[ExI] The AGI and limiting it

[Richard Loosemore]

Lee Corbin wrote:
> Richard writes
> 
>> Lee Corbin wrote:
>>
>>> Again, my sincere apologies if this is all old to you
>>> [those who appeared to be new to the subject]
>>> But the reason that Robert Bradbury, John Clark,
>>> and people right here consider that we are probably
>>> doomed is because you can't control something that
>>> is far more intelligent than you are.
>> The analysis of AGI safety given by Eliezer is weak to the point of 
>> uselessness, because it makes a number of assumptions about the 
>> architecture of AGI systems that are not supported by evidence
>> or argument.
> 
> Sorry, but quite a number of us have found those arguments to be
> very convincing, though, of course by no means the final word.
> 
>> Your comment "I know this seems difficult to believe, but that is what 
>> people have concluded who've thought about this for years and years and 
>> years" makes me smile.
> 
> Yes, I should have acknowledged the existence of the dissenting views
> (which have traditionally received little support here on the Extropian
> list).
> 
>> Some of those people who have thought about it for years and years and 
>> years were invited to discuss these issues in greater depth, and examine 
>> the disputed assumptions.  The result?  They mounted a vitriolic 
>> campaign of personal abuse against those who wanted to suggest that 
>> Eliezer might not be right, and banned them from the SL4 mailing list.
> 
> I.e., you got banned. How many other people were banned from that list
> simply because they disagreed with the majority? 
> 
>> You will find that a much broader and more vigorous discussion of AI 
>> safety issues has been taking place on the AGI mailing list for some 
>> time now.
> 
> Thanks for the information. You probably should provide a link.

On reflection, Lee, perhaps I am being a little too testy on this 
matter.  ;-)

I have been fighting against a particularly frustrating sequence of 
discussions, on the other lists, where statements are being paraded as 
facts when they are actually deeply implausible assertions.

So perhaps I am seeing that everywhere right now.



Richard Loosemore