From transhumanismtoday at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 00:17:02 2008 From: transhumanismtoday at gmail.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:17:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Coming in 2008: "Transhumanism Today" magazine Message-ID: <362ec1540712311617g59824605y8e09f33eed8d93a2@mail.gmail.com> Coming in 2008... "Transhumanism Today" magazine A hard-copy magazine covering all topics of interest to Transhumanists and relating to Transhumanism. Each issue will feature news, features, interviews, opinion, and ficton relating to Transhumanism. "Transhumanism Today" will be distributed in mass-marked bookstores to attract a new audience who might not otherwise seek out Transhumanist-related material, as well as being a place for committed Transhumanists to find unique content not available in other venues. The editor is Joseph Bloch; former Director of the World Transhumanist Association, author, and lecturer on the subject of Transhumanism. News concerning subscriptions, advertising, and more can be had by subscribing to our email list, found on our website, http://www.transhumanismtoday.com. May 2008 prove to be a banner year for Transhumanism and all Transhumanists. On the web: http://www.transhumanismtoday.com Authors, artists, and advertisers - please direct inquiries: editor at transhumanismtoday.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20071231/fcccf69e/attachment.html From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Jan 1 00:35:58 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:35:58 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Re-framing Innovation re Consciousness In-Reply-To: References: <380-2200712528224325316@M2W011.mail2web.com> <20071230160745.WVFS11918.hrndva-omta02.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> <200712302044.49845.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <20071231145411.JAHB17668.hrndva-omta04.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <20080101003559.LWUE27181.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> At 05:56 PM 12/31/2007, Keith wrote: >Heh, "too focused on segregating meaning." I can't parse that either. Rather than top-down or bottom-up parsing you could try lateral-parsing. Actually, please don't! Natasha From spike66 at att.net Tue Jan 1 01:46:43 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:46:43 -0800 Subject: [ExI] elections again In-Reply-To: <200712311649.lBVGnVsJ029596@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200801010215.m012FKBx002898@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > The Kenyans are rioting over rigged elections. Over 100 are dead. >... > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,319148,00.html I had another thought on this. As technology advances, the destructive effects of rigged elections increases. With the internet and cel phones, there is increased awareness of election corruption and increased potential for highly organized and destructive flash mobs. I shared my concerns with a colleague today, who opined "Our election process is all fucked up." While being succinct, direct and unambiguous, I myself do not approve of such improper usage of the language. I would have instead phrased it thus: "Our election process is all upwardly fucked." spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jan 1 02:53:54 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:53:54 -0600 Subject: [ExI] erections again In-Reply-To: <200801010215.m012FKBx002898@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200712311649.lBVGnVsJ029596@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200801010215.m012FKBx002898@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071231204649.02323ec0@satx.rr.com> At 05:46 PM 12/31/2007 -0800, Spike wrote: >I shared my concerns with a colleague today, who opined "Our election >process is all fucked up." > >While being succinct, direct and unambiguous, I myself do not approve of >such improper usage of the language. I would have instead phrased it thus: >"Our election process is all upwardly fucked." Quite so. But if yr colleague had written "fucked over" you wouldn't wish to rephrase that, would you, as "overly fucked"? When it comes to elections, "fucked" is not a comparative. Some quibblers will now claim that my analysis is up-fucked. I can only advise them, in advance, offwardly to fuck. Damien Broderick [no infinitives were split in the making of this post] From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 02:54:11 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 13:54:11 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Survival (was: elections again) In-Reply-To: <021e01c84bf3$e8d74fa0$03ef4d0c@MyComputer> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712311311.18110.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <20071231184047.GJ10128@leitl.org> <200712311513.29552.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <021e01c84bf3$e8d74fa0$03ef4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On 01/01/2008, John K Clark wrote: > Because this AI will be far smarter, more interesting, more > likable, and just more goddamn charming than any human being you have > ever or will ever will meet; Mr. AI will have charisma up the Wahzoo, He > will understand your physiology, what makes you tick, better than you > understand yourself. I estimate it would take the AI about 45 seconds to > trick or sweet talk you (or me) into doing exactly what He wants you > (or me) to do. The set of coherent English sentences that can be spoken in 45 seconds is large but finite. What reason have you for assuming that this set, or indeed a larger set, contains a passage that will persuade anyone of anything whatsoever? -- Stathis Papaioannou From deimtee at optusnet.com.au Tue Jan 1 03:31:11 2008 From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (deimtee) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 14:31:11 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Survival In-Reply-To: References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712311311.18110.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <20071231184047.GJ10128@leitl.org> <200712311513.29552.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <021e01c84bf3$e8d74fa0$03ef4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <4779B3FF.90907@optusnet.com.au> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >On 01/01/2008, John K Clark wrote: > > > >>Because this AI will be far smarter, more interesting, more >>likable, and just more goddamn charming than any human being you have >>ever or will ever will meet; Mr. AI will have charisma up the Wahzoo, He >>will understand your physiology, what makes you tick, better than you >>understand yourself. I estimate it would take the AI about 45 seconds to >>trick or sweet talk you (or me) into doing exactly what He wants you >>(or me) to do. >> >> > >The set of coherent English sentences that can be spoken in 45 seconds >is large but finite. What reason have you for assuming that this set, >or indeed a larger set, contains a passage that will persuade anyone >of anything whatsoever? > > > > > There is probably no single 45 second oration that will persuade everyone. It will be based on your personality, beliefs, prejudices etc, and individually tailored to persuade whoever it is talking to. The AI will be able to deduce whatever will convince you. It is smarter than you, and thinks much faster. I think it may take longer than 45 seconds, (I know some people who take longer than that to parse things they agree with :) but it WILL persuade you. From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 03:39:22 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:39:22 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Survival In-Reply-To: <4779B3FF.90907@optusnet.com.au> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4779B3FF.90907@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <200712312139.22084.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 31 December 2007, deimtee wrote: > The AI will be able to deduce whatever ?will convince you. ?It is > smarter than you, and thinks much faster. Sounds like a set of problems in comp sci known as NP, and ai researchers are already well familiar with Cantor and the exploding sets. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jan 1 07:14:39 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 01:14:39 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Kim Stanley Robinson On Google and Climate Change Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080101011331.023d7168@satx.rr.com> Many here will wriggle or snarl at Stan's message, but a lot of it is highly provocative (especially toward the end of his talk): http://youtube.com/watch?v=R-jz86gMiHw From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 08:54:26 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 19:54:26 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Survival In-Reply-To: <4779B3FF.90907@optusnet.com.au> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712311311.18110.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <20071231184047.GJ10128@leitl.org> <200712311513.29552.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <021e01c84bf3$e8d74fa0$03ef4d0c@MyComputer> <4779B3FF.90907@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On 01/01/2008, deimtee wrote: > >The set of coherent English sentences that can be spoken in 45 seconds > >is large but finite. What reason have you for assuming that this set, > >or indeed a larger set, contains a passage that will persuade anyone > >of anything whatsoever? > > > There is probably no single 45 second oration that will persuade everyone. > It will be based on your personality, beliefs, prejudices etc, and > individually tailored to persuade whoever it is talking to. > The AI will be able to deduce whatever will convince you. It is > smarter than you, and thinks much faster. > I think it may take longer than 45 seconds, (I know some people who > take longer than that to parse things they agree with :) but it WILL > persuade you. There are two separate questions that need to be considered here: (a) Is there at least one string of text that will persuade any given person of anything whatsoever? (Obviously, as you have pointed out, the string will have to vary depending on the person and the subject matter). (b) If there is such a string, will a given AI be able to find it? I don't see any reason to believe that the answer to (a) is "yes", but even if it is, I don't see why the AI should be guaranteed of finding it. For a start, there is a limit to how much information can be obtained about a person through a limited bandwidth medium. If you read everything I have ever written that has appeared on the Internet, neither you nor a Jupiter brain will be able to deduce whether I prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream. -- Stathis Papaioannou From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jan 1 09:00:56 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 01:00:56 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Happy New Year! In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080101011331.023d7168@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080101011331.023d7168@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <2D447B64-363E-4AF5-8171-C968DE4815CD@mac.com> May the year bring you great happiness, prosperity and what ever subset of what you desire that has reasonable likelihood of fitting in a single year. :-) - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jan 1 09:02:19 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 01:02:19 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Coming in 2008: "Transhumanism Today" magazine In-Reply-To: <362ec1540712311617g59824605y8e09f33eed8d93a2@mail.gmail.com> References: <362ec1540712311617g59824605y8e09f33eed8d93a2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I thought that would be a great idea. But would "Transhuman Times" be a catchier title? - samantha On Dec 31, 2007, at 4:17 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > Coming in 2008... > > "Transhumanism Today" magazine > > A hard-copy magazine covering all topics of interest to > Transhumanists and relating to Transhumanism. Each issue will > feature news, features, interviews, opinion, and ficton relating to > Transhumanism. > > "Transhumanism Today" will be distributed in mass-marked bookstores > to attract a new audience who might not otherwise seek out > Transhumanist-related material, as well as being a place for > committed Transhumanists to find unique content not available in > other venues. > > The editor is Joseph Bloch; former Director of the World > Transhumanist Association, author, and lecturer on the subject of > Transhumanism. > > News concerning subscriptions, advertising, and more can be had by > subscribing to our email list, found on our website, http://www.transhumanismtoday.com > . > > May 2008 prove to be a banner year for Transhumanism and all > Transhumanists. > > On the web: http://www.transhumanismtoday.com > Authors, artists, and advertisers - please direct inquiries: editor at transhumanismtoday.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat - samantha Vote Ron Paul for President in 2008 -- Save Our Constitution! Go to RonPaul2008.com, and search "Ron Paul" on YouTube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080101/0c2beb41/attachment.html From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jan 1 09:04:26 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 01:04:26 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Coming in 2008: "Transhumanism Today" magazine In-Reply-To: <362ec1540712311617g59824605y8e09f33eed8d93a2@mail.gmail.com> References: <362ec1540712311617g59824605y8e09f33eed8d93a2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6A86A540-2F13-47E5-AFBC-E818A18A0771@mac.com> And I hope this isn't print only. Way more people are online than enter into bookstores. - s On Dec 31, 2007, at 4:17 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > Coming in 2008... > > "Transhumanism Today" magazine > > A hard-copy magazine covering all topics of interest to > Transhumanists and relating to Transhumanism. Each issue will > feature news, features, interviews, opinion, and ficton relating to > Transhumanism. > > "Transhumanism Today" will be distributed in mass-marked bookstores > to attract a new audience who might not otherwise seek out > Transhumanist-related material, as well as being a place for > committed Transhumanists to find unique content not available in > other venues. > > The editor is Joseph Bloch; former Director of the World > Transhumanist Association, author, and lecturer on the subject of > Transhumanism. > > News concerning subscriptions, advertising, and more can be had by > subscribing to our email list, found on our website, http://www.transhumanismtoday.com > . > > May 2008 prove to be a banner year for Transhumanism and all > Transhumanists. > > On the web: http://www.transhumanismtoday.com > Authors, artists, and advertisers - please direct inquiries: editor at transhumanismtoday.