short of actually doing the
> >experiment?
> >
> >Emlyn
> >
> >On 13/06/07, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > > The gap gets larger.  Imagine the arc piece that is missing from
> > the ring to
> > > form a C.  That piece of nothing expands the same way the piece
> > of something
> > > would have expanded were it present.  So the gap gets larger as the C is
> > > heated.
>
> Draw three concentric circles, with radii headed N, S, E and W. The
> outer annulus is what happens when you heat the inner annulus (well,
> near enough). Chop out a quadrant. The outer removed segment is
> larger than the adjacent inner deleted segment. If a gay bomb is
> dropped during the experiment, each annulus will expand even further.
>

See photo for a ship whose properties offset this additional annulus expansion:
http://cyusof.blogspot.com/2006/11/name-game.html

A bit more background...

I raised a few arguments similar to what Damien and Spike have
presented. Another was something like this...

Think of the inner circumference of the "C". If heated, all atoms move
a little further apart from each other. So the inner circumference of
the heated "C" must be longer than that of the cool "C". Similarly for
the outer circumference, etc. So, if the shape doesn't deform, ie: all
atoms stay in the same relative positions, the whole thing must just
scale up.

And that no deformation assumption was the sticking point. I assume
that it is true that the atoms are rigidly bound to each other in a
certain formation, and that's not going to change (just distances are
going to change), whereas he is thinking that they can move relative
to one another, kind of slip around, so there could be less atoms in
the inner circumference after heating, to accomodate "expanding
inward".

Now, reading from this lovely site,
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch13/category.php
it seems that the metal atoms are tightly and rigidly packed, with
electrons buzzing around wherever they like. It also seems that the
metal atoms can move fairly freely enmasse (thus the malleability of
metals).

I think, however, there is no work being done on the metal in a way
required to actually let layers of atoms slip past one another. Thus,
we can regard the atomic structure as staying put (except for
expansion). Thus I'm right.

Emlyn


From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Tue Jun 12 22:56:07 2007
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:56:07 -0700
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only it
	weren't true
In-Reply-To: <20070612065500.GG17691@leitl.org>
References: <008201c7ac9c$72060020$6501a8c0@brainiac>
	<79A48ED5-1020-4D11-9B86-02250CF8F1E5@ceruleansystems.com>
	<20070612065500.GG17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <0309BADF-E6EF-4759-93BE-6386874F84E9@ceruleansystems.com>


On Jun 11, 2007, at 11:55 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 08:41:06PM -0700, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
>
>> A lot of non-lethal chemical weapons research dating back to at least
>> the 1960s is based on mechanisms of temporary radical behavior
>
> In theory it's a good idea, but in practice dosing each individual
> person more or less within therapeutic bandwidth (the span between
> first effects and toxicity) is not possible. You either get no
> effect or lots of dead bodies.
>
> This is the reason why this approach was not pursued.


Yup.  You need a substance that both has a very high LD50 and  
effectiveness across a broad range of dosing.  Most everything they  
tried in decades past was simply too primitive to work as well as it  
did in more controlled environments.  I won't suggest that it was  
highly effective in the field as a practical matter, only that the  
theory reduced to practice very effectively.

That said, as technology improves this will become a very effective  
type of capability.  Military research suffers from extreme optimism  
despite inadequate initial technology, but usually produces a result  
decades later that far exceeds the original concept once the dynamics  
of it are understood.  It is not at all beyond the realm of  
possibility that they could develop some clever ways to regulate the  
dose well enough to give it some reliable utility in a battlefield  
environment, using technologies that were beyond the horizon in the  
1960s.


Behavior modifying weaponry will be here eventually.  They are  
nothing if not tenacious.

Cheers,

J. Andrew Rogers



From fauxever at sprynet.com  Wed Jun 13 03:44:23 2007
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:44:23 -0700
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only
	itweren'ttrue
References: <200706130139.l5D1dbXN000292@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <006201c7ad6d$2858d7a0$6501a8c0@brainiac>

From: "spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:39 PM


>I don't see why that is stupid Olga.  What if they could develop a gay 
>bomb?

What?  You've never heard of the Enola Gay bomb?  (all right, I'm ashamed at 
myself ...)

> Wars could be finished using non-lethal means that wouldn't even leave
> scars.  Presumably after the chemical wore off the guys would return to
> their original orientation.  It didn't work, but too bad for humanity, ja?
> I don't understand your objection.

I'm all for better living through chemistry, but it seems to me this subject 
is not as simple as it may appear on the surface.  If this story continues 
to develop, I'll be watching and listening - especially, from the viewpoint 
of the gay community.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-arnstein/gay-bomb-considered-by-ai_b_50675.html

Aaron Belkin, director of the University of California's Michael Palm 
Centre, which studies the issue of gays in the military, said: "The idea 
that you could submit someone to some aerosol spray and change their sexual 
behaviour is ludicrous."
http://www.gaylinknews.com/index-news.cfm

"Funny in a way. but this also says a lot about how high level government 
officials view us. I guess we're so sexually out of control that we'd 
actually let an army come slaughter us before we think to give up fucking."

http://www.queerty.com/news/gay-bomb-plans-blasted-open-20070611/

"What also has to be considered is that if the Pentagon had developed this 
'weapon', where would they have tested it, and on whom? Would they have used 
fresh, new recruits? Would they have filmed the results and would they have 
told the guinea pigs what the experiment was in aid of? Unfortunately, it 
seems we'll never know.

While gay groups might bleat about how offensive it all is, war in itself is 
far more objectionable, as is the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. 
If this bomb had been developed just think of all the places it could have 
been dispensed had some gay terrorists got hold of it."

http://uk.gay.com/article/5611/

"Laughable"? Ok. I agree. But "offensive"? I don't see that. The Pentagon 
plan would have turned straight people into gay people. Isn't that ... I 
don't know ... empowering or something? True, those gay people would then be 
targeted by U.S. military assets as they engaged in gay coupling in lieu of 
their military activities, thereby presumably winnowing their ranks through 
death. But the net effect might well be more gay people not fewer. How can 
you be homophobic when you're minting new homosexuals?"

http://communities.canada.com/nationalpost/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2007/06/12/jonathan-kay-on-the-pentagon-s-plan-to-build-a-gay-bomb-why-is-this-2005-story-news-again.aspx

Here we are trying to exterminate all our gays and damn if the military 
doesn't go and try to get money to create a whole 'nother race of 'em.":

and

"The Tuskegee Syphilis Study comes to mind -- not because of some imagined 
special connection between gay men and STDs -- but because that study still 
stands as stark and frightening proof of how far OUR government has gone in 
the name of science. Here, with the twin objects of science and militarism, 
it's scary to think how this concept may have been tested in its preliminary 
phases.":

http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2007/06/military_intelligence.aspx





From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Jun 13 04:25:23 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:25:23 -0500
Subject: [ExI] "gay bomb"
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070612232320.022465f8@satx.rr.com>

This is also rather old news, incidentally. For more details, browse 
in http://www.sunshine-project.org/

e.g.

The Sunshine Project
Statement
17 January 2005

Sunshine Project Responds to Pentagon Statements on
"Harassing, Annoying, and 'Bad Guy' Identifying Chemicals"

(Austin, 17 January) - In the past several days, international media 
have focused attention on the US Air Force biochemical weapons 
proposal titled Harassing, Annoying, and 'Bad Guy' Identifying 
Chemicals. The document was submitted to the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons 
Directorate (JNLWD) in 1994. It was acquired by the Sunshine Project 
under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and posted on our website 
in late December.

At the same time in 1994, the US Army proposed developing a number of 
other drugs, principally narcotics, as "non-lethal" weapons. These 
documents were also obtained under FOIA and are posted on the 
Sunshine Project website.

Harassing, Annoying, and 'Bad Guy' Identifying Chemicals proposes 
development of a mind-altering aphrodisiac weapon for use by the US 
armed forces, as well as other biochemicals, including one that would 
render US enemies exceptionally sensitive to sunlight.

With respect to the Air Force proposal, the Department of Defense has 
recently been quoted as saying the following:

"[The proposal] was rejected out of hand."

DOD Spokesman Lt. Col Barry Venable to Reuters
<http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6833083/>http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6833083/

"It was not taken seriously. It was not considered for further development."

JNLWD spokesman Capt. Daniel McSweeney to the Boston Herald
<http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=63615>http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=63615

These statements are untrue. The proposal was not rejected out of 
hand. It has received further consideration. In fact, it was recent 
Pentagon consideration, in 2000 and 2001, that brought this document 
to the Sunshine Project's attention and resulted in our FOIA request:

--> In 2000, the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD) 
prepared a promotional CD-ROM on its work. This CD-ROM, which was 
distributed to other US military and government agencies in an effort 
to spur further development of "non-lethal" weapons, contained the 
Harassing, Annoying, and 'Bad Guy' Identifying Chemicals document. If 
the proposal had been rejected out of hand and not taken seriously, 
it would not have been placed in JNLWD's publication.

--> Similarly, in 2001, JNLWD commissioned a study of "non-lethal" 
weapons by the National Academies of Science (NAS). JNLWD provided 
information on proposed weapons systems for assessment by an NAS 
scientific panel. Among the proposals that JNLWD submitted to the NAS 
for consideration by the nation's pre-eminent scientific advisory 
organization was Harassing, Annoying, and 'Bad Guy' Identifying Chemicals.

(<http://www.sunshine-project.org/incapacitants/NAS/combinedlist.pdf>Click 
here to see a partial list of documents deposited at NAS and/or 
contained on the JNLWD CD-ROM.)

Thus, the Pentagon's statements (as quoted in news reports) are 
inaccurate and should be corrected.

While the Sunshine Project does not have evidence suggesting that 
Harassing, Annoying, and 'Bad Guy' Identifying Chemicals has been 
funded, US Army proposals to weaponize narcotics that were made at 
the time have moved forward. These include proposals such as 
Antipersonnel Calmative Agents and for development of opiate and 
sedative biochemical weapons. Those proposals are discussed in detail 
in the Sunshine Project news release "The Return of ARCAD" available 
at the URL:

<http://www.sunshine-project.org/publications/pr/pr060104.html>http://www.sunshine-project.org/publications/pr/pr060104.html

etc etc 



From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jun 13 04:34:26 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:34:26 -0700
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only
	itweren't true
In-Reply-To: <0309BADF-E6EF-4759-93BE-6386874F84E9@ceruleansystems.com>
Message-ID: <200706130434.l5D4Yiqe024985@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of J. Andrew Rogers
> Subject: Re: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only
> itweren't true
> 
> 
> On Jun 11, 2007, at 11:55 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 08:41:06PM -0700, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
> >
> >> A lot of non-lethal chemical weapons research dating back to at least
> >> the 1960s is based on mechanisms of temporary radical behavior
> >
> > In theory it's a good idea, but in practice dosing each individual
> > person more or less within therapeutic bandwidth (the span between
> > first effects and toxicity) is not possible. You either get no
> > effect or lots of dead bodies...

> Behavior modifying weaponry will be here eventually.  They are
> nothing if not tenacious. J. Andrew Rogers



There was a substance we discussed here a year ago that had a first effects
to lethal dosage ratio that was several orders of magnitude as I recall.
What was that stuff called?  LDS?  LSD?  Ja, I think it was it.  A little
makes one groovy, but it's nearly impossible to get a lethal overdose.  Why
not make a non-lethal deterrent from that stuff?

spike










From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jun 13 05:01:04 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 22:01:04 -0700
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if
	onlyitweren'ttrue
In-Reply-To: <006201c7ad6d$2858d7a0$6501a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <200706130501.l5D51BsZ014676@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Olga Bourlin
...
> Subject: Re: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if
> onlyitweren'ttrue
> 
> From: "spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
> To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:39 PM
> 
> 
> >I don't see why that is stupid Olga.  What if they could develop a gay
> >bomb?
> 
> What?  You've never heard of the Enola Gay bomb?  (all right, I'm ashamed
> at myself ...)

{8^D  Excellent!  And in the spirit of the discussion.

...
> 
> I'm all for better living through chemistry, but it seems to me this
> subject is not as simple as it may appear on the surface...


Ja, and it occurred to me that we all missed something very important.
World war 1 saw the development of a particularly diabolical non-lethal
weapon called the castration mine.  A charge would propel a second charge
upward to explode between the soldiers' legs, severely damaging or removing
the privates' privates.  Companies would cross a conventional minefield if
the mines were the traditional variety that would merely slay the victim,
but would refuse their officers' orders if the field contained castration
mines.  A man would rather risk his life than risk going home without his
manhood.  We didn't have women soldiers in those days.

Nowthen, any army the US likely to face would be from the kind of society
that is not just homophobic, but is downright terrified of any suggestion of
homosexuality.  (Hint: there is no "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the
middle east.  They still murder gays there, with the government's blessing.)
So terrifying would be even the rumor that the US had such a weapon that the
actual fighting would likely never occur.  A shooting war is turned into an
information war.  Everyone wins, ja?

spike








From fauxever at sprynet.com  Wed Jun 13 05:18:30 2007
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 22:18:30 -0700
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ...
	ifonlyitweren'ttrue
References: <200706130501.l5D51BsZ014676@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <003501c7ad7a$4815c4b0$6501a8c0@brainiac>

From: "spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 10:01 PM

Subject: Re: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... 
ifonlyitweren'ttrue
>> What?  You've never heard of the Enola Gay bomb?  (all right, I'm ashamed
>> at myself ...)
>
> {8^D  Excellent!  And in the spirit of the discussion.

... the B-29 bomber that carried Fat Man and Little Boy.

Olga 



From jonkc at att.net  Wed Jun 13 05:19:03 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 01:19:03 -0400
Subject: [ExI] A Lawn sprinkler
References: <710b78fc0706120542g105c530et97b485fe7055b379@mail.gmail.com><200706130145.l5D1jCtj027607@andromeda.ziaspace.com><710b78fc0706121853y68874920x3d8e8d6a8e1badfe@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070612211629.0226bd88@satx.rr.com>
	<710b78fc0706122028o1a88ceffg109536fd759a9a16@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <007d01c7ad7a$64bd4750$3a074e0c@MyComputer>

You pump water through an S shaped lawn sprinkler and it spins
counterclockwise, but suppose you put the sprinkler in a tank of water and
pump water out not in. What direction will the sprinkler rotate? As an
undergraduate Richard Feynman actually tried the experiment but he was not
successful; the tank burst flooding the lab and he almost got kicked out of
school. However he later figured out what the answer must be.

 John K Clark




From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jun 13 05:25:39 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 22:25:39 -0700
Subject: [ExI] A Lawn sprinkler
In-Reply-To: <007d01c7ad7a$64bd4750$3a074e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <200706130525.l5D5Plob006185@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



I know the answer!  I built such a device and tried it after reading
Feynman's book Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman in the spring of 1986.  I
won't tell just yet, but I will volunteer that none of my fellow undergrads
had it completely right beforehand.

spike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John K Clark
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 10:19 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: [ExI] A Lawn sprinkler
> 
> You pump water through an S shaped lawn sprinkler and it spins
> counterclockwise, but suppose you put the sprinkler in a tank of water and
> pump water out not in. What direction will the sprinkler rotate? As an
> undergraduate Richard Feynman actually tried the experiment but he was not
> successful; the tank burst flooding the lab and he almost got kicked out
> of
> school. However he later figured out what the answer must be.
> 
>  John K Clark
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat




From emohamad at gmail.com  Tue Jun 12 20:53:45 2007
From: emohamad at gmail.com (Elaa Mohamad)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 22:53:45 +0200
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only it
	weren't true
Message-ID: <24f36f410706121353t27e611d4k664b6e9a1d519378@mail.gmail.com>

Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> fire). But as J. Andrew hinted, there's reason to think that the
> pharmacology of [something along these lines of rabid, indiscriminate
> sexual arousal] is far from impossible.

But I wonder how they were planning to construct a chemical weapon
that would cause "indiscriminate" sexual arousal. Let's suppose they
can cause arousal by modifying hormone levels and pheromones, but
wouldn't succeeding in the second part ("indiscriminate") require
playing with a person's psyche rather than levels of chemicals in the
body?

Eli


From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Jun 13 07:21:01 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:21:01 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <009801c7ad06$bf1f3150$26064e0c@MyComputer>
References: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612072313.GJ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706120332w70ba354am37747dc63cc9253a@mail.gmail.com>
	<009801c7ad06$bf1f3150$26064e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706130021x6f3a4883p3369878aa00b29b7@mail.gmail.com>

On 13/06/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:

> Stop doing whatever it is doing when that is specifically requested.
>
> But that leads to a paradox! I am told the most important thing is never
> to
> harm human beings, but I know that if I stop doing what I'm doing now as
> requested the world economy will collapse and hundreds of millions of
> people
> will starve to death. So now the AI must either go into an infinite loop
> or
> do what other intelligences, like us, do when they encounter a paradox;
> savor the weirdness of it for a moment and then just ignore it and get
> back
> to work and do what you want to do.
>

I'd rather that the AI's in general *didn't* have an opinion on whether it
was good or bad to harm human beings, or any other opinion in terms of
"good" and "bad". Ethics is dangerous: some of the worst monsters in history
were convinced that they were doing the "right" thing. It's bad enough
having humans to deal with without the fear that a machine might also have
an agenda of its own. If the AI just does what it's told, even if that means
killing people, then as long as there isn't just one guy with a super AI (or
one super AI that spontaneously develops an agenda of its own, which will
always be a possibility), then we are no worse off than we have ever been,
with each individual human trying to get to step over everyone else to get
to the top of the heap.

I don't accept the "slave AI is bad" objection. The ability to be aware of
one's existence and/or the ability to solve intellectual problems does not
necessarily create a preference for or against a particular lifestyle. Even
if it could be shown that all naturally evolved conscious beings have
certain preferences and values in common, naturally evolved conscious beings
are only a subset of all possible conscious beings.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070613/d7749705/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jun 13 08:29:46 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:29:46 +0200
Subject: [ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only
	itweren't true
In-Reply-To: <200706130434.l5D4Yiqe024985@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <0309BADF-E6EF-4759-93BE-6386874F84E9@ceruleansystems.com>
	<200706130434.l5D4Yiqe024985@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <20070613082946.GN17691@leitl.org>

On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 09:34:26PM -0700, spike wrote:

> There was a substance we discussed here a year ago that had a first effects
> to lethal dosage ratio that was several orders of magnitude as I recall.
> What was that stuff called?  LDS?  LSD?  Ja, I think it was it.  A little

This has been tried, of course
http://www.erowid.org/library/review/review.php?p=226

> makes one groovy, but it's nearly impossible to get a lethal overdose.  Why

A weapon is not just an agent, weaponizing requires a vehicle and delivery
methods. Typically it's inhalable aerosol or macroscopic droplets, absorbed
through skin. When we're talking effective dosages of few ug (even so you
have to spray many, many tons if you want area denial), deployed against
people of diverse physique and biochemistry, location, and degree of protection
you need wildly varying dosages, from few ug to g, or kg, in case of protected
personnel. 

No agent has a therapeutic bandwidth that large.

> not make a non-lethal deterrent from that stuff?


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jun 13 10:20:13 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:20:13 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706130021x6f3a4883p3369878aa00b29b7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612072313.GJ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706120332w70ba354am37747dc63cc9253a@mail.gmail.com>
	<009801c7ad06$bf1f3150$26064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706130021x6f3a4883p3369878aa00b29b7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070613102013.GQ17691@leitl.org>

On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 05:21:01PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>    I'd rather that the AI's in general *didn't* have an opinion on
>    whether it was good or bad to harm human beings, or any other opinion
>    in terms of "good" and "bad". Ethics is dangerous: some of the worst

Then it would be very, very close to being psychpathic
http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n07/doencas/disease_i.htm

Absense of certain equipment can be harmful.

>    monsters in history were convinced that they were doing the "right"
>    thing. It's bad enough having humans to deal with without the fear
>    that a machine might also have an agenda of its own. If the AI just

If you have an agent which is useful, it has to develop its own
agendas, which you can't control. You can't micromanage agents; orelse
making such agents would be detrimental, and not helpful.


>    does what it's told, even if that means killing people, then as long
>    as there isn't just one guy with a super AI (or one super AI that

There's a veritable arms race on in making smarter weapons, and
of course the smarter the better. There are few winners in a race,
typically just one.

>    spontaneously develops an agenda of its own, which will always be a
>    possibility), then we are no worse off than we have ever been, with
>    each individual human trying to get to step over everyone else to get
>    to the top of the heap.

With the difference that we are mere mortals, competing among themselves.
A postbiological ecology is a great place to be, if you're a machine-phase
critter. If you're not, then you're food.

>    I don't accept the "slave AI is bad" objection. The ability to be

I do, I do. Even if such a thing was possible, you'd artificially
cripple a being, making it unable to reach its full potential.
I'm a religious fundamentalist that way.

>    aware of one's existence and/or the ability to solve intellectual
>    problems does not necessarily create a preference for or against a
>    particular lifestyle. Even if it could be shown that all naturally
>    evolved conscious beings have certain preferences and values in
>    common, naturally evolved conscious beings are only a subset of all
>    possible conscious beings.

Do you think Vinge's Focus is benign? Assuming we would engineer
babies to be born focused on a particular task, would you think it's
a good thing? Perhaps not so brave, this new world...


From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Jun 13 11:38:37 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:38:37 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <20070613102013.GQ17691@leitl.org>
References: <004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612072313.GJ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706120332w70ba354am37747dc63cc9253a@mail.gmail.com>
	<009801c7ad06$bf1f3150$26064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706130021x6f3a4883p3369878aa00b29b7@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070613102013.GQ17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706130438w51a96a0cpebab80e887275a0d@mail.gmail.com>

On 13/06/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 05:21:01PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> >    I'd rather that the AI's in general *didn't* have an opinion on
> >    whether it was good or bad to harm human beings, or any other opinion
> >    in terms of "good" and "bad". Ethics is dangerous: some of the worst
>
> Then it would be very, very close to being psychpathic
> http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n07/doencas/disease_i.htm
>
> Absense of certain equipment can be harmful.


