|
|
|
|
|
|
by Sharlin
3671 days ago
|
|
|
> Also, I resent the idea to "direct researchers away from implementing dangerous goal systems that are not provably coherent in face of self-improvement". That's censorship at best. Also, given the computational power available for $5000 these days, how exactly are you going to stop any of these researchers ? No, it's called spreading knowledge. Although, if censorship were possibly in this matter (and I agree that it likely wouldn't work) I would very much prefer such measures, however draconian, to the potential loss of everything compatible with human values in the entire future light cone. Anyway, do you also object to the measures that were enacted to stop the use of CFCs? Leaded gasoline? Or the work that is currently being done to prevent the global climate change from reaching catastrophic levels? |
|
|
These examples are not the same thing at all. Nobody's outlawing research in any of those examples you're giving. I believe anyone should have the option to create AI persons, just like anyone should have the option to have babies. Having our society gradually transform from human to digital should be a very desirable and welcome strategy, and our best bet to prevent Skynet-like scenarios, and even war in general, between humans. It is our best bet to allow continuing scientific and economic advancement for thousands of years, and for that reason alone we should do it. Frankly, economic development means peace.
In the long term, doesn't it go without saying that human bodies are a limit that we (as a society, not necessarily as individuals) will one day leave behind ?
[1] http://cdiac.ornl.gov/GCP/images/countries_co2_emissions.jpg