SingularityUtopia
-85
1
18
SingularityUtopia has not written any posts yet.
SingularityUtopia has not written any posts yet.
Yes I did mention the fox... foxes are not particularly domesticated... anyway this "open" discussion is not very open now due to my negative Karma, it is too difficult to communicate, which I suppose is the idea of the karma system, to silence ideas you don't want to hear about, thus I will conform to what you want. I shall leave you to your speculations regarding AI.
Dear asr - The issue was the emotional worth in relation to thinking. Here is a better quote:
"Here’s the strange part: although these predictions concerned a vast range of events, the results were consistent across every trial: people who were more likely to trust their feelings were also more likely to accurately predict the outcome. Pham’s catchy name for this phenomenon is the emotional oracle effect."
Mitchell wrote: "These are all emotional statements that do not stand up to reason."
Perhaps reason is not best tool for being accurate?
PS. LessWrong is too slow: "You are trying to submit too fast. try again in 1 minute." ...and: "You are trying to submit too fast. try again in 7 minutes." LOL "You are trying to submit too fast. try again in 27 seconds."
Humans are docile, civilized, domesticated. We can live with cats and dogs. I recently read in the news about a man with a wild Fox for a pet which was hand-reared by humans thus civilized, docile.
AIs will be civilized too, although I am sure they will shake their heads in despair regarding some of the ideas expressed on LessWrong.
Different species can coexist.
Incidentally I wish technology on Less Wrong would accelerate quicker: "You are trying to submit too fast. try again in 6 minutes." and... "You are trying to submit too fast. try again in 8 minutes."
Dear JoshuaZ, regarding this:
"Consider the uploaded individual that decides to turn the entire planet into computronium or worse, turn the solar system into a Matrioshka brain. People opt out of that how?"
I consider such a premise to be so unlikely it is impossible. It is a very silly premise for three reasons.
Destroying the entire planet when there is a whole universe full of matter is insane. If insane people exist in the future post-intelligence-explosion upload-world then insane people will be dealt with thus no danger but insanity post-intelligence-explosion will be impossible, insanity is a consequence of stupidity, insanity will be extinct in the future.
Earth destructive actions are stupid: see above explanation
The only evidence I have is regarding my own perceptions of the world based upon my life knowledge, my extensive awareness of living. I am not trying to prove anything. I'm merely throwing my thoughts our there. You can either conclude my thoughts make sense or not. I think it is unintelligent to join the army but is my opinion correct? Personally I think it is stupid to die. People may agree my survival based definition of intelligence is correct or they may think death can be intelligent, such as the deaths of soldiers.
What type of evidence could prove "well-educated" army officers are actually dim-witted fools? Perhaps via the interconnectedness of... (read more)
It seems that you are using "intelligent" to mean something like "would make the same decisions SingularityUtopia would make in that context".
No, "intelligence" is an issue of survival, it is intelligent to survive. Survival is a key aspect of intelligence. I do want to survive but the intelligent course of action of not merely what I would do. The sensibleness, the intelligence of survival, is something beyond myself, it is applicable to other beings, but people do disagree regarding the definition of intelligence. Some people think it is intelligent to die.
... (read more)Almost no one, regardless of intelligence opts for cryonics. Moreover, cryonics was first proposed in 1962 by Robert Ettinger, 9 years
Dear gwern, it all depends on how you define intelligence.
Google translate knows lots of languages. Goggle is a great information resource. Watson (the AI) appears to be educated, perhaps Watson could pass many exams, but Google and Watson are not intelligent.
Regarding the few people who are rocket scientists I wonder if the truly rare geniuses, the truly intelligent people, are less likely to be violent?
... (read more)Few people are. Officers can be quite intelligent and well-educated people. The military academies are some of the best educational institutions around, with selection standards more comparable to Harvard than community college. In one of my own communities, Haskell programmers, the top purely functional data structure guys, Okasaki,
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/03/are-emotions-prophetic/
"If true, this would suggest that the unconscious is better suited for difficult cognitive tasks than the conscious brain, that the very thought process we’ve long disregarded as irrational and impulsive might actually be more intelligent, at least in some conditions."
I am not presenting a scientific thesis. This is only a debate, and a reasonably informal one? I am thinking openly. I am asking specific questions likely to elicit specific responses. I am speculating.
asr, you wrote:
The word we usually use for intelligent violence is "ruthless" or "cunning" -- and many people are described that way. Stalin, for instance, was apparently capable of long hours of hard work, had an excellent attention to detail, and otherwise appears to have been a smart guy. Just also willing to have millions of people murdered.
My point regarding mindless violence verses ruthlessness or cunning is that ruthlessness or cunning do not specifically define intelligence or violence in... (read more)
Intelligence can have various levels and stupid people can do intelligent things just as intelligent people can do stupid things. Einstein can be more intelligent than Stalin but Einstein can still be stupid.
No I am not engaging in the illusion of transparency, don't be absurd. My meaning of intelligence is not confused but there is an inevitable poverty regarding communication of any idea, which I communicate, because people need things spelling out in the most simplistic of terms because they cannot comprehend anything vaguely complex or unusual, but the real kicker is that when you spell things out, people look at you with a gormless expression, and they ask for more... (read more)