<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Richard Loosemore wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:46E9761F.5060302@lightlink.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Samantha Atkins wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Brent,
Calling those that point out the dangers of AGI "fear mongers"
immediately denigrates their position. That is not a reasonable
beginning to eliciting thoughtful discussion. Please start again with
a less biased attitude.
- samantha
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
No, what he said was not "biased", because these people that he
described as fear mongers are not neutrally and with due diligence
"pointing out the dangers of AI' as you choose (with some bias, maybe?)
to phrase it, they are exaggerating the dangers in an (apparent) attempt
to attract attention to themselves.
</pre>
</blockquote>
As I know many of these folks and just how diligent they in fact are
the above seems rather incredible. When we are talking about that
which likely makes humanity obsolete or at least not the top dog
intelligence wise in the local puddle I would think a fair amount of
caution would be the default sensible position. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:46E9761F.5060302@lightlink.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
As you know, I point out to the SIAI-related community that there were
other possible approaches to the whole enterprise that is Artificial
Intelligence research, and that some of those other approaches hold out
the possibility of build extremely stable systems that do not suffer
from the many problems they so loudly complain about.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Please refresh my memory as I seem to have forgotten the nature of
these systems that were both adequately powerful and most likely safe.
I am very interested in such possibilities. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:46E9761F.5060302@lightlink.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
What was their response to this suggestion? Were they eager to
investigate this possibility? Did they devote some time to having a
public debate about the issues? Did they welcome the possibility that
things might not be as dire as they thought?
</pre>
</blockquote>
I remember there was a lot of bad feeling between yourself, Eliezer and
some others. I remember a fair amount of mud-slinging on all sides.
The general taste of it was to wonder if the AGIs replacing such crazed
semi-intelligent monkeys as ourselves would be such a bad thing after
all. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:46E9761F.5060302@lightlink.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">No. What they did was mount a childish series of venomous, ad hominem
attacks against both the ideas and the person who suggested them. These
attacks were led by Eliezer Yudkowsky himself. They did not have the
slightest interest in the issue itself.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I think that is a bit overstated and one-sided. But this is not an
invitation to prove your point with a rehash. <br>
<br>
- samantha<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>