<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<br><div><div>On Jun 17, 2007, at 1:54 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 17/06/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Samantha Atkins</b> <<a href="mailto:sjatkins@mac.com">sjatkins@mac.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Actually something more personally frightening is a future where no<br>amount of upgrades or at least upgrades available to me will allow me<br>to be sufficiently competitive. At least this is frightening an a<br>scarcity society where even basic subsistence is by no means <br>guaranteed. I suspect that many are frightened by the possibility<br>that humans, even significantly enhanced humans, will be second class<br>by a large and exponentially increasing margin.</blockquote><div><br>I don't see how there could be a limit to human enhancement. In fact, I see no sharp demarcation between using a tool and merging with a tool. If the AI's were out there own their own, with their own agendas and no interest in humans, that would be a problem. But that's not how it will be: at every step in their development, they will be selected for their ability to be extensions of ourselves. By the time they are powerful enough to ignore humans, they will be the humans. </div></div></blockquote><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>You may want to read Hans Moravec's book' Robot: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Robot-Mere-Machine-Transcendent-Mind/dp/0195136306/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-3758054-8207319?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182103767&sr=8-1">Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind . </a> Basically it comes down to how much of our thinking and conceptual ability is rooted in our evolutionary design and how much we can change and still be remotely ourselves rather than a nearly complete AI overwrite. Even as uploads if we retain our 3-D conceptual underpinnings we may be at a decided disadvantage in conceptual domains where such is at best a very crude approximation. </div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>An autonomous AI thinking a million times or more faster than you is not a "tool". As such minds become possible do you believe that all instances will be constrained to being controlled by ultra slow human interfaces? Do you believe that in a world where we have to argue to even do stem cell research and human enhancement is seen as a no-no that humans will be enhanced as fast as more and more powerful AIs are developed? Why do you believe this if so? </div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div> <br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">In those<br>circumstances I hope that our competition and especially Darwinian <br>models are not universal.<br></blockquote></div><br>Darwinian competition *must* be universal in the long run, like entropy. But just as there could be long-lasting islands of low entropy (ironically, that's what evolution leads to), so there could be long-lasting islands of less advanced beings living amidst more advanced beings who could easily consume them. <br clear="all"><br></blockquote><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>I disagree. Our darwinian competition models and notions are too tainted by our own EP imho. I do not think it is the only viable or inevitable model for all intelligences. But I have no way to prove this intuition. </div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><br></div><div>- samantha</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div></body></html>