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat - samantha Vote Ron Paul for President in 2008 -- Save Our Constitution! Go to RonPaul2008.com, and search "Ron Paul" on YouTube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080101/1ed84462/attachment.html From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jan 1 09:39:29 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 01:39:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Survival (was: elections again) In-Reply-To: <200712311513.29552.mail@harveynewstrom.com> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712311311.18110.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <20071231184047.GJ10128@leitl.org> <200712311513.29552.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <95FE6A90-E1EF-49EC-B765-A2CA6904556C@mac.com> On Dec 31, 2007, at 12:13 PM, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > On Monday 31 December 2007 13:40, Eugen Leitl wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 01:11:17PM -0500, Harvey Newstrom wrote: >>> Then I want to be the cutest pet ever! Or else the stealthiest >>> scavenger >>> rat >> >> Don't we all! But it's not obvious artificial beings will conserve >> specific >> traits we equipped them with initially (assuming, we could do that >> at all, >> which is not obvious) across many generations (not necessarily long >> in >> terms of wallclock time). Or that they keep environments nicely >> temperated, >> and full of breathable gases, and allow us to grow or synthesize >> food. > > I assume that such super machines would outgrow the need to adapt > their > environment. They would be functional in virtually any > environment. So they > might not have any need to rework the existing environments. Not all environments would be equally conducive to its highest desired functioning. Great capacity doesn't mean it is totally self contained and self sufficient. > >>> Even given your scenarios, we have a lot of choices on how our >>> subjugation is going to occur. >> >> How much are cockroaches worth on the Wall Street job market? Do >> they make >> good quants? > > Cockroaches have no influence on Wall Street. But they have almost > total > control over their own nests and societies. Sure, we wipe them out > where > they are in the way. But where they do exist, human have virtually no > influence on them. I doubt most cockroaches even know that humans > exist. > This assumes that the needs/desires crossed with the capabilities of AGIs will leave ample room for humans to exist. We aren't nearly as difficult to eradicate, even accidentally, as cockroaches. We are much more fragile with more needs. >> Not any time soon. But, eventually. We might not see it (heck, what >> is >> another 40-50 years), but our children could very well, and their >> children's children almost certainly (unless they're not too busy >> fighting >> in the Thunderdome, of course). > > I think it is possible, but unlikely that our children will see > this. It all > assumes that a self-evolving AI will suddenly evolve quickly. > Evolution is a > slow random process that uses brute-force to solve problems. But we aren't talking about brute-force once self-improving AGI exists. There need be nothing akin to normal evolution about it. > Growing smarter > is not a simple brute-force search. It will not likely employ much in the way of brute-force search. > Even a super-smart AI won't instantly > have god-like powers. Well, what qualifies do we consider as god-like and how do we know exactly how much smarts it takes to obtain some of those powers? Not instantly no but I doubt it will take a self-improving AGI as much as a human generation to be able to do things that to us are decidedly "god-like". > They will have to perform slow physical experiments in > the real world of physics to discover or build faster communications, > transportation, and utilization of resources. A lot of the most important work of self-improvement of intelligence is internal and does not require so many physical world steps. Once the AGI has optimized on its existing substrate it can see about upgrading its physical components. I doubt it needs to figure out any new transportation methods or invent faster communications until it is already extremely advanced. > They also will have to build > factories to build future hardware upgrades. These macro, physical > processes > are slow and easily disrupted. It it not clear to me that even a > super-intelligent AI can quickly or easily accomplish anything that > we really > want to stop. One of the first external science priorities will likely be MNT. It will not need conventional factories. The benefits of MNT will be too great for all humans to want to stop it. For that matter it will very early on be such a beneficial boon that it will find patrons and protectors easily. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jan 1 10:22:23 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 02:22:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] elections again In-Reply-To: <200712292036.19185.mail@harveynewstrom.com> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712282351.50439.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <47769FEC.3030407@yahoo.it> <200712292036.19185.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <196C8242-5EDE-4369-AFFC-D53B42D8C488@mac.com> On Dec 29, 2007, at 5:36 PM, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > On Saturday 29 December 2007 14:28, Mirco Romanato wrote: >> Harvey Newstrom ha scritto: >>> We have to be careful to create technologies that do not impose >>> our will >>> on others, or they will rebel. >> >> From a libertarian point-of-view, I find this notion confuse and >> blurry. >> My freedom stop where someone else freedom begin in equal terms, it >> doesn't stop where the feeling of someone else start. >> Because it could not be technologies but lifestyle or religious >> believes >> or others. > > I didn't mention feelings of others. I said not impose our will on > others. I > think most libertarians would agree that nobody should have somebody > else's > will imposed upon them. The phrase "impose our will" is rather imprecise. At any rate a lot less precise than abstaining from introducing physical force or fraud. > > But in general, I agree that the concept becomes blurry. Say you > claim the > right to carry a gun. Fine. Say you want to shoot me. Not fine. Shooting you would be an initiation of force totally against libertarian first principles. What someone may merely want to do but not actually attempt to do (due to principles, the likelihood of being punished or shot back at, etc.) is not actually a problem. > Say you > want to sit on your property with your gun aimed at me while I move > around on > my property. That would be a pretty direct threat of physical force so again not allowed. > Blurry. I would find this intolerable. You would be quite right to find that intolerable. But it is a first principle of sane gun ownership that you don't point a gun at anyone you don't intend to shoot. > But you might argue it > is your right to point your gun anywhere you want on your property. Silly hypothetical that in practice is not likely. > The > tragedy of the commons is where your rights could suddenly disrupt > my rights. I have not right to threaten you with physical force. > > I feel like there must be away to protect all rights, but it is not > always > clearly possible. You are proposing rights that I and most libertarians do not claim as such. > > >>> For example: >>> How can someone create a super-AI without threatening the people who >>> don't want the possibility of an AI dictator? >> >> Doing it in secret? > > This doesn't solve the problem for those who fear an AI dictator. > It merely > forces them to become more invasive and suspicious in routing out > the AIs > being developed. I think this approach, while seemingly obvious and > straightforward, actually compounds the problem and makes it worse. > Again you are confusing hypotheticals and possible dangers with actual aggression. There is no way to avoid all possibility of harm and the Precautionaly Principle would have us do. That is not a question of rights at all. Being invasive of others property and space because they might do something or have done something that might harm you is utterly unjustified and an obvious initiation of force. >>> How can someone carry guns without >>> threatening people who don't want the possibility of being shot? >> >> Concealed carry? > > Same problem as above. > Baloney. That someone has the means to harm you does not mean they will. You cannot punish them or by force render them completely harmless. >>> How can >>> someone get an abortion without threatening people who think all >>> abortion >>> is murder? >> >> This is the most confusing. >> How is that they feel threatened when they are not in danger or >> menaced? > > They believe that babies are being murdered and must be protected. Then this is a notion totally in their heads that they would by force impose on others. So they are the aggressors. > In their > world-view this is an obvious danger and menace. Asking your > question is the > same as asking why people would need to stop child abuse or murders of > strangers. Hardly as this ignores the obvious point that no one can conclusively show that a fetus, especially in early pregnancy, is a human being to be protected. That is a central issue in contention. Those who believe that a fetus is a child etc. cannot legitimately imposed their opinion on those who do not who are unhappy to be carrying said fetus. > To someone who believe that life begins at conception, not birth, > abortion is the same as murdering babies. I don't know how to > resolve this, > but explaining that we think it's OK to do this doesn't resolve the > issue. > But this is an arbitrary opinion they have no right to impose on others. >>> How can someone build robot workers without threatening people who >>> don't want to lose their jobs? >> >> They are not interested in the job, but in the income derived by the >> job. But do they have any entitlement to it? > > I don't know. Many people in this country object to humans coming > from other > countries to take jobs away. Do they take jobs away? I am not so sure. How many jobs of what kinds? Why do the workers have more rights to those jobs than the employer has to hire whoever can do the work at the least cost? Why do the would be workers have the right to impose extra cost on the employer? How would such an imposition against the employer's wishes be done except through the initiation or threat of force? > They feel like citizens are more entitled to > these jobs then foreigners. Feelings are not facts and do not confer rights. > Imagine how much more adamant they would be that > humans deserve these jobs more than machines. Tough cookies. > It doesn't even matter if they > believe in entitlements or not. Your right it does not matter because such entitlements are bogus. > They have to work to feed their families, > and these machines are threatening their families. > No they are not. Working is not necessarily the only way to have enough to feed your family. I do not know what other arrangements will be worked out but it is pretty certain that sooner or later we will have such an abundance economy and few enough people will be qualified for the jobs that are not yet automated that it will not make a lot of sense to insist that you have to have a j-o-b to partake of the abundance. >> You missed a few question: >> 1) How can someone leave Islam, when so many Muslims feel >> threatened by >> this simply act? In some Muslim countries it is quite physically dangerous to attempt to leave the faith on even be known to question it. >> >> This simply act threaten the Ummah itself that have not the same >> belief >> system like other kaffir (impure) groups > > This is a very good example of the problem. Freedom of religion is > fine where > one can choose one's own religion. But the problem comes in where > religions > believe that they must be the only religion allowed. Then we have a > problem. They can believe whatever they wish. We only have a problem when they initiate force. > > >> 2) How can someone be atheist....? >> 3) How can someone be homosexual...? > > Same issues. I don't know how to resolve these to everyone's > satisfaction. > Forbidding the atheists and homosexuals their existence is not a > possible > answer. Of course not! Again no one has a right to force others to adhere to their arbitrary beliefs. > But many religions will not tolerate their existence either. How > can we coexist with intolerance? > We don't care about intolerance. We only care about outlawing and resisting initiation of force. Trying to force change of beliefs is a losing game. >> The problem is not with freedom technologies, but with freedom >> itself. >> Any free act will, in a way or another, conflict with the direct or >> indirect, immediate or delayed interests of someone else. >> This is a "problem" only if you claim that the "interests" of others must be catered to regardless of their nature. Only the interest in being free from initiation of force and thus free to lead one's own life unmolested is an interest that all must abide by. >> Do you prefer suppress freedom or suppress conflicts? > > I prefer that we suppress conflicts. There must be some win-win > scenarios. What kind of conflict? All conflict? Then only the grave will do I'm afraid. Suppression of freedom is conflict! Do not suppress freedom and much worrisome real conflict dissolves. > > It should be possible to build an AI without threatening to overthrow > humanity's governments. Getting rid of governments is a fine idea since they are the primary initiators of force! > It should be possible for everyone to practice their > own religions without forbidding anybody else's. It depends on what the "practice" consists of. Practice of any aspect that consists of initiation of force much be prohibited. > It should be possible to > end one pregnancy while maintaining the fetus' viability elsewhere. Not unless it is your wish to do so as the person carrying that fetus that carries your genes. Third parties cannot possibly have as much of a legitimate say. > There > should be an answer to most conflicts. Compromise no matter what is no answer at all. The relatively evil or at least "less good" always wins in such compromise for compromise sake. Conflict per se is not evil, especially conflict of mere beliefs. > Simply having one side override the > other side is usually not the answer. It is if one side doesn't really have much of a leg to stand on. It is when all true rights are on one side. > (Sometimes it is when one side is just > unreasonable.) Yep. > But often, there are legitimate concerns that should be > addressed rather than ignored when developing new disruptive > technologies. We deal with these one by one without throwing away freedom from initiation of force. > > But it is much more complicated and messy than people like to imagine. > It surely is if you start pretty much with no real guiding principles and just attempt to make everyone as happy as possible. