[ExI] Wired article on AI risk

Stefano Vaj stefano.vaj at gmail.com
Wed May 30 20:40:56 UTC 2012

On 30 May 2012 01:18, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:

> Let's not get into the quantum processors, that will just make my
> brain hurt. Of course, it's the case because quantum computers exist
> only in theory.

Seth Lloyd would argue that the universe would be a quantum computer...

> But it is not true that they can all run the same programs because
> some programs require more memory.

Indeed. One important qualification of computational equivalence is that
memory is unlimited (but floppy disks have been cheap for a long time...)
and that time is irrelevant.

> Also, if the requirement of the
> program is that it run in real time (or the plane will crash, for
> example) then this fact is only helpful in theory, not in practice.

Sure. Speaking of "intelligence", however, human beings on a
relativistic-speed starship would still be considered intelligent even by
those living at a relately much faster pace, wouldn't they?

Ok. I actually get that. Sure, absolutely right. It is difficult
> emotionally to give up free will. Maybe this will come to make the
> sting of losing free will less sharp.

We maintain however a "kind of" free will, because our reactions cannot be
calculated unless one runs the humain being concerned through all the
necessary steps. :-)

>  We share DNA as a species, and my Darwin-Dawkins-given right to
> selfishness for my genes extends, in some measure, to all humans.

Mmhhh. In fact, a species is a competitive pool, since I have no direct
sexual competitors beyond its boundaries. But my genes do not care much if
my species survives if they do not.

 > And while children share 50% of the genetic endowment of each
> > parent, already grand-children share only 25%, and so on. Accordingly, in
> > terms "caring for one's DNA", AGIs increasing by 10% the life of one's
> > children at the price of the immediate extinction of the rest of
> humankind,
> > and the extinction of the offspring itself of the invidual concerned but
> > only after a few generation, should be heartily welcome by the said
> proles.
> I'm not sure of that.. maybe you need to hone your marketing message... LOL

I am not saying that this would be a popular ideology. On the contrary, I
am saying that most people do not think along those lines.

Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120530/14fddc5a/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list