Global warming is fearmongering brainwashing FUD

[Brian Atkins]

John Hall wrote:
> 
> > Well that kind of attitude is unfortunate. The two viewpoints
> > are the exact same reaction most people have when initially
> > confronted with where technology is going, and how fast it is
> > going there. They either deny it will happen, or deny that
> > there is anything to be done to influence it. Or in your
> > case, both viewpoints right after each other :-)
> 
> I didn't deny it could happen, I simply don't know.
> 
> Influence is a slippery word.  Almost anything can influence anything.
> The problem is that if someone can write a research paper showing that
> the world can be toasted easily, then the world is toast.  It is a genie
> that can't be put back in the bottle.

Well then this is an important problem we are about to run smack into.
Because more and more technological power is becoming available to
smaller and smaller groups. How do you think we should handle this
increasingly important issue?

> 
> I read a really good short story once with exactly that premise, only
> with a twist.  The research was 'surprising', in that it used iron as a
> catalyst in a nuclear chain reaction (note: iron is at the bottom of the
> energy curve, it takes energy to turn iron into anything else).
> 
> So the scientist was pretty sure that if he didn't publish, nobody would
> stumble across it for a long time if ever.
> 
> So should he?  He recalled all the abuse he took as an egghead, came
> back to find his car overturned by the neighborhood tuffs as a prank,
> and decided to publish.
> 
> I liked it because I understood the feeling so well.

Well we are nearing this kind of world. One day you can't trade music
files, the next day there's Napster (ok, silly example). Right now it
may very well be impossible to create a real self-enhancing AI, but as
the hardware continues to double every 12-18 months the date approaches.
And it really is a winner-take-all scenario. Ditto with biotech, etc.
Do you think these technologies should be regulated? Do you think normal
regulation/government will even have an effect? Or should we take a
hard look at it all, and simply try to get there first before someone
else screws up?

> 
> > AI is the first technology
> > that can be given a conscience.
> 
> The question would be: could you give it a human one?
> 

We believe it can have something like that, much more compex than simple
Asimov Laws. Check out our Creating Friendly AI work, also some stuff of
ours on the kurzweilai.net site.
-- 
Brian Atkins
Director, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/