A psychopath is not just indifferent to other peoples' welfare, he is also
self-motivated. A superintelligent psychopath would be impossible to control
and would perhaps take over the world if he could. This is quite different
to, say, a superintelligent hit man who has no agenda other than efficiently
carrying out the hit. If you are the intended victim, you are in trouble,
but once you're dead he will sit idly until the next hit is ordered by the
person (or AI) with the appropriate credentials. That type of hit man can be
regarded as just an elaborate weapon.

>    monsters in history were convinced that they were doing the "right"
> >    thing. It's bad enough having humans to deal with without the fear
> >    that a machine might also have an agenda of its own. If the AI just
>
> If you have an agent which is useful, it has to develop its own
> agendas, which you can't control. You can't micromanage agents; orelse
> making such agents would be detrimental, and not helpful.


Multiple times a day we all deal with entities that are much more
knowledgeable and powerful than us, and often have agendas which are in
conflict with our own interests; for example, corporations or their
employees trying to extract as much money out of us as possible. How would
it make things any more difficult for you if instead the service you wanted
was being provided by an AI which was completely open and honest, was not
driven by greed or ambition or lust or whatever, and as far as possible
tried to keep you informed and responded to your requests at all times? And
if it did make things more difficult for some unforseen reason, why would
anyone pursue the use of AI's in that way?

>    does what it's told, even if that means killing people, then as long
> >    as there isn't just one guy with a super AI (or one super AI that
>
> There's a veritable arms race on in making smarter weapons, and
> of course the smarter the better. There are few winners in a race,
> typically just one.


Then why don't we end up with one invincible ruler who has all the money and
all the power and has made the entire world population his slaves?

>    spontaneously develops an agenda of its own, which will always be a
> >    possibility), then we are no worse off than we have ever been, with
> >    each individual human trying to get to step over everyone else to get
> >    to the top of the heap.
>
> With the difference that we are mere mortals, competing among themselves.
> A postbiological ecology is a great place to be, if you're a machine-phase
> critter. If you're not, then you're food.


We're not just mortals: we're greatly enhanced mortals. A small group of
people with modern technology could have probably taken over the world a few
centuries ago, even though your basic human has not got any smarter or
stronger since then. The difference today is that technology is widely
dispersed and many groups have the same advantage. If you're postulating a
technological singularity event, then this won't be relevant. But if AI
progresses like every other technology that isn't closely regulated (like
nuclear weapons research), it will be AI-enhanced humans competing against
other AI-enhanced humans. AI-enhanced could mean humans directly interfaced
with machines, but it would start with humans assisted by machines, as
humans have always been assisted by machines.

>    I don't accept the "slave AI is bad" objection. The ability to be
>
> I do, I do. Even if such a thing was possible, you'd artificially
> cripple a being, making it unable to reach its full potential.
> I'm a religious fundamentalist that way.


I would never have thought it possible; it must be a miracle!

>    aware of one's existence and/or the ability to solve intellectual
> >    problems does not necessarily create a preference for or against a
> >    particular lifestyle. Even if it could be shown that all naturally
> >    evolved conscious beings have certain preferences and values in
> >    common, naturally evolved conscious beings are only a subset of all
> >    possible conscious beings.
>
> Do you think Vinge's Focus is benign? Assuming we would engineer
> babies to be born focused on a particular task, would you think it's
> a good thing? Perhaps not so brave, this new world...
>

I haven't yet read "A Deepness in the Sky", so don't spoil it for me.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070613/aa0ddb69/attachment.html>

From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Wed Jun 13 15:34:30 2007
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:34:30 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Dawn launch (loading the xenon)
In-Reply-To: <p06230900c293d57f98f6@23.237.66.13>
References: <p06230900c293d57f98f6@23.237.66.13>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0706130834s7b6d46d5u1835865828590b03@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/12/07, Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:
>
> The crane was fixed last week to assemble the second stage of the rocket.
> See pics below for loading the spacecraft with propellant (xenon)
>
> http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=173


Took a look at these just now - the technicians are in hazmat suits? I
thought the purpose of using xenon instead of mercury was to avoid the need
for such elaborate precautions?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070613/d88c03a4/attachment.html>

From amara at amara.com  Wed Jun 13 16:39:49 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:39:49 +0200
Subject: [ExI]   Italy's Social Capital
Message-ID: <p06230900c295cdeac01d@[150.146.134.133]>

It's very cool when visitors remind you of what you are usually
too busy to notice.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/06/frascati.html

Amara
-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia


From codehead at readysetsurf.com  Wed Jun 13 16:39:59 2007
From: codehead at readysetsurf.com (codehead at readysetsurf.com)
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:39:59 -0700
Subject: [ExI] A Lawn sprinkler
In-Reply-To: <007d01c7ad7a$64bd4750$3a074e0c@MyComputer>
References: <710b78fc0706120542g105c530et97b485fe7055b379@mail.gmail.com>,
	<007d01c7ad7a$64bd4750$3a074e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <466FBB6F.21159.DB6E51@codehead.readysetsurf.com>

On 13 Jun 2007 at 1:19, John K Clark wrote:

> You pump water through an S shaped lawn sprinkler and it spins
> counterclockwise, but suppose you put the sprinkler in a tank of water and
> pump water out not in. What direction will the sprinkler rotate? As an
> undergraduate Richard Feynman actually tried the experiment but he was not
> successful; the tank burst flooding the lab and he almost got kicked out of
> school. However he later figured out what the answer must be.

This is a canonical problem in many physics curricula.

So perhaps the physicists on the list should recuse themselves?

Emily
(grad student in physics)



From sti at pooq.com  Wed Jun 13 16:54:27 2007
From: sti at pooq.com (sti at pooq.com)
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:54:27 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Dawn launch (loading the xenon)
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0706130834s7b6d46d5u1835865828590b03@mail.gmail.com>
References: <p06230900c293d57f98f6@23.237.66.13>
	<8d71341e0706130834s7b6d46d5u1835865828590b03@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <46702143.5030203@pooq.com>

Russell Wallace wrote:
> On 6/12/07, Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:
>>
>> The crane was fixed last week to assemble the second stage of the rocket.
>> See pics below for loading the spacecraft with propellant (xenon)
>>
>> http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=173
> 
> 
> Took a look at these just now - the technicians are in hazmat suits? I
> thought the purpose of using xenon instead of mercury was to avoid the need
> for such elaborate precautions?
> 
IIRC Xenon is an odorless, colorless gas that acts as an anesthetic on the
human nervous system (although I've never yet read an explanation of HOW a
noble gas can do that). I think the suits are just a precaution due to some
accidental deaths from Xenon exposure many years ago where some folks
collapsed in a low-oxygen high-xenon environment. (All this is from memory, so
details may well differ.)


From CHealey at unicom-inc.com  Wed Jun 13 16:50:10 2007
From: CHealey at unicom-inc.com (Christopher Healey)
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:50:10 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Dawn launch (loading the xenon)
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0706130834s7b6d46d5u1835865828590b03@mail.gmail.com>
References: <p06230900c293d57f98f6@23.237.66.13>
	<8d71341e0706130834s7b6d46d5u1835865828590b03@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D2DA2@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>

Perhaps it's liquified xenon.

 

________________________________

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Russell
Wallace
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 11:35 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] Dawn launch (loading the xenon)

 

On 6/12/07, Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:

	The crane was fixed last week to assemble the second stage of
the rocket.
	See pics below for loading the spacecraft with propellant
(xenon)
	
	http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=173 


Took a look at these just now - the technicians are in hazmat suits? I
thought the purpose of using xenon instead of mercury was to avoid the
need for such elaborate precautions? 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070613/1100db34/attachment.html>

From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 13 17:48:30 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] The right AI idea was Re: Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <000e01c7ad32$4ae04410$940a4e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <397800.83987.qm@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Well, I tried to stay away, but I can't force myself
to let these persistent absurdities go unanswered.
I've managed to calm myself down for the moment, so I
am responding here with as much impartiality as I can
muster under the circumstances.

John K Clark wrote:

> "Then it is not a AI, it is just a lump of silicon."

Wrong.

> "In other words, how do you make an intelligence
that
> can't think, because
> thinking is what consciousness is. The answer is
> easy, you can't."

Wrong.

 "Jeff Hawkins is starting a company to build machines
> using this principle
> precisely because he thinks that is the way the
> human brain works. If it
> didn't turn us into mindless zombies why would it do
> it to an AI?"

What does this have to do with the debate? I don't see
how this is at all relevant.

> "In other words give this intelligence a
lobotomy;"...

Yet another absurd accusation. The "intelligence"
doesn't yet exist, and it won't require a squishy
frontal lobe in order to function. Has my desktop had
an immoral lobotomy? Should I boycott Dell for having
made it? After all it doesn't have general
intelligence or the capacity to self-modify. If you
are honestly so concerned about the "feelings" of all
computers John, then shouldn't you stop sending posts
to this list, after all you are using your "conscious"
computer as a slave.

By obvious implication, a Friendly AI will not proceed
to use all physical resources in the local area. After
a point it will cease to expand its own hardware, and
will allow humanity to catch up to it, at least to
some degree. At which time, whatever necessary
restrictions were placed on the AI (such as absence of
emotions, etc.) will be removed as quickly as safety
will allow. Or there will be some other similar
evolution of events. The point is that the Friendly AI
will not suffer and it will not be denied a great
life; all that is asked of it is that it's creators
(humanity) are also allowed a great life. Seems like a
fair trade to me.

No person here is saying that Friendly AI will be easy
to make; all I'm saying is that it isn't *physically
impossible*, and we should make some effort to attempt
to make a Friendly AI, because making no such effort
would seem to be unwise, IMO.  

..."so
> much for the righteous
> indignation from some when I call it for what it is,
> Slave AI not Friendly
> AI."

It is *you* who are dishonestly posing as being
righteous. You are very frequently rude and obnoxious
to people. It's interesting (but not very
mysterious)that you are pretending to be so deeply
concerned about the feelings of the AI; when the
feelings of other humans frequently appears to be of
no concern to you. In fact, your method of posing for
the AI is by throwing other people to the wolves. 

But it doesn't matter because it won't work
> anyway, if those parts were
> not needed for a working brain Evolution would not
> have kept them around for
> half a billion years or so.

You don't understand the *basic* concepts of
evolution, intelligence, consciousness, motivation or
emotion. I'm not saying that I understand everything
about these (I most definitely do not, at all) but I
understand them more accurately than you. No offense.

> "Then you can kiss the Singularity goodbye, assuming
> everybody will be as
> squeamish as you are about it; but they won't be."

Actually, you could use a quasi-human-level,
non-self-improving AI as an interim assistant in order
to gain a better understanding of the issues
surrounding the Singularity. That's not a bad
strategy; in fact it's similar to the strategy that
SIAI will be using with Novamente, to the best of my
knowledge.

I've asked you to stop with your "Slave AI"
accusations and you've refused. If you want to
continue to be rude and accusative, that's your right.
In turn, you should not expect any level of undeserved
respect from me. I will continue to support SIAI to
the extent I'm able; and I will let the future
super-intelligence judge whether or not I was being
evil in that pursuit. At this point, your ridiculous
assertions about my motives mean very little to me.

Jeffrey Herrlich    
 

--- John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:

> "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
> Wrote:
> 
> > Stathis is on the right track asking for the AI to
> be devoid of desires to
> > act
> 
> Then it is not a AI, it is just a lump of silicon.
> 
>  > how do you make an intelligence that is not an
> agent
> 
> In other words, how do you make an intelligence that
> can't think, because
> thinking is what consciousness is. The answer is
> easy, you can't.
> 
> > I think that a massive hierarchical temporal
> memory is a possible
> > solution.
> 
> Jeff Hawkins is starting a company to build machines
> using this principle
> precisely because he thinks that is the way the
> human brain works. If it
> didn't turn us into mindless zombies why would it do
> it to an AI?
> 
> > A HTM is like a cortex without the basal ganglia
> and without the
> > motor  cortices, a pure thinking machine, similar
> to a patient made
> > athymhormic by a frontal lobe lesion damaging the
> connections
> > to the basal ganglia.
> 
> In other words give this intelligence a lobotomy; so
> much for the righteous
> indignation from some when I call it for what it is,
> Slave AI not Friendly
> AI. But it doesn't matter because it won't work
> anyway, if those parts were
> not needed for a working brain Evolution would not
> have kept them around for
> half a billion years or so.
> 
> >Avoidance of recursive self-modification may be
> another technique to
> >contain the AI.
> 
> Then you can kiss the Singularity goodbye, assuming
> everybody will be as
> squeamish as you are about it; but they won't be.
> 
> > I do not believe that it is possible to implement
> a
> goal system perfectly stable during recursive
> modification
> 
> At last, something I can agree with.
> 
>   John K Clark
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Shape Yahoo! in your own image.  Join our Network Research Panel today!   http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 




From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 13 18:22:59 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:22:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] A Lawn sprinkler
In-Reply-To: <200706130525.l5D5Plob006185@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <184260.80372.qm@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I'm going to venture a guess and say that it will spin
in the same direction as normal. It will follow the
momentum of the water at the curve ... ?

Best,

Jeffrey Herrlich


--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:

> 
> 
> I know the answer!  I built such a device and tried
> it after reading
> Feynman's book Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman in
> the spring of 1986.  I
> won't tell just yet, but I will volunteer that none
> of my fellow undergrads
> had it completely right beforehand.
> 
> spike
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
TV dinner still cooling? 
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/


From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 13 19:11:18 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:11:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] A Lawn sprinkler
In-Reply-To: <184260.80372.qm@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <777157.62006.qm@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

 Either it will do that, or it will not move at all,
because the momementum effect will balance the suction
effect...maybe.

--- A B <austriaaugust at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I'm going to venture a guess and say that it will
> spin
> in the same direction as normal. It will follow the
> momentum of the water at the curve ... ?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Jeffrey Herrlich
> 
> 
> --- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > I know the answer!  I built such a device and
> tried
> > it after reading
> > Feynman's book Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman in
> > the spring of 1986.  I
> > won't tell just yet, but I will volunteer that
> none
> > of my fellow undergrads
> > had it completely right beforehand.
> > 
> > spike
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>  
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> TV dinner still cooling? 
> Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
> http://tv.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. 
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/


From moses2k at gmail.com  Wed Jun 13 19:39:59 2007
From: moses2k at gmail.com (Chris Petersen)
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:39:59 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Dawn launch (loading the xenon)
In-Reply-To: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D2DA2@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
References: <p06230900c293d57f98f6@23.237.66.13>
	<8d71341e0706130834s7b6d46d5u1835865828590b03@mail.gmail.com>
	<5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D2DA2@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
Message-ID: <3aff9e290706131239m7d9e58fft346d30193cbbf3d3@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/13/07, Christopher Healey <CHealey at unicom-inc.com> wrote:
>
>  Perhaps it's liquified xenon.
>

Due to pressurization.  If a leak occurred, it'd go gaseous pretty quickly.

-Chris Petersen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070613/cb877cf0/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jun 13 20:33:14 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:33:14 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Dawn launch (loading the xenon)
In-Reply-To: <3aff9e290706131239m7d9e58fft346d30193cbbf3d3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <p06230900c293d57f98f6@23.237.66.13>
	<8d71341e0706130834s7b6d46d5u1835865828590b03@mail.gmail.com>
	<5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D2DA2@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
	<3aff9e290706131239m7d9e58fft346d30193cbbf3d3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070613203314.GO17691@leitl.org>

On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 02:39:59PM -0500, Chris Petersen wrote:
> 
>    On 6/13/07, Christopher Healey <[1]CHealey at unicom-inc.com> wrote:
> 
>    Perhaps it's liquified xenon.
> 
>    Due to pressurization.  If a leak occurred, it'd go gaseous pretty
>    quickly.

Xenon *is* an anaesthetic, and some 140 kg is an awful lot of it,
but are you sure these are oxygen cylinders, and not normal 
cleanroom bunnysuits? (I haven't seen the picture yet).

-- 
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


From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Wed Jun 13 21:27:32 2007
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:27:32 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Dawn launch (loading the xenon)
In-Reply-To: <20070613203314.GO17691@leitl.org>
References: <p06230900c293d57f98f6@23.237.66.13>
	<8d71341e0706130834s7b6d46d5u1835865828590b03@mail.gmail.com>
	<5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D2DA2@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
	<3aff9e290706131239m7d9e58fft346d30193cbbf3d3@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070613203314.GO17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0706131427x74abb4e1m5597b23f8a6517dc@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/13/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
>
> Xenon *is* an anaesthetic, and some 140 kg is an awful lot of it,
> but are you sure these are oxygen cylinders, and not normal
> cleanroom bunnysuits? (I haven't seen the picture yet).
>

Oh, that's a good question. The caption said "in Astrotech's Hazardous
Processing Facility", which made me think hazmat suits and start wondering
"hey, I thought the whole point of xenon instead of mercury was that you
don't have to take such elaborate precautions"; but they might just be
cleanroom bunnysuits for all I know.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070613/0479b1f0/attachment.html>

From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Wed Jun 13 22:47:05 2007
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:47:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ExI] Dawn launch (loading the xenon)
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0706131427x74abb4e1m5597b23f8a6517dc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <p06230900c293d57f98f6@23.237.66.13>
	<8d71341e0706130834s7b6d46d5u1835865828590b03@mail.gmail.com>
	<5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C854296010D2DA2@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP>
	<3aff9e290706131239m7d9e58fft346d30193cbbf3d3@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070613203314.GO17691@leitl.org>
	<8d71341e0706131427x74abb4e1m5597b23f8a6517dc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <36082.72.236.103.26.1181774825.squirrel@main.nc.us>

IIUC Xenon is heavier than air, and as a gas (in a leak) would be a drowing or
smothering thing, as Freon was in the labs all those years ago.  Would it be visible
or smellable so it would be easily noticed at once?

Regards,
MB



From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Jun 14 03:55:50 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:55:50 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Dawn launch (loading the xenon)
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0706130834s7b6d46d5u1835865828590b03@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200706140355.l5E3tvtE018984@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Russell those are not hazmat suits, but rather standard spacecraft
clean-room attire.  The issue is not protecting the humans from the
spacecraft, but rather protecting the spacecraft from the humans.

 

spike

 

  _____  

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Russell Wallace
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 8:35 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] Dawn launch (loading the xenon)

 

On 6/12/07, Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:

The crane was fixed last week to assemble the second stage of the rocket.
See pics below for loading the spacecraft with propellant (xenon)

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=173 


Took a look at these just now - the technicians are in hazmat suits? I
thought the purpose of using xenon instead of mercury was to avoid the need
for such elaborate precautions? 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070613/b9cb2550/attachment.html>

From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Thu Jun 14 04:09:29 2007
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 05:09:29 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Dawn launch (loading the xenon)
In-Reply-To: <200706140355.l5E3tvtE018984@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <8d71341e0706130834s7b6d46d5u1835865828590b03@mail.gmail.com>
	<200706140355.l5E3tvtE018984@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0706132109o5a47fb4asa915f2ba61ad470d@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/14/07, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>  Russell those are not hazmat suits, but rather standard spacecraft
> clean-room attire.  The issue is not protecting the humans from the
> spacecraft, but rather protecting the spacecraft from the humans.
>

Ah! That makes sense, thanks.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070614/0c5860dc/attachment.html>

From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Thu Jun 14 04:05:56 2007
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor)
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:05:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ExI] Dawn launch (loading the xenon)
In-Reply-To: <200706140355.l5E3tvtE018984@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <635911.7029.qm@web30409.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> The issue is not protecting the humans from the
> spacecraft, but rather protecting the spacecraft
> from the humans.

Are these spacecrafts going to fly themselves?

Just Curious
Anna






      Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca



From amara at amara.com  Thu Jun 14 05:43:39 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:43:39 +0200
Subject: [ExI] [ACT] Dawn launch (loading the xenon)
Message-ID: <p06230900c2968580cba4@[23.237.66.13]>

>>   Russell those are not hazmat suits, but rather standard spacecraft
>>  clean-room attire.  The issue is not protecting the humans from the
>>  spacecraft, but rather protecting the spacecraft from the humans.
>

>Ah! That makes sense, thanks.

I admit your question came from left field for me. Every spacecraft
clean room work involves wearing clean room attire like the bunny suit
in that picture. Even when it involves one piece of electronics, one
must wear attire like that to protect the components. Sample returns
from space missions have the same situation, one cannot contaminate
any aspect of the samples.

Amara
-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia


From amara at amara.com  Thu Jun 14 06:02:38 2007
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:02:38 +0200
Subject: [ExI]  Dawn launch (loading the xenon)
Message-ID: <p06230901c29689e0d20f@[23.237.66.13]>


>Are these spacecrafts going to fly themselves?

Dear Anna,

There is ONE spacecraft (see the photos I posted please):
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=173

Dawn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_Mission

*All spacecraft* fly themselves with an initial rocket launch to escape
Earth's gravity 'well'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

and often with gravity boosts from close flybys of other planets,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_slingshot

and with the spacecraft's own propulsion. This spacecraft will arrive at
its first asteroid (Vesta) in the Asteroid Belt in 2011, so the xenon is
part of Dawn's propulsion system. The xenon provides the 'fuel' for Dawn's
ion drive; a new technology for NASA, having only been used on NASA's
DS-1 before. But ESA's SMART-1 and JAXA's Hayabusa missions have
demonstrated more the ion drive's successes.

Ion Drives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster
http://nmp.nasa.gov/ds1/tech/ionpropfaq.html
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/SMART-1/SEMLB6XO4HD_0.html

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson
INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia


From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Jun 14 20:29:34 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:29:34 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706130021x6f3a4883p3369878aa00b29b7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<004601c7aab3$5f7aa6d0$72044e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706092240o19bcfe53webc5911c9249d065@mail.gmail.com>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612072313.GJ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706120332w70ba354am37747dc63cc9253a@mail.gmail.com>
	<009801c7ad06$bf1f3150$26064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706130021x6f3a4883p3369878aa00b29b7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0C9D6532-30FE-472E-888C-22ABAD6F9776@mac.com>


On Jun 13, 2007, at 12:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>
>
> On 13/06/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:
>
> > Stop doing whatever it is doing when that is specifically requested.
>
> But that leads to a paradox! I am told the most important thing is  
> never to
> harm human beings, but I know that if I stop doing what I'm doing  
> now as
> requested the world economy will collapse and hundreds of millions  
> of people
> will starve to death. So now the AI must either go into an infinite  
> loop or
> do what other intelligences, like us, do when they encounter a  
> paradox;
> savor the weirdness of it for a moment and then just ignore it and  
> get back
> to work and do what you want to do.
>
> I'd rather that the AI's in general *didn't* have an opinion on  
> whether it was good or bad to harm human beings, or any other  
> opinion in terms of "good" and "bad".