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jan 1 10:37:55 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 02:37:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of 1:25) Mars hit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 28, 2007, at 9:10 PM, Amara Graps wrote: > Gary Miller aiguy at comcast.net : >> If the asteroid was to make impact with Mars would the Hubble >> telescope be >> in such a position as to capture the event? > > > I would think that one of the 4 or 5 (? I am losing track of the > number > of Martian spacecraft taking data now) in the nearer vicinity could > do a > better job. I think many Americans have not heard very much about Mars > Express: http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/index.html Great mission and site! What is the altitude of Mars Express? I didn't see that factoid. - samantha > From pharos at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 10:56:49 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 10:56:49 +0000 Subject: [ExI] 2008 - Expect a giant leap forward in tech ??? Message-ID: Mike Elgan has written an optimistic piece about the wonders to expect in 2008. I think some are more likely / significant than others, but it is an interesting speculation. Personal Tech 2008: Top 10 Trends This year everything gets intelligent, social, cheap, mobile and wireless. Mike Elgan December 31, 2007 (Computerworld) 1. The year of flash-based superportables 2. The year of free Internet access 3. The year of the home robot 4. The year of hyperconnectivity People want all their devices connected to the Internet -- not just PCs and cell phones, but also MP3 players, e-book readers, digital cameras, wristwatches, cars and more. And in 2008, they're going to get it. 5. The year of multi-touch 6. The year of location, location, location In 2008, carriers, Web 2.0 startups. and gadget makers will start getting creative about what to do with this location awareness. Social networking will spill out into the real world, with your phone alerting you to friends nearby, while messages from friends, relatives and even strangers will be associated with physical locations like invisible graffiti. And everyone will be tracking not just themselves and other people, but also pets and cars. 7. The year of reading on-screen 8. The year of social everything No longer a hangout for teenagers with bad taste, social networks and social sites of all kinds will explode in 2008. Social networking will become so ubiquitous and mainstream that people will be participating in it without even thinking of it as social networking. 9. The year of haptic feedback 10. The year of cell phone TV BillK From randall at randallsquared.com Tue Jan 1 13:55:51 2008 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 08:55:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Survival In-Reply-To: References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712311311.18110.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <20071231184047.GJ10128@leitl.org> <200712311513.29552.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <021e01c84bf3$e8d74fa0$03ef4d0c@MyComputer> <4779B3FF.90907@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Jan 1, 2008, at 3:54 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > If you > read everything I have ever written that has appeared on the Internet, > neither you nor a Jupiter brain will be able to deduce whether I > prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream. You know for sure that there are no correlations to be found between the stuff you write about and ice cream preferences? What deduced probability that you like what you really like would you accept? -- Randall Randall "You don't help someone by looking at their list of options and eliminating the one they chose!" -- David Henderson From spike66 at att.net Tue Jan 1 16:22:34 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 08:22:34 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Survival In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200801011649.m01GnEFO018884@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Randall Randall > Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 5:56 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Survival > > > On Jan 1, 2008, at 3:54 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > If you > > read everything I have ever written that has appeared on the Internet, > > neither you nor a Jupiter brain will be able to deduce whether I > > prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream. No matter. A Jupiter brain would know exactly what modifications to make on you such that you would prefer vanilla. spike . . . From spike66 at att.net Tue Jan 1 17:37:18 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 09:37:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] start 2008 with a good laugh In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080101011331.023d7168@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200801011737.m01HbBkk017781@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Happy new year Extropians! How could anyone not laugh, just trying to picture a coupla silly Texan redneck proles doing this. Sorry Natasha, Damien and other ExiTexans, this is just too funny to not post: Men Shot With .357 as They Traced It for Tattoo Pattern Tuesday, January 01, 2008 CHAPARRAL, N.M. - Getting a tattoo can be a painful proposition, but usually it's just the needle you have to worry about. Two men trying to trace a loaded .357-caliber Magnum as a pattern for a tattoo accidentally shot themselves, the Otero County Sheriff's Department said Monday. [...{8^D Two proles with one round! {8^D...s] Robert Glasser and Joey Acosta, both 22, were treated at a hospital in El Paso, Texas, after the shooting Thursday evening in nearby Chaparral. Authorities said Glasser was struck in the hand when the gun accidentally went off, and Acosta was hit in the left arm. Their injuries were not life-threatening, authorities said. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,319338,00.html Haaaaahahahahahahaaaaa! {8^D Intelligence has apparent limits but stupidity knows no bounds. Question please, was Bobby G's left arm so large that Joey A needed to *trace* an *actual size* three fifty seven, which is a quite large device? Did it really need to be *loaded* for this application? Perhaps they were remembering the Alamo, and wished to be prepared in the event of a sudden attack. The scary part is that people such as this are eligible to vote, oy vey. spike . . . From spike66 at att.net Tue Jan 1 17:59:37 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 09:59:37 -0800 Subject: [ExI] start 2008 with a good laugh In-Reply-To: <200801011737.m01HbBkk017781@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200801011759.m01HxRWk011263@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike > Subject: [ExI] start 2008 with a good laugh > > > Happy new year Extropians! > > ... Sorry Natasha, Damien and other ExiTexans, this > is just too funny to not post: > > Men Shot With .357 as They Traced It for Tattoo Pattern> spike Oops, my apologies to the tExians, these particular drunken proles were from New Mexico. Check out the size of the device, as shown in this article... http://kob.com/article/stories/S299578.shtml?cat=516 ...and again try to picture the size of Bobby G's arm. Picture the local constabulary, struggling to not laugh themselves silly as they attempt to write the report. Picture the tattoo itself: an outline of a handheld cannon, with the scar of an entrance wound at the muzzle and presumably larger exit wound somewhere on the apparently substantial arm. The other prisoners will surely be impressed. spike . . From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 18:18:17 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 12:18:17 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Survival (was: elections again) In-Reply-To: <021e01c84bf3$e8d74fa0$03ef4d0c@MyComputer> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712311513.29552.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <021e01c84bf3$e8d74fa0$03ef4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200801011218.17653.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 31 December 2007, John K Clark wrote: > > Even a super-smart AI won't instantly > > have god-like powers. > > I rather think He will Even an ai is bounded by the laws of physics [whatever they may be]. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Jan 1 18:52:33 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 12:52:33 -0600 Subject: [ExI] start 2008 with a good laugh In-Reply-To: <200801011759.m01HxRWk011263@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200801011737.m01HbBkk017781@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200801011759.m01HxRWk011263@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20080101185234.ZHZJ17668.hrndva-omta04.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> At 11:59 AM 1/1/2008, Spike wrote: >They Traced It for Tattoo Pattern> spike > >Oops, my apologies to the tExians, these particular drunken proles were from >New Mexico. eh? I aint' understand'n whas'yur pars'n. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080101/cda6f32b/attachment.html From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Jan 1 19:02:28 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 13:02:28 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of 1:25) Mars hit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080101190230.ZEHY20499.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> At 04:37 AM 1/1/2008, -samantha wrote: Amara wrote: > > I think many Americans have not heard very much about Mars > Express: http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/index.html > >Great mission and site! What is the altitude of Mars Express? I >didn't see that factoid. Stunning. (Thanks Amara.) http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEMC4JZ7QQE_0.html http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19991 Natasha From aiguy at comcast.net Tue Jan 1 19:04:01 2008 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 14:04:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Survival (was: elections again) In-Reply-To: <200801011218.17653.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com><200712311513.29552.mail@harveynewstrom.com><021e01c84bf3$e8d74fa0$03ef4d0c@MyComputer> <200801011218.17653.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <01f101c84ca9$1315a9f0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Bryan stated: >> Even an ai is bounded by the laws of physics [whatever they may be]. But may I remind you of Clarke's Law? "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. " From jonkc at att.net Tue Jan 1 19:56:53 2008 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 14:56:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Survival (was: elections again) References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com><200712311513.29552.mail@harveynewstrom.com><021e01c84bf3$e8d74fa0$03ef4d0c@MyComputer><200801011218.17653.kanzure@gmail.com> <01f101c84ca9$1315a9f0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <002801c84cb0$9c2ba440$c0f14d0c@MyComputer> Bryan Bishop > Even an ai is bounded by the laws of physics Not so. I upload you and put you in a virtual universe (perhaps I should say another virtual universe) and then the laws of physics are whatever I say they are. "Gary Miller" > But may I remind you of Clarke's Law? > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. " And then there is Clark's (no e) Law: " Any self evolving AI indistinguishable from God. " Or He will be unless he gets caught up in a positive feedback loop and becomes a Lotus Eater. John K Clark From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 20:05:48 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 14:05:48 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Survival (was: elections again) In-Reply-To: <200712311513.29552.mail@harveynewstrom.com> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20071231184047.GJ10128@leitl.org> <200712311513.29552.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <200801011405.48457.kanzure@gmail.com> This thread would benefit from a look back at what's been said: On Tuesday 01 January 2008, Gary Miller wrote: > On Tuesday 01 January 2008, Bryan Bishop wrote: > > On Monday 31 December 2007, John K Clark wrote: > > > On Monday 31 December 2007, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > > > > On Monday 31 December 2007 13:40, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > > > > Not any time soon. But, eventually. We might not see it > > > > > > (heck, what is another 40-50 years), but our children could > > > > > > very well, and their children's children almost certainly > > > > > > (unless they're not too busy fighting in the Thunderdome, > > > > > > of course). > > > > > > > > > > Growing smarter is not a simple brute-force search. Even > > > > > a super-smart AI won't instantly have god-like powers. > > > > > > I rather think he will. > > > > Even an ai is bounded by the laws of physics [whatever they may > > be]. > > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from > magic. " Good call. But please direct your attention below. > > > > > have to perform slow physical experiments in the real world > > > > > of physics to discover or build faster communications, > > > > > transportation, and utilization of resources. They also will > > > > > have to build factories to build future hardware upgrades. > > > > > These macro, physical processes are slow and easily > > > > > disrupted. It it not clear to me that even a > > > > > super-intelligent AI can quickly or easily accomplish > > > > > anything that we really want to stop. > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to see some specific scenarios that rely on > > > > > something more specific than "...a miracle/singularity occurs > > > > > here..." Harvey was asking for more than "magic occurs here." Can we rely on magical miracles to lead us to ai? Ai or the singularity is way too important to be left to magic. