[ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.

[Stathis Papaioannou]

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>