[extropy-chat] Eugen Leitl on AI design

[Eugen Leitl]

On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 09:07:49AM -0700, Zero Powers wrote:

> Hmmm.  I still don't get it.  Even if we are insignificant by comparison I
> still don't see *why* an AI would "turn us into lunch."  What would it get

Because you're made from atoms, just as the landscape. You are a part of the
environment, a raw resource, about to be strip-mined.

> out of it?  For instance pigeons are insignificant to us.  Aside from the

You're extrapolating from transient events. Humans are restructuring the
ecosystem as we speak, to the great detriment of everybody else but a handful
of opportunists. The extinction event we're causing is mounting to become a
biggie.

Pigeons don't live in vacuum, nor at high microwave flux. Neither do people.

> occasional delinquent with a BB gun, there is no widespread human assault on
> pigeons.  Moreover, pigeons are so stupid compared to our middling

Tell that to the parking lot, where, once upon the time, used to be pristine
prairie. I'm reasonably sure the black-footed ferret hasn't been taking that
personally.

> intelligences that we have *no* effective means of communicating with them.
> So if there were to arise a conflict between our interests and the pigeon
> population the only way of negotiating a resolution would be to wipe them
> out (or forcibly relocate them).

We don't solve rotifers' problems, when we pave over the lawn to create a
mall.
 
> With us, as stupid as we would be compared to your AI, there would still be
> some reasonable means of communication and negotiation.  And even if

We don't negotiate with those we make extinct. Because we don't even realize
we're doing it, and we sure as hell wouldn't hesitate a moment to give the
virtual finger of the rare spotted leopard frog, when we drain the
marshlands.

> communicating with our slow as molasses brains proved to be more than the AI
> could bear, I still don't see where the conflict is.  Would violating our

At 10^6 speedup a day is worth 3000 years wall clock time. Been talking to
sculptures again?

> rights somehow be of benefit to an AI?  Would they need us for batteries ala
> _The Matrix_?  Would they get tired of us using up bandwidth?

Myoelectricity, and a form of fusion. Right.
 
> I don't know, it just seems obvious to me that if the AI were powerful
> enough to pose any sort of credible threat to our welfare, it would surely
> be powerful enough to solve any problems of energy and bandwidth without
> causing us any inconvenience.

1) We're so insignificant we don't even appear on their agenda 
2) What should be the motivation, again? Do you spend lots of your waking
   hours to make life better for the common Collotheca?

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040603/f56e3335/attachment.bin>