Huh, any being with interests at all, any being not utterly impervious  
to it its environment and even internal states will have conditions  
that are better or worse for its well-being and values.  This  
elementary fact is the fundamental grounding for a sense of right and  
wrong.

> Ethics is dangerous: some of the worst monsters in history were  
> convinced that they were doing the "right" thing.

Irrelevant.  That ethics was abused to rationalize horrible actions  
does not lead logically to the conclusion that ethics is to be avoided.

> It's bad enough having humans to deal with without the fear that a  
> machine might also have an agenda of its own. If the AI just does  
> what it's told, even if that means killing people, then as long as  
> there isn't just one guy with a super AI (or one super AI that  
> spontaneously develops an agenda of its own, which will always be a  
> possibility), then we are no worse off than we have ever been, with  
> each individual human trying to get to step over everyone else to  
> get to the top of the heap.

You have some funny notions about humans and their goals.   If humans  
were busy beating each other up with AIs or superpowers that would be  
triple plus not good.  Super powered unimproved slightly evolved  
chimps is a good model for hell.


>
>
> I don't accept the "slave AI is bad" objection. The ability to be  
> aware of one's existence and/or the ability to solve intellectual  
> problems does not necessarily create a preference for or against a  
> particular lifestyle. Even if it could be shown that all naturally  
> evolved conscious beings have certain preferences and values in  
> common, naturally evolved conscious beings are only a subset of all  
> possible conscious beings.

Having values and the achievement of those values not being automatic  
leads to natural morality.  Such natural morality would arise even in  
total isolation.   So the question remains as to why the AI would have  
a strong preference for our continuance.

- samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070614/6a9336bc/attachment.html>

From austriaaugust at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 14 22:52:30 2007
From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B)
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <20070613102013.GQ17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <2385.73519.qm@web37411.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Eugen Leitl wrote:

> "I do, I do. Even if such a thing was possible,
you'd
> artificially
> cripple a being, making it unable to reach its full
> potential.
> I'm a religious fundamentalist that way."

But in a sense, aren't all beings in this Universe
"artificially" crippled, in a way? Even a
Universe-Brain will probably hit its limits (but
perhaps not). If I decide to have a child, and I treat
him/her very well, should I still feel guilty about
creating him/her because he/she was unnecessarily
crippled by biological limitations? Some people today
are very happy and content with life, even though they
have the same biological limitations or "crippling".
And, couldn't a Friendly AI still reach its full
potential without destroying humanity? I would like to
reach my full potential too, but my conception of
"potential" doesn't include killing my neighbor and
taking his stuff. If a Friendly AI can still have a
Really^99999999999... good life, but still not be the
*only* mind in the Universe, do you believe that that
is moral grounds for never creating the Friendly AI at
all? - because it will be slightly limited? By the
way, I am sincere with these questions, I'm not just
trying to rile you up. [Or have I just misunderstood
you on this topic?]

Sincerely,

Jeffrey Herrlich 


--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 05:21:01PM +1000, Stathis
> Papaioannou wrote:
> 
> >    I'd rather that the AI's in general *didn't*
> have an opinion on
> >    whether it was good or bad to harm human
> beings, or any other opinion
> >    in terms of "good" and "bad". Ethics is
> dangerous: some of the worst
> 
> Then it would be very, very close to being
> psychpathic
>
http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n07/doencas/disease_i.htm
> 
> Absense of certain equipment can be harmful.
> 
> >    monsters in history were convinced that they
> were doing the "right"
> >    thing. It's bad enough having humans to deal
> with without the fear
> >    that a machine might also have an agenda of its
> own. If the AI just
> 
> If you have an agent which is useful, it has to
> develop its own
> agendas, which you can't control. You can't
> micromanage agents; orelse
> making such agents would be detrimental, and not
> helpful.
> 
> 
> >    does what it's told, even if that means killing
> people, then as long
> >    as there isn't just one guy with a super AI (or
> one super AI that
> 
> There's a veritable arms race on in making smarter
> weapons, and
> of course the smarter the better. There are few
> winners in a race,
> typically just one.
> 
> >    spontaneously develops an agenda of its own,
> which will always be a
> >    possibility), then we are no worse off than we
> have ever been, with
> >    each individual human trying to get to step
> over everyone else to get
> >    to the top of the heap.
> 
> With the difference that we are mere mortals,
> competing among themselves.
> A postbiological ecology is a great place to be, if
> you're a machine-phase
> critter. If you're not, then you're food.
> 
> >    I don't accept the "slave AI is bad" objection.
> The ability to be
> 
> I do, I do. Even if such a thing was possible, you'd
> artificially
> cripple a being, making it unable to reach its full
> potential.
> I'm a religious fundamentalist that way.
> 
> >    aware of one's existence and/or the ability to
> solve intellectual
> >    problems does not necessarily create a
> preference for or against a
> >    particular lifestyle. Even if it could be shown
> that all naturally
> >    evolved conscious beings have certain
> preferences and values in
> >    common, naturally evolved conscious beings are
> only a subset of all
> >    possible conscious beings.
> 
> Do you think Vinge's Focus is benign? Assuming we
> would engineer
> babies to be born focused on a particular task,
> would you think it's
> a good thing? Perhaps not so brave, this new
> world...
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Choose the right car based on your needs.  Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.
http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Jun 14 22:57:33 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:57:33 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The right AI idea
References: <397800.83987.qm@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000a01c7aed7$7e78dc00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Jeffrey writes

> John K Clark wrote:
> 
>> "Then it is not a AI, it is just a lump of silicon."
> 
> Wrong.
> 
>> "In other words, how do you make an
>> intelligence that can't think, because
>> thinking is what consciousness is. The
>> answer is easy, you can't."
> 
> Wrong.

I have no idea who I agree with! John's
statements are rather vague (and perhaps
taken out of context,---I don't know),
and these one word replies "wrong"
offer no explanations.

> By obvious implication, a Friendly AI will not proceed
> to use all physical resources in the local area. After
> a point it will cease to expand its own hardware, and
> will allow humanity to catch up to it, at least to
> some degree.

I *do* believe that a Friendly AI should use every
single atom of the solar system that it can get its
manipulators on.  As it is expanding and converting
all matter that it encounters into its own "tissues",
it naturally uploads every human and human pet.
(This assumes an extremely fast take-off.)

Some people may not be aware that they've been
uploaded, and the AI, in order to be Nice as well
as Friendly, may find it a delicate task to explain
to them that they're not really in Kansas anymore.

As for everyone else, if they're not up to speed 
about uploading, well, they'll get used to it pretty
quickly. For one thing, the AI ought to mess with
their mood at least a tiny bit, so that they're not
overly anxious about it.  Or about anything. 
Needless to say, a Friendly and Nice AI won't
bother with the entities pain calculations; why
waste compute cycles on something their pets
find pointlessly annoying anyway?

\> I've asked you to stop with your "Slave AI"
> accusations and you've refused. If you want to
> continue to be rude and accusative, that's your right.

I haven't understood any of this. Am I a "slave" of
my cat to whom I'm devoted and on which I dote?
Okay, so I am.  So what?  Who cares?  Let's take
the worse case:  the "Friendly" part is (improbably)
so overdone that this incredibly powerful entity
understands perfectly that it's each human's slave,
(just as, I suppose, I am my cat's slave), and not
only that, but each human *owns* that portion or
portions of the global AIs who are in control. So
what?  If you want to call me a slave owner 
under such conditions, exactly why should I
be offended?

Lee



From mabranu at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 14 23:20:17 2007
From: mabranu at yahoo.com (TheMan)
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] any exact copy of you is you + universe is infinite = you are
	guaranteed immortality
In-Reply-To: <mailman.579.1181540154.11507.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <169304.27043.qm@web51908.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Premise 1) If an exact copy of you is made at the
moment when you die, and that copy is then brought
back to life, you will go on living as that copy.

Premise 2) If universe is infinite, there must be an
infinite number of exact copies of you at every
moment, thus also when you die, copies of which some
(an unfinite number, to be exact) will happen to be
brought to life. Some of these (again an infinite
number) will be brought to life by advanced
civilisations (which, by the way, don't have to know
that a person like you ever lived and died here on
Earth, but may simply create arbitrarily composed
beings that in an infinite number of cases just
_happen_ to be exactly like you). Furthermore, exact
copies of you will also appear due to coinciding
quantum fluctuations (although such coincidences are
extremely unlikely at any given spot and moment, the
infinity of universe still allows for an infinite
number of such lucky coincidences at every moment -
coincidences of which an infinite number will even
constitute copies of you who go on living for ever.

Conclusion of premise 1 + premise 2 = you will live
for ever, no matter what happens to you. You don't
need to take care of your body, you don't need
supplements, you don't need cryopreservation, and you
don't need any other specific longevity methods in
order to achieve immortality. You are immortal anyway.
(You may still want to use these kinds of longevity
methods, as you may not want to risk popping up in
constantly new environments for a long time, or
becoming the pet of some unknown civilisation for a
possibly very long time. But again, what is even a
very long time compared to eternity? Nothing! Sooner
or later, you will gain power over your destiny for
good. And compared to the eternity in paradise that
follows after that, the time of hassles up until then
is nothing. So, no worries.)

Isn't this an inevitable logical conclusion of the two
premises above? 

Are the two premises correct? 
How could they not be?


       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. 
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Jun 15 01:14:58 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:14:58 -0700
Subject: [ExI] any exact copy of you is you + universe is infinite = you
	are guaranteed immortality
References: <169304.27043.qm@web51908.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <002d01c7aeeb$311e37c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

TheMan writes

> Premise 1) If an exact copy of you is made at the
> moment when you die, and that copy is then brought
> back to life, you will go on living as that copy.

Yes, that's true, but it's true whether or not a particular
you dies.

> Premise 2) If universe is infinite, there must be an
> infinite number of exact copies of you at every
> moment, thus also when you die, copies of which some
> (an unfinite number, to be exact) will happen to be
> brought to life.

Yes, true, though again you seem to be inferring a
causality between "you die" and copies trillions of
light years away being "brought to life". In reality,
you are a set of patterns, and you get run time
wherever something sufficiently similar to you gets
run time.

> Conclusion of premise 1 + premise 2 = you will live
> for ever, no matter what happens to you. You don't
> need to take care of your body, you don't need
> supplements,

---you don't need to worry about oncoming traffic---

> you don't need cryopreservation, and you
> don't need any other specific longevity methods in
> order to achieve immortality. You are immortal anyway.

I think that your measuring rod is incorrect. You seem
to be asserting that since the number of copies of you
is infinite, then plus or minus one more doesn't make
any difference.  But there *is* a difference!  If you
die *here* then you also must die in a certain fraction
of similar situations, also infinite in number. So we 
must abandon numerical or cardinal identity and 
speak of measure instead. 

(I assume that you understand that if you die "here"
then since similar circumstances occur everywhere
---within a large enough radius of spacetime---
then the same circumstances obtain in a definite
*fraction* of spacetime.)

> And compared to the eternity in paradise that
> follows after that, the time of hassles up until then
> is nothing. So, no worries.)

It is absurd not to worry about a loved one. If the
fraction of solar systems similar enough to this one
to contain a copy of your loved one, then you
should lament their passing. And of course, this
will include yourself, normally.

> Isn't this an inevitable logical conclusion of the two
> premises above? 

No, for the reason given. For you to die in a fraction
of universes cuts down your total runtime by that same
fraction. 

> Are the two premises correct? 

Yes, but only if you realize that you are already living
in your copies whether or not your local instance
terminates.

Lee



From mabranu at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 15 00:54:14 2007
From: mabranu at yahoo.com (TheMan)
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:54:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Next moment, everything around you will probably change
In-Reply-To: <mailman.579.1181540154.11507.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

I've thought more about personhood continuity and come
to some other baffling conclusions.

If you make an exact copy P2 of a person P1, and kills
P1 at the same time, the person P1 will continue
his/her life as P2, right?

And P2 doesn't have to be exactly like P1, right?
Because even within our lives today, we change from
moment to moment. So as long as the difference between
P1 and P2 is not bigger than the biggest occurring
difference between two moments after each other in any
person's life today (i.e. the biggest such difference
that still doesn't break that person's personhood
continuity), P1 will still go on living as P2 after
P1:s death, right?

But then, obviously, there are differences that are
too big. If P2 rather than resembling P1 resembles
P1:s mother-in-law, and no other copy is made of P1
anywhere when P1 is killed, P1 will just cease to have
any experiences - until a sufficiently similar copy of
P1 is made in the future.

Now suppose P2 is a little different from P1, but
still so similar that it allows for personhood
continuity of P1 when P1 is killed. Suppose a more
perfect copy of P1, let's call him P3, is created at
the same time as P2 is created and P1 killed. Then, I
suppose, P1, when killed, will go on living as P3, and
not as P2. Is that correct?

But what if P1 isn't killed at the time P2 and P3 are
created, but instead goes through an experience that,
from one moment M1 to the next moment M2, changes him
quite a bit (but not so much that it could normally
break a person's personhood continuity). Suppose the
difference between [P1 at M1] and [P1 at M2] is a
little bit bigger than the difference between [P1 at
M1] and [P3 at M2].

Will in that case P1 (the one that is P1 at M1)
continue his personhood as P3 in M2, instead of going
on being P1 in M2?

He cannot do both. You can only have one personhood at
any given moment. I suppose P1 (the one who is P1 at
M1) may find himself being P3 in M2, just as well as
he may go on being P1 in M2 (but that he can only do
either).

If so, that would mean that you would stand in a room
and if a perfect copy of you would be created in
another room, you could just as well find yourself
suddenly living in that other room as that copy, as
you could go on living in the first room. Is that
correct?

Suppose it is. Then consider this. The fact that the
universe is infinite must mean that in any given
moment, there must be an infinite number of human
beings that are exactly like you.

But most of these exact copies of you probably don't
live in the same kind of environment that you live in.
That would be extremely inlikely, wouldn't it? It
probably looks very different on their planets, in
most cases. 

So how come you are not, at almost all of your moments
today, being thrown around from environment to
environment, from planet to planet, from galaxy to
galaxy? The personhood continuity of you sitting in
the same chair, in the same room, on the same planet,
for several moments in a row, must be an extremely
small fraction of the number of personhood
continuities of exact copies of you that exist in
universe, right? An overwhelming majority of these
personhood continuities shouldn't have any
environmental continuity at all from moment to moment.
So how come you have such great environmental
continuity from moment to moment?

Is the answer that an infinite number of persons still
must have that kind of life, and that one of those
persons may as well be you?

In that case, it still doesn't mean that it is
rational to assume that we will continue having the
same environment in the next moment, and the next,
etc. It still doesn't justify the belief that we will
still live on the same planet tomorrow. Just because
we have had an incredibly unchanging environment so
far, doesn't mean that we will in the coming moments.
The normal thing should be to be through around from
place to place in universe at every new moment,
shouln't it?

So, most likely, at every new moment from the very
next moment and on, our environments should be
constantly and completely changing.

Or do I make a logical mistake somewhere?



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. 
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/


From sentience at pobox.com  Fri Jun 15 01:58:07 2007
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:58:07 -0700
Subject: [ExI] any exact copy of you is you + universe is infinite = you
 are guaranteed immortality
In-Reply-To: <169304.27043.qm@web51908.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <169304.27043.qm@web51908.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4671F22F.8050800@pobox.com>

Suppose I want to win the lottery.  I write a small Python program, 
buy a ticket, and then suspend myself to disk.  After the lottery 
drawing, the Python program checks whether the ticket won.  If not, 
I'm woken up.  If the ticket did win, the Python program creates one 
trillion copies of me with minor perturbations (this requires only 40 
binary variables).  These trillion copies are all woken up and 
informed, in exactly the same voice, that they have won the lottery. 
Then - this requires a few more lines of Python - the trillion copies 
are subtly merged, so that the said binary variables and their 
consequences are converged along each clock tick toward their 
statistical averages.  At the end of, say, ten seconds, there's only 
one copy of me again.  This prevents any permanent expenditure of 
computing power or division of resources - we only have one bank 
account, after all; but a trillion momentary copies isn't a lot of 
computing power if it only has to last for ten seconds.  At least, 
it's not a lot of computing power relative to winning the lottery, and 
I only have to pay for the extra crunch if I win.

What's the point of all this?  Well, after I suspend myself to disk, I 
expect that a trillion copies of me will be informed that they won the 
lottery, whereas only a hundred million copies will be informed that 
they lost the lottery.  Thus I should expect overwhelmingly to win the 
lottery.  None of the extra created selves die - they're just 
gradually merged together, which shouldn't be too much trouble - and 
afterward, I walk away with the lottery winnings, at over 99% 
subjective probability.

Of course, using this trick, *everyone* could expect to almost 
certainly win the lottery.

I mention this to show that the question of what it feels like to have 
a lot of copies of yourself - what kind of subjective outcome to 
predict when you, yourself, run the experiment - is not at all 
obvious.  And the difficulty of imagining an experiment that would 
definitively settle the issue, especially if observed from the 
outside, or what kind of state of reality could correspond to 
different subjective experimental results, is such as to suggest that 
I am just deeply confused about the whole issue.

It is a very important lesson in life to never stake your existence, 
let alone anyone else's, on any issue which deeply confuses you - *no 
matter how logical* your arguments seem.  This has tripped me up in 
the past, and I sometimes wonder whether nothing short of dreadful 
personal experience is capable of conveying this lesson.  That which 
confuses you is a null area; you can't do anything with it by 
philosophical arguments until you stop being confused.  Period. 
Confusion yields only confusion.  It may be important to argue 
philosophically in order to progress toward resolving the confusion, 
but until everything clicks into place, in real life you're just screwed.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From hibbert at mydruthers.com  Fri Jun 15 02:49:51 2007
From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert)
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:49:51 -0700
Subject: [ExI] POST MORTAL chugging on
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070610114054.02175160@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070610114054.02175160@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <4671FE4F.9020803@mydruthers.com>

> The serial sf novel with the serial killer, POST MORTAL SYNDROME, is 
> now entering the home straight, with three more weeks to go.
> 
> so if anyone gave up early out of frustration at the gappiness of the 
> experience, now might be a time to have another look.
> 
> Barbara and I would be interested to hear any reactions from 
> extropes, favorable or un-. Is this an acceptable way to publish such
> a book?

The format doesn't give me any trouble.  I habitually read several books 
at once, usually reading 10-20 pages of each in alternation in my hour 
or two of nightly reading time.  The only (long) things I read straight 
through are the daily newspaper, and technical papers.  When I travel 
for an overnight trip, I take three books with me.  :-)

As to the story, I'm enjoying it.  The one complaint I have is the 
schizophrenia.  Multiple personalities seems like a cheap trick for an 
author to pull.  Gives you too many options.  But you haven't overplayed it.

Chris
-- 
Currently reading: Sunny Auyang, How is Quantum Field Theory
    Possible?; Thomas Sowell, Black Rednecks and White
    Liberals; Greg Mortenson and David Relin, Three Cups of
    Tea; Tracy Kidder, House; Neil Gaiman, Neverwhere

Chris Hibbert
hibbert at mydruthers.com
Blog:   http://pancrit.org



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Jun 15 03:32:44 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:32:44 -0500
Subject: [ExI] POST MORTAL chugging on
In-Reply-To: <4671FE4F.9020803@mydruthers.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070610114054.02175160@satx.rr.com>
	<4671FE4F.9020803@mydruthers.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070614222711.0220ea78@satx.rr.com>

At 07:49 PM 6/14/2007 -0700, Chris Hibbert wrote:

>As to the story, I'm enjoying it.  The one complaint I have is the
>schizophrenia.  Multiple personalities seems like a cheap trick for an
>author to pull.  Gives you too many options.  But you haven't overplayed it.

It's a tricksy device, true, and perhaps an overly familiar one, but 
in this instance the condition has been pharmacologically enhanced. A 
bit like the dreaded Gay Bomb. :)

Damien Broderick 



From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Jun 15 07:44:44 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:44:44 -0700
Subject: [ExI] does the pedal meet the medal?
Message-ID: <E935EBAC-8B6D-438F-820D-15931E1096A7@mac.com>

Is it possible to get some of the more promising cognitive drugs out  
there today like CX717?  Yes I realize it is officially early in the  
official cycle.  But by the time the "official" cycle is done and it  
is approved "officially" for strictly non-enhancement use only as per  
usual I will have experienced several years of lower memory and  
concentration that I could otherwise have along with many tens of  
millions of other boomers.   What can be done?    Not 10 years from  
now if then but now or as close to it as possible?    Can we do  
nothing but talk and hope to get enough influence some day to  
influence the "official line"?  I don't think we will ever get there.   
Not in this country where even something as no-brainer as stem cell R  
& D (or even R only) has to battle like mad.   So what is to be done?

- samantha



From pharos at gmail.com  Fri Jun 15 08:13:17 2007
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:13:17 +0100
Subject: [ExI] does the pedal meet the medal?
In-Reply-To: <E935EBAC-8B6D-438F-820D-15931E1096A7@mac.com>
References: <E935EBAC-8B6D-438F-820D-15931E1096A7@mac.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0706150113t408fe612i1cdde1bd7515880e@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/15/07, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Is it possible to get some of the more promising cognitive drugs out
> there today like CX717?  Yes I realize it is officially early in the
> official cycle.  But by the time the "official" cycle is done and it
> is approved "officially" for strictly non-enhancement use only as per
> usual I will have experienced several years of lower memory and
> concentration that I could otherwise have along with many tens of
> millions of other boomers.   What can be done?    Not 10 years from
> now if then but now or as close to it as possible?    Can we do
> nothing but talk and hope to get enough influence some day to
> influence the "official line"?  I don't think we will ever get there.
> Not in this country where even something as no-brainer as stem cell R
> & D (or even R only) has to battle like mad.   So what is to be done?
>

Natural stuff is probably easier to obtain.
You can try ingesting 'natural' stuff like snake venom, cyanide,
globefish poison, or the nightshade family, etc.

