[ExI] From Friendly AI to Loving AI

Kelly Anderson kellycoinguy at gmail.com
Mon May 23 08:07:16 UTC 2011


On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 8:38 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>>... On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson
>>...I can't imagine you in the 9 to 5 world. :-)  I can't imagine you
> WANTING to be there, in any case. Join me in the crazy entrepreneurial world
> where crazy people like us are what's needed!
>
> Ja, well, I am being pressured to take over the family farm.  To farm
> legally cost money.  I need a 9 to 5 to support my farming habit.

I understand. Where I live is very expensive too. It's rural, but not
a farm. That's expensive enough.

>>... The structure of Mormonism is quite distant from sola sciptura because
> the living mouth of God lives on earth currently, and there is the
> opportunity to solve every question immediately, even though often such
> questions are simply left open as "unimportant to our salvation."
>
> Ja, those guys have it easy.  The SDA prophet died in 1915, and she wasn't
> making much profit several years prior to that.
>
>>...According to Dawkins you believed because your genetic makeup is tweaked
> to believe what your parents said. It makes a lot of sense when you think of
> the selection pressure against kids that eat poisonous plants that their
> parents told them not to try. So don't
> blame yourself... :-)   It's all those darn old selfish genes...
>
> Between Dawkins and Keith Henson, I have learned much.

Definitely.

>>...There is a certain logic to turning the other cheek, at least on the
> large scale. War is very costly economically...
>
> Ja, far cheaper is to have enough competent defense technology that the bad
> guy goes elsewhere.

But everyone is going to aim at the lone superpower, just out of
principle. But every now and then, you have to turn the other cheek to
avoid being too predictable. Go after Libya, but ignore Syria. :-)

>>...So it's easier for the rich to be ethical?
>
> Shrugs.  I guess it does lead there by any path of reasoning that I
> recognize as such.

Hmmm.... I shall have to ponder that one.

>>...That turns the typical thinking on it's head, doesn't it? :-)
>
> Sure does.  The rich person has enough money to cover his own mistakes and
> compensate the damaged.  Lovers come willingly to the rich, regardless of
> how ugly and flabby, perhaps knowing he can (and will) make it right if
> things go wrong.

Attracting mates is no measure of ethics... just one measure of a kind
of success.

> Now take that over to the individual mandate for health care insurance, and
> consider the really rich guy who has his own medical staff.  He doesn't need
> medical insurance; he could pay his own medical expenses should it become
> necessary.  The logic behind the individual mandate for health insurance
> (that one without it is using a service one is not paying for) does not
> apply to anyone who has so much money they wouldn't go into a hospital
> anyway.  Rather they would hire the medical expertise to come to them.  So
> now we have a case where the government couldn't logically require health
> insurance of the very rich, because they wouldn't use it anyway.

The mandate is questionable on a lot of levels, but my favorite
criticism is that it should be mandated at the state level, not the
federal. I have no doubt that it will be struck down on constitutional
grounds. Then the feds will just pressure most of the states to
mandate at that level.

> Aaaahnold made sure his second family was cared for, so I guess I hafta cut
> him some extra slack on that.  The lying part of course is a major no-no.

He did some things right, and some wrong. Just like the rest of us.

> So then is morality different between rich and poor?  Well, in some ways,
> sorta it is.

I'm not sure I'm ready to buy that one, but out of respect I'll not
give a knee jerk reaction, and will ponder it for a while... :-)

-Kelly




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list