[wisevehicle]

I hope that anyone who incorporates this concept into their AI also measures the number of mistakes which become heuristics and biases in the AI. I would hypothesize that there is a link between the willingness or ability of the human mind to learn this way and the propensity to accept ( even DESIRE ) an answer to a question that, in truth, there is not adequate information to answer correctly.

This tendency leads to both helpful and dangerous heuristics and biases. From these biases humans build false beliefs that are damaging to themselves, their communities, and in the long run the species as a whole. If AI is about enabling humans to do more and better, should we not accept the failings of the current technologies in favor of assuring that they do not fall prey to the same biases and heuristics that lead humans to slaughter each other over the religious dogma of the past, destroy the environment with impunity, and accept ideas that 'feel' correct over being correct?

[rm_-rf_slash]

A reason to fear human AI would be that they would realize how destructive humans are and how little they perceive us necessary to the evolution of the species.

[wahsd]

You make a point that really needs far more consideration. Do we really want human AI? It strikes me that the very notion of a human like AI at exponential capacity is a terrifying thing not for its potential for advancement and good, but for its potential for falling for the same fallacies that humans fall for on a regular basis and are mostly relative as is. Humans are wildly imperfect even, and especially when they think they are correct or right. That does not sound like a characteristic I would want an AI system to have.