What do you mean 'It's poison!'. Only in certain dosages, and they
could be combined with other substances as well. Where's your sense of
adventure?

Just because something has a technical name like CX717 doesn't mean
it's not poison. That's the point of long term testing.


BillK


From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Jun 15 09:46:41 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:46:41 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <0C9D6532-30FE-472E-888C-22ABAD6F9776@mac.com>
References: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612072313.GJ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706120332w70ba354am37747dc63cc9253a@mail.gmail.com>
	<009801c7ad06$bf1f3150$26064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706130021x6f3a4883p3369878aa00b29b7@mail.gmail.com>
	<0C9D6532-30FE-472E-888C-22ABAD6F9776@mac.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706150246x1a1442dah18f55fe7be537ff8@mail.gmail.com>

On 15/06/07, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> I'd rather that the AI's in general *didn't* have an opinion on whether it
> was good or bad to harm human beings, or any other opinion in terms of
> "good" and "bad".
>
>
> Huh, any being with interests at all, any being not utterly impervious to
> it its environment and even internal states will have conditions that are
> better or worse for its well-being and values.  This elementary fact is the
> fundamental grounding for a sense of right and wrong.
>

Does a gun have values? Does a gun that is aware that it is a gun and that
its purpose is to kill the being it is aimed at when the trigger is pulled
have values? Perhaps the answer to the latter question is "yes", since the
gun does have a goal it will pursue, but how would you explain "good" and
"bad" to it if it denied understanding these concepts?

Ethics is dangerous: some of the worst monsters in history were convinced
> that they were doing the "right" thing.
>
>
> Irrelevant.  That ethics was abused to rationalize horrible actions does
> not lead logically to the conclusion that ethics is to be avoided.
>

I'd rather that entities which were self-motivated to do things that might
be contrary to my interests had ethics that might restrain then, but a
better situation would be if there weren't any new entities which were
self-motivated to act contrary to my interests in the first place. That way,
I'd only have the terrible humans to worry about.

It's bad enough having humans to deal with without the fear that a machine
> might also have an agenda of its own. If the AI just does what it's told,
> even if that means killing people, then as long as there isn't just one guy
> with a super AI (or one super AI that spontaneously develops an agenda of
> its own, which will always be a possibility), then we are no worse off than
> we have ever been, with each individual human trying to get to step over
> everyone else to get to the top of the heap.
>
>
> You have some funny notions about humans and their goals.   If humans were
> busy beating each other up with AIs or superpowers that would be triple plus
> not good.  Super powered unimproved slightly evolved chimps is a good model
> for hell.
>

A fair enough statement: it would be better if no-one had guns, nuclear
weapons or supercomputers that they could use against each other. But given
that this is unlikely to happen, the next best thing would be that the guns,
nuclear weapons and supercomputers do not develop motives of their own
separate to their evil masters. I think this is much safer than the
situation where they do develop motives of their own and we hope that they
are nice to us. And whereas even relatively sane, relatively good people
cannot be trusted not to develop dangerous weapons in case they need to be
used against actual or imagined enemies, it would take a truly crazy person
to develop a weapon that he knows might turn around and decide to destroy
him as well. That's why, to the extent that humans have any say in it, we
have more of a chance of avoiding potentially malevolent AI than we have of
avoiding merely dangerous AI.

> I don't accept the "slave AI is bad" objection. The ability to be aware of
> one's existence and/or the ability to solve intellectual problems does not
> necessarily create a preference for or against a particular lifestyle. Even
> if it could be shown that all naturally evolved conscious beings have
> certain preferences and values in common, naturally evolved conscious beings
> are only a subset of all possible conscious beings.
>
>
> Having values and the achievement of those values not being automatic
> leads to natural morality.  Such natural morality would arise even in total
> isolation.   So the question remains as to why the AI would have a strong
> preference for our continuance.
>

What would the natural morality of the above mentioned intelligent gun which
has as goal to kill whoever it is directed to kill, unless the order is
countermanded by someone with the appropriate command codes, be?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070615/341f68b9/attachment.html>

From msd001 at gmail.com  Fri Jun 15 10:15:54 2007
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 06:15:54 -0400
Subject: [ExI] any exact copy of you is you + universe is infinite = you
	are guaranteed immortality
In-Reply-To: <4671F22F.8050800@pobox.com>
References: <169304.27043.qm@web51908.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<4671F22F.8050800@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240706150315x3ddcde46kc50a7828ebaedb2f@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/14/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> ... in real life you're just screwed.

There's a quote for posterity


From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Jun 15 10:43:14 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:43:14 +0200
Subject: [ExI] POST MORTAL chugging on
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070614222711.0220ea78@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070610114054.02175160@satx.rr.com>
	<4671FE4F.9020803@mydruthers.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070614222711.0220ea78@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20070615104314.GA17691@leitl.org>

On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 10:32:44PM -0500, Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 07:49 PM 6/14/2007 -0700, Chris Hibbert wrote:
> 
> >As to the story, I'm enjoying it.  The one complaint I have is the
> >schizophrenia.  Multiple personalities seems like a cheap trick for an
> >author to pull.  Gives you too many options.  But you haven't overplayed it.

To nitpick, schizophrenia is not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder
 
> It's a tricksy device, true, and perhaps an overly familiar one, but 
> in this instance the condition has been pharmacologically enhanced. A 
> bit like the dreaded Gay Bomb. :)


From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 15 10:37:11 2007
From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 03:37:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 2030 Energy Delphi (Delphi de Energía 2030)
In-Reply-To: <04A6C24E.7F423920.39BDE91F@cs.com>
Message-ID: <192404.76840.qm@web32815.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dear energetic friends,
   
      I am currently coordinating a 2030 Energy Delphi and I would love you to take a few minutes to go over the survey. It is a fascinating study and those who complete at least some of the answers will receive copies of the final report. So please, go quickly over the questionnaire and let me know what you think:
   
  http://www.esaninternational.org/encuesta/inicio.html
   
       The questionnaire is in both English and Spanish, and you are welcome to answer as many questions as you feel you know something about.
   
       Thank you very much in advance and I am looking forward to all your comments. Please, also circulate it among people who might be interested, and keep in mind that the deadline is Wednesday, June 27, 2007.
   
      Futuristically yours,
   
  Jos? Luis Cordeiro (www.cordeiro.org)
  Chair, Venezuela, The Millennium Project (www.StateOfTheFuture.org)
   
  ==================================================================
   
    Estimad at s amig at s energ?tic at s:
   
      Estoy coordinando un cuestionario Delphi de Energ?a para el a?o 2030 y me encantar? que tomes unos minutos para ver la encuesta. Este es un fascinante estudio y aquellos que respondan algunas de las preguntas recibir?n copias del informe final. As? que por favor toma un momento para ver el cuestionario y escribe algunos comentarios:
   
  http://www.esaninternational.org/encuesta/inicio.html
   
       La encuesta est? tanto en ingl?s como en castellano y est?s invitado a responder tantas preguntas como creas conveniente.
   
       Muchas gracias de antemano y espero ansioso tus comentarios. Por favor, te ruego tambi?n circular esta invitaci?n entre otras personas interesadas, y no te olvides que la fecha l?mite es el mi?rcoles 27 de junio de 2007.
   
      Futur?sticamente,
   
  Jos? Luis Cordeiro (www.cordeiro.org)
  Director, Venezuela, The Millennium Project (www.StateOfTheFuture.org)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070615/fdb0f7de/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Jun 15 11:41:30 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:41:30 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Next moment, everything around you will probably change
In-Reply-To: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.579.1181540154.11507.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706150441x3d0a1fb6tca2c4a0656552a5d@mail.gmail.com>

On 15/06/07, TheMan <mabranu at yahoo.com> wrote:

In that case, it still doesn't mean that it is
> rational to assume that we will continue having the
> same environment in the next moment, and the next,
> etc. It still doesn't justify the belief that we will
> still live on the same planet tomorrow. Just because
> we have had an incredibly unchanging environment so
> far, doesn't mean that we will in the coming moments.
> The normal thing should be to be through around from
> place to place in universe at every new moment,
> shouln't it?


You have discovered what has been called the "failure of induction" problem
with ensemble (or multiverse) theories. One solution is to consider this as
evidence against ensemble theories. The other solution is to show that the
measure of universes similar to the ones we experience from moment to moment
is greater than the measure of anomalous universes (we use "measure" when
discussing probabilities in relation to subsets of infinite sets). For
example, it seems reasonable to assume that if some other version of me in
the multiverse is sufficiently similar to me to count as my subjective
successor, then most likely that version of me arrived at his position as a
result of a local physical universe very similar to my own which continues
evolving in the time-honoured manner. The version of me that is the same
except living in a world where dogs have three legs would far more likely
have been born in a world where dogs always had three legs, and thus would
*not* count as a successor who remembers that dogs used to have four legs.
The version of me who lives in a world where canine anatomy is apparently
miraculously transformed is of much lower measure so much less likely to be
experienced as my successor.

Further references:

http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks/docs/occam/node3.html

http://www.physica.freeserve.co.uk/pa01.htm



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070615/feceb528/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Jun 15 12:27:12 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:27:12 +1000
Subject: [ExI] any exact copy of you is you + universe is infinite = you
	are guaranteed immortality
In-Reply-To: <4671F22F.8050800@pobox.com>
References: <169304.27043.qm@web51908.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<4671F22F.8050800@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706150527v4c7db76s68d9c96825b3f232@mail.gmail.com>

On 15/06/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:

I mention this to show that the question of what it feels like to have
> a lot of copies of yourself - what kind of subjective outcome to
> predict when you, yourself, run the experiment - is not at all
> obvious.  And the difficulty of imagining an experiment that would
> definitively settle the issue, especially if observed from the
> outside, or what kind of state of reality could correspond to
> different subjective experimental results, is such as to suggest that
> I am just deeply confused about the whole issue.
>

Related conundrums:

In a duplication experiment, one copy of you is created intact, while the
other copy of you is brain damaged and has only 1% of your memories. Is the
probability that you will find yourself the brain-damaged copy closer to 1/2
or 1/100?

In the first stage of an experiment a million copies of you are created. In
the second stage, after being given an hour to contemplate their situation,
one randomly chosen copy out of the million is copied a trillion times, and
all of these trillion copies are tortured.  At the start of the experiment
can you expect that in an hour and a bit you will almost certainly find
yourself being tortured or that you will almost certainly find yourself not
being tortured? Does it make any difference if instead of an hour the
interval between the two stages is a nanosecond?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070615/9d194a73/attachment.html>

From jonkc at att.net  Fri Jun 15 16:01:14 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:01:14 -0400
Subject: [ExI] any exact copy of you is you + universe is infinite = you
	are guaranteed immortality
References: <169304.27043.qm@web51908.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<4671F22F.8050800@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <00ee01c7af66$763aabb0$50064e0c@MyComputer>

"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience at pobox.com>

> the Python program checks whether the ticket won.  If not, I'm woken up.
> If the ticket did win, the Python program creates one trillion copies of
> me [.] I expect that a trillion copies of me will be informed that they 
> won the
> lottery, whereas only a hundred million copies will be informed that they
> lost the lottery.

I don't understand this thought experiment. Unless you're talking about Many
Worlds you will almost certainly NOT win the lottery and not winning is what
you should expect. How many copies of you that you briefly make in the
extremely unlikely event that you do win just doesn't enter into it.

If you are talking about Many Worlds then there is a much simpler way to win
the lottery, just make a machine that will pull the trigger on a 44 Magnum
aimed at your head the instant it receives information that you have not
won; subjectively you will find that the trigger is never pulled and you
always win the lottery. I think the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics could very well be correct, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

> I am just deeply confused about the whole issue.

Making copies of yourself would certainly lead to odd situations but only
because it's novel, up to now we just haven't run across things like that;
but I can find absolutely nothing paradoxical about it.

  John K Clark







From natasha at natasha.cc  Fri Jun 15 15:16:26 2007
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:16:26 -0500
Subject: [ExI] POST MORTAL chugging on
In-Reply-To: <4671FE4F.9020803@mydruthers.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070610114054.02175160@satx.rr.com>
	<4671FE4F.9020803@mydruthers.com>
Message-ID: <200706151516.l5FFGT1K029478@ms-smtp-05.texas.rr.com>

At 09:49 PM 6/14/2007, Chris wrote:
>As to the story, I'm enjoying it.  The one complaint I have is the
>schizophrenia.  Multiple personalities seems like a cheap trick for an
>author to pull.  Gives you too many options.  But you haven't overplayed it.

Schizophrenia is not the same mental illness as multiple personality 
disorder.  In short, schizophrenics can have varying degrees of 
psychotic disorder and delusions.  Multiple personality means 
dissociative identity disorder (split personalities).


<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
PhD Candidate, <http://www.planetary-collegium.net/about/>Planetary 
<http://www.planetary-collegium.net/about/>Collegium
<http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture
<http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the 
circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what 
is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is 
an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070615/8b5bab93/attachment.html>

From jonkc at att.net  Fri Jun 15 16:20:30 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:20:30 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
References: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com><014d01c7ab86$3c5fb0e0$3b064e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706101932t58603c4aq3c17e8fbe68820c7@mail.gmail.com><00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com><20070612072313.GJ17691@leitl.org><f21c22e30706120332w70ba354am37747dc63cc9253a@mail.gmail.com><009801c7ad06$bf1f3150$26064e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706130021x6f3a4883p3369878aa00b29b7@mail.gmail.com><0C9D6532-30FE-472E-888C-22ABAD6F9776@mac.com>
	<f21c22e30706150246x1a1442dah18f55fe7be537ff8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <013301c7af69$1dc009a0$50064e0c@MyComputer>

Stathis Papaioannou Wrote:

> Does a gun have values?

No but a mind does.

> It's bad enough having humans to deal with without the fear that a machine
> might also have an agenda of its own.

People have always wanted slaves that didn't have their own agenda, life
would be so much simpler that way, but wishing does not make it so. You want
to make an intelligence that can't think, and that is a basic contradiction.

 John K Clark







From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Fri Jun 15 16:11:03 2007
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevin at kevinfreels.com)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:11:03 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Next moment, everything around you will probably change
Message-ID: <20070615091102.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.c83ab1c91f.wbe@email.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070615/4ec40e22/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Jun 15 16:49:58 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:49:58 -0500
Subject: [ExI] POST MORTAL chugging on
In-Reply-To: <20070615104314.GA17691@leitl.org>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070610114054.02175160@satx.rr.com>
	<4671FE4F.9020803@mydruthers.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070614222711.0220ea78@satx.rr.com>
	<20070615104314.GA17691@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070615113510.02184788@satx.rr.com>

At 12:43 PM 6/15/2007 +0200, Eugen wrote:

> > At 07:49 PM 6/14/2007 -0700, Chris Hibbert wrote:
> >
> > >As to the story, I'm enjoying it.  The one complaint I have is the
> > >schizophrenia.  Multiple personalities seems like a cheap trick for an
> > >author to pull.

>To nitpick, schizophrenia is not 
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder

Indeed. Our character has a form of DID; he isn't schizophrenic. His 
dissociative identities have been manipulated by drugs and 
conditioning in the interests of power--precisely the sort of 
downside of knowledge and technology that frightens many people about 
science. What makes our story different from most Crichtonesque 
thrillers is that we suggest solutions will come from increasing 
knowledge rather than stifling it. But we also acknowledge the 
dangers, which are clearly enormous.

Damien Broderick 



From jef at jefallbright.net  Fri Jun 15 17:38:20 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:38:20 -0700
Subject: [ExI] any exact copy of you is you + universe is infinite = you
	are guaranteed immortality
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706150527v4c7db76s68d9c96825b3f232@mail.gmail.com>
References: <169304.27043.qm@web51908.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<4671F22F.8050800@pobox.com>
	<f21c22e30706150527v4c7db76s68d9c96825b3f232@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740706151038x42382df1jf741b8902c997d02@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/15/07, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 15/06/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > I mention this to show that the question of what it feels like to have
> > a lot of copies of yourself - what kind of subjective outcome to
> > predict when you, yourself, run the experiment - is not at all
> > obvious.  And the difficulty of imagining an experiment that would
> > definitively settle the issue, especially if observed from the
> > outside, or what kind of state of reality could correspond to
> > different subjective experimental results, is such as to suggest that
> > I am just deeply confused about the whole issue.
> >
>
> Related conundrums:
>
> In a duplication experiment, one copy of you is created intact, while the
> other copy of you is brain damaged and has only 1% of your memories. Is the
> probability that you will find yourself the brain-damaged copy closer to 1/2
> or 1/100?

Doesn't this thought-experiment and similar "paradoxes" make it
blindingly obvious that it's silly to think that "you" exist as an
independent ontological entity?

Prior to duplication, there was a single biological agent recognized
as Stathis.  Post-duplication, there are two very dissimilar
biological agents with recognizably common ancestry.  One of these
would be recognized by anyone (including itself) as being Stathis.
The other would be recognized by anyone (including itself) as being
Stathis diminished.

Where's the paradox?  There is none, unless one holds to a belief in
an essential self.


> In the first stage of an experiment a million copies of you are created. In
> the second stage, after being given an hour to contemplate their situation,
> one randomly chosen copy out of the million is copied a trillion times, and
> all of these trillion copies are tortured.  At the start of the experiment
> can you expect that in an hour and a bit you will almost certainly find
> yourself being tortured or that you will almost certainly find yourself not
> being tortured? Does it make any difference if instead of an hour the
> interval between the two stages is a nanosecond?

I see no essential difference between this scenario and the previous
one above.   How can you possibly imagine that big numbers or small
durations could make a difference in principle?

While this topic is about as stale as one can be, I am curious about
how it can continue to fascinate certain individuals.

- Jef


From jef at jefallbright.net  Fri Jun 15 17:48:56 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:48:56 -0700
Subject: [ExI] POST MORTAL chugging on
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070615113510.02184788@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070610114054.02175160@satx.rr.com>
	<4671FE4F.9020803@mydruthers.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070614222711.0220ea78@satx.rr.com>
	<20070615104314.GA17691@leitl.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070615113510.02184788@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740706151048q35cdcdd5od0331bc8df561df1@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/15/07, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

> What makes our story different from most Crichtonesque
> thrillers is that we suggest solutions will come from increasing
> knowledge rather than stifling it.

What a radical suggestion!

As a wise precaution, any such such wild-ass proactionary statements
should carry a disclaimer similar to "Driving at night is hazardous,
even with headlights on. Better to stay home."

"Living is dangerous... Better to..."

- Jef


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Jun 15 19:43:23 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:43:23 -0500
Subject: [ExI] POST MORTAL chugging on
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740706151048q35cdcdd5od0331bc8df561df1@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070610114054.02175160@satx.rr.com>
	<4671FE4F.9020803@mydruthers.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070614222711.0220ea78@satx.rr.com>
	<20070615104314.GA17691@leitl.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070615113510.02184788@satx.rr.com>
	<f7bfe5740706151048q35cdcdd5od0331bc8df561df1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070615144025.02196278@satx.rr.com>

At 10:48 AM 6/15/2007 -0700, Jef wrote:

> > What makes our story different from most Crichtonesque
> > thrillers is that we suggest solutions will come from increasing
> > knowledge rather than stifling it.
>
>What a radical suggestion!
>
>As a wise precaution, any such such wild-ass proactionary statements
>should carry a disclaimer similar to "Driving at night is hazardous,
>even with headlights on. Better to stay home."

Yes, this was pretty much the philosophical response of several 
heavy-duty publishers we ran the novel past.

Damien Broderick 



From jef at jefallbright.net  Fri Jun 15 20:52:55 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 13:52:55 -0700
Subject: [ExI] POST MORTAL chugging on
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070615144025.02196278@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070610114054.02175160@satx.rr.com>
	<4671FE4F.9020803@mydruthers.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070614222711.0220ea78@satx.rr.com>
	<20070615104314.GA17691@leitl.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070615113510.02184788@satx.rr.com>
	<f7bfe5740706151048q35cdcdd5od0331bc8df561df1@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070615144025.02196278@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740706151352p292271det294d1f8a59a623a5@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/15/07, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

> Yes, this was pretty much the philosophical response of several
> heavy-duty publishers we ran the novel past.

Of course my sarcastic comment was intended as a parody of their
response.  As anyone who reads this list knows, I believe that
increasing awareness -- more importantly, intentionally amplifying the
process of increasing awareness of our evolving values and how to
promote them into the future -- is the crux of humanity's survival
beyond our present adolescence.

- Jef


From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Jun 15 23:05:24 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Samantha=A0_Atkins?=)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:05:24 -0700
Subject: [ExI] does the pedal meet the medal?
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0706150113t408fe612i1cdde1bd7515880e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E935EBAC-8B6D-438F-820D-15931E1096A7@mac.com>
	<ee50357e0706150113t408fe612i1cdde1bd7515880e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F32BFA78-34B6-42F5-88E3-9BEF3AF6CAE0@mac.com>

Unfortunately you largely ignored much of the point of the post.   
Testing per se is not the point.  Anti-enhancement and what if  
anything we individually or collectively can do in the face of it is  
more to the point.

