« on: 03/06/2019 01:19:03 »
Most mutations aren't damaging, but where they are, we'll eventually be able to do advanced gene therapy to correct the faults (in humans).Mutations are always defaults, so they inevitably cause suffering to the ones that carrey them. Where will your AGI put the bar? Will it correct homosexuallity for instance? Will it correct low intelligence? At the limit, won't it try to make us at its image like any god would do? And if it succeeds, what will be the difference between us and it? Why not all become robots?
Most people prefer to have a bit of control thoughControl lasts longer than freedom because constant motion lasts longer than acceleration. It's an inertia issue at the scale of societies, so as for species, more control means less chances to evolve during a change.
It won't be AGI making those decisions except where people want to do things that will be harmful.Most of the harm suffered by humans come from resistance to change, which has nothing to do with the one that comes from chance. Will the AGI be able to differentiate between the two? When a government gets coercitive for instance, those who are different get eliminated because they are considered dangerous, so they suffer from their viewpoint but not from the government's one. If your AGI doesn't know that these people are useful to the evolution of society the same way mutations are, it might not protect them, and things could get worse if it doesn't know its ideas cannot evolve without chance being part of its thinking process.
Democracy allows people to make mistakes that result in genocide because their judgement is so poor, but it will be possible to prevent that by having AGI provide them with better education and advice, proving to them that many of the things they believe in are plain wrong. They will be forced by their own realisations to change their minds on many issues without AGI being in direct power at all.I believe that genocides are not due to lack of jugement, but to lack of democracy. Will your AGI try to change my mind or try to understand what I mean? Of course, if it tries to understand, I'm with you, because it means that it will be able to doubt, which is due to chance being part of the intelligence process. :0)
The odds are that we're heading for extermination wars, and that's what I'm trying to head off.If I'm right about intelligence, an AGI that doesn't use chance will have less chance against a human that does. Wars are made by humans that avoid chance, and we are beginning to understand that such a behavior is exaggerated. The purpose of war is only to avoid chance being part of social evolution, and when humans will have understood that, they won't need an AGI to know what to do.
By the way, Ivanov contacted me to show me a new animation software he made with the help of a friend of him, and surprisingly, the russian translator he uses is very good in english, so at last, we had a real conversation. Since I was criticising his work, he referred me to a paper he wrote on the way absolute motion could be measured during acceleration, showing an interferometer with a laser as a source, and saying that he did not yet succeed to do so because of the laser suffering a frequency change due to motion, adding that a standard source would not suffer the same effect, which is plain wrong, so I referred him to your paper on relativity and told him to contact you if he wanted to discuss it. Here is the link to his paper in case you want to consult it: http://rhythmodynamics.com/index_files/Report_blok_Eng.pdf