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From x at extropica.org Tue Jan 1 20:03:10 2008 From: x at extropica.org (x at extropica.org) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 12:03:10 -0800 Subject: [ExI] De Thezier's New Year's Resolution: Quit Transhumanism In-Reply-To: References: <1199211702507.21b27951-6653-407a-9ae6-aa30dedf2920@google.com> Message-ID: [Forwarded on behalf of Jef] On 1/1/08, De Thezier wrote (at CybDem): > > My New Year's Resolution: Quit Transhumanism > > However, the more months passed, the more my angst grew about how the term "transhumanist" was giving me an identity at the cost of achieving of my goals. It also seemed that I was spending far more time trying to convert people to transhumanism and knee-jerkingly defending this ideology against hysterical attacks but also fair and accurate criticisms, than actually contributing to the social struggle to democratize the costs, risks and benefits of new technologies. > > But, more profoundly, having invested so much time and energy in promoting transhumanism --- and let's be honest, having been seduced by the syren songs of a ''posthuman future'' --- I came to the awkward realization that I, a self-professed free and critical thinker, had willingly blinded myself to the flaws of transhumanism which I became increasing aware were inherencies that *undermine* any diversity of views or ''leftist awakening'' among transhumanists: > > 1. An uncritical support for technology in general and fringe science in particular; > 2. A distortive ''us vs them'' tribe-like mentality and identity; and > 3. A vulnerability to unrealistic utopian and dystopian ''future hype''. Justice -- An excellent post, and congratulations for breaking free of the traps of transhumanism as you've described. I strongly agree with much of what you've written above, and I admire your passion and conviction, but I look forward to the (possible) day when you realize a similar stance with regard to Leftist politics. ********* My key point here is that you and so many others remain focused on "goals" and group identification, heuristics by virtue of having served our ancestors well, but which upon deeper inspection, as you've pointed out, lead to conflict. But in contrast, and what eludes common consideration, here as elsewhere in the context of politics, is that we do in fact share significant **values** which here might be well-described as "techno-progressive" [not necessarily "progressive" in the sense co-opted by the Left], which could be modeled with some (increasing) degree of coherence, supporting cooperative action with the intent of discovering an increasingly desirable future by creating it. In short, consider the paradox: You're frustrated and leaving because of conflict over thinking and goals -- despite very substantial agreement on values. Paradox is always a case of insufficient context. In the bigger picture all the pieces must fit. Extra credit: Show how nearly all members of this list could agree they hold "techno-progressive" values, except to the extent that "progressive" is taken to mean Leftist politics. ********* Intentional growth in terms of increasingly effective promotion of an increasing context of increasingly coherent values, evolving with interaction over increasing scope of consequences isn't well-facilitated by either "liberal" or "libertarian" extremes, but by increasingly smart solutions to an inherently hard problem, one that becomes harder as it contributes to the expansion of its own context. I wish you and the other members of this list a new year of growth and increasing opportunities, not necessarily in the direction you might choose today, but in a direction that becomes clearer with increasing awareness of your own evolving values and increasingly effective means for their promotion. - Jef [who wishes he could express such thoughts using fewer symbols -- a picture perhaps] From eugen at leitl.org Tue Jan 1 20:19:39 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 21:19:39 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Survival (was: elections again) In-Reply-To: <002801c84cb0$9c2ba440$c0f14d0c@MyComputer> References: <01f101c84ca9$1315a9f0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <002801c84cb0$9c2ba440$c0f14d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20080101201939.GY10128@leitl.org> On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 02:56:53PM -0500, John K Clark wrote: > Not so. I upload you and put you in a virtual universe (perhaps I should > say another virtual universe) and then the laws of physics are whatever > I say they are. Not quite. There's a finite amount of ops/J, and relativistic constraints to signalling. Admittedly, that's not much of a style-crimper, if we're to fool a bunch of slowtime monkeys. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 kanzure at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 20:22:50 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 14:22:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Survival (was: elections again) In-Reply-To: <002801c84cb0$9c2ba440$c0f14d0c@MyComputer> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <01f101c84ca9$1315a9f0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <002801c84cb0$9c2ba440$c0f14d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200801011422.50449.kanzure@gmail.com> On Tuesday 01 January 2008, John K Clark wrote: > Not so. I upload you and put you in a virtual universe (perhaps I > should say another virtual universe) and then the laws of physics are > whatever I say they are. You cannot completely escape reality, no matter how nested the sim. No part is greater than the whole. You have to be careful here, since being indistuingishable from God and believing that it *is* God quickly leads to Edeism [1]. For seed ai to be God ... would mean so many contradictory things that it's not funny, since the typical western idealization of God includes such characteristics as perfection, infiniteness, and an assortment of other meaningless things. [1] http://heybryan.org/edeism.html :) - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From spike66 at att.net Tue Jan 1 20:41:49 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 12:41:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of 1:25) Mars hit In-Reply-To: <20080101190230.ZEHY20499.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <200801012041.m01KfAQq027302@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of 1:25) ... > > http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEMC4JZ7QQE_0.html > http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19991 > > > Natasha My fond hope was the asteroid would pass just over the surface of Mars, close enough to the ground that the tenuous Martian atmosphere would scrub off enough speed to slow the roid into a decaying elliptical orbit. I did a BOTEC that show this cannot happen, damn. {8-[ The object is large enough that it could skim the treetops, but still wouldn't lose enough velocity to go elliptical. Its a direct hit or nothing. spike From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Jan 1 20:30:52 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 12:30:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Survival (was: elections again) In-Reply-To: <200801011405.48457.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20071231184047.GJ10128@leitl.org> <200712311513.29552.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <200801011405.48457.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/1/08, Bryan Bishop wrote: > > > > > > Growing smarter is not a simple brute-force search. Even > > > > > > a super-smart AI won't instantly have god-like powers. > > > > > > > > I rather think he will. > > > > > > Even an ai is bounded by the laws of physics [whatever they may > > > be]. > > > > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from > > magic. " > > Good call. But please direct your attention below. > > > > > > > have to perform slow physical experiments in the real world > > > > > > of physics to discover or build faster communications, > > > > > > transportation, and utilization of resources. They also will > > > > > > have to build factories to build future hardware upgrades. > > > > > > These macro, physical processes are slow and easily > > > > > > disrupted. It it not clear to me that even a > > > > > > super-intelligent AI can quickly or easily accomplish > > > > > > anything that we really want to stop. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to see some specific scenarios that rely on > > > > > > something more specific than "...a miracle/singularity occurs > > > > > > here..." > > Harvey was asking for more than "magic occurs here." Can we rely on > magical miracles to lead us to ai? Ai or the singularity is way too > important to be left to magic. This touches on a key point that seems to elude the most outspoken proponents of hard take-off singularity scenarios: So-called "recursively self-improving" intelligence is relevant only to the extent it improves via selective interaction with its environment. If the environment lacks requisite variety, then the "recursively self-improving" system certainly can go "vwhooom" as it explores possibility space, but the probability of such explorations having relevance to our world becomes minuscule, leaving such a system hardly more effective than than a cooperative of technologically augmented humans at tiling the galaxy with paperclips. This suggests a ceiling on the growth of **relevant** intelligence of a singleton machine intelligence to only slightly above the level supported by all available knowledge and its latent connections, therefore remaining vulnerable to the threat of asymmetric competition with a broad-based system of cooperating technologically augmented specialists. - Jef From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jan 1 20:53:13 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 12:53:13 -0800 Subject: [ExI] META: (was Re: LA Times: Rehabbing militants in Saudi Arabia (Meta)) In-Reply-To: <20071229145321.GD10128@leitl.org> References: <20071229101934.GI10128@leitl.org> <00bf01c84a24$1f16dfd0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <20071229145321.GD10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Dec 29, 2007, at 6:53 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 09:07:16AM -0500, Gary Miller wrote: > >> I agree 100% Eugene, but how about we don't wait until we're 10 or >> 15 posts > > There is no wta-politics equivalent for extropy-chat yet. > Given that a sink for noisy discussions has worked well for > other communities (ccm-l, etc.) there perhaps should be one. I have seen it be a way a community marginalizes certain important conversations it does want to learn to deal well with. I am opposed. > > > Do y'all agree? Yea or nay, to me privately, please. I don't think we should vote without discussion so this response is public stating my reason. - samantha From spike66 at att.net Tue Jan 1 20:32:01 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 12:32:01 -0800 Subject: [ExI] start 2008 with a good laugh In-Reply-To: <20080101185234.ZHZJ17668.hrndva-omta04.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <200801012058.m01Kw3DW026576@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Natasha Vita-More . . Subject: Re: [ExI] start 2008 with a good laugh Spike wrote: >They Traced It for Tattoo Pattern... spike Oops, my apologies to the tExians, these particular drunken proles were from New Mexico... s > eh? I aint' understand'n whas'yur pars'n... Natasha {8^D The entire incident is difficult to parse, vertically or laterally. This would be one hell of a way to start a new year: with an accidental self-inflicted gunshot wound and the entire country reading about how you and your buddy are idiots. {8^D This incident gives entirely new meaning to the phrase often seen in news stories in a different context: "Attempts to trace the weapon were unsuccessful." spike . . . From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jan 1 21:01:48 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 13:01:48 -0800 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Rehabbing militants in Saudi Arabia (Meta) In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20712281503n4cca4a6gb34b94e46a4967fb@mail.gmail.com> <008801c849b0$06a61ac0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <20071229101934.GI10128@leitl.org> <00bf01c84a24$1f16dfd0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: On Dec 30, 2007, at 8:22 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > > Pure political discussion is (or should be) below this list. It's > like arguing about the number of angles you can pack on a pin. > I disagree that politics is that pointless or divorced from reality although perhaps I am not properly understanding what you mean by "pure politics". > Using current political examples to illustrate more general points > about why humans have politics and what drives them is (or should be) > a major focus. > > In this respect, the original topic of convincing violent Islamic > militants to change their ways is smack on target. I don't understand > how easy it is, but it is of vast importance to understand. > Understanding it will require EP. Since the US (and Britain) did and do a lot of pretty nasty things in Islamic lands I think it behooves rational people to also discuss avoidance of such inciting behaviors. Without that discussion the above discussion is unbalanced and presumptive from the beginning. > - samantha Vote Ron Paul for President in 2008 -- Save Our Constitution! Go to RonPaul2008.com, and search "Ron Paul" on YouTube From amara at amara.com Tue Jan 1 21:03:26 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 14:03:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of 1:25) Mars hit Message-ID: Samantha: >Great mission and site! What is the altitude of Mars Express? I >didn't see that factoid. Mars Express Orbit details http://www.rssd.esa.int/index.php?project=MARSEXPRESS&page=orbit The apocenter altitude is 13448 km from Mars' center More facts about the Mars Express mission http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMTV8374OD_0_spk.html http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/mars_express/ The array of instruments are performing flawlessly, but what people might remember most, are the camera images. This simple one here, taken a few years ago, knocked everyone's socks off: http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=b&type=I&mission=Mars%20Express&single=y&start=58 The resolution and details of typical Mars Express HRSC images are jaw-droppers, and set new standards, for example: http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=b&type=I&mission=Mars%20Express&single=y&start=55 Nothing else came close until NASA's MRO mission, HiRISE instrument, so with these two Mars observing instruments, the state of the art for planetary surface imaging hardware and software ratcheted up a few notches. If folks here haven't heard of Mars Express, then they might not have heard of Venus Express, either. Venus Express is a mission that used spare parts and the spacecraft bus from the Mars Express mission. Venus Express: http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/area/index.cfm?fareaid=64 http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/space_missions/venus_express/ Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jan 1 21:12:19 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 13:12:19 -0800 Subject: [ExI] elections again In-Reply-To: <200712301128.49022.mail@harveynewstrom.com> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712292036.19185.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <580930c20712300535j6851f4bj3a38799ec1b31480@mail.gmail.com> <200712301128.49022.