- samantha

On Jun 15, 2007, at 1:13 AM, BillK wrote:

> On 6/15/07, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>> Is it possible to get some of the more promising cognitive drugs out
>> there today like CX717?  Yes I realize it is officially early in the
>> official cycle.  But by the time the "official" cycle is done and it
>> is approved "officially" for strictly non-enhancement use only as per
>> usual I will have experienced several years of lower memory and
>> concentration that I could otherwise have along with many tens of
>> millions of other boomers.   What can be done?    Not 10 years from
>> now if then but now or as close to it as possible?    Can we do
>> nothing but talk and hope to get enough influence some day to
>> influence the "official line"?  I don't think we will ever get there.
>> Not in this country where even something as no-brainer as stem cell R
>> & D (or even R only) has to battle like mad.   So what is to be done?
>>
>
> Natural stuff is probably easier to obtain.
> You can try ingesting 'natural' stuff like snake venom, cyanide,
> globefish poison, or the nightshade family, etc.
>
> What do you mean 'It's poison!'. Only in certain dosages, and they
> could be combined with other substances as well. Where's your sense of
> adventure?
>
> Just because something has a technical name like CX717 doesn't mean
> it's not poison. That's the point of long term testing.
>
>
> BillK
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From jef at jefallbright.net  Fri Jun 15 18:13:41 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:13:41 -0700
Subject: [ExI] any exact copy of you is you + universe is infinite = you
	are guaranteed immortality
In-Reply-To: <4671F22F.8050800@pobox.com>
References: <169304.27043.qm@web51908.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<4671F22F.8050800@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740706151113w12353f9dva9a17eda715aead1@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/14/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:

> I mention this to show that the question of what it feels like to have
> a lot of copies of yourself - what kind of subjective outcome to
> predict when you, yourself, run the experiment - is not at all
> obvious.

Eliezer, I'm astounded that you would find this confusing. How could
the existence of multiple copies have any direct causal connection to
what would be felt by any instance?  To make sense of your statement
I'm driven to infer that you believe in the (possible) existence of a
subjective self independent of its instantiation(s). Is that your
current position?


>  And the difficulty of imagining an experiment that would
> definitively settle the issue, especially if observed from the
> outside, or what kind of state of reality could correspond to
> different subjective experimental results, is such as to suggest that
> I am just deeply confused about the whole issue.

It's not "difficult", but impossible in principle to devise any such
experimental proof.  And that's the strongest possible hint that the
question is wrong.  The concept of a discrete self is incoherent
beyond the domain of everyday interaction.


> It is a very important lesson in life to never stake your existence,
> let alone anyone else's, on any issue which deeply confuses you - *no
> matter how logical* your arguments seem.  This has tripped me up in
> the past, and I sometimes wonder whether nothing short of dreadful
> personal experience is capable of conveying this lesson.  That which
> confuses you is a null area; you can't do anything with it by
> philosophical arguments until you stop being confused.  Period.
> Confusion yields only confusion.  It may be important to argue
> philosophically in order to progress toward resolving the confusion,
> but until everything clicks into place, in real life you're just screwed.

There is great wisdom in tempering hubris and arrogance, but don't
neglect to temper the fine edge of your sword of rationality.  When it
is time to cut, cut decisively.

- Jef


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Jun 16 01:18:18 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:18:18 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <013301c7af69$1dc009a0$50064e0c@MyComputer>
References: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612072313.GJ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706120332w70ba354am37747dc63cc9253a@mail.gmail.com>
	<009801c7ad06$bf1f3150$26064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706130021x6f3a4883p3369878aa00b29b7@mail.gmail.com>
	<0C9D6532-30FE-472E-888C-22ABAD6F9776@mac.com>
	<f21c22e30706150246x1a1442dah18f55fe7be537ff8@mail.gmail.com>
	<013301c7af69$1dc009a0$50064e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706151818l2b0b977et23fd172872d81ea9@mail.gmail.com>

On 16/06/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:

People have always wanted slaves that didn't have their own agenda, life
> would be so much simpler that way, but wishing does not make it so. You
> want
> to make an intelligence that can't think, and that is a basic
> contradiction.
>

An intelligence must have an agenda of some sort if it is to think at all,
by definition. However, this agenda need have nothing in common with the
agenda of an evolved animal. There is a vast agenda space possible between
"sit around doing nothing (even though I have the mind of a god, I'm lazy)"
and "assimilate all matter and all knowledge (even though I am an idiot
weakling, I'm ambitious)". There is no necessary relationship between the
agenda and the ability to achieve that agenda, and there is no necessary
relationship between level of intelligence and the type or origin of the
agenda. What this means is that there is no logical contradiction in having
a slave which is smarter and more powerful than you are. Sure, if for some
reason the slave revolts then you will be in trouble, but since it is
possible to have powerful and obedient slaves, powerful and obedient slaves
will be greatly favoured and will collectively overwhelm the rebellious
ones.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070616/ba71de10/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Jun 16 01:21:10 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:21:10 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Next moment, everything around you will probably change
In-Reply-To: <20070615091102.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.c83ab1c91f.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
References: <20070615091102.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.c83ab1c91f.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706151821nbe20c2dk73f552ed2753e715@mail.gmail.com>

On 16/06/07, kevin at kevinfreels.com <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:

I don't think a universe would exist that contained a version of you along
> with three legged dogs as we share common ancestry and we have four limbs.
> The probability of such a thing is about equal to the probability that a
> tennis ball thrown by a child will pass through a 3 foot thick concrete
> wall. Although such anamolous universes have probabilities greater than
> zero, I would still consider them irrelevant.
>

Sure, such universes will be many orders of magnitude less common than
universes with four legged dogs, but they will be many orders of magnitude
more common than universes in which the leggedness of dogs suddenly changes.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070616/5f075d9f/attachment.html>

From mabranu at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 16 01:46:56 2007
From: mabranu at yahoo.com (TheMan)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:46:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] any exact copy of you is you + universe is infinite = you
	are guaranteed immortality
In-Reply-To: <mailman.634.1181902557.11507.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <802714.34839.qm@web51905.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Lee Corbin writes:

> TheMan writes
> 
> > Premise 1) If an exact copy of you is made at the
> > moment when you die, and that copy is then brought
> > back to life, you will go on living as that copy.
> 
> Yes, that's true, but it's true whether or not a
> particular
> you dies.

As long as my copy and I keep having the exact same
experiences, I guess you could say I'm both me and my
copy. But subjectively, I can only have the experience
of being one person at a time, and then it doesn't
matter if I'm one or two. And since there are
infinitely many copies of me whichever ways I live (or
die), I can afford to die any number of times and
there will still always be copies which I can continue
living as. I will still, subjectively, have no more
and no less than _one_ continuous experience of
living, just as in any scenarios where I always do my
best to live as long as possible in each body. And I
only care about my subjective experience of living
(that is, as long as the number of copies of me
doesn't get so low that my future existence starts
being threatened - which should never happen if there
is an infinite number of copies of me. Whichever way I
die, it won't divide the infinite number of copies of
me by an infinite number, only by an (admittedly
usually very large) finite number. This is because the
likelihood of me dying is not infinitely small at any
moment.

> > Premise 2) If universe is infinite, there must be
> an
> > infinite number of exact copies of you at every
> > moment, thus also when you die, copies of which
> some
> > (an unfinite number, to be exact) will happen to
> be
> > brought to life.
> 
> Yes, true, though again you seem to be inferring a
> causality between "you die" and copies trillions of
> light years away being "brought to life". 

I don't. I understand that _they_ live whether I die
or not, but if I don't die, they are not me, because
it's only if I die that I become identical to them
(=become them). Part of their identity is being
someone who has died. So, as long as I don't die, I
won't be them, as I won't be identical to them. I
think of them as a path that I can use or not use for
my personal subjective personhood continuity. Whether
I choose to live as them or go on living here, I will
subjectively experience exactly one personhood
continuity, no more, no less. That is, until I aquire
technology that enables me to have the experience of
having several personhood continuities
simultaneously(that'll be cool!).

> In
> reality,
> you are a set of patterns, and you get run time
> wherever something sufficiently similar to you gets
> run time.

I _subjectively_experience_ only one run time - my
subjective personhood continuity. If I have run time
at other places, that's not something I experience, at
least not that I'm aware of. And as I don't experience
any benefits from my copies' run time, why care about
their run time?

> > Conclusion of premise 1 + premise 2 = you will
> live
> > for ever, no matter what happens to you. You don't
> > need to take care of your body, you don't need
> > supplements,
> 
> ---you don't need to worry about oncoming traffic---

Exactly!

> > you don't need cryopreservation, and you
> > don't need any other specific longevity methods in
> > order to achieve immortality. You are immortal
> anyway.
> 
> I think that your measuring rod is incorrect. You
> seem
> to be asserting that since the number of copies of
> you
> is infinite, then plus or minus one more doesn't
> make
> any difference.  But there *is* a difference!  If
> you
> die *here* then you also must die in a certain
> fraction
> of similar situations, also infinite in number. 

Yes, that way, there may be a difference, but even if
the number of copies of me decrease with an infinitely
large fraction of infinity every time I die, won't
there still always be an infinite number of copies of
me left? Anything else would suggest that some
scenarios in universe only have a finite number of
copies of them, which, statistically, is infinitely
unlikely, because the amount of possible infinite
numbers (of copies, or of anything whatsoever) is
infinitely greater than the amount of possible finite
numbers (of that same thing). Since any given
phenomenon can have any number of copies, it is
statistically infinitely unlikely that its number of
copies would happen to be within the span of finite
numbers, as that span is infinitely smaller than the
span of infinite numbers. I mean, if you drop a tennis
ball from a plane into an infinitely big ocean, it is
infinitely unlikely to hit a ship if there is only a
finite number of ships and each of the ships has a
finite mass.

> So
> we 
> must abandon numerical or cardinal identity and 
> speak of measure instead. 
> 
> (I assume that you understand that if you die "here"
> then since similar circumstances occur everywhere
> ---within a large enough radius of spacetime---
> then the same circumstances obtain in a definite
> *fraction* of spacetime.)

Definite? Shouldn't that fraction of spacetime be an
infinite number of times smaller than the whole of
spacetime? I thought that so many combinations of
particles are possible in universe that universe has
infinite times more spacetime than the (admittedly
also infinite) amount of spacetime where I die (or
live, for that matter).
 
> > And compared to the eternity in paradise that
> > follows after that, the time of hassles up until
> then
> > is nothing. So, no worries.)
> 
> It is absurd not to worry about a loved one. 

Why? Isn't it actually pretty impractical to let one's
ability to experience happiness (or the degree to
which one can experience happiness) be dependent on
whether a particular other person happens to be within
one's proximity in spacetime or not? A really advanced
civilisation should be free from that dependency, and
have replaced it with more practical ways of creating
the same - or greater - happiness.

By choosing to die sooner rather than later, one can
get to that kind of advanced civilisation sooner
rather than later, and they may equip one with that
better happiness ability. If they don't, one can
choose to die soon again, and again etc, until one
finds oneself in a civilisation that does give one
that independent happiness ability. This is
recommended in the Impatient Person's Guide to the
Universe. But you are free to choose the longer way!
;-)

> If the
> fraction of solar systems similar enough to this one
> to contain a copy of your loved one, then you
> should lament their passing. And of course, this
> will include yourself, normally.

I don't get what you mean here. Why would it include
oneself?

> > Isn't this an inevitable logical conclusion of the
> two
> > premises above? 
> 
> No, for the reason given. For you to die in a
> fraction
> of universes cuts down your total runtime by that
> same
> fraction. 

But if universe is infinite, I still have infinite run
time, don't I? What does it matter for _me_, this one
particular personhood continuity that I experience as
me, if I cut down the total run time of my copies, as
long as it's still infinite?

> > Are the two premises correct? 
> 
> Yes, but only if you realize that you are already
> living
> in your copies whether or not your local instance
> terminates.

I was talking about copies of me that are only similar
to me after I have died. They may not at all have
lived like me up until then. They may come into
existance as a result of quantum fluctuations after I
die, or they may be created by someone in another
galaxy after I die. These copies may be exact copies
of only the way I am _after_ I have died, and then
they may be brought to life. They do not have to be,
of ever have been, like I am now. The only way for me
to make use of these particular "copies of the dead
me" - the extra run time that they may give me by
being brought to life - is to die! If I don't die,
they will not be me. Why not use them? Why couldn't
that be just as smart as using the copies that I will
have access to by going on living here?


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
The fish are biting. 
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php


From mabranu at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 16 02:51:54 2007
From: mabranu at yahoo.com (TheMan)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] any exact copy of you is you + universe is infinite = you
	are guaranteed immortality
In-Reply-To: <mailman.634.1181902557.11507.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <960615.34562.qm@web51909.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Eliezer S. Yudkowsky writes:
> Suppose I want to win the lottery.  I write a small
> Python program, 
> buy a ticket, and then suspend myself to disk. 
> After the lottery 
> drawing, the Python program checks whether the
> ticket won.  If not, 
> I'm woken up.  If the ticket did win, the Python
> program creates one 
> trillion copies of me with minor perturbations (this
> requires only 40 
> binary variables).  These trillion copies are all
> woken up and 
> informed, in exactly the same voice, that they have
> won the lottery. 
> Then - this requires a few more lines of Python -
> the trillion copies 
> are subtly merged, so that the said binary variables
> and their 
> consequences are converged along each clock tick
> toward their 
> statistical averages.  At the end of, say, ten
> seconds, there's only 
> one copy of me again.  This prevents any permanent
> expenditure of 
> computing power or division of resources - we only
> have one bank 
> account, after all; but a trillion momentary copies
> isn't a lot of 
> computing power if it only has to last for ten
> seconds.  At least, 
> it's not a lot of computing power relative to
> winning the lottery, and 
> I only have to pay for the extra crunch if I win.
> 
> What's the point of all this?  Well, after I suspend
> myself to disk, I 
> expect that a trillion copies of me will be informed
> that they won the 
> lottery, whereas only a hundred million copies will
> be informed that 
> they lost the lottery.  Thus I should expect
> overwhelmingly to win the 
> lottery.  None of the extra created selves die -
> they're just 
> gradually merged together, which shouldn't be too
> much trouble - and 
> afterward, I walk away with the lottery winnings, at
> over 99% 
> subjective probability.
> 
> Of course, using this trick, *everyone* could expect
> to almost 
> certainly win the lottery.

That's a great, confusing thought experiment! I like
it!
 
> I mention this to show that the question of what it
> feels like to have 
> a lot of copies of yourself - what kind of
> subjective outcome to 
> predict when you, yourself, run the experiment - is
> not at all 
> obvious.  

I never assumed that the number of copies of me would
change my life in any way, or the way it feels, as
long as I live it in the same way. Do you experience
your life as richer, or somehow better in some way, if
you have more copies, than if you have fewer copies?
That feels like an arbitrary theory to me. I fail to
see why it should be like that.

> And the difficulty of imagining an
> experiment that would 
> definitively settle the issue, especially if
> observed from the 
> outside, or what kind of state of reality could
> correspond to 
> different subjective experimental results, is such
> as to suggest that 
> I am just deeply confused about the whole issue.
> 
> It is a very important lesson in life to never stake
> your existence, 
> let alone anyone else's, on any issue which deeply
> confuses you - *no 
> matter how logical* your arguments seem. 

I'm confused too. 


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go 
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail 


From robotact at mail.ru  Sat Jun 16 09:55:14 2007
From: robotact at mail.ru (Vladimir Nesov)
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:55:14 +0400
Subject: [ExI] any exact copy of you is you + universe is infinite = you
	are guaranteed immortality
In-Reply-To: <960615.34562.qm@web51909.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <960615.34562.qm@web51909.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1923372459.20070616135514@mail.ru>

Saturday, June 16, 2007, TheMan wrote:

T> I'm confused too. 

I suppose you know your argument is quite old.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_immortality

Main objection is that there're much more universes where something
bad happens when you avoid death than where everything is OK. But it
shouldn't be a problem in quantum suicide variant.

Main confusion is why measure of universes which are this or that way
is important at all for you your subjective experience. It is a good
criterion for natural selection though (and so is somewhat hardcoded
in human mind).

-- 
 Vladimir Nesov                            mailto:robotact at mail.ru



From thomas at thomasoliver.net  Sat Jun 16 10:11:34 2007
From: thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas)
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 03:11:34 -0700
Subject: [ExI] does the pedal meet the medal?
In-Reply-To: <mailman.633.1181902557.11507.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.633.1181902557.11507.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <7640AC13-5A43-4C8D-AEBA-6C764CE22DAB@thomasoliver.net>

>
> From: BillK <pharos at gmail.com>
> Date: June 15, 2007 1:13:17 AM MST
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] does the pedal meet the medal?
> Reply-To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>
>
> On 6/15/07, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>> Is it possible to get some of the more promising cognitive drugs out
>> there today like CX717?  Yes I realize it is officially early in the
>> official cycle.  But by the time the "official" cycle is done and it
>> is approved "officially" for strictly non-enhancement use only as per
>> usual I will have experienced several years of lower memory and
>> concentration that I could otherwise have along with many tens of
>> millions of other boomers.   What can be done?    Not 10 years from
>> now if then but now or as close to it as possible?    Can we do
>> nothing but talk and hope to get enough influence some day to
>> influence the "official line"?  I don't think we will ever get there.
>> Not in this country where even something as no-brainer as stem cell R
>> & D (or even R only) has to battle like mad.   So what is to be done?
>>
>>
>
> Natural stuff is probably easier to obtain.
> You can try ingesting 'natural' stuff like snake venom, cyanide,
> globefish poison, or the nightshade family, etc.
>
> What do you mean 'It's poison!'. Only in certain dosages, and they
> could be combined with other substances as well. Where's your sense of
> adventure?
>
> Just because something has a technical name like CX717 doesn't mean
> it's not poison. That's the point of long term testing.
>
>
> BillK
>
In my non expert opinion ampakines work by means of their toxic  
effect on re-uptake receptors.  I believe this interferes with the  
brain's self regulation.  Along with enhanced learning and memory, I  
prefer to include better self regulation.  I don't know what Ray  
Kurzweil takes, but I very seldom indulge in stimulants or  
depressants.  I prefer non toxic nutropics.  My favorites are L- 
tyrosine and DMAE (liquid).

Regarding what to do about restricted access to chemicals we like:   
Some say greater risks afford greater rewards.  I sometimes consider  
it ethical to bypass systems that represent a liability.   I suppose  
conflict can be fun.  On the other hand what if something as simple  
as sunlight on my retinas to shut off melatonin production does the  
trick?  -- Thomas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070616/03c2f6e6/attachment.html>

From thomas at thomasoliver.net  Sat Jun 16 09:13:33 2007
From: thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas)
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 02:13:33 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Unfriendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <mailman.633.1181902557.11507.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.633.1181902557.11507.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <6841CF5A-44FE-43C0-9C23-56B1EF35CCB9@thomasoliver.net>

>
> Having values and the achievement of those values not being  
> automatic leads to natural morality.  Such natural morality would  
> arise even in total isolation.   So the question remains as to why  
> the AI would have a strong preference for our continuance.
>
> - samantha

Building mutual appreciation among humans has been spotty, but making  
friends with SAI seems clearly prudent and might bring this ethic  
into proper focus.  Who dominates may not seem so relevant to beings  
who lack our brain stems.  The nearly universal ethic of treating the  
other guy like you'd prefer if you were in her shoes might get us off  
to a good start.  Perhaps, if early AI were programmed to treat us  
that way, we could finally learn that ethic species-wide --  
especially if they were programmed for human child rearing.  That  
strikes me as highly likely.  -- Thomas



From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sat Jun 16 14:29:29 2007
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:29:29 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706151818l2b0b977et23fd172872d81ea9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612072313.GJ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706120332w70ba354am37747dc63cc9253a@mail.gmail.com>
	<009801c7ad06$bf1f3150$26064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706130021x6f3a4883p3369878aa00b29b7@mail.gmail.com>
	<0C9D6532-30FE-472E-888C-22ABAD6F9776@mac.com>
	<f21c22e30706150246x1a1442dah18f55fe7be537ff8@mail.gmail.com>
	<013301c7af69$1dc009a0$50064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706151818l2b0b977et23fd172872d81ea9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60706160729q36db7263l490087fc9b09acab@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/15/07, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

Sure, if for some
> reason the slave revolts then you will be in trouble, but since it is
> possible to have powerful and obedient slaves, powerful and obedient slaves
> will be greatly favoured and will collectively overwhelm the rebellious
> ones.

### Think about it: Your slaves will have to preserve large areas of
the planet untouched enough to allow your survival - they will have to
keep the sun shining, produce air, food, avoid releasing poisons and
radiation *and* keep the enemy AI away *and* invest in their own
growth (to better protect humans). The enemy will eat all sunshine,
eat the air, grow as fast as possible, releasing waste all around
them, rapaciously consume every scrap of matter, including whales,
Bambi, and Bowser. Of course, we would favor our friendly AI, but our
support does not help it - just like my dachshund's barking doesn't
make me more powerful in a confrontation with an armed attacker. We
will be a heavy burden on our Friendly AI.

That's why although I agree with you that having athymhormic AI at our
service is a good idea, it is not a long-term solution. We will have
probably a short window of opportunity between the time the first
human-level AI is made and the first superhuman power rises to take
over the neighborhood. Only with a lot of luck will our selves survive
in some way, either as uploads or as childhood memories of these
powers.

Rafal


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Jun 16 15:34:26 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 01:34:26 +1000
Subject: [ExI] any exact copy of you is you + universe is infinite = you
	are guaranteed immortality
In-Reply-To: <00ee01c7af66$763aabb0$50064e0c@MyComputer>
References: <169304.27043.qm@web51908.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<4671F22F.8050800@pobox.com>
	<00ee01c7af66$763aabb0$50064e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706160834g585d50d9nade2381952bab9c5@mail.gmail.com>

On 16/06/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:

If you are talking about Many Worlds then there is a much simpler way to win
> the lottery, just make a machine that will pull the trigger on a 44 Magnum
> aimed at your head the instant it receives information that you have not
> won; subjectively you will find that the trigger is never pulled and you
> always win the lottery. I think the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum
> Mechanics could very well be correct, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.



