<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
Samantha,<br>
<br>
<<<<br>
Can we stop wasting very valuable time and brains on protecting against
the most unlikely of possibilities and get on with actually increasing
intelligence on this poor besotted rock?<br>
>>><br>
<br>
Absolutely! That is the moral imperative of this exercise. It is
immoral to waste time because of what we might all loose by any such
immoral or mistaken behavior. Personally, I believe we could
unnecessarily loose yet another of our family members to rotting in the
grave, for every mistaken hour we spend pushing in the wrong direction,
and that ain't moral right? Not to mention some of the calamities you
are so rightly concerned about.<br>
<br>
If we can get your support, we will be that much more successful at
finally pushing this besotted rock off the table (especially if no
Friendly AI people are committed to their camp enough to produce and
support a competing camp). These clarifications here are good, they
indicate that you admit other camps could turn out to be the ones that
are correct, as do I. But that isn't the purpose here. We must select
the best hypothesis to guide our moral decisions right? If I believed
more in what Russell (or others) was saying, that would mean I would
make very different moral decisions as to how to live my life. But I
must select the single best and most likely belief for my working
hypothesis to influence and direct my moral decisions in life. If new
evidence comes in, or I gain some new insight based on other's
"position statements" convincing me there is a better way, then I will
admit I was wrong, change camps (loosing reputation according to good
Canonizes), and start living my life according to the new working
hypothesis. (And trust the first people in that better camp much more
the next time around via appropriately programmed Canonizers.) I am
always glad there is great diversity of camps so hopefully all the
important bases will be covered. (that is with correspondingly and
quantitatively less effort on the lessor camps...)<br>
<br>
So, other than the reservations you seem to have about being absolutely
right, your preferred camp, and current working hypothesis, still fits
in with this structure right?<br>
<ol>
<li>No benefit for effort on Friendly AI</li>
<ol>
<li>AI will be motivated</li>
<ol>
<li><span style="font-size: 12pt;" times="" new="" roman="" ;="">Everything,
including moral motivation, will increase. (Brent)<br>
</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 12pt;" times="" new="" roman="" ;="">We
can’t do anything about it, so don’t waist effort on it. (Samantha)<br>
</span></li>
</ol>
<li>AI will not be motivated (Russell)</li>
</ol>
</ol>
Could we get you to come up with a brief and concise name, one line,
and text for your camp? I'm sure I couldn't get as close as you could,
trying to sympathetically glean your beliefs from what you have said so
far right? And either way would you be willing to support such a camp
as Russell has supported his camp to help finally get this rock off the
table?<br>
<br>
Upward,<br>
<br>
Brent Allsop<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>