Dear all,<br><br>I am a newcomer to the extropy chat list but have been lurking at other singularity/transhumanist mailing lists for about a year and was occasionally posting as well. The following text is from my blog - <a href="http://www.jame5.com" target="_blank">
www.jame5.com</a> - where I recently published my book on the Singularity (free download) and share my thoughts on the singularity, evolution, human nature friendly AI and everything in between ;-)<br><br>Would appreciate your comments:
<br><div>
<p>Reading <a href="http://www.nickbostrom.com/" title="Nick Bostrom's home page" target="_blank">Nick Bostrom</a>'s paper on <a href="http://http//www.nickbostrom.com/fut/evolution.pdf" title="The Future of Human Evolution" target="_blank">
the future of human evolution</a> was fascinating. In essence he makes the
point that continuing to increase fitness will result in a dystopian
world when measured with present human values and I agree. From the
perspective of a present day human the evolution towards non-eudaemonic
agents as Bostrom puts it seems like a scenario one has evolved to
dislike. Since we have evolved to regard as good what has increased
fitness in our ancestors we would have to fail to see anything
unrecognizable human as a desirable future state. But is the deep
desire to improve oneself not just as well part of human nature? Where
but to something posthuman shall such self improvement lead if we for
ever regard what is desirable from our current perspective?</p>
<p>Self improvement can be seen as a series of gradual changes.
Consider the following scenario. A person approaches the matter of self
improvement in a way to ensure that every improved following version of
his self will be desirable from the unimproved version's point of view.
How desirable will the 100th improvement look from the point of view of
the original? How about the 1 millionth? No matter at what improvement
step the original will draw the line - at some point the improved
version will turn into something that is unrecognizable,
incomprehensible yes even scary to the original.</p>
<p>How do you picture the encounter between an early rodent - one of
our direct ancestors a few 10 million years ago - and a modern day
human. The rodent would probably flee in panic and some humans likely
as well. But would the rodent lament over the sad abandonment of
gnawing on stones? After all it is enjoyable and keeps ones teeth in
shape. Or would it - having the full understanding of a human being -
appreciate that other concepts, worries and habits are what a human
holds dear in modern times? Which perspective take priority? "Of cause
the human one!" is what one would expect from the anthropic
chauvinists' camp . But would the one millionth improved version as
discussed earlier not argue the same for its manifestation?</p>
<p>Reconciling the desire to satisfy the ever changing current
representation of an individual with the desire for self improvement
and the implications for the future of human evolution becomes the
challenge that needs to be addressed. Bostrom does so by suggesting
what he calls a Singleton - an entity policing continued human
evolution to maintain the status quo.</p>
<p>In the context of my <a href="http://www.jame5.com/?p=8" title="On Benevolence" target="_blank">friendly AI theory</a> I suggest a similar approach to Bostrom's Singleton however honoring <a href="http://www.goertzel.org/" title="Ben Goertzel, PhD" target="_blank">
Ben Goertzel</a>'s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Pattern-Patternist-Philosophy-Mind/dp/1581129890" title="The Hidden Pattern: A Patternist Philosophy of Mind (Paperback)" target="_blank">'voluntary, joyous, growth' concept
</a> and thus allowing for the possibility of continuous self improvement.</p>
<p>Specifically I argue for a friendly AI to</p>
<p>A) change the environment(s) humans are in to increase an
individual's fitness as opposed to changing the genetic/memetic makeup
of and individual to adopt it better to it's environment.</p>
<p>B) reconcile our desire for self improvement with the problematic
results discussed above by making growth optional as well as rewarding.</p>
</div>Kind regards,<br><br>Stefan<br>-- <br>Stefan Pernar
<br>3-E-101 Silver Maple Garden<br>#6 Cai Hong Road, Da Shan Zi<br>Chao Yang District<br>100015 Beijing<br>P.R. CHINA<br>Mobil: +86 1391 009 1931<br>Skype: Stefan.Pernar