[ExI] Unfrendly AI is a mistaken idea.

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 31/05/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> With modern reproductive technologies, it would be possible for women in
> > power to have thousands of children, and men to have many thousands,
> > perhaps even millions.
>
> Sounds great!  I've always believed that as many people should be saved
> from
> non-existence as possible.
>
> > And that's without even considering the possibilities raised by cloning.
> > Therefore, given enough time, a human will arise who will take advantage
> > of these opportunities, and that human will dominate the world.
>
> Well, it won't be just *one* such person who will dominate the world.
> Gradually, those who have more children (viable offspring) will come
> to be highly represented, and those who don't will gradually go
> extinct in the sense that there will be fewer and fewer people like
> them.
>
> >  Do you think this is going to happen soon?
>
> Oh, a singularity or a Moslem dictatorship or Fall of Civilzation or
> a thousand other things could occur first. Two of the most interesting
> things that will occur first are Age Reversal and Genetic Engineering.
>
> Still, right now the environment favors---in strictly population biologic
> terms---those who have as many children as they can and who allow
> the state to raise them (e.g., they pay exactly zero for medical care,
> relying only on ER services).  That's the path of the immediate future.


But this isn't happening as a plan: most men would be horrified at the idea
that they might have all these illegitimate children running around, and
societal pressures are to minimise teenage pregnancies (which anyway are
higher in countries and states with less welfare spending). On the other
hand, great effort is expended by people acquiring wealth, or breeding
flowers, or any of a million other things which at best could be seen as
only indirectly contributing to evolutionary fitness, and certainly much
less than the focussed concern to spread one's genes would be. If your
argument is that an AI might spontaneously arise that wants to dominate
everyone, which would then dominate all the other AI's and lesser life
forms, the same argument would apply to human reproduction, yet it just
isn't something that anyone seriously worries about. 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, and the censure of other AI's (which
would be just as capable, more numerous, and more likely to be following
human-friendly programs).




-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070531/61a382f6/attachment.html>