"We"? You mean: you and me, baby? Or are you asking after a prediction about whether something like CEV will beat the other philosophies about what to do with an intelligent machine?
CEV is an alien document from my perspective. It isn't like anything I would ever write.
It reminds me a bit of the ideal of democracy - where the masses have a say in running things.
I tend to see the world as more run by the government and its corporations - with democracy acting like a smokescreen for the voters - to give them an illusion of control, and to prevent them from revolting.
Also, technology has a long history of increasing wealth inequality - by giving the powerful controllers and developers of the technology ever more means of tracking and controlling those who would take away their stuff.
That sort of vision is not so useful as an election promise to help rally the masses around a cause - but then, I am not really a politician.
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
I saw it as more of a warning about the limits of maps - when something happens that you think is impossible, then it is time to update your map, and not rail against the territory for failing to match it.
(Of course, it is possible that you have been fooled, somehow, into thinking that something has happened which has, in actual fact, not happened. This possibility should be considered and appropriately weighted (given whatever evidence you have of the thing actually happening) against the possibility that the map is simply wrong.)
If you've been fooled, there's still no point to calling it impossible, given that you're trying to find out what actually happened.