Publicity Explosion due to Political Tussling, Answering Bruce Sterling
Wow, maybe we should debate about politics more often. The recent bickering over politics between me, Mike Treder, and Phil Bowermaster has been making the rounds on h+ magazine, Next Big Future, and Bruce Sterling's Beyond the Beyond blog at Wired. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit also responded to Mike Treder.
At Beyond the Beyond, Bruce Sterling asks, "Why aren’t these advanced conceptualists arguing about suffrage for Artificial Intelligences?" My personal reason is that I don't think it will be a grey area. "Human-equivalent" AI will be inherently semi-godlike, due to such advantages as the ability to expand its own processing power, optimize its own intelligence at every level, code new cognitive modules to deal with specific tasks, split its mind into autonomic and deliberative threads, duplicate itself, learn very quickly and effectively, integrate directly with information technology, and the most mundane reason, the fact that smartness is what gives humans a fundamental advantage over every other animal (it certainly isn't brute strength, chimps have up to five times greater upper body strength than a man), and that increased smartness will give a slightly-smarter-than-any human intelligence a fundamental advantage over all humans.
Talking about extending voting rights to human-equivalent or human-surpassing AIs is like talking about extending the right to cheetahs to run. If AIs are programmed well enough that we aren't wiped out very quickly, then they'll likely be wise enough to help us analyze our most complex problems and advance possible solutions.
August 2nd, 2009 - 15:17
Michael,
After having poured through the arguments and comments sections of all those sites two things occur to me:
Of primary issue is the use of singe or double prefixed political bent descriptions ( libertarian, socialist/ leftist/ progressive) as umbrella terms with very little actual description of ones supported political issues. This seems to be systemic in the whole United States political spectrum, whit it’s Moderate Republicans and Blue-Dog Democrats. Since no one is these discussions is running for office on their posts ( yet ), it would seem the rational course of action would be to break down the issues supported by one or two levels and then present support set arguments. That way at least what little comminalities do exist ( personal freedoms, hatred for corruption) could at least be agreed on to some extent.
The other is that at least 50% of the statements made are provocative, and designed to further the divides between the various positions. It would benefit anyone who is truly serious about forming a cosensus of compatible goals to both consider carefully the size of the brush they use to paint others, and to overlook the attempts of some to fan the flames.
I also agree that the arguments are taking place in a sandbox in the middle of the Sahara. For example, one of the questions I often discuss with others is “what would be the imposed costs to provide the world with substinance existence, medical care, shelter, and education when one factors in the increased markets and rise in world knowledge this would allow? If in the future, the costs relative to the worlds output is greatly reduced, then what is the threshold that this becomes acceptable. If it is never acceptable then what is the threshold of cost that is acceptable for consumptive purposes?..eg. ‘Sports Cars,Diamond, and Crystal Champagne’. ”
As you might be able to tell, I’m of the opinion that most of our current pursuits are sexual positioning endeavors ( that is, we’re gene robots ) , but my belief is that it is possible that this will change in the near future based on who (or what) is making the decisions. When this comes about, the basis for the majority of arguments today will indeed dissolve. To a large degree I believe many of the arguments used in discussion today are based on circumstance that no longer apply, but that the limits of human abilities keep us from fully appreciating these things. Perhaps with the next upgrade.
August 4th, 2009 - 00:22
>the fact that smartness is what gives humans a fundamental advantage over every other animal (it certainly isn’t brute strength, chimps have up to five times greater upper body strength than a man), and that increased smartness will give a slightly-smarter-than-any human intelligence a fundamental advantage over all humans.
*sigh*. You know I still dissent. I say: Reflective consciousness provides our advantage, intelligence is secondary.
A direct empirical test is happening right now.
Look if you SIAI guys are right and intelligence is really what gives humans our advantage, then you guys should be able to reason your way to AGI way before me (I admit I don’t a super-IQ, my average IQ score is verified via testing at a measly 115, only 1 SD above average).
If on the other hand, I, relying on direct conscious experience rather an intelligence, was to get to AGI first (after you guys at SIAI got over your tremendous shock), you would have to admit that something was seriously wrong with your claim that intelligence is primary yes?
So, let the empirical test proceed. If you right and intelligence is the real basis for human advantage as you have repeatedly claimed, the SIAI will get to AGI way before dumb guys like me, fair and square. If on the other hand I am right and reflective consciousness beats intelligence, well.. you guys will ultimately lose won’t you ;)
Now I just want to say something a little weird for any one in the far future checking these archives – the little weird thing that I am about to say is based on my direct consciousness awareness of the nature of mind, rather than intelligence, so humor me for a moment.
27! (The number ‘twenty seven’)
Link:
http://27project.wordpress.com/