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: On Dec 30, 2007, at 8:28 AM, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > On Sunday 30 December 2007 08:35, Stefano Vaj wrote: >> On 12/30/07, Harvey Newstrom wrote: >>> On Saturday 29 December 2007 14:28, Mirco Romanato wrote: >>>> Do you prefer suppress freedom or suppress conflicts? >>> >>> I prefer that we suppress conflicts. >> >> I do not. If this put me for once in the "libertarian, randian, >> social >> darwinist" camp, so be it. :-) > > I believe your choices were too limiting. I do not believe that one > has to > choose to ignore conflicts to claims rights, or that choosing to > resolve/avoid conflicts will reduce rights. Even though we chose > different > choices from your dichotomy, I do not see these as opposite sides. > > For example, choosing gun rights in Washington, DC is fine, except > that you > will have to hide your guns, could be arrested for having them, and > will have > them taken away the first time they are ever seen or used. Then the right is being violated in Washington DC. > Resolving the gun > laws first will greatly increase the ability to enjoy gun rights > later. These laws are unconstitutional on their face and should be abolished. > So > in that example, I would expect a gun enthusiast to resolve the > conflict > (change the gun laws) or avoid the conflict (move out of DC) first > rather > than choosing to ignore the law and traffic in illegal guns instead. Choosing to live free regardless of the law is perfectly valid is somewhat dangerous. > My entire point is that the choosing the rights will result in > conflict and > suppression of those rights unless the conflicts are resolved first. Not all conflicts have overriding validity. Without some principles and concepts of what are rights endless compromise to reduce conflict results only in the least valid sides of the conflict receiving unjustified concessions. > > Resolving the conflicts is a path to enjoying the rights. Not so. A right is a right period. Supposed conflicts already question whether it is a right. That is the only real conflict. > Choosing the > rights first, and ignoring the conflict, is a less effective path to > enjoying > expanded rights. > The right to bear arms is part of the highest law of the land. The right is already established by law. That some unconstitutionally restrict it means that their "conflict" as encoded in local laws in fact does not have a sound basis. > Another example would be tax reform. Refusing to pay one's taxes > and holing > up in a house full of guns fighting off federal marshals is not an > effectrive > choice of "freedom from taxes". They are not "my taxes" except by arbitrary interpretation of relevant tax codes. I agree though that the above is not a best choice. However I belief a bit of examination will show the alluded to case was a bit more complex than that. > Only by changing tax laws and resolving > other people's expectations that everyone must pay taxes can such a > person > hope to get away with it. Claiming these rights without resolving the > conflicts will not work. So is this another way of saying might makes right and one must always negotiate with any hooligan able to exert sufficient coercive force? - samantha Vote Ron Paul for President in 2008 -- Save Our Constitution! Go to RonPaul2008.com, and search "Ron Paul" on YouTube From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jan 1 21:26:59 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 13:26:59 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Survival (was: elections again) In-Reply-To: <002e01c84bc7$6b402480$caee4d0c@MyComputer> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712301242.26960.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <020101c84b13$342a5330$47ee4d0c@MyComputer> <200712302040.17341.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <002e01c84bc7$6b402480$caee4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On Dec 31, 2007, at 8:08 AM, John K Clark wrote: > "Harvey Newstrom" > >> You seem to believe that we can't change >> the future > > The future will be determined by what Mr. Jupiter Brain wants, not > by what > we want. Exactly what He (yes, I capitalized it) will decide to do I > don't > know; that's why it's called a Singularity. Maybe He will treat us > like > pampered pets; maybe He will exterminate us like rats, it's out of our > hands. I think you mean "It" as I doubt the Jupiter Brain will choose to be gendered or at any rate choose among merely two. Perhaps It will see the importance of non-initiation of force and a live and let live stance regardless of the fact that It for the moment is the most powerful and self-sufficient being in local space. No guarantees but then there never are. We manipulate what levers we can to as much advantage as we can and attempt to mitigate risks and prepare for contingencies. Hopefully we are wise enough to understand what it is not in our power to control. - samantha From eugen at leitl.org Tue Jan 1 21:31:48 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 22:31:48 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Survival (was: elections again) In-Reply-To: References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20071231184047.GJ10128@leitl.org> <200712311513.29552.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <200801011405.48457.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080101213148.GB10128@leitl.org> On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 12:30:52PM -0800, Jef Allbright wrote: > This touches on a key point that seems to elude the most outspoken > proponents of hard take-off singularity scenarios: So-called > "recursively self-improving" intelligence is relevant only to the I never understood why people said recursive in that context. It's simply a positive-feedback enhancement process. It doesn't use a stack nor tail-recursion, and it's certainly not a simple algorithm, like (iterate over all elements; enhance each; stop when you're done). Exponential runaway self-enhancement, or explosive enhancement, or bloody transcension (in the sense of Daleish Robot God goodness) is pretty descriptive in comparison. > extent it improves via selective interaction with its environment. If The environment doesn't have to be embodied. Unlike simpler darwinian systems, human designs don't need to be embodied in order to be evaluated, making progress both much faster, and also allowing to leap across bad-fitness chasms. (The underlying process is still darwin-driven, but most people don't see it that way). > the environment lacks requisite variety, then the "recursively Most of the environment are other invididuals. That's where the complexity is. > self-improving" system certainly can go "vwhooom" as it explores > possibility space, but the probability of such explorations having > relevance to our world becomes minuscule, leaving such a system hardly Most of what engineers do in simulation rigs today is highly relevant to our world. Look at machine-phase chemistry; the science is all known, but it is currently not computationally tractable, mostly because our infoprocessing prowess is puny. I could easily see bootstrap of machine-phase self-rep which happens 99% in machina, 1% in vitro. In fact, this is almost certainly how we meek monkeys are going to pull it off. > more effective than than a cooperative of technologically augmented > humans at tiling the galaxy with paperclips. Paperclips don't self-select, and self-reproduce. Ain't going to happen. > This suggests a ceiling on the growth of **relevant** intelligence of > a singleton machine intelligence to only slightly above the level Why singleton? That's a yet another sterile assumptions. Single anything ain't going to happen either. Humanity is not a huge pink worm torso with billions of limbs, which started growing in Africa, then spreading all over the planet as a huge single individual. You'll notice ecosystems don't do huge individuals, and that's not a coincidence. > supported by all available knowledge and its latent connections, > therefore remaining vulnerable to the threat of asymmetric competition > with a broad-based system of cooperating technologically augmented > specialists. Do you see much technological augmentation right now? I don't. Getting a lot of bits out and especially in in a relevant fashion, that's medical nanotechnology level of technology. Whereas, building biologically-inspired infoprocessing systems is much more tractable, and in fact we're doing quite well in that area, even given our abovementioned puny computers. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl 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 thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jan 1 21:34:42 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 15:34:42 -0600 Subject: [ExI] another angle In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20712281503n4cca4a6gb34b94e46a4967fb@mail.gmail.com> <008801c849b0$06a61ac0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <20071229101934.GI10128@leitl.org> <00bf01c84a24$1f16dfd0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080101153216.021c4a68@satx.rr.com> >On Dec 30, 2007, at 8:22 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > > > Pure political discussion is (or should be) below this list. It's > > like arguing about the number of angles you can pack on a pin. Well, the number of angles you can rotate a pin through. Quantized or continuous? You be the judge! Damien Broderick From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jan 1 21:41:36 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 13:41:36 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Re-framing Innovation re Consciousness In-Reply-To: <380-2200712131164023653@M2W020.mail2web.com> References: <380-2200712131164023653@M2W020.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <8B25AAE0-C4E7-4EAA-984B-1A454697E955@mac.com> On Dec 31, 2007, at 8:40 AM, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > Innovation may have different meanings in different domains, but the > fundamental, consistent characteristic of innovation is the ideation > (invention) and development (practice) of something new or the > rethinking > and rearranging of something that is known in new ways. > > The methods of innovation are varied and since creativity is crucial > to > innovation, methodologies cannot be rigid. Because innovation is an > act of > developing something new or rethinking and rearranging something > that is > know in new ways, risk is involved. Innovation also brings with it a > personal and public apprehension about change, pushing boundaries, > etc. as > it causes individuals and society to reorganize a status quo. > Innovation > also affects different segments of society in different ways: early > adaptors, late adaptors, laggards, for example. > > When considering innovation in its relationship to progress/change > within > the context of perception and is transformation, we are within the > domain > of consciousness studies. Because consciousness is an abstract idea > and > also something that everyone has no matter what particular domain they > inhabit, innovation must be seen in this light, as an environment > larger > than any one specific domain. > > How would you reframe the concept of innovation in its relationship to > progress and change within the context of perception and its > transformation? Below are 4 areas in which innovation might be > reframed. > By reframing I mean changing the conceptual viewpoint or tilting, if > you > will, in bringing about innovation which could affect perception and, > thereby, consciousness. > > 1. Innovation as it concerns risk: > a. innovation as a catalytic action in pushing through > boundaries of > risk Does this "pushing through" include radically reducing certain classes of risk? > > b. innovation as a catalytic action in maintaining and furthering > boundaries of risk > > 2. Innovation to recreate what is familiar to individuals and society: > a. innovation for cognitive absorption of information/knowledge > b. innovation for enhanced connectivity of people to view familiar > ideas as a > connective intelligence Why emphasis on familiar ideas? Where do radically new ideas come in? > > > 3. Innovation to shake up creative activity that stems from everyday > behavior of regular/normal activities > a. innovation for creating a consumer culture for progress-based > consciousness > b. innovation for creating a consumer culture of perception which > leads to transformation > Why "consumer culture"? What of innovation that creates a culture of interacting peers much as the internet has? I don't see why "consumer culture" was placed here. > 4. Innovation in experience design to see, feel and experience more > a. innovation in creating conceptual experiences to provide richer > experiences > b. innovation in creating conceptual experiences to satisfy > individual > or societal needs for the psychological purpose of inducing an sense > of > accomplishment or completion which results in a sense of emotional > calm. > 5) Innovation to extend understanding and abilities of all recipients a. change of paradigm due to increased and/or altered perception b. uplift of societal and individual optimism due to newly opened possibilities as contrasted to discomfort of unknowns c. new incentives toward changed consciousness as old consciousness existential grounding changes - samantha > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web.com - Microsoft? Exchange solutions from a leading provider - > http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat - samantha Vote Ron Paul for President in 2008 -- Save Our Constitution! Go to RonPaul2008.com, and search "Ron Paul" on YouTube From mail at harveynewstrom.com Tue Jan 1 21:46:04 2008 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 16:46:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] elections again In-Reply-To: <196C8242-5EDE-4369-AFFC-D53B42D8C488@mac.com> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712292036.19185.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <196C8242-5EDE-4369-AFFC-D53B42D8C488@mac.com> Message-ID: <200801011646.04205.mail@harveynewstrom.com> I apologize in advance for this being so long and rambling. I am trying to respond to every single point without ignoring any. But the result is that it goes round-and-round, saying the same thing over-and-over. I am enjoying this conversation, but don't want it to get too convoluted and down in the weeds. Don't feel compelled to respond to every point. Ignoring all the detailed back-and-forth below, my summary is this: I totally agree with the idea that we shouldn't initiate force. Those who do are wrong. That is how we should determine the right-and-wrong of all future conflicts. However, my point is that all people adhere to this principle. Yes, the Muslims, the terrorists, the criminals, everybody thinks they are the underdog being attacked unfairly, and their response including violence is justified because the other party initiated force first. Also, the interpretation of who initiated force depends on world-views and interpretations of rights which varies from culture to culture. Thus, the rule of not initiating force is insufficient. Everybody is doing it, but differently. We need to further refine it or explain it or implement it to conclusively explain how we are implementing it correctly and they are implementing it incorrectly. I don't know how to do this rigorously and methodically without resorting to a mere declaration that we are right and they are wrong. The further ramblings below are not necessary to understand my summary above, but are included for completeness. But after I responded to all of the below, I felt like I was getting off-track. So I wrote the summary above which is more succinct, and don't care if anybody reads the following ramblings or not. Oh, and Happy New Year! -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP ____________________________________________________________ On Tuesday 01 January 2008 04:39, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Not all environments would be equally conducive to its highest desired > functioning. Great capacity doesn't mean it is totally self contained > and self sufficient. I never claimed this diversity was the only possibility. I was giving a counter-example to the claim that a single non-friendly environment was the only possibility. > This assumes that the needs/desires crossed with the capabilities of > AGIs will leave ample room for humans to exist. We aren't nearly as > difficult to eradicate, even accidentally, as cockroaches. We are > much more fragile with more needs. I did not assume that this would occur. I was giving a counter-example to the claim that total annihilation was the only possibility. > But we aren't talking about brute-force once self-improving AGI > exists. There need be nothing akin to normal evolution about it. Someone was talking about brute-force being solved by pure speed, which is why I countered that example. > Well, what qualifies do we consider as god-like and how do we know > exactly how much smarts it takes to obtain some of those powers? I was speaking against people who think AIs will break the laws of physics (as we currently understand them), go faster than light, travel through time, and convert the entire planet to computroniium in the blink of an eye. Those god-like powers are pure unsupported speculation. I have no doubt that there will be many abilities that would seem god-like to us, just as we would seem to have many god-like abilities as viewed by our distant ancestors. > Not > instantly no but I doubt it will take a self-improving AGI as much as > a human generation to be able to do things that to us are decidedly > "god-like". Agreed. I was speaking against "instantly" which some seem to expect. > > They will have to perform slow physical experiments in > > the real world of physics to discover or build faster communications, > > transportation, and utilization of resources. > > A lot of the most important work of self-improvement of intelligence > is internal and does not require so many physical world steps. Once > the AGI has optimized on its existing substrate it can see about > upgrading its physical components. I doubt it needs to figure out any > new transportation methods or invent faster communications until it is > already extremely advanced. I think big advances in AI will take hardware self-improvements. I don't think it all can be done in software with its existing hardware. Each step that takes a hardware upgrade will be greatly slowed down compared to the self-modifying software that most people are talking about. > One of the first external science priorities will likely be MNT. It > will not need conventional factories. The benefits of MNT will be too > great for all humans to want to stop it. For that matter it will > very early on be such a beneficial boon that it will find patrons and > protectors easily. Agreed. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP On Tuesday 01 January 2008 05:22, Samantha Atkins wrote: > The phrase "impose our will" is rather imprecise. At any rate a lot > less precise than abstaining from introducing physical force or fraud. I mean the same thing. > Shooting you would be an initiation of force totally against > libertarian first principles. What someone may merely want to do but > not actually attempt to do (due to principles, the likelihood of being > punished or shot back at, etc.) is not actually a problem. But I can't wait until the trigger is actually pulled before I defend myself. So the question is, when can I fight back? Can I disarm a person for pointing a gun at me? Can I disarm a person for bringing a gun into my home? Can I disarm a person for bringing a gun into my yard? What about standing just outside my yard, looking in? What about sitting next to me on a public bus? I agree totally with the theory of no harm, no foul. But how much preparation and readiness to do harm do I have to put up with before I can call foul and put a stop to it? Many people are more sensitive to guns being around them or their children than others. The perception of what is threatening or dangerous various between cultures and perceptions. > > Say you > > want to sit on your property with your gun aimed at me while I move > > around on > > my property. > > That would be a pretty direct threat of physical force so again not > allowed. Glad we agree about that. (Some people don't.) > Again you are confusing hypotheticals and possible dangers with actual > aggression. No I am not. We agreed that gun owners can't point a gun at me. It is only hypothetical that they might shoot. But it is too possible for comfort. People could easily interpret a doomsday machine, or an ultra-powerful AI to be a similar situation as a gun pointed at them that could destroy them at any moment. Even if you don't believe this is analogous, you can guess that some people will interpret it thusly. > There is no way to avoid all possibility of harm and the > Precautionaly Principle would have us do. I never claimed this. I am arguing against the super-AI that some insist is guaranteed to wipe out humanity. > That is not a question of > rights at all. Being invasive of others property and space because > they might do something or have done something that might harm you is > utterly unjustified and an obvious initiation of force. Exactly my point. I am not claiming new rights. I am pointing out how people are going to interpret many of our technological advances as direct invasions of their property and space that can easily harm them. They will interpret this as an obvious initiation of force. That is what I am trying to warn about. Most technologists here have no concern for how people are going to react to their technology. But I guarantee that if some (even incorrectly) interpret your technology as a loaded gun pointed at them, they will use deadly force to prevent you from completing construction of that technology. > Baloney. That someone has the means to harm you does not mean they > will. You cannot punish them or by force render them completely > harmless. Agreed. In your worldview given you holding the gun. How about if build a nuclear bomb next door? Just because I have the means to harm you does not mean that I will. You cannot punish me or by force render me completely harmless. Do you feel the same way in this example? What about nukes in other countries pointed at us, is that the same? My point is what seems obvious to you given your cherished technology may not seem obvious to someone else given some other technology. > > They believe that babies are being murdered and must be protected. > > Then this is a notion totally in their heads that they would by force > impose on others. So they are the aggressors. This is the problem. They would claim the exact thing of you. The idea that babies aren't alive yet before birth is totally in your head. They would claim that you are imposing force and that you are the aggressors. It is easy to just state that we are right and they are wrong. But they state the exact same thing in reverse. So the rules about not initiating force don't prove anything. How do we prove the other side wrong? Or how do we prove to lawmakers or societies or third parties who is correct? Simple rules don't solve these interpretation problems. > Hardly as this ignores the obvious point that no one can conclusively > show that a fetus, especially in early pregnancy, is a human being to > be protected. That is a central issue in contention. Those who > believe that a fetus is a child etc. cannot legitimately imposed their > opinion on those who do not who are unhappy to be carrying said fetus. Agreed. But this just opens up another can of worms, wrt the precautionary principal. We can't prove a fetus is a human. But we can't prove it's not. Where exactly is the line? If it is blurry, which way do we err? The science will be disputed, and the direction of safety argued back and forth. > But this is an arbitrary opinion they have no right to impose on others. I agree with your opinion. But others don't. My question is how do we resolve this? Merely stating that we are right and they are wrong doesn't solve the controversy. People still are fighting about it. > > I don't know. Many people in this country object to humans coming > > from other > > countries to take jobs away. > > Do they take jobs away? I am not so sure. You miss my point. It doesn't matter if they are right or not. I am arguing that the rebellion against robot workers will be stronger and more obvious in most minds than the rebellion against foreign workers. I am merely predicting this rebellion. I am not saying that it is right. But it will definitely happen. > Feelings are not facts and do not confer rights. You keep saying this, clearly attributed "their" feelings as not being facts, and "our" facts as not being feelings. But merely asserting it doesn't prove anything. In this example, there are no objective facts. They say citizens deserve jobs more than foreigners. You say they don't. How is either side more factual or less feeling-based? What is the basis for argument besides just asserting it? That's what I'm not getting. I'm just seeing assertions. But how do you prove it? How do you support it? I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I'm asking how do we explain this to convince others. There is more and more rebellion against technology brewing, and I don't see many technologists paying attention or even giving rational answers to the objections. I just see assertions without convincing argument. (Even though I agree!) > > > Imagine how much more adamant they would be that > > humans deserve these jobs more than machines. > > Tough cookies. See what I mean? This doesn't solve anything. This won't convince congress not to outlaw your technology. Is this our only approach, to become outlaws and ignore what society or governments think? Do we not even try to explain our position? > > > It doesn't even matter if they > > believe in entitlements or not. > > Your right it does not matter because such entitlements are bogus. > > > They have to work to feed their families, > > and these machines are threatening their families. > > No they are not. Working is not necessarily the only way to have > enough to feed your family. I do not know what other arrangements > will be worked out but it is pretty certain that sooner or later we > will have such an abundance economy and few enough people will be > qualified for the jobs that are not yet automated that it will not > make a lot of sense to insist that you have to have a j-o-b to partake > of the abundance. This is a pretty weak argument. It could be the case. But I think people will want to receive the abundance first before they lose their jobs. I can't imagine this explanation satisfying anyone who isn't already decided. > In some Muslim countries it is quite physically dangerous to attempt > to leave the faith on even be known to question it. Exactly. This is an example of an intolerant belief system that I am talking about. > They can believe whatever they wish. We only have a problem when > they initiate force. Again, this is what I have been saying. > This is a "problem" only if you claim that the "interests" of others > must be catered to regardless of their nature. Only the interest in > being free from initiation of force and thus free to lead one's own > life unmolested is an interest that all must abide by. No, you misunderstand. I am not saying we have to cater to them. I am asking how we convince people that our side is not initiating force. My point is that the other side is using the exact same rules that we are about not initiating force. It is just that they interpret force differently such that our exercise of our freedoms is initiating force against them. > >> Do you prefer suppress freedom or suppress conflicts? > > > > I prefer that we suppress conflicts. There must be some win-win > > scenarios. > > What kind of conflict? All conflict? Then only the grave will do I'm > afraid. Suppression of freedom is conflict! Do not suppress > freedom and much worrisome real conflict dissolves. As I explained in another post, I do not see these as mutually exclusive. Just because I hope to prevent conflicts does not mean I want to suppress rights. I want to find a way to do both. Those who don't believe that we can do both and don't care about conflict misinterpret my response to mean that I would rather suppress rights than avoid conflicts. That is the opposite of my opinion. > > > It should be possible to build an AI without threatening to overthrow > > humanity's governments. > > Getting rid of governments is a fine idea since they are the primary > initiators of force! Isn't this initiating of force against governments or those groups that want their government? > > There > > should be an answer to most conflicts. > > Compromise no matter what is no answer at all. The relatively evil or > at least "less good" always wins in such compromise for compromise > sake. Conflict per se is not evil, especially conflict of mere beliefs. I never called for compromise. I am trying to figure out if there is a way to allow all freedoms to occur without interfering with all. People who don't see a way to do this (which I agree I don't know how either) misinterpret that I must therefore advocate compromise. I do not. > > Simply having one side override the > > other side is usually not the answer. > > It is if one side doesn't really have much of a leg to stand on. It > is when all true rights are on one side. This is the basis of all war and all terrorist actions. All initiators of force claim the exact same thing. Virtually no initiators of force perceive that they are the initiators of force. They interpret that the "new" technologies or activities are the initiation of force, and that they are defending themselves against the attackers. > > But often, there are legitimate concerns that should be > > addressed rather than ignored when developing new disruptive > > technologies. > > We deal with these one by one without throwing away freedom from > initiation of force. That's what I am trying to talk about. But nobody seems to get to this point. They are so sure that every single one of their beliefs is so obviously right, that they see no reason to deal with any of these as described above. > > But it is much more complicated and messy than people like to imagine. > > It surely is if you start pretty much with no real guiding principles > and just attempt to make everyone as happy as possible. Is that what you read in my postings? I don't know how to be clearer. I am not saying that we should not use the guiding principles of "no initiation of force." I think that is the guiding principle. My point is that the terrorists and anti-technology camps are claiming the exact same guiding principles, and it is leading them to do what they are doing. The same principles! We need to figure out what is different between our implementation and their implementation that can be generically explained in advance, other than "we're right and you're wrong." The concept of "force" itself is ill-defined and interpretted differently by different people. From pharos at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 21:48:31 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 21:48:31 +0000 Subject: [ExI] another angle In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080101153216.021c4a68@satx.rr.com> References: <580930c20712281503n4cca4a6gb34b94e46a4967fb@mail.gmail.com> <008801c849b0$06a61ac0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <20071229101934.GI10128@leitl.org> <00bf01c84a24$1f16dfd0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <7.0.1.0.2.20080101153216.021c4a68@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Jan 1, 2008 9:34 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > > >On Dec 30, 2007, at 8:22 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > > > > > Pure political discussion is (or should be) below this list. It's > > > like arguing about the number of angles you can pack on a pin. > > Well, the number of angles you can rotate a pin through. Quantized or > continuous? You be the judge! > Well, if it's blonde, it's acute angle. BillK From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jan 1 21:59:29 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 13:59:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Survival (was: elections again) In-Reply-To: References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20071231184047.GJ10128@leitl.org> <200712311513.29552.