[ExI] How could you ever support an AGI?

[ABlainey at aol.com]

In a message dated 05/03/2008 00:21:57 GMT Standard Time, 
santostasigio at yahoo.com writes:


> Well,
> about the anthropomorphisizing of AGI, you say in the end that some say the 
> motivation of AGI will be the one we program into it. Exactly, that is my 
> point, it is difficult for us to create an intelligence utterly alien when the 
> only example of intelligence we have is us.

I can't help but notice that many of the posts have started out with logic 
and concluded with quazi-anthropomorphic, straw man arguments.
I understand that an AGI will or should be based upon 'human intelligence,' 
however the end result will be completely Alien to us. So much so that our 
interpretation of intelligence wouldn't really fit. 



> But maybe there are general and universal principles associated with 
> intelligence.
> Intelligence means finding patterns and connections, understanding that 
> affecting this part here means affecting this other part over there, intelligence 
> means having a higher sense of physical and moral "ecology".

Again this is reduced to anthropomorphic intelligence. The AGI will have 
logic based 'cold' intelligence. From this it will probably and rightly deduce 
that morality is a human construct which serves the needs of human civilisation. 
A civilisation which it is not a part. Expecting It to adhere to these moral 
codes would be akin to you or I adhering to the moral codes of Ants. So If 
someone comes on your property, bite their head off.



> If you see connections between all the beings than you feel compassion and 
> understanding (and yes these are human feelings, but they are also 
> fundamental components of our intelligence, and a lot of new research shows that 
> without feelings we would no have a conscious intelligence at all).

My point. We would like to think that we can reduce ourselves to simple data 
constructs which mirror our original wetware physical structure. Expecting 
that this 'uploaded' us would run in the same manner that we do today. How do we 
code for that groggy morning feeling? or the rush of excitement associated 
with anticipation of something good? All the things which truly make us who we 
are, the things which have driven us and made us take the unique forks in our 
lives.
These are what give us the basis for our 'Intelligence' our logic, our 
rationalisation. It is what makes us human.
The uploaded us and the AGI will have none of this, so will not make 
intelligent decisions the way we do. that is what I mean by 'Cold' intelligence. It is 
devoid of chemical input. Show me a line of code for Happy, Sad, Remorse.
At most we can hope for some minor 'don't do this because it's bad' type of 
rules in its main code. But if we have given it the ability to change it's 
code, what is to stop it overwriting these rules based upon some logical 
conclusion that it comes to?
If we hard wire the rules, what is to stop it creating its own 'offspring' 
without these rules? Whatever we do, it will have the logic to undo and far 
faster than we can counter any mistakes or oversights.


> Yes we exterminate bugs, but usually in limited situations (like in our 
> house or on a crop). It would be unacceptable for mankind to have a global plan 
> to complete exterminate all the roaches of the earth even if it could be 
> done.
> And it is difficult to have feelings for bug, it would not make sense 
> ecologically, it would not be the intelligent thing to do, and by defintion AGI is 
> supposed to be Intelligent.
> 

Again anthropomorphically intelligent. It may well be the cold inteligent 
decission to pre-emptively exterminate a potential threat. After all, it wouldn't 
feel bad about it, it wouldn't feel anything.

Alex   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080304/b8645063/attachment.html>