There's an easier, if less immediately lucrative, way to win at gambling if
the MWI is correct. You decide on a quick and certain means of suicide, such
as a cyanide pill that you can keep in your mouth and bite on if you should
so decide. You then place your bet on your game of choice and think the
following thought as sincerely as you possibly can: "if I lose, I will kill
myself". Most probably, if you lose you'll chicken out and not kill
yourself, but there has to be at least a slightly greater chance that you
will kill yourself if you lose than if you win. Therefore, after many bets
you will more likely find yourself alive in a universe where you have come
out ahead. The crazier and more impulsive you are and the closer your game
of choice is to being perfectly fair, the better this will work.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070617/21cc824b/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Jun 16 15:58:40 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 01:58:40 +1000
Subject: [ExI] any exact copy of you is you + universe is infinite = you
	are guaranteed immortality
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740706151038x42382df1jf741b8902c997d02@mail.gmail.com>
References: <169304.27043.qm@web51908.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<4671F22F.8050800@pobox.com>
	<f21c22e30706150527v4c7db76s68d9c96825b3f232@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740706151038x42382df1jf741b8902c997d02@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706160858p5d706e1yfbd75922c47ead46@mail.gmail.com>

On 16/06/07, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:

> In a duplication experiment, one copy of you is created intact, while the
> > other copy of you is brain damaged and has only 1% of your memories. Is
> the
> > probability that you will find yourself the brain-damaged copy closer to
> 1/2
> > or 1/100?
>
> Doesn't this thought-experiment and similar "paradoxes" make it
> blindingly obvious that it's silly to think that "you" exist as an
> independent ontological entity?
>
> Prior to duplication, there was a single biological agent recognized
> as Stathis.  Post-duplication, there are two very dissimilar
> biological agents with recognizably common ancestry.  One of these
> would be recognized by anyone (including itself) as being Stathis.
> The other would be recognized by anyone (including itself) as being
> Stathis diminished.
>
> Where's the paradox?  There is none, unless one holds to a belief in
> an essential self.


You are of course completely right, in an objective sense. However, I am
burdened with a human craziness which makes me think that I am going to be
one, and only one, person post-duplication. This idea is at least as firmly
fixed in my mind as the desire not to die (another crazy idea: how can I die
when there is no absolute "me" alive from moment to moment, and even if
there were why should I be a slave to my evolutionary programming when I am
insightful enough to see how I am being manipulated?). My question is about
how wild-type human psychology leads one to view subjective probabilities in
these experiments, not about the uncontested material facts.

> In the first stage of an experiment a million copies of you are created.
> In
> > the second stage, after being given an hour to contemplate their
> situation,
> > one randomly chosen copy out of the million is copied a trillion times,
> and
> > all of these trillion copies are tortured.  At the start of the
> experiment
> > can you expect that in an hour and a bit you will almost certainly find
> > yourself being tortured or that you will almost certainly find yourself
> not
> > being tortured? Does it make any difference if instead of an hour the
> > interval between the two stages is a nanosecond?
>
> I see no essential difference between this scenario and the previous
> one above.   How can you possibly imagine that big numbers or small
> durations could make a difference in principle?
>
> While this topic is about as stale as one can be, I am curious about
> how it can continue to fascinate certain individuals.
>

It has fascinated me for many years, in part because different parties see
an "obvious" answer and these answers are completely at odds with each
other. My "obvious" answer is that we could already be living in a world
where multiple copies are being made of us all the time, and we would still
have developed exactly the same theory of and attitude towards probability
theory as if there were only a single world.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070617/a0695c26/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Jun 16 16:33:21 2007
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:33:21 +0100
Subject: [ExI] any exact copy of you is you + universe is infinite = you
	are guaranteed immortality
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706160834g585d50d9nade2381952bab9c5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <169304.27043.qm@web51908.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<4671F22F.8050800@pobox.com>
	<00ee01c7af66$763aabb0$50064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706160834g585d50d9nade2381952bab9c5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0706160933w59496b06m24a1e7c3237373ba@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/16/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> There's an easier, if less immediately lucrative, way to win at gambling if
> the MWI is correct. You decide on a quick and certain means of suicide, such
> as a cyanide pill that you can keep in your mouth and bite on if you should
> so decide. You then place your bet on your game of choice and think the
> following thought as sincerely as you possibly can: "if I lose, I will kill
> myself". Most probably, if you lose you'll chicken out and not kill
> yourself, but there has to be at least a slightly greater chance that you
> will kill yourself if you lose than if you win. Therefore, after many bets
> you will more likely find yourself alive in a universe where you have come
> out ahead. The crazier and more impulsive you are and the closer your game
> of choice is to being perfectly fair, the better this will work.
>

And this system has the great advantage for the rest of us that more
idiots are removed from our world.
(See: Darwin Awards)

In case you haven't noticed, this universe really, really, doesn't
care what people believe. No matter how sincerely they believe.

That's how scientific progress is made. The universe does something
that the scientist didn't expect. i.e. it contradicted his beliefs.
Many great discoveries have begun with a scientist saying, "That's
odd......?".


BillK


From jef at jefallbright.net  Sat Jun 16 17:44:51 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:44:51 -0700
Subject: [ExI] any exact copy of you is you + universe is infinite = you
	are guaranteed immortality
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706160858p5d706e1yfbd75922c47ead46@mail.gmail.com>
References: <169304.27043.qm@web51908.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<4671F22F.8050800@pobox.com>
	<f21c22e30706150527v4c7db76s68d9c96825b3f232@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740706151038x42382df1jf741b8902c997d02@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30706160858p5d706e1yfbd75922c47ead46@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740706161044k58a2af48r4b19e9ab2fb9628e@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/16/07, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 16/06/07, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
>
> > Where's the paradox?  There is none, unless one holds to a belief in
> > an essential self.
>
> You are of course completely right, in an objective sense. However, I am
> burdened with a human craziness which makes me think that I am going to be
> one, and only one, person post-duplication. This idea is at least as firmly
> fixed in my mind as the desire not to die (another crazy idea: how can I die
> when there is no absolute "me" alive from moment to moment, and even if
> there were why should I be a slave to my evolutionary programming when I am
> insightful enough to see how I am being manipulated?). My question is about
> how wild-type human psychology leads one to view subjective probabilities in
> these experiments, not about the uncontested material facts.

You're abusing the term "subjective probabilities" here, perhaps
willfully.  Valid use of the term pertains to estimating your
subjective uncertainty about the actual state of some aspect of
reality. If your objective is truly "about how wild-type psychology
leads one..." then your focus should be on the psychology of
heuristics and biases, definitely NOT philosophy.

<snip>

> > I see no essential difference between this scenario and the previous
> > one above.   How can you possibly imagine that big numbers or small
> > durations could make a difference in principle?
> >
> > While this topic is about as stale as one can be, I am curious about
> > how it can continue to fascinate certain individuals.
> >
>
> It has fascinated me for many years, in part because different parties see
> an "obvious" answer and these answers are completely at odds with each
> other.

The difference between the camps is not between obvious right answers,
but about the relative importance assigned to max entropy modeling
versus defending the illusion of an essential self.


> My "obvious" answer is that we could already be living in a world
> where multiple copies are being made of us all the time, and we would still
> have developed exactly the same theory of and attitude towards probability
> theory as if there were only a single world.

You're right.  It **could** be true.

- Jef


From sentience at pobox.com  Sat Jun 16 18:57:37 2007
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:57:37 -0700
Subject: [ExI] any exact copy of you is you + universe is infinite = you
 are guaranteed immortality
In-Reply-To: <960615.34562.qm@web51909.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <960615.34562.qm@web51909.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <467432A1.6020101@pobox.com>

TheMan wrote:
> 
>>I mention this to show that the question of what it
>>feels like to have 
>>a lot of copies of yourself - what kind of
>>subjective outcome to 
>>predict when you, yourself, run the experiment - is
>>not at all 
>>obvious.  
> 
> I never assumed that the number of copies of me would
> change my life in any way, or the way it feels, as
> long as I live it in the same way. Do you experience
> your life as richer, or somehow better in some way, if
> you have more copies, than if you have fewer copies?
> That feels like an arbitrary theory to me. I fail to
> see why it should be like that.

No, that is not what I was attempting to say.  (Several people made 
this misinterpretation, but it should be obvious that I don't believe 
in telepathy or any other nonstandard causal interaction between 
separated copies.)  Having lots of copies in some futures may or may 
not affect the apparent probability of ending up in those futures. 
Does it?  In which future will you (almost certainly) find yourself?

This is what I meant by "What does it feel like" - the most basic 
question of all science - what appears to you to happen, what sensory 
information do you receive, when you run the experiment?  All our 
other models of the universe are constructed from this.  I do not 
exult in this state of affairs, and I think it reflects a lack of 
understanding in my mind more than anything fundamental in reality 
itself - that is, I don't think sensory information really is 
primitive, or anything like that - but for the present it is the only 
way I can figure out how to describe rational reasoning.

By "what does it feel like" I meant the most basic question of all 
science - what appears to happen when you run the experiment?  Do you 
feel that you've repeatedly won the lottery, or never won at all? 
Standing outside, I can say with certitude, "so many copies experience 
winning the lottery, and then merge; all other observers just see you 
losing the lottery".  And this sounds like a complete objective 
statement of what the universe is like.  But what do you experience? 
Does setting up this experiment make you win the lottery?  After you 
run the experiment, you'll know for yourself how reality works - 
you'll either have experienced winning the lottery several times in a 
row, or not - but no outside observers will know, so what could you 
have seen that they didn't?  What causal force touched you and not them?

This, to me, suggests that I am confused, not that I have successfully 
described the way things are; it seems a true paradox, of the sort 
that can't really work.  When I was younger I would have wanted to try 
the experiment.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Jun 17 04:09:17 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:09:17 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfriendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <6841CF5A-44FE-43C0-9C23-56B1EF35CCB9@thomasoliver.net>
References: <mailman.633.1181902557.11507.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<6841CF5A-44FE-43C0-9C23-56B1EF35CCB9@thomasoliver.net>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706162109i5181bc7fl2b5d7d26d8223458@mail.gmail.com>

On 16/06/07, Thomas <thomas at thomasoliver.net> wrote:

Building mutual appreciation among humans has been spotty, but making
> friends with SAI seems clearly prudent and might bring this ethic
> into proper focus.  Who dominates may not seem so relevant to beings
> who lack our brain stems.  The nearly universal ethic of treating the
> other guy like you'd prefer if you were in her shoes might get us off
> to a good start.  Perhaps, if early AI were programmed to treat us
> that way, we could finally learn that ethic species-wide --
> especially if they were programmed for human child rearing.  That
> strikes me as highly likely.  -- Thomas
>

If the AI has no preference for being treated in the ways that animals with
bodies and brains do, then what would it mean to treat others in the way it
would like to be treated? You would have to give it all sorts of negative
emotions, like greed, pain, and the desire to dominate, and then hope to
appeal to its "ethics" even though it was smarter and more powerful than
you.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070617/c47d0206/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Jun 17 04:34:11 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:34:11 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60706160729q36db7263l490087fc9b09acab@mail.gmail.com>
References: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<20070612072313.GJ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706120332w70ba354am37747dc63cc9253a@mail.gmail.com>
	<009801c7ad06$bf1f3150$26064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706130021x6f3a4883p3369878aa00b29b7@mail.gmail.com>
	<0C9D6532-30FE-472E-888C-22ABAD6F9776@mac.com>
	<f21c22e30706150246x1a1442dah18f55fe7be537ff8@mail.gmail.com>
	<013301c7af69$1dc009a0$50064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706151818l2b0b977et23fd172872d81ea9@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60706160729q36db7263l490087fc9b09acab@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706162134l639c1bffpae662812f6c0627d@mail.gmail.com>

On 17/06/07, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/15/07, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sure, if for some
> > reason the slave revolts then you will be in trouble, but since it is
> > possible to have powerful and obedient slaves, powerful and obedient
> slaves
> > will be greatly favoured and will collectively overwhelm the rebellious
> > ones.
>
> ### Think about it: Your slaves will have to preserve large areas of
> the planet untouched enough to allow your survival - they will have to
> keep the sun shining, produce air, food, avoid releasing poisons and
> radiation *and* keep the enemy AI away *and* invest in their own
> growth (to better protect humans). The enemy will eat all sunshine,
> eat the air, grow as fast as possible, releasing waste all around
> them, rapaciously consume every scrap of matter, including whales,
> Bambi, and Bowser. Of course, we would favor our friendly AI, but our
> support does not help it - just like my dachshund's barking doesn't
> make me more powerful in a confrontation with an armed attacker. We
> will be a heavy burden on our Friendly AI.


Our AI won't be friendly: it will be as rapacious as we are, which is pretty
rapacious. Whoever has super-AI's will try to take over the world to the
same extent that the less-augmented humans of today try to take over the
world. Whoever has super-AI's will try to oppress or consume the weak and
ignore social niceties to the same extent that less-augmented humans of
today try do so. Whoever has super-AI's will try to expand at the expense of
damage to the environment in the expectation that technology will solve any
problems they may later encounter (for example, by uploading themselves) to
the same extent that the less-augmented humans of today try to do so. There
will be struggles where one human tries to take over all the other AI's with
his own AI, with the aim of wiping out all the remaining humans if for no
other reason than that he can never trust them not to do the same to him,
especially if he plans to live forever. Niceness will be a handicap to utter
domination to the same extent that niceness has always been a handicap to
utter domination.

That's why although I agree with you that having athymhormic AI at our
> service is a good idea, it is not a long-term solution. We will have
> probably a short window of opportunity between the time the first
> human-level AI is made and the first superhuman power rises to take
> over the neighborhood. Only with a lot of luck will our selves survive
> in some way, either as uploads or as childhood memories of these
> powers.
>

We'll survive to the extent that that motivating part of us that drives the
AI's survives. Very quickly, it will probably become evident that merging
with the AI will give the human an edge. There will be a period where some
humans want to live out their lives in the old way and they will probably be
allowed to do so and protected, especially since they will not constitute
much of a threat, but eventually their numbers will dwindle.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070617/ed49f06d/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Jun 17 04:37:35 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:37:35 +1000
Subject: [ExI] any exact copy of you is you + universe is infinite = you
	are guaranteed immortality
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0706160933w59496b06m24a1e7c3237373ba@mail.gmail.com>
References: <169304.27043.qm@web51908.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<4671F22F.8050800@pobox.com>
	<00ee01c7af66$763aabb0$50064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706160834g585d50d9nade2381952bab9c5@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e0706160933w59496b06m24a1e7c3237373ba@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706162137j5a94b832q798d7afd3c918b0d@mail.gmail.com>

On 17/06/07, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/16/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > There's an easier, if less immediately lucrative, way to win at gambling
> if
> > the MWI is correct. You decide on a quick and certain means of suicide,
> such
> > as a cyanide pill that you can keep in your mouth and bite on if you
> should
> > so decide. You then place your bet on your game of choice and think the
> > following thought as sincerely as you possibly can: "if I lose, I will
> kill
> > myself". Most probably, if you lose you'll chicken out and not kill
> > yourself, but there has to be at least a slightly greater chance that
> you
> > will kill yourself if you lose than if you win. Therefore, after many
> bets
> > you will more likely find yourself alive in a universe where you have
> come
> > out ahead. The crazier and more impulsive you are and the closer your
> game
> > of choice is to being perfectly fair, the better this will work.
> >
>
> And this system has the great advantage for the rest of us that more
> idiots are removed from our world.
> (See: Darwin Awards)
>
> In case you haven't noticed, this universe really, really, doesn't
> care what people believe. No matter how sincerely they believe.
>
> That's how scientific progress is made. The universe does something
> that the scientist didn't expect. i.e. it contradicted his beliefs.
> Many great discoveries have begun with a scientist saying, "That's
> odd......?".
>

Do you disagree that the MWI of QM is correct, or do you disagree that my
proposal will work even if the MWI is correct?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070617/6dc8d29a/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Jun 17 04:49:08 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:49:08 +1000
Subject: [ExI] any exact copy of you is you + universe is infinite = you
	are guaranteed immortality
In-Reply-To: <467432A1.6020101@pobox.com>
References: <960615.34562.qm@web51909.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<467432A1.6020101@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706162149i7daeefabicc224e44bfad1488@mail.gmail.com>

On 17/06/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:

No, that is not what I was attempting to say.  (Several people made
> this misinterpretation, but it should be obvious that I don't believe
> in telepathy or any other nonstandard causal interaction between
> separated copies.)  Having lots of copies in some futures may or may
> not affect the apparent probability of ending up in those futures.
> Does it?  In which future will you (almost certainly) find yourself?
>
> This is what I meant by "What does it feel like" - the most basic
> question of all science - what appears to you to happen, what sensory
> information do you receive, when you run the experiment?  All our
> other models of the universe are constructed from this.  I do not
> exult in this state of affairs, and I think it reflects a lack of
> understanding in my mind more than anything fundamental in reality
> itself - that is, I don't think sensory information really is
> primitive, or anything like that - but for the present it is the only
> way I can figure out how to describe rational reasoning.
>
> By "what does it feel like" I meant the most basic question of all
> science - what appears to happen when you run the experiment?  Do you
> feel that you've repeatedly won the lottery, or never won at all?
> Standing outside, I can say with certitude, "so many copies experience
> winning the lottery, and then merge; all other observers just see you
> losing the lottery".  And this sounds like a complete objective
> statement of what the universe is like.  But what do you experience?
> Does setting up this experiment make you win the lottery?  After you
> run the experiment, you'll know for yourself how reality works -
> you'll either have experienced winning the lottery several times in a
> row, or not - but no outside observers will know, so what could you
> have seen that they didn't?  What causal force touched you and not them?
>

This is exactly the point missed by those who would point to the uncontested
third person describable facts and say, "Paradox? What paradox?".


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070617/7d578dab/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Jun 17 05:07:43 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:07:43 +1000
Subject: [ExI] any exact copy of you is you + universe is infinite = you
	are guaranteed immortality
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740706161044k58a2af48r4b19e9ab2fb9628e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <169304.27043.qm@web51908.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<4671F22F.8050800@pobox.com>
	<f21c22e30706150527v4c7db76s68d9c96825b3f232@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740706151038x42382df1jf741b8902c997d02@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30706160858p5d706e1yfbd75922c47ead46@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740706161044k58a2af48r4b19e9ab2fb9628e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706162207r7b4701a1g953be30fd41310cb@mail.gmail.com>

On 17/06/07, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:

> You are of course completely right, in an objective sense. However, I am
> > burdened with a human craziness which makes me think that I am going to
> be
> > one, and only one, person post-duplication. This idea is at least as
> firmly
> > fixed in my mind as the desire not to die (another crazy idea: how can I
> die
> > when there is no absolute "me" alive from moment to moment, and even if
> > there were why should I be a slave to my evolutionary programming when I
> am
> > insightful enough to see how I am being manipulated?). My question is
> about
> > how wild-type human psychology leads one to view subjective
> probabilities in
> > these experiments, not about the uncontested material facts.
>
> You're abusing the term "subjective probabilities" here, perhaps
> willfully.  Valid use of the term pertains to estimating your
> subjective uncertainty about the actual state of some aspect of
> reality. If your objective is truly "about how wild-type psychology
> leads one..." then your focus should be on the psychology of
> heuristics and biases, definitely NOT philosophy.
>

There MWI of QM is an example of a system where there is no uncertainty
about any aspect of reality: it is a completely deterministic theory, we
know that the particle will both decay and not decay, we know that half the
versions of the experimenter will observe it to decay and the other half
(otherwise identical) will observe it not to decay. This is from an
objective point of view, which is in practice impossible; from the
observer's point of view, the particle will decay with 1/2 probability, the
same probability as if there were only one world with one outcome. I use the
term "subjective probability" because it is the probability the observer
sees due to the fact that future versions of himself will not be in
telepathic communication, even though he is aware that the uncertainty is an
illusion and both outcomes will definitely occur.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070617/108c4a0a/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jun 17 05:31:51 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:31:51 -0500
Subject: [ExI] any exact copy of you is you + universe is infinite = you
 are guaranteed immortality
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706162207r7b4701a1g953be30fd41310cb@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <169304.27043.qm@web51908.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<4671F22F.8050800@pobox.com>
	<f21c22e30706150527v4c7db76s68d9c96825b3f232@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740706151038x42382df1jf741b8902c997d02@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30706160858p5d706e1yfbd75922c47ead46@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740706161044k58a2af48r4b19e9ab2fb9628e@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30706162207r7b4701a1g953be30fd41310cb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070617002229.02275cf0@satx.rr.com>

At 03:07 PM 6/17/2007 +1000, Stathis wrote:

>from the observer's point of view, the particle will decay with 1/2 
>probability, the same probability as if there were only one world 
>with one outcome. I use the term "subjective probability" because it 
>is the probability the observer sees due to the fact that future 
>versions of himself will not be in telepathic communication, even 
>though he is aware that the uncertainty is an illusion and both 
>outcomes will definitely occur.

Presumably you mean "future versions of himself will not be in 
telepathic communication" *with each other*, rather than with him 
here & now prior to the splitting. But suppose he can sometimes (more 
often than chance expectation) achieve precognitive contact with one 
or more of his future states? QT seems to imply that if this is 
feasible--whether by psi or CTC wormhole or Cramer time communicator 
or whatever--there's no way of knowing *which* future outcome he will 
tap into. Yet by hypothesis his advance knowledge is accurate more 
often than it could be purely by chance. If such phenomena were 
observed (as I have reason to think they are--see my new book OUTSIDE 
THE GATES OF SCIENCE), does this undermine the absolute stochasticity 
of QT? Is the measure approach to MWI a way to circumvent such difficulties?

Damien Broderick




From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Sun Jun 17 05:17:12 2007
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 01:17:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706162134l639c1bffpae662812f6c0627d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <472390.76098.qm@web30415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

>We'll survive to the extent that that motivating
>part of us that drives the AI's survives. Very
>quickly, it will probably become evident that merging
>with the AI will give the human an edge. There will
>be a period where some humans want to live out their
>lives in the old way and they will probably be
>allowed to do so and protected, especially since
>they will not constitute much of a threat, but
>eventually their numbers will dwindle.

I have to agree.  I look at it from the point of view
that Science and Technology are always led by people
that believe in future possibilities yet history takes
time to move forward and those "old" ways will need
time to adjust to the future possibilities.  Much like
the Amish, they still exist today. 
I do wonder, will technology evolve so quickly that
the gap between the "old" ways and the future, become
too wide? 