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <200801011405.48457.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 1, 2008, at 12:30 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > > This touches on a key point that seems to elude the most outspoken > proponents of hard take-off singularity scenarios: So-called > "recursively self-improving" intelligence is relevant only to the > extent it improves via selective interaction with its environment. "Environment" includes its own internal processing and algorithms. This is something that is not true of intelligences like ourselves and can easily be missed or its significance downplayed. > > > This suggests a ceiling on the growth of **relevant** intelligence of > a singleton machine intelligence to only slightly above the level > supported by all available knowledge and its latent connections, > therefore remaining vulnerable to the threat of asymmetric competition > with a broad-based system of cooperating technologically augmented > specialists. Not really much of a limit as a much faster mind capable of conscious attention to much more information at once and vastly more computationally capable will discover implications and connections that any arbitrary sized collection of lesser minds will either come up with much more slowly or miss entirely. If the technological augmentation is sufficient to put the augment humans on a par then that system of humans and technology effectively is a new super human intelligence. Given the inherit limits of human minds and group dynamics I am very doubtful this can occur. - samantha From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Jan 1 22:02:46 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 14:02:46 -0800 Subject: [ExI] another angle In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20712281503n4cca4a6gb34b94e46a4967fb@mail.gmail.com> <008801c849b0$06a61ac0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <20071229101934.GI10128@leitl.org> <00bf01c84a24$1f16dfd0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <7.0.1.0.2.20080101153216.021c4a68@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 1/1/08, BillK wrote: > Well, if it's blonde, it's acute angle. Well, I may be obtuse, but I think red-heads and brunettes are at least as fun. But I may be biased, living so near to Los Angles. - Jef From spike66 at att.net Tue Jan 1 22:04:56 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 14:04:56 -0800 Subject: [ExI] another angle In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080101153216.021c4a68@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200801012204.m01M44NR011342@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick ... > Subject: [ExI] another angle > > >On Dec 30, 2007, at 8:22 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > > > > > Pure political discussion is (or should be) below this list. It's > > > like arguing about the number of angles you can pack on a pin. > > Well, the number of angles you can rotate a pin through. Quantized or > continuous? You be the judge! Damien . . . Ah yes, I knew some joker would post acute comment on this rather obtuse typo. Leave it to Damien to discover the right angle. spike . . . From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jan 1 22:06:07 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 16:06:07 -0600 Subject: [ExI] another angle In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20712281503n4cca4a6gb34b94e46a4967fb@mail.gmail.com> <008801c849b0$06a61ac0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <20071229101934.GI10128@leitl.org> <00bf01c84a24$1f16dfd0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <7.0.1.0.2.20080101153216.021c4a68@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080101160515.023e4ef0@satx.rr.com> At 09:48 PM 1/1/2008 +0000, BillK wrote: >Well, if it's blonde, it's acute angle. Now you're just being obtuse. From jmeyer at chemie.uni-kl.de Tue Jan 1 22:16:28 2008 From: jmeyer at chemie.uni-kl.de (Jonathan Meyer) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 23:16:28 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Future Me Message-ID: I dont know if this came up before, but I am compelled by the Idea of this Website.. http://www.futureme.org/ They promise to deliver eMails you write to your future self in up to 30 years. It is taking a chance, but I really think this kind of long term thinking, giving yourself feedback like that is a great thing to do. Jonathan P.S.: How likely do you guesstimate the chance of such a Mail arriving say in 30 years? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080101/8c101968/attachment.html From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Jan 1 22:25:50 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 14:25:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Future Me In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 1/1/08, Jonathan Meyer wrote: > > P.S.: How likely do you guesstimate the chance of such a Mail arriving say > in 30 years? It'll be irrelevant long before then because with vast cheap storage most of us will be recording, indexing, and searching full-time life-streams almost continuously. - Jef From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 22:29:24 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 09:29:24 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Survival In-Reply-To: References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712311311.18110.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <20071231184047.GJ10128@leitl.org> <200712311513.29552.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <021e01c84bf3$e8d74fa0$03ef4d0c@MyComputer> <4779B3FF.90907@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On 02/01/2008, Randall Randall wrote: > > On Jan 1, 2008, at 3:54 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > If you > > read everything I have ever written that has appeared on the Internet, > > neither you nor a Jupiter brain will be able to deduce whether I > > prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream. > > You know for sure that there are no correlations to be > found between the stuff you write about and ice cream > preferences? What deduced probability that you like > what you really like would you accept? I don't know for sure that there is no correlation but if there is it will probably only increase the superintelligent AI's chance of guessing right by a small margin. Even then, it will probably have to perform research, surveying people's actual ice cream preferences and seeing if there is a correlation with the words they use when discussing apparently unrelated subjects. The point is, superintelligence will not allow you to perform miracles. -- Stathis Papaioannou From mail at harveynewstrom.com Tue Jan 1 22:48:22 2008 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 17:48:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] elections again In-Reply-To: References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712301128.49022.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <200801011748.22147.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Tuesday 01 January 2008 16:12, Samantha Atkins wrote: > So is this another way of saying might makes right and one must always > negotiate with any hooligan able to exert sufficient coercive force? No, I never said it was right. I'm saying that you still have to deal with a mighty hooligan whether he is right or not. Merely "claiming" your right doesn't accomplish anything. You still have to actually deal with the hooligan. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From jonkc at att.net Tue Jan 1 23:02:12 2008 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 18:02:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Survival References: <01f101c84ca9$1315a9f0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2><002801c84cb0$9c2ba440$c0f14d0c@MyComputer> <20080101201939.GY10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <023101c84cca$684f2060$c0f14d0c@MyComputer> "Eugen Leitl" > Not quite. There's a finite amount of ops/J, and relativistic constraints > to signalling. Not so. You ask me a difficult question that due to speed of light restraints even a nanocomputer will take ten billion years to find an answer to. No problem, I just stop you're simulation, think about the problem for ten billion years and then start everything up again. You find that I have instantly answered your question. John K Clark From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Jan 1 23:19:24 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 17:19:24 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Re-framing Innovation re Consciousness In-Reply-To: <8B25AAE0-C4E7-4EAA-984B-1A454697E955@mac.com> References: <380-2200712131164023653@M2W020.mail2web.com> <8B25AAE0-C4E7-4EAA-984B-1A454697E955@mac.com> Message-ID: <20080101231926.TDQO2900.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> At 03:41 PM 1/1/2008, -samantha wrote: > > How would you reframe the concept of innovation in its relationship to > > progress and change within the context of perception and its > > transformation? Below are 4 areas in which innovation might be > > reframed. > > By reframing I mean changing the conceptual viewpoint or tilting, if > > you > > will, in bringing about innovation which could affect perception and, > > thereby, consciousness. > > > > 1. Innovation as it concerns risk: > > a. innovation as a catalytic action in pushing through > > boundaries of > > risk > >Does this "pushing through" include radically reducing certain classes >of risk? Yes. > > b. innovation as a catalytic action in maintaining and furthering > > boundaries of risk > > > > 2. Innovation to recreate what is familiar to individuals and society: > > a. innovation for cognitive absorption of information/knowledge > > b. innovation for enhanced connectivity of people to view familiar > > ideas as a connective intelligence >Why emphasis on familiar ideas? Where do radically new ideas come in? Emphasis on familiar ideas: In that familiar ideas when restructured contextually bring about a change in perspective and, thus, perception. When what has been familiar is rearranged within a new context, such as in the context of a connective intelligence (i.e., Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre Levy and/or Derrick de Kerckhove) or context of a technological noosphere, new ideas come in. > > 3. Innovation to shake up creative activity that stems from everyday > > behavior of regular/normal activities > > a. innovation for creating a consumer culture for progress-based > > consciousness > > b. innovation for creating a consumer culture of perception which > > leads to transformation > >Why "consumer culture"? What of innovation that creates a culture of >interacting peers much as the internet has? I don't see why "consumer >culture" was placed here. Apart from economics and capitalistic views, a consumer culture refers to the behavior of all life forms in that we consume. Regarding consciousness, humans consume food for energy to think. This is actually a play on concepts: a culture that is a "consumer culture" (in regards to economics/capitalism) would be behaviorally prone to consume innovative information, sensory input, etc. (such as produced in new media works of "experience design" which could alter consciousness. > > 4. Innovation in experience design to see, feel and experience more > > a. innovation in creating conceptual experiences to provide richer > > experiences > > b. innovation in creating conceptual experiences to satisfy > > individual > > or societal needs for the psychological purpose of inducing an sense > > of > > accomplishment or completion which results in a sense of emotional > > calm. > > > >5) Innovation to extend understanding and abilities of all recipients > a. change of paradigm due to increased and/or altered perception > b. uplift of societal and individual optimism due to newly opened >possibilities as contrasted to discomfort of unknowns > c. new incentives toward changed consciousness as old consciousness >existential grounding changes Thank you. Let's discuss. Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - University of Plymouth - Faculty of Technology School of Computing, Communications and Electronics Centre for Advanced Inquiry in the Interactive Arts 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/20080101/acd39cce/attachment.html From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 00:29:28 2008 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 16:29:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of 1:25) Marshit Message-ID: <286775.52886.qm@web52702.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Bryan Bishop wrote: On Sunday 30 December 2007, Ian Goddard wrote: >> If there are not working plans, who is going to >> pay for coming up with them? And if there are >> working plans, who is going to pay to implement >> them? Why > > I am not sure about this money issue. I wonder if > the mere aspect of, say, saving the planet from > near total destruction would catalyze the right > people to make the rockets and so on, maybe the new > space industry. Perhaps Masten would know? I think > he's subscribed here. A possible responce, albeit perhaps neither useful nor testable, might be: suppose the USA was a true free-market economy since 1776. Technology would then be so much more advanced we may have colonized and terraformed Mars by now. There might also be many private companies searching for and mining astroids. Given such a space-faring society, the technology would be already in place to locate and terminate any astroid headed toward our terrestrial homebase. If so, then the quiry I raise may reflect that a society whose progress is stiffled under heavy regulation is held at the mercy of the regulator since it is not allowed to do for itself. ~Ian http://IanGoddard.net "A proposition can be true or false only in virtue of being a picture of reality." - Wittgenstein ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping From kanzure at gmail.com Wed Jan 2 01:19:16 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 19:19:16 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Creating contexts Message-ID: <200801011919.16831.kanzure@gmail.com> Because of my terrible backlog. From "How much does one search cost?" http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2007/10/how_much_does_o.php Kevin Kelly wrote: > I don't expect anyone to seriously believe these amateur calculations; > they are only intended to provide some scale. The value of web search > is in the hundreds of billions. But what is most interesting to me, is > that this huge "industry," this huge appetite, has materialized out of > nowhere. If we ask 800 billion questions today and expect to get > instant answers, where were those 800 billion questions 20 years ago? (that's actually 800b/yr according to KK, so that last part is reworded) On a larger timescale, the blip of WWW search engines like Backrub, Archie or Gopher looks like this spontaneous combustion, the catalysis of trillions of new thermodynamic structures, mostly ideas in brains but also social relationships around the world, new business opportunities and so much more. Is it all due to basic chemistry, that there was simply enough idle matter and energy around to allow for the creation of this huge appetite? - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From amara at amara.com Wed Jan 2 03:08:24 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 20:08:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wishing you a Growth-filled 2008 Message-ID: Dear Transhumanists: Wishing you many *good* growing experiences in 2008, so that at this time next year, you can look back and say: "wow, I did that!" Maybe in my simple universe are only experiences to learn, to grow, to blossom, so that along some distance of my road, one can see my trail of turtle stepping stone [1] experiences that have each pushed me to be bigger than myself, to live live fuller each time, and to appreciate how lucky I really am. It's a great time to be alive, don't you think? Turtles All of the Way Down [1] http://www.flickr.com/photos/spaceviolins/2155853983/in/set-72157603542069185/ from my Maui Christmas 2007 http://www.flickr.com/photos/spaceviolins/sets/72157603542069185/ [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down {begin quote} The most widely known version appears in Stephen Hawking's 1988 book A Brief History of Time, which starts: "A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"[1] " {end quote} Happy New Years 2008! Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Jan 2 03:58:23 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 14:58:23 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Survival In-Reply-To: <200801011649.m01GnEFO018884@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200801011649.m01GnEFO018884@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 02/01/2008, spike wrote: > > > If you > > > read everything I have ever written that has appeared on the Internet, > > > neither you nor a Jupiter brain will be able to deduce whether I > > > prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream. > > > No matter. A Jupiter brain would know exactly what modifications to make on > you such that you would prefer vanilla. Yes, and it could also scan my brain and run a simulation to determine my preference. But the original question was whether an AI could make me do its bidding just by talking to me. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Jan 2 04:13:01 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 15:13:01 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Survival (was: elections again) In-Reply-To: <002e01c84bc7$6b402480$caee4d0c@MyComputer> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712301242.26960.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <020101c84b13$342a5330$47ee4d0c@MyComputer> <200712302040.17341.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <002e01c84bc7$6b402480$caee4d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On 01/01/2008, John K Clark wrote: > The future will be determined by what Mr. Jupiter Brain wants, not by what > we want. Exactly what He (yes, I capitalized it)... I wish you wouldn't. It makes us sound like a kooky cult. -- Stathis Papaioannou From mail at harveynewstrom.com Wed Jan 2 04:14:00 2008 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 23:14:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Survival (was: elections again) In-Reply-To: References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200801011405.48457.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200801012314.00847.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Tuesday 01 January 2008 15:30, Jef Allbright wrote: > This touches on a key point that seems to elude the most outspoken > proponents of hard take-off singularity scenarios: So-called > "recursively self-improving" intelligence is relevant only to the > extent it improves via selective interaction with its environment. If > the environment lacks requisite variety, then the "recursively > self-improving" system certainly can go "vwhooom" as it explores > possibility space, but the probability of such explorations having > relevance to our world becomes minuscule, leaving such a system hardly > more effective than than a cooperative of technologically augmented > humans at tiling the galaxy with paperclips. > > This suggests a ceiling on the growth of **relevant** intelligence of > a singleton machine intelligence to only slightly above the level > supported by all available knowledge and its latent connections, > therefore remaining vulnerable to the threat of asymmetric competition > with a broad-based system of cooperating technologically augmented > specialists. Exactly. Even if a machine can think super fast, it won't be able to change physical reality around it as fast. Even with nanotech, reality in the maco meat universe is slow with limited resources. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From mail at harveynewstrom.com Wed Jan 2 04:26:17 2008 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 23:26:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of 1:25) Mars hit In-Reply-To: <200801012041.m01KfAQq027302@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200801012041.m01KfAQq027302@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200801012326.18080.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Tuesday 01 January 2008 15:41, spike wrote: > My fond hope was the asteroid would pass just over the surface of Mars, > close enough to the ground that the tenuous Martian atmosphere would scrub > off enough speed to slow the roid into a decaying elliptical orbit. I did > a BOTEC that show this cannot happen, damn. {8-[ The object is large > enough that it could skim the treetops, but still wouldn't lose enough > velocity to go elliptical. Its a direct hit or nothing. Treetops? On Mars? Now that IS interesting! -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From mail at harveynewstrom.com Wed Jan 2 04:29:18 2008 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 23:29:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Coming in 2008: "Transhumanism Today" magazine In-Reply-To: <362ec1540712311617g59824605y8e09f33eed8d93a2@mail.gmail.com> References: <362ec1540712311617g59824605y8e09f33eed8d93a2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200801012329.18488.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Monday 31 December 2007 19:17, Joseph Bloch wrote: > Coming in 2008... > > "Transhumanism Today" magazine Wow, interesting! Have you done any market research to see what kind of demand a print magazine about Transhumanism might have? -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From sentience at pobox.com Wed Jan 2 04:41:04 2008 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 20:41:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Survival In-Reply-To: References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712311311.18110.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <20071231184047.GJ10128@leitl.org> <200712311513.29552.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <021e01c84bf3$e8d74fa0$03ef4d0c@MyComputer> <4779B3FF.90907@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <477B15E0.4010606@pobox.com> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > If you > read everything I have ever written that has appeared on the Internet, > neither you nor a Jupiter brain will be able to deduce whether I > prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream. You prefer vanilla. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From kanzure at gmail.com Wed Jan 2 04:48:06 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 22:48:06 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Survival (was: elections again) In-Reply-To: <20080101213148.GB10128@leitl.org> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20080101213148.GB10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200801012248.06695.kanzure@gmail.com> On Tuesday 01 January 2008, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 12:30:52PM -0800, Jef Allbright wrote: > > This touches on a key point that seems to elude the most outspoken > > proponents of hard take-off singularity scenarios: So-called > > "recursively self-improving" intelligence is relevant only to the > > I never understood why people said recursive in that context. > It's simply a positive-feedback enhancement process. It doesn't use > a stack nor tail-recursion, and it's certainly not a simple > algorithm, like (iterate over all elements; enhance each; stop when > you're done). Exponential runaway self-enhancement, or explosive Instead of that simple algorithm, perhaps talking about lateral thought or lateral integration would be more appropriate? > enhancement, or bloody transcension (in the sense of Daleish Robot > God goodness) is pretty descriptive in comparison. > > > extent it improves via selective interaction with its environment. > > If > > The environment doesn't have to be embodied. Unlike simpler darwinian > systems, human designs don't need to be embodied in order to be Embodiment brings along loads more information, while an abstraction only provides limited (human-selected) information, so there's a funneling of what humans think to be relevant into what we are inputting, and how would that be useful? Ai isn't going to come about by giving less information than we get (and I mean neural information, not necessarily bits and bytes from the net). > evaluated, making progress both much faster, and also allowing to > leap across bad-fitness chasms. (The underlying process is still > darwin-driven, but most people don't see it that way). I suppose it could be darwinian esp. if you have humans filtering the information, but I still don't see how that's useful. > > the environment lacks requisite variety, then the "recursively > > Most of the environment are other invididuals. That's where the > complexity is. That's locally accessible complexity, but have you ever tried asking your neighbor for their brain? Not so accessible, is it? :) > > self-improving" system certainly can go "vwhooom" as it explores > > possibility space, but the probability of such explorations having > > relevance to our world becomes minuscule, leaving such a system > > hardly > > Most of what engineers do in simulation rigs today is highly relevant > to our world. Look at machine-phase chemistry; the science is all > known, but it is currently not computationally tractable, mostly I would never have expected to see the statement "the science is all known" coming from you. > because our infoprocessing prowess is puny. I could easily see > bootstrap of machine-phase self-rep which happens 99% in machina, 1% > in vitro. In fact, this is almost certainly how we meek monkeys are > going to pull it off. How so? Biocellular life doesn't have to do that much computation ... but it also has a few billion years of precomputation to back it up. > > This suggests a ceiling on the growth of **relevant** intelligence > > of a singleton machine intelligence to only slightly above the > > level > > Why singleton? That's a yet another sterile assumptions. Single > anything ain't going to happen either. Humanity is not a huge pink > worm torso with billions of limbs, which started growing in Africa, > then spreading all over the planet as a huge single individual. Unfortunately, the stream-of-consciousness model has fooled enough people (even amongst us here) into believing that future enhancements are going to be linear permutations and combinations or simple plays on the old stuff, yes even though they talk of exponential growth (which is all down the same path for them). > You'll notice ecosystems don't do huge individuals, and that's not a > coincidence. Google. > > supported by all available knowledge and its latent connections, > > therefore remaining vulnerable to the threat of asymmetric > > competition with a broad-based system of cooperating > > technologically augmented specialists. > > Do you see much technological augmentation right now? I don't. Not direct augmentation, but I think Jef was trying to point out that even a well-organized set of technologists sitting behind computers can get lots of stuff done. And already these guys can do much more than, say, the Novamente ai system. > Getting a lot of bits out and especially in in a relevant fashion, > that's medical nanotechnology level of technology. Whereas, building Off-topic: have we ever done some quick calculations on bit/unit density for nanotech scenarios? Given our current pathetic nanotech setups, it's a few hundred units to a bit or to an operation, but with progress this ratio can be reversed. > biologically-inspired infoprocessing systems is much more tractable, > and in fact we're doing quite well in that area, even given our > abovementioned puny computers. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From spike66 at att.net Wed Jan 2 04:45:08 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 20:45:08 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of 1:25) Mars hit In-Reply-To: <200801012326.18080.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <200801020509.m0259toY004539@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Harvey Newstrom > Subject: Re: [ExI] Asteroid on track for possible (probability of 1:25) > Mars hit > > On Tuesday 01 January 2008 15:41, spike wrote: > > ... {8-[ The object is large > > enough that it could skim the treetops, but still wouldn't lose enough > > velocity to go elliptical. Its a direct hit or nothing. > > Treetops? On Mars? Now that IS interesting! > > -- > Harvey Newstrom Its a figure of speech Harvey. If you hear rocket scientists refer to a treetop orbit, that means the orbit with the lowest possible perigee (which usually don't hold for very long because of drag from the upper atmosphere.) There are reasons to get that perigee as low as possible for a lot of scientific purposes, but it gives headaches to the satellite engineers. We are often heard to grumble that we fly as low as the customer wants, we will need to clean the pine needles from our satellites. spike From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Jan 2 05:17:08 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 16:17:08 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Survival In-Reply-To: <477B15E0.4010606@pobox.com> References: <200712280211.lBS2BtEP006829@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200712311311.18110.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <20071231184047.GJ10128@leitl.org> <200712311513.29552.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <021e01c84bf3$e8d74fa0$03ef4d0c@MyComputer> <4779B3FF.90907@optusnet.com.au> <477B15E0.4010606@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 02/01/2008, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > If you > > read everything I have ever written that has appeared on the Internet, > > neither you nor a Jupiter brain will be able to deduce whether I > > prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream. > > You prefer vanilla. If you're trying to get me to confirm or deny that, it won't work. -- Stathis Papaioannou From eugen at leitl.org Wed Jan 2 08:33:09 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 09:33:09 +0100 Subject: [ExI