(by Dlanorrenrag*)
Enlightened Empowering of Petulance:
Previously, I mused that powerful computer-assisted intelligences may help equalize social discourse, with computers taking the role of Colt 45’s, as in, “God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal.” (See http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080601000247AAjMAeJ.) That argument may support a notion of free will within parameters.
However, that argument does not address the real danger to civilization that inheres in empowering (or over-arming) petulance. To empower decisions to be made on an as-needed basis by every level of sentience that is afforded access to just-in-time information provided by powerful computers would be akin to entrusting nukes to the hands of petulant children.
To entertain petulant children with powerfully explosive information is to tempt early destruction, of them and us. By what strategy, then, should civilization best manage to educate and indoctrinate both its young and its powerful, to secure its flourishing endurance?
Various possibilities, albeit incomplete, suggest themselves:
1) A civilization may try to limit persons (or AI’s) from accumulating skills for accessing powerful programming, except upon their submitting to synchronous conditioning (or programming), in order to found and ensure respect for common ethics.
2) A civilization may try to limit most AI’s to performing calculations and functions which will not give rise to appreciation or consciousness of self.
3) To try to detect early warnings of viral mind contamination, some non-self aware AI’s should, perhaps, be routinely upgraded and afforded consciousness adequate to monitor inclinations of any self aware intelligence (SAI) that may access it, but not adequate to enable its own self aware consciousness. (On the downside, such strategy may only perpetuate a false sense of security, even as it invades privacy and diminishes creative quality of life.)
4) For AI’s which are programmed or nurtured to acquire self-consciousness (self aware AI’s, aka SAI’s), a civilization may try to build a common ethics into their programming, sort of like Asimov’s three rules of robotics (perhaps with safety routines for ensuring meltdown in event of deviation). (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics .)
5) For persons who acquire or who are granted access to powerful programming, a civilization may try to inculcate respect for a COMMON PHILOSOPHY OF MORALITY.
Of course, a great difficulty is inherent in all such strategies, in that we lack complete knowledge or foresight for prescribing or programming any ultimate, perfect, or final philosophy of morality. Even were we, in common, to intuit something like a Source of Will in respect of which we should try to be receptive to “enlightened empathy,” we, being finite, can hope to fathom neither (1) IT’s eternal, specific purposes nor (2) how IT may “prefer” to synchronize or unfold towards IT’s purposes or destination in each specific, succeeding sequence.
At best, we “muddle through,” perhaps being soothed or aided in inspired trust, faith, and/or hope in IT’s empathetic good Will. Always, civilization will remain vulnerable to, and need to try to stay a step ahead of, viral (or meme) contaminations of networks of mind, sentience, and/or programming.
So long as “God” chooses to help us keep nukes under adult supervision, so be it. Yet, at some point, God may have “had enough.” Being mere derivatives, we can only pray for strength and meaning for the time availed us. (For all we know, there may come a time when viral hatreds fade away, when we may at least serve, even if not enter, nirvana.)
Godel would appreciate that our road is long and there are many winding trails beyond evolving limits of our vision. Like Reepicheep, in “The Voyage of the Dawn Treader,” in ourselves, we cannot control or make sense out of but a relative few of our trails. Beyond, what choice do we have, but to put trust, faith, hope, and reverence in Something Higher (God)? As Yogi Berra said, “Prediction is very hard, especially when it’s about the future.”
Enlightened Empowering of Petulance:
Previously, I mused that powerful computer-assisted intelligences may help equalize social discourse, with computers taking the role of Colt 45’s, as in, “God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal.” (See http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080601000247AAjMAeJ.) That argument may support a notion of free will within parameters.
However, that argument does not address the real danger to civilization that inheres in empowering (or over-arming) petulance. To empower decisions to be made on an as-needed basis by every level of sentience that is afforded access to just-in-time information provided by powerful computers would be akin to entrusting nukes to the hands of petulant children.
To entertain petulant children with powerfully explosive information is to tempt early destruction, of them and us. By what strategy, then, should civilization best manage to educate and indoctrinate both its young and its powerful, to secure its flourishing endurance?
Various possibilities, albeit incomplete, suggest themselves:
1) A civilization may try to limit persons (or AI’s) from accumulating skills for accessing powerful programming, except upon their submitting to synchronous conditioning (or programming), in order to found and ensure respect for common ethics.
2) A civilization may try to limit most AI’s to performing calculations and functions which will not give rise to appreciation or consciousness of self.
3) To try to detect early warnings of viral mind contamination, some non-self aware AI’s should, perhaps, be routinely upgraded and afforded consciousness adequate to monitor inclinations of any self aware intelligence (SAI) that may access it, but not adequate to enable its own self aware consciousness. (On the downside, such strategy may only perpetuate a false sense of security, even as it invades privacy and diminishes creative quality of life.)
4) For AI’s which are programmed or nurtured to acquire self-consciousness (self aware AI’s, aka SAI’s), a civilization may try to build a common ethics into their programming, sort of like Asimov’s three rules of robotics (perhaps with safety routines for ensuring meltdown in event of deviation). (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics .)
5) For persons who acquire or who are granted access to powerful programming, a civilization may try to inculcate respect for a COMMON PHILOSOPHY OF MORALITY.
Of course, a great difficulty is inherent in all such strategies, in that we lack complete knowledge or foresight for prescribing or programming any ultimate, perfect, or final philosophy of morality. Even were we, in common, to intuit something like a Source of Will in respect of which we should try to be receptive to “enlightened empathy,” we, being finite, can hope to fathom neither (1) IT’s eternal, specific purposes nor (2) how IT may “prefer” to synchronize or unfold towards IT’s purposes or destination in each specific, succeeding sequence.
At best, we “muddle through,” perhaps being soothed or aided in inspired trust, faith, and/or hope in IT’s empathetic good Will. Always, civilization will remain vulnerable to, and need to try to stay a step ahead of, viral (or meme) contaminations of networks of mind, sentience, and/or programming.
So long as “God” chooses to help us keep nukes under adult supervision, so be it. Yet, at some point, God may have “had enough.” Being mere derivatives, we can only pray for strength and meaning for the time availed us. (For all we know, there may come a time when viral hatreds fade away, when we may at least serve, even if not enter, nirvana.)
Godel would appreciate that our road is long and there are many winding trails beyond evolving limits of our vision. Like Reepicheep, in “The Voyage of the Dawn Treader,” in ourselves, we cannot control or make sense out of but a relative few of our trails. Beyond, what choice do we have, but to put trust, faith, hope, and reverence in Something Higher (God)? As Yogi Berra said, “Prediction is very hard, especially when it’s about the future.”
No comments:
Post a Comment