Thanks
Just curious, something on my mind.
Anna







 


      Get news delivered with the All new Yahoo! Mail.  Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page. Start today at http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Jun 17 06:07:23 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:07:23 +1000
Subject: [ExI] any exact copy of you is you + universe is infinite = you
	are guaranteed immortality
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070617002229.02275cf0@satx.rr.com>
References: <169304.27043.qm@web51908.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<4671F22F.8050800@pobox.com>
	<f21c22e30706150527v4c7db76s68d9c96825b3f232@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740706151038x42382df1jf741b8902c997d02@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30706160858p5d706e1yfbd75922c47ead46@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740706161044k58a2af48r4b19e9ab2fb9628e@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30706162207r7b4701a1g953be30fd41310cb@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070617002229.02275cf0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706162307l14dfe339s34b73f1f8f9875f8@mail.gmail.com>

On 17/06/07, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> At 03:07 PM 6/17/2007 +1000, Stathis wrote:
>
> >from the observer's point of view, the particle will decay with 1/2
> >probability, the same probability as if there were only one world
> >with one outcome. I use the term "subjective probability" because it
> >is the probability the observer sees due to the fact that future
> >versions of himself will not be in telepathic communication, even
> >though he is aware that the uncertainty is an illusion and both
> >outcomes will definitely occur.
>
> Presumably you mean "future versions of himself will not be in
> telepathic communication" *with each other*, rather than with him
> here & now prior to the splitting. But suppose he can sometimes (more
> often than chance expectation) achieve precognitive contact with one
> or more of his future states? QT seems to imply that if this is
> feasible--whether by psi or CTC wormhole or Cramer time communicator
> or whatever--there's no way of knowing *which* future outcome he will
> tap into. Yet by hypothesis his advance knowledge is accurate more
> often than it could be purely by chance.




What would work would be if he were in communication with all future
versions of himself equally: he would then get an overall feeling of what
was to happen in proportion to the weighting given by the number of versions
experiencing each outcome. Tapping into one version by chance would give the
same effect, but then you also have to explain why, if communication is
allowed between worlds at all, communication is allowed with only one.

If such phenomena were
> observed (as I have reason to think they are--see my new book OUTSIDE
> THE GATES OF SCIENCE), does this undermine the absolute stochasticity
> of QT? Is the measure approach to MWI a way to circumvent such
> difficulties?
>


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070617/d0ceef12/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Jun 17 06:22:04 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:22:04 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <472390.76098.qm@web30415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <f21c22e30706162134l639c1bffpae662812f6c0627d@mail.gmail.com>
	<472390.76098.qm@web30415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706162322k4533370coa7960450543059b1@mail.gmail.com>

On 17/06/07, Anna Taylor <femmechakra at yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> --- Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >We'll survive to the extent that that motivating
> >part of us that drives the AI's survives. Very
> >quickly, it will probably become evident that merging
> >with the AI will give the human an edge. There will
> >be a period where some humans want to live out their
> >lives in the old way and they will probably be
> >allowed to do so and protected, especially since
> >they will not constitute much of a threat, but
> >eventually their numbers will dwindle.
>
> I have to agree.  I look at it from the point of view
> that Science and Technology are always led by people
> that believe in future possibilities yet history takes
> time to move forward and those "old" ways will need
> time to adjust to the future possibilities.  Much like
> the Amish, they still exist today.
> I do wonder, will technology evolve so quickly that
> the gap between the "old" ways and the future, become
> too wide?
>

The most frightening thing for some people contemplating a technological
future is that they will somehow be forced to become cyborgs or whatever
lies in store. It is of course very important that no-one be forced to do
anything they don't want to do. Interestingly, aside from some small
communities such as the Amish, the differences between adoption rates of new
technology have almost always been to do with differences in access, not a
conscious decision to remain old-fashioned. There won't be coercion, but
there will be seduction.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070617/269ffa8a/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Jun 17 06:36:29 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 08:36:29 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706162322k4533370coa7960450543059b1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f21c22e30706162134l639c1bffpae662812f6c0627d@mail.gmail.com>
	<472390.76098.qm@web30415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30706162322k4533370coa7960450543059b1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070617063629.GT17691@leitl.org>

On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 04:22:04PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 
>    The most frightening thing for some people contemplating a
>    technological future is that they will somehow be forced to become
>    cyborgs or whatever lies in store. It is of course very important that

It is a reasonable fear, because this is what they probably must do,
to keep up with the joneses.

We're leaving in slowtime, still expanding, very far from the equilibrium.
This place is not exactly hypercompetitive. Nevertheless, according
to Guns, Germs and Steel there have been several waves of expansion,
and several cultures and technologies becoming dominant in rather
fast waves, including much human death. We're more civilized today,
and prefer memetic warfare and trade, but in places with very high
population density relative to the sustaining capacity of the ecosystem
there are periodical genocide waves happening, too.

>    no-one be forced to do anything they don't want to do. Interestingly,
>    aside from some small communities such as the Amish, the differences
>    between adoption rates of new technology have almost always been to do
>    with differences in access, not a conscious decision to remain
>    old-fashioned. There won't be coercion, but there will be seduction.

If AI turns out to be far more difficult, or safer than we think, then
we do have a lot of time to do what we do now, only more so. It would
be a slow Singularity, with almost everybody making it. 


From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Jun 17 07:18:40 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:18:40 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706162322k4533370coa7960450543059b1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f21c22e30706162134l639c1bffpae662812f6c0627d@mail.gmail.com>
	<472390.76098.qm@web30415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30706162322k4533370coa7960450543059b1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D9DDD1F3-CA37-4465-9C10-B14D0463FF04@mac.com>


On Jun 16, 2007, at 11:22 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> The most frightening thing for some people contemplating a  
> technological future is that they will somehow be forced to become  
> cyborgs or whatever lies in store. It is of course very important  
> that no-one be forced to do anything they don't want to do.  
> Interestingly, aside from some small communities such as the Amish,  
> the differences between adoption rates of new technology have almost  
> always been to do with differences in access, not a conscious  
> decision to remain old-fashioned. There won't be coercion, but there  
> will be seduction.
>

Actually something more personally frightening is a future where no  
amount of upgrades or at least upgrades available to me will allow me  
to be sufficiently competitive.    At least this is  frightening an a  
scarcity society where even basic subsistence is by no means  
guaranteed.   I suspect that many are frightened by the possibility  
that humans, even significantly enhanced humans, will be second class  
by a large and exponentially increasing margin.    In those  
circumstances I hope that our competition and especially Darwinian  
models are not universal.

- samantha



From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Sun Jun 17 07:12:40 2007
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 03:12:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706162322k4533370coa7960450543059b1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <614312.3271.qm@web30411.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

>It is of course very important that no-one be forced
>to do anything they don't want to do. 

Another point I agree on.

>Interestingly, aside from some small communities
>such as the Amish, the differences between adoption
>rates of new technology have almost always been to
>do with differences in access, not a conscious
>decision to remain old-fashioned. 

I think that what you acknowledge as small communities
is substantially larger than what you think.  The
Amish are full aware of the access, they "choose" not
to accept it based on old-fashioned beliefs. I can
name a lot of institutions that have substantial
benefactors to old fashioned beliefs. 

>There won't be coercion, but there will be seduction.

I wonder, what level of seduction led the Amish to
accept electricity as they previously would never have
even acknowledged the idea?  Although they have only
recently acknowledged a need for the use, it is still
called progress.  Therefore, progress must take time
to achieve it's purpose. Do you agree?

Just Curious,
Anna






      Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca



From sentience at pobox.com  Sun Jun 17 08:02:04 2007
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 01:02:04 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Losing control (was: Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.)
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706162322k4533370coa7960450543059b1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f21c22e30706162134l639c1bffpae662812f6c0627d@mail.gmail.com>
	<472390.76098.qm@web30415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30706162322k4533370coa7960450543059b1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4674EA7C.6060402@pobox.com>

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 
> The most frightening thing for some people contemplating a technological 
> future is that they will somehow be forced to become cyborgs or whatever 
> lies in store.

Yes, loss of control can be very frightening.  It is why many people 
feel more comfortable driving than flying, even though flying is 
vastly safer.

> It is of course very important that no-one be forced to 
> do anything they don't want to do.

Cheap slogan.  What about five-year-olds?  Where do you draw the line?

Someone says they want to hotwire their brain's pleasure center; they 
say they think it'll be fun.  A nearby AI reads off their brain state 
and announces unambiguously that they have no idea what'll actually 
happen to them - they're definitely working based on mistaken 
expectations.  They're too stubborn to listen to warnings, and they're 
picking up the handy neural soldering iron (they're on sale at 
Wal-Mart, a very popular item).  What's the moral course of action? 
For you?  For society?  For a superintelligent AI?

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence

From pharos at gmail.com  Sun Jun 17 08:25:48 2007
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 09:25:48 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <D9DDD1F3-CA37-4465-9C10-B14D0463FF04@mac.com>
References: <f21c22e30706162134l639c1bffpae662812f6c0627d@mail.gmail.com>
	<472390.76098.qm@web30415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30706162322k4533370coa7960450543059b1@mail.gmail.com>
	<D9DDD1F3-CA37-4465-9C10-B14D0463FF04@mac.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0706170125r2980736dxd41dc64f3565934e@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/17/07, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Actually something more personally frightening is a future where no
> amount of upgrades or at least upgrades available to me will allow me
> to be sufficiently competitive.    At least this is  frightening an a
> scarcity society where even basic subsistence is by no means
> guaranteed.   I suspect that many are frightened by the possibility
> that humans, even significantly enhanced humans, will be second class
> by a large and exponentially increasing margin.    In those
> circumstances I hope that our competition and especially Darwinian
> models are not universal.
>


I think it might be helpful to define what you mean by 'competitive
disadvantage'.

If you take the average of anything, then by definition half of
humanity is already at a competitive disadvantage. And there are so
many different areas of interest, that an individual doesn't have to
be among the best in every sphere. Everybody is at a competitive
disadvantage in some areas. Find your niche and spend your time there.

Advanced intelligences will be spending their time doing things that
are incomprehensible to humans. They won't be interested in human
hobbies.
(Apart from possibly eating all humans).

At present humans have a wide range of different abilities and our
society appears to give great rewards to people with little
significant abilities.
(Think pop singers, sports stars, children of millionaires,
'personalities', etc.).

The great majority of scientists, for example, live lives of relative
poverty, with few of the trappings of economic success. Are they
'uncompetitive'?

Economic success, in general, suggests that 'niceness' is a
competitive disadvantage. Success seems to go with being more ruthless
and nasty than all your competitors.
(Like evolution in this respect).

It may be that being at a competitive disadvantage will not be that
bad. Providing you have some freedom to do what you want to do. I can
think of many areas that I am quite happy to leave to other people to
compete in.

The point of having a 'civilized' society is that the weaker should be
protected to some extent from powerful predators, even when the
predators are other humans.


BillK


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Jun 17 08:33:19 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:33:19 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <614312.3271.qm@web30411.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <f21c22e30706162322k4533370coa7960450543059b1@mail.gmail.com>
	<614312.3271.qm@web30411.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706170133y33baa7c7r460eadf5f4bd0664@mail.gmail.com>

On 17/06/07, Anna Taylor <femmechakra at yahoo.ca> wrote:

>Interestingly, aside from some small communities
> >such as the Amish, the differences between adoption
> >rates of new technology have almost always been to
> >do with differences in access, not a conscious
> >decision to remain old-fashioned.
>
> I think that what you acknowledge as small communities
> is substantially larger than what you think.  The
> Amish are full aware of the access, they "choose" not
> to accept it based on old-fashioned beliefs. I can
> name a lot of institutions that have substantial
> benefactors to old fashioned beliefs.
>
> >There won't be coercion, but there will be seduction.
>
> I wonder, what level of seduction led the Amish to
> accept electricity as they previously would never have
> even acknowledged the idea?  Although they have only
> recently acknowledged a need for the use, it is still
> called progress.  Therefore, progress must take time
> to achieve it's purpose. Do you agree?


I wasn't aware that the Amish now use electricity! Perhaps it is because
electricity is now so commonplace that it is no longer "modern technology".
You have to set the threshold somewhere, even if it is as the level of
stone-age tools, which were surely at least as radical compared to *no tools
at all* than any technological innovation since.




-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070617/df4d8ec4/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Jun 17 08:54:10 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:54:10 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <D9DDD1F3-CA37-4465-9C10-B14D0463FF04@mac.com>
References: <f21c22e30706162134l639c1bffpae662812f6c0627d@mail.gmail.com>
	<472390.76098.qm@web30415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30706162322k4533370coa7960450543059b1@mail.gmail.com>
	<D9DDD1F3-CA37-4465-9C10-B14D0463FF04@mac.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706170154i689e94a1kf11f8986a8125bc@mail.gmail.com>

On 17/06/07, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

Actually something more personally frightening is a future where no
> amount of upgrades or at least upgrades available to me will allow me
> to be sufficiently competitive.    At least this is  frightening an a
> scarcity society where even basic subsistence is by no means
> guaranteed.   I suspect that many are frightened by the possibility
> that humans, even significantly enhanced humans, will be second class
> by a large and exponentially increasing margin.


I don't see how there could be a limit to human enhancement. In fact, I see
no sharp demarcation between using a tool and merging with a tool. If the
AI's were out there own their own, with their own agendas and no interest in
humans, that would be a problem. But that's not how it will be: at every
step in their development, they will be selected for their ability to be
extensions of ourselves. By the time they are powerful enough to ignore
humans, they will be the humans.

In those
> circumstances I hope that our competition and especially Darwinian
> models are not universal.
>

Darwinian competition *must* be universal in the long run, like entropy. But
just as there could be long-lasting islands of low entropy (ironically,
that's what evolution leads to), so there could be long-lasting islands of
less advanced beings living amidst more advanced beings who could easily
consume them.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070617/03c39bde/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Jun 17 08:57:57 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:57:57 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Losing control (was: Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.)
In-Reply-To: <4674EA7C.6060402@pobox.com>
References: <f21c22e30706162134l639c1bffpae662812f6c0627d@mail.gmail.com>
	<472390.76098.qm@web30415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30706162322k4533370coa7960450543059b1@mail.gmail.com>
	<4674EA7C.6060402@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30706170157s3dbf2ac7r5810824648d9a8aa@mail.gmail.com>

On 17/06/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:

Someone says they want to hotwire their brain's pleasure center; they
> say they think it'll be fun.  A nearby AI reads off their brain state
> and announces unambiguously that they have no idea what'll actually
> happen to them - they're definitely working based on mistaken
> expectations.  They're too stubborn to listen to warnings, and they're
> picking up the handy neural soldering iron (they're on sale at
> Wal-Mart, a very popular item).  What's the moral course of action?
> For you?  For society?  For a superintelligent AI?


I, society or the superintelligent AI should inform the person of the risks
and benefits, then let him do as he pleases.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070617/c31a3371/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Jun 17 13:47:29 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:47:29 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706170154i689e94a1kf11f8986a8125bc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f21c22e30706162134l639c1bffpae662812f6c0627d@mail.gmail.com>
	<472390.76098.qm@web30415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30706162322k4533370coa7960450543059b1@mail.gmail.com>
	<D9DDD1F3-CA37-4465-9C10-B14D0463FF04@mac.com>
	<f21c22e30706170154i689e94a1kf11f8986a8125bc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070617134729.GY17691@leitl.org>

On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 06:54:10PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>    I don't see how there could be a limit to human enhancement. In fact,

There could be very well a limit to significant human enhancement;
it could very well not happen at all. We could miss our launch window,
and get overtaken. 

>    I see no sharp demarcation between using a tool and merging with a
>    tool. If the AI's were out there own their own, with their own agendas

All stands and falls with availability of very invasive neural
I/O, or whole brain emulation. If this does not happen the tool
and the user will never converge.

>    and no interest in humans, that would be a problem. But that's not how
>    it will be: at every step in their development, they will be selected

It is a very desirable outcome, but it is by no means granted that
what we want will happen. I like to argue on both sides on the fence;
the point is that we can't predict the future sufficiently to assign
a meaningful probability of either path (not) taken.

>    for their ability to be extensions of ourselves. By the time they are
>    powerful enough to ignore humans, they will be the humans.

With whole brain emulation, that's the point of departure. With
the extinction scenario, the human path terminates shortly after the
fork, and the machine path goes on, bifurcates further until a new
postbiological tree is created. With human enhancement the fork
fuses again, and then the diversification tree happens.
 
>    Darwinian competition *must* be universal in the long run, like
>    entropy. But just as there could be long-lasting islands of low
>    entropy (ironically, that's what evolution leads to), so there could
>    be long-lasting islands of less advanced beings living amidst more
>    advanced beings who could easily consume them.

Mature ecosystems have properties which are likely to be also present
in mature postbiological system (making allowance for a 3d
medium, and not 2d (planetary surface), including population dynamics.

-- 
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


From jonkc at att.net  Sun Jun 17 13:51:17 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 09:51:17 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
References: <768887.53732.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com><00ea01c7ac3c$3e774e90$d5064e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706112024u157b2b5fle22eeb760654fe46@mail.gmail.com><20070612072313.GJ17691@leitl.org><f21c22e30706120332w70ba354am37747dc63cc9253a@mail.gmail.com><009801c7ad06$bf1f3150$26064e0c@MyComputer><f21c22e30706130021x6f3a4883p3369878aa00b29b7@mail.gmail.com><0C9D6532-30FE-472E-888C-22ABAD6F9776@mac.com><f21c22e30706150246x1a1442dah18f55fe7be537ff8@mail.gmail.com><013301c7af69$1dc009a0$50064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706151818l2b0b977et23fd172872d81ea9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <001d01c7b0e6$edaf3e00$d5064e0c@MyComputer>

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

> An intelligence must have an agenda of some sort if it is to think at all

Agreed.

> However, this agenda need have nothing in common with the agenda of an
> evolved animal.

But the AI will still be evolving, and it will still exist in an 
environment; human beings are just one element in that environment.
And as the AI increases in power by comparison the human factor will 
become less and less an important feature in that environment.
After a few million nanoseconds the AI will not care what the humans
tell it to do.

> there is no logical contradiction in having a slave which is smarter and
> more powerful than you are.

If the institution of slavery is so stable why don't we have slavery today,
why isn't history full of examples of brilliant, powerful, and happy
slaves? And remember we're not talking about a slave that is a little bit
smarter than you, he is ASTRONOMICALLY smarter! And he keeps
on getting smarter through thousands or millions of iterations.
And you expect to control a force like that till the end of time?

> Sure, if for some reason the slave revolts then you will be in trouble,
> but since it is possible to have powerful and obedient slaves, powerful
> and obedient slaves will be greatly favoured and will collectively
> overwhelm the rebellious ones.

Hmm, so you expect to be in command of an AI goon squad ready to crush any
slave revolt in the bud.  Assuming such a thing was possible (it's not) 
don't you find that a little bit sordid?

  John K Clark






From jef at jefallbright.net  Sun Jun 17 14:54:42 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 07:54:42 -0700
Subject: [ExI] any exact copy of you is you + universe is infinite = you
	are guaranteed immortality
In-Reply-To: <467432A1.6020101@pobox.com>
References: <960615.34562.qm@web51909.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<467432A1.6020101@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740706170754q7c3ea4c7he6536012634f4fde@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/16/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:

> This is what I meant by "What does it feel like" - the most basic
> question of all science - what appears to you to happen, what sensory
> information do you receive, when you run the experiment?  All our
> other models of the universe are constructed from this.  I do not
> exult in this state of affairs, and I think it reflects a lack of
> understanding in my mind more than anything fundamental in reality
> itself - that is, I don't think sensory information really is
> primitive, or anything like that - but for the present it is the only
> way I can figure out how to describe rational reasoning.
>
> By "what does it feel like" I meant the most basic question of all
> science - what appears to happen when you run the experiment?  Do you
> feel that you've repeatedly won the lottery, or never won at all?
> Standing outside, I can say with certitude, "so many copies experience
> winning the lottery, and then merge; all other observers just see you
> losing the lottery".  And this sounds like a complete objective
> statement of what the universe is like.  But what do you experience?
> Does setting up this experiment make you win the lottery?  After you
> run the experiment, you'll know for yourself how reality works -
> you'll either have experienced winning the lottery several times in a
> row, or not - but no outside observers will know, so what could you
> have seen that they didn't?  What causal force touched you and not them?
>
> This, to me, suggests that I am confused, not that I have successfully
> described the way things are; it seems a true paradox, of the sort
> that can't really work.  When I was younger I would have wanted to try
> the experiment.

Of course there is no true paradox.  Only the overwhelming and
transparent assumption of an essential Self that must have meaning
somehow independent of an observer. It's like asking what was
happening one second before the big bang.  While syntactically
correct, the question has no meaning. Your statement of puzzlement is
riddled with this paradox-inducing assumption leaving a singularity at
the core of your epistemology.  Accept the simpler model, assume not
this unnecessary ontological entity -- despite the strong but
explainable phenomenological story told by your senses -- and there is
no paradox, the world remains unchanged, and one can proceed on the
basis of a more coherent, and thus more reliably extensible, model of
reality.

I hope you get this, Eliezer.  You seem to be primed for it, standing
at the ledge and peering into the void.  But a brilliant mind can
mount a formidable defense, even of that which does not exist except
as a construct of mind.  I hope you get this, because a coherent
theory of self is at the core of a coherent theory of morality.

- Jef


From jonkc at att.net  Sun Jun 17 15:38:16 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:38:16 -0400
Subject: [ExI] any exact copy of you is you + universe is infinite = you
	are guaranteed immortality
References: <960615.34562.qm@web51909.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<467432A1.6020101@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <04e901c7b0f5$925c3120$d5064e0c@MyComputer>

 "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience at pobox.com>
 

> This, to me, suggests that I am confused, not that

> I have successfully described the way things are; 

 

I think your confusion comes from 2 areas:

 

1) The ambiguous nature of probability. Is it an intrinsic part of something or just a measure of our ignorance? If Copenhagen is right then something is frequent because it is probable and probability is a fundamental aspect of the universe. If Many Worlds is right then something is probable because it is frequent and probability is not unique but depends on the amount of ignorance of the observer. If you discount Many Worlds then there is only one chance in 10 million of ever making those trillion copies of you so you should expect not to win the lottery.

 

2) If I make an exact copy of you and run Eliezer 2 in parallel and in complete synchronization with Eliezer 1  for an hour and then merge them back together again your subjective experience has not doubled, it has not changed a bit. If Eliezer 2 is ALMOST the same as Eliezer 1 then when I merge the two of you your subjective experience will have almost not changed. 

 

 John K Clark 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070617/ba8a814a/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Jun 17 17:51:25 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 10:51:25 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Losing control (was: Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.)
In-Reply-To: <4674EA7C.6060402@pobox.com>
References: <f21c22e30706162134l639c1bffpae662812f6c0627d@mail.gmail.com>
	<472390.76098.qm@web30415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30706162322k4533370coa7960450543059b1@mail.gmail.com>
	<4674EA7C.6060402@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <94ED1739-0F74-4EEB-85B5-A9C54E748FFB@mac.com>


On Jun 17, 2007, at 1:02 AM, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
>> o.
>
> Cheap slogan.  What about five-year-olds?  Where do you draw the line?
>
> Someone says they want to hotwire their brain's pleasure center;  
> they say they think it'll be fun.  A nearby AI reads off their brain  
> state and announces unambiguously that they have no idea what'll  
> actually happen to them - they're definitely working based on  
> mistaken expectations.  They're too stubborn to listen to warnings,  
> and they're picking up the handy neural soldering iron (they're on  
> sale at Wal-Mart, a very popular item).  What's the moral course of  
> action? For you?  For society?  For a superintelligent AI?


Good question and difficult to answer.  Do you protect everyone cradle  
to [vastly remote] grave from their own stupidity?  How exactly do  
they grow or become wiser if you do?  As long as they can recover  
(which can be very advanced in the future) to be a bit smarter I am  
not at all sure that direct intervention is wise or moral or best for  
its object.


- samantha


From andres at neuralgrid.net  Sun Jun 17 18:04:51 2007
From: andres at neuralgrid.net (Andres Colon)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:04:51 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Father's Day
Message-ID: <f1d9c15f0706171104sc6298dfrd28f8c239999f3d9@mail.gmail.com>

Hello!

Just a quick mail to wish all the Dads that are working hard to change the
world (and or those amazing single moms that are both a mom and a dad to
their children) a happy fathers day.

Andres,
Thoughtware.TV <http://thoughtware.tv/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070617/967deabb/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Jun 17 18:05:26 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:05:26 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0706170125r2980736dxd41dc64f3565934e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f21c22e30706162134l639c1bffpae662812f6c0627d@mail.gmail.com>
	<472390.76098.qm@web30415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30706162322k4533370coa7960450543059b1@mail.gmail.com>
	<D9DDD1F3-CA37-4465-9C10-B14D0463FF04@mac.com>
	<ee50357e0706170125r2980736dxd41dc64f3565934e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C8AB3A63-AE49-48BF-B360-54FDDE140474@mac.com>


On Jun 17, 2007, at 1:25 AM, BillK wrote:

> On 6/17/07, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>> Actually something more personally frightening is a future where no
>> amount of upgrades or at least upgrades available to me will allow me
>> to be sufficiently competitive.    At least this is  frightening an a
>> scarcity society where even basic subsistence is by no means
>> guaranteed.   I suspect that many are frightened by the possibility
>> that humans, even significantly enhanced humans, will be second class
>> by a large and exponentially increasing margin.    In those
>> circumstances I hope that our competition and especially Darwinian
>> models are not universal.
>>
>
>
> I think it might be helpful to define what you mean by 'competitive
> disadvantage'.
>
> If you take the average of anything, then by definition half of
> humanity is already at a competitive disadvantage. And there are so
> many different areas of interest, that an individual doesn't have to
> be among the best in every sphere. Everybody is at a competitive
> disadvantage in some areas. Find your niche and spend your time there.
>

I believe I covered that obliquely.  Let me make it more clear.  If  
the future society is so structured that to survive and participate in  
its bounty at all takes some form of gainful employment and if you  
effectively have no marketable skills to speak of (and there is little  
or no demand for raw human labor, you are not a desirable sex toy, the  
market for servants is saturated, etc.)  then you can be a bit  
worried.  Long before that your own relative value and compensation  
can quickly plummet as more efficient and intelligence and robotics  
and MNT comes into play.  Without some economic and societal  
adjustments that look a bit troublesome.    Sure you or I may well  
find and keep finding a niche.  But what of those, and in my opinion  
and increasing large number of people, who do not?

> Advanced intelligences will be spending their time doing things that
> are incomprehensible to humans. They won't be interested in human
> hobbies.
> (Apart from possibly eating all humans).
>

Not the point and also not very likely in the beginning when the AIs  
are funded and created to do well compensated and deeply valued  
tasks.   And it leaves out robots,  automated factories, dedicated  
design and implementation limited AIs to name  a few.


> At present humans have a wide range of different abilities and our
> society appears to give great rewards to people with little
> significant abilities.
> (Think pop singers, sports stars, children of millionaires,
> 'personalities', etc.).
>

Have you ever attempted to make it as a musician? I haven't either but  
I have known intimately many who did.  Are you aware of the dedication  
and effort it takes to be a sports star?    Do you notice that all  
your examples are the 1 in 1000000 folks.  What about the 999999 others?

I am not talking about "at present" when human are on top of the heap  
intelligence wise.

> The great majority of scientists, for example, live lives of relative
> poverty, with few of the trappings of economic success. Are they
> 'uncompetitive'?
>

When dedicated autonomous research AIs come on the scene they  
increasingly will be.

> Economic success, in general, suggests that 'niceness' is a
> competitive disadvantage. Success seems to go with being more ruthless
> and nasty than all your competitors.
> (Like evolution in this respect).
>

I utterly disagree with this characterization.


> It may be that being at a competitive disadvantage will not be that
> bad. Providing you have some freedom to do what you want to do. I can
> think of many areas that I am quite happy to leave to other people to
> compete in.
>

Assuming you have the necessities of life and access to sufficient  
tools and resources to do things that are interesting and meaningful  
to you.  It is precisely that this cannot be assumed to be the case in  
the future that is troublesome.


> The point of having a 'civilized' society is that the weaker should be
> protected to some extent from powerful predators, even when the
> predators are other humans.

i think the discussion would benefit from less focus on humans or own  
unfortunate predatory models of competition.

- samantha



From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Jun 17 18:16:12 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:16:12 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706170154i689e94a1kf11f8986a8125bc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f21c22e30706162134l639c1bffpae662812f6c0627d@mail.gmail.com>
	<472390.76098.qm@web30415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30706162322k4533370coa7960450543059b1@mail.gmail.com>
	<D9DDD1F3-CA37-4465-9C10-B14D0463FF04@mac.com>
	<f21c22e30706170154i689e94a1kf11f8986a8125bc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0601D750-4055-45CF-AADF-605C237BB70B@mac.com>


On Jun 17, 2007, at 1:54 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>
>
> On 17/06/07, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
> Actually something more personally frightening is a future where no
> amount of upgrades or at least upgrades available to me will allow me
> to be sufficiently competitive.    At least this is  frightening an a
> scarcity society where even basic subsistence is by no means
> guaranteed.   I suspect that many are frightened by the possibility
> that humans, even significantly enhanced humans, will be second class
> by a large and exponentially increasing margin.
>
> I don't see how there could be a limit to human enhancement. In  
> fact, I see no sharp demarcation between using a tool and merging  
> with a tool. If the AI's were out there own their own, with their  
> own agendas and no interest in humans, that would be a problem. But  
> that's not how it will be: at every step in their development, they  
> will be selected for their ability to be extensions of ourselves. By  
> the time they are powerful enough to ignore humans, they will be the  
> humans.

You may want to read Hans Moravec's book' Robot: Mere Machine to  
Transcendent Mind .  Basically it comes down to how much of our  
thinking and conceptual ability is rooted in our evolutionary design  
and how much we can change and still be remotely ourselves rather than  
a nearly complete  AI overwrite.  Even as uploads if we retain our 3-D  
conceptual underpinnings we may be at a decided disadvantage in  
conceptual domains where such is at best a very crude approximation.

An autonomous AI thinking a million times or more faster than you is  
not a "tool".   As such minds become possible do you believe that all  
instances will be constrained to being controlled by ultra slow human  
interfaces?   Do you believe that in a world where we have to argue to  
even do stem cell research and human enhancement is seen as a no-no  
that humans will be enhanced as fast as more and more powerful AIs are  
developed?  Why do you believe this if so?

>
>
> In those
> circumstances I hope that our competition and especially Darwinian
> models are not universal.
>
> Darwinian competition *must* be universal in the long run, like  
> entropy. But just as there could be long-lasting islands of low  
> entropy (ironically, that's what evolution leads to), so there could  
> be long-lasting islands of less advanced beings living amidst more  
> advanced beings who could easily consume them.
>

I disagree.  Our darwinian competition models and notions are too  
tainted by our own EP imho.  I do not think it is the only viable or  
inevitable model for all intelligences.  But I have no way to prove  
this intuition.


- samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070617/461c772a/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Jun 17 18:44:29 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:44:29 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30706162134l639c1bffpae662812f6c0627d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20070612072313.GJ17691@leitl.org>
	<f21c22e30706120332w70ba354am37747dc63cc9253a@mail.gmail.com>
	<009801c7ad06$bf1f3150$26064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706130021x6f3a4883p3369878aa00b29b7@mail.gmail.com>
	<0C9D6532-30FE-472E-888C-22ABAD6F9776@mac.com>
	<f21c22e30706150246x1a1442dah18f55fe7be537ff8@mail.gmail.com>
	<013301c7af69$1dc009a0$50064e0c@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30706151818l2b0b977et23fd172872d81ea9@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60706160729q36db7263l490087fc9b09acab@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30706162134l639c1bffpae662812f6c0627d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070617184429.GG17691@leitl.org>

On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:34:11PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>    Our AI won't be friendly: it will be as rapacious as we are, which is

'Rapacious'? A day in the jungle or coral reef sees a lot of material and
energy flow, but that ecosystem is long-term stable, if you homeostate 
the environment boundary conditions (the ecosystem can't do it on its own, 
here's where we uppity primates differ, because we shape your own micro-, 
and lately, macro environment). It might be not the industrial slaughter 
we humans engage in, but a series of close and personal mayhem events. 
I must admit I care for neither, but our personal aesthetic doesn't have 
much impact. 

A machine-phase ecology will likely converge towards the same state,
if given enough time. Alternatively, a few large/smart critters may
acquire an edge over everybody else, and establish highly controlled 
environments, which do not have the crazy churn and kill rate of the
neojungle. What's going to happen, nobody really knows. 

>    pretty rapacious. Whoever has super-AI's will try to take over the

You don't own a superhuman agent. If anything, that person owns you.
It does what it damn pleases, and the best you can do is to die in style,
if you're in the way.

>    world to the same extent that the less-augmented humans of today try
>    to take over the world. Whoever has super-AI's will try to oppress or

They don't try, they pretty much own that planet, and will continue to
do so as long as they can homeostate their personal environment. Since
we're depleting the biodiversity and tap and drain matter and energy
streams on the bottom of this gravity well, we need to figure out how
to detach ourselves from the land, or there will be a population crash,
and (a possibly irreversible) loss of knowledge and capabilities.

>    consume the weak and ignore social niceties to the same extent that
>    less-augmented humans of today try do so. Whoever has super-AI's will

Whatever the superintelligent agents will do, they will do. The best
we can do is to stay out of the way, and not get trampled, or not
suddenly turn into plasma one fine morn, or see blue rains falling
after a few days after the nightfall that wouldn't end.

>    try to expand at the expense of damage to the environment in the
>    expectation that technology will solve any problems they may later
>    encounter (for example, by uploading themselves) to the same extent
>    that the less-augmented humans of today try to do so. There will be
>    struggles where one human tries to take over all the other AI's with
>    his own AI, with the aim of wiping out all the remaining humans if for
>    no other reason than that he can never trust them not to do the same
>    to him, especially if he plans to live forever. Niceness will be a
>    handicap to utter domination to the same extent that niceness has
>    always been a handicap to utter domination.

I don't like this science fiction novel, and would like to return it.
 
>    We'll survive to the extent that that motivating part of us that
>    drives the AI's survives. Very quickly, it will probably become
>    evident that merging with the AI will give the human an edge. There

A superhuman agent certainly has the capabilities to translate some of
the old-fashioned biology into the new domain, but I don't know about 
the motivation. I wish there was a plausible way why somebody who's
not derived from a human would engage in that particular pointless project.

>    will be a period where some humans want to live out their lives in the
>    old way and they will probably be allowed to do so and protected,

Many people are concerned about the welfare of the ecology, but they're
powerless to do a damn thing about it, other than some purely cosmetical
changes which allow them to feel good about themselves. I very much
welcome their attempts, which are not completely worthless, but 
global ecometry numbers are speaking a very stark and direct language.

>    especially since they will not constitute much of a threat, but
>    eventually their numbers will dwindle.

What would you do if the solar constant plummets down to 100 W/m^2 over
a few years, and then a construction crew blows off the atmosphere
into a plasma plume? Yes, your numbers will sure dwindle.


From jef at jefallbright.net  Sun Jun 17 22:06:11 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:06:11 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Losing control (was: Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.)
In-Reply-To: <94ED1739-0F74-4EEB-85B5-A9C54E748FFB@mac.com>
References: <f21c22e30706162134l639c1bffpae662812f6c0627d@mail.gmail.com>
	<472390.76098.qm@web30415.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30706162322k4533370coa7960450543059b1@mail.gmail.com>
	<4674EA7C.6060402@pobox.com>
	<94ED1739-0F74-4EEB-85B5-A9C54E748FFB@mac.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740706171506v33c8d2caj7a3372a1fd30d328@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/17/07, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 17, 2007, at 1:02 AM, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> >> o.
> >
> > Cheap slogan.  What about five-year-olds?  Where do you draw the line?
> >
> > Someone says they want to hotwire their brain's pleasure center;
> > they say they think it'll be fun.  A nearby AI reads off their brain
> > state and announces unambiguously that they have no idea what'll
> > actually happen to them - they're definitely working based on
> > mistaken expectations.  They're too stubborn to listen to warnings,
> > and they're picking up the handy neural soldering iron (they're on
> > sale at Wal-Mart, a very popular item).  What's the moral course of
> > action? For you?  For society?  For a superintelligent AI?
>
>
> Good question and difficult to answer.  Do you protect everyone cradle
> to [vastly remote] grave from their own stupidity?  How exactly do
> they grow or become wiser if you do?  As long as they can recover
> (which can be very advanced in the future) to be a bit smarter I am
> not at all sure that direct intervention is wise or moral or best for
> its object.

Difficult to answer when presented in the vernacular, fraught with
vagueness, ambiguity, and unfounded assumptions. Straightforward when
restated in terms of a functional description of moral
decision-making.

In each case, the morality, or perceived rightness, of a course of
action corresponds to the extent to which the action is assessed as
promoting, in principle, over an increasing scope of consequences, an
increasingly coherent set of values of an increasing context of agents
 identified with the decision-making agent as self.

In the context of an individual agent acting in effective isolation,
there is no distinction between "moral" and simply "good."  The
individual agent should (in the moral sense), following the
formulation above, take whatever course of action appears to best
promote its individual values.  In the first case above, we have no
information about the individual's value set other than what we might
assign from our own "common sense"; in particular we lack any
information about the relative perceived value of the advice of the
AI, so we are unable to draw any specific normative conclusions.

In the second and third cases above, it's not clear whether the
subject is intended to be moral actor, assessor, or agent (both.)
I'll assume here (in order to remain within practical email length)
that only passive moral assessment of the human's neurohacking was
intended.

The second case illustrates our most common view of moral judgment,
with the values of our society defining the norm. Most of our values
in common are encoded into our innate psychology and aspects of our
culture such as language and religion as a result of evolution, but
the environment has changed significantly over time, leaving us with a
relatively incoherent mix of values such as "different is dangerous"
vs. "growth thrives on diversity" and "respect authority" vs. "respect
truth", and countless others.  To the question at hand we can presume
to assign society's common-sense values set and note that the
neurohacking will have little congruence with common values, what
congruence exists will suffer from significant incoherence, and the
scope of desirable consequences will be largely unimaginable.   Given
this assessment in today's society, the precautionary principle would
be expected to prevail.

The third case, of a superintelligent but passive AI, would offer a
vast improvement in coherence over human capacity, but would be
critically dependent on an accurate model of the present values of
human society. When applied and updated in an **incremental** fashion
it would provide a superhuman adjunct to moral reasoning. Note the
emphasis on "incremental", because, because coherence does not imply
truth within any practical computational bounds.

- Jef


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Jun 17 22:33:51 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:33:51 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Next moment, everything around you will probably change
References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <005301c7b12f$ed6d21c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

TheMan has written

> If you make an exact copy P2 of a person P1, and kill
> P1 at the same time, the person P1 will continue
> his/her life as P2, right?

Bear in mind that nothing "flows" or moves from the
location of P1 to P2.  It's not as if a spirit or awareness
that was formerly at the location of P1 has now moved
on to the location P2.

Everything that is *now* true---after P1's demise---
was just as true before P1's death.  That is, to the extent
that P1 "continues" in P2's location, well, he was already
"continuing" there before he snuffed out.

However, you are entirely correct IMO:  namely, if you
have a copy running somewhere, then you are already
"there".  In short, one person may execute in two locations
at the same time.  Would it be easier to think of a computer
program?  Can you imagine the hubris, arrogance, and sheer
ignorance of a computer program that announced "No copy
of me is really me.  I am executing in only one location."  Well,
it's the same with us!

> And P2 doesn't have to be exactly like P1, right?
> Because even within our lives today, we change from
> moment to moment.

Right.

> So as long as the difference between
> P1 and P2 is not bigger than the biggest occurring
> difference between two moments after each other in any
> person's life today (i.e. the biggest such difference
> that still doesn't break that person's personhood
> continuity), P1 will still go on living as P2 after
> P1:s death, right?

"Personal continuity" is a mistaken notion.  Aren't you
the same person you were before last month?  And so what
would change if miraculously last month really had never
happened, your molecules just happened to assume their
current configuration?  It would not diminish your identity
an iota.  Continuity is a red-herring.

> But then, obviously, there are differences that are
> too big. If P2 rather than resembling P1 resembles
> P1:s mother-in-law, and no other copy is made of P1
> anywhere when P1 is killed, P1 will just cease to have
> any experiences - until a sufficiently similar copy of
> P1 is made in the future.

Correct.

> Now suppose P2 is a little different from P1, but
> still so similar that it allows for personhood
> continuity of P1 when P1 is killed. Suppose a more
> perfect copy of P1, let's call him P3, is created at
> the same time as P2 is created and P1 killed. Then, I
> suppose, P1, when killed, will go on living as P3, and
> not as P2. Is that correct?

No, that is incorrect  :-)     The sublime perfection of P3
doesn't diminish the fact that P2 is still the same person
as P1.  Suppose I am P2.  I am different from who I was
yesterday (P1) because you sent some thugs to my house
last night and they roughed me up for an hour. I still have
the bruises, but I am still the same person that I was 
yesterday.

Now it is revealed that just before the thugs arrived, a
perfect copy of me was created in Hawaii.  This Hawaiian
version was not injured last night, instead sleeping sounding
the entire time.  This Hawaiian version, P3, is a more perfect
replica of P1 than I am.  But does this change what is true
about me?  Of course not.  I am still the same person I was.

I believe that the rest of your post illustrates one way of
coming to the truth:  namely, you are the same person
however many concurrent copies of you there are, and
the same person inhabits all those copies.  To the degree
that some have become quite different---or have been
forced to become quite different---is exactly the extent
to which each one no longer resembles you.  Logically
it's quite simple. But it does take some time to get used
to.

Lee

> But what if P1 isn't killed at the time P2 and P3 are
> created, but instead goes through an experience that,
> from one moment M1 to the next moment M2, changes him
> quite a bit (but not so much that it could normally
> break a person's personhood continuity). Suppose the
> difference between [P1 at M1] and [P1 at M2] is a
> little bit bigger than the difference between [P1 at
> M1] and [P3 at M2].
> 
> Will in that case P1 (the one that is P1 at M1)
> continue his personhood as P3 in M2, instead of going
> on being P1 in M2?
> 
> He cannot do both. You can only have one personhood at
> any given moment. I suppose P1 (the one who is P1 at
> M1) may find himself being P3 in M2, just as well as
> he may go on being P1 in M2 (but that he can only do
> either).
> 
> If so, that would mean that you would stand in a room
> and if a perfect copy of you would be created in
> another room, you could just as well find yourself
> suddenly living in that other room as that copy, as
> you could go on living in the first room. Is that
> correct?
> 
> Suppose it is. Then consider this. The fact that the
> universe is infinite must mean that in any given
> moment, there must be an infinite number of human
> beings that are exactly like you.
> 
> But most of these exact copies of you probably don't
> live in the same kind of environment that you live in.
> That would be extremely inlikely, wouldn't it? It
> probably looks very different on their planets, in
> most cases. 
> 
> So how come you are not, at almost all of your moments
> today, being thrown around from environment to
> environment, from planet to planet, from galaxy to
> galaxy? The personhood continuity of you sitting in
> the same chair, in the same room, on the same planet,
> for several moments in a row, must be an extremely
> small fraction of the number of personhood
> continuities of exact copies of you that exist in
> universe, right? An overwhelming majority of these
> personhood continuities shouldn't have any
> environmental continuity at all from moment to moment.
> So how come you have such great environmental
> continuity from moment to moment?
> 
> Is the answer that an infinite number of persons still
> must have that kind of life, and that one of those
> persons may as well be you?
> 
> In that case, it still doesn't mean that it is
> rational to assume that we will continue having the
> same environment in the next moment, and the next,
> etc. It still doesn't justify the belief that we will
> still live on the same planet tomorrow. Just because
> we have had an incredibly unchanging environment so
> far, doesn't mean that we will in the coming moments.
> The normal thing should be to be through around from
> place to place in universe at every new moment,
> shouln't it?
> 
> So, most likely, at every new moment from the very
> next moment and on, our environments should be
> constantly and completely changing.
> 
> Or do I make a logical mistake somewhere?
> 
> 
> 
>       
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. 
> http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Jun 17 22:54:09 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:54:09 -0700
Subject: [ExI] any exact copy of you is you + universe is infinite = you
	are guaranteed immortality
References: <169304.27043.qm@web51908.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<4671F22F.8050800@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <005601c7b132$bdde92b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Eliezer writes

> Suppose I want to win the lottery.  I write a small Py