tech: Filtered Extropians

[<eugene.leitl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: damien@mindstalk.net

hal@finney.org        Re: "Robo sapiens" reviewed by Vernor Vinge
James Rogers          Re: "the species' immune system"
hal@finney.org        Re: "the species' immune system"
hal@finney.org        Re: "the species' immune system"
Eugene Leitl          Re: "the species' immune system"
Eugene Leitl          Re: "the species' immune system"
GBurch1@aol.com       Re: "the species' immune system"
Eugene Leitl          Re: ( roots were based on Back off! I'm gay!)
Eugene Leitl          Re: ...The evolution of Stellar Based Superminds...
Eugene Leitl          Re: ...The evolution of Stellar Based Superminds...
Eugene Leitl          <HUMOR?> Rumors of war...
Amara Graps           [>Htech] Outburst from a galaxy leaves scientists in a quandry
hal@finney.org        Re: AI: Rodney A. Brooks online papers
Damien Broderick      AIs as part of nature
John Clark            An Anti aging pill?
John Clark            Re: An Anti aging pill?
Amara Graps           an Autumn introduction
Damien Broderick      APOLOGY: Re: Responsibility for children
Eugene Leitl          RE: Asian Swamp Eels
Amara Graps           Re: Asian Swamp Eels
Eugene Leitl          AT&T vows no censorship on new network
Eugene Leitl          Re: Attacks (was Re: Why would AI want to be friendly?)
Damien Broderick      AUSSIES - TV Thurs nite
Damien Broderick      Re: AUSSIES - TV Thurs nite


From: hal@finney.org
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:45:03 -0700
Subject: Re: "Robo sapiens" reviewed by Vernor Vinge

> The review below is from SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN online October 2000 issue at:
> http://sciam.com/2000/1000issue/1000reviews1.html

> Apocalyptic Optimism
> Menzel and D'Aluisio foresee a superintelligent hybrid species
>
> Robo sapiens:
> Evolution of a New Species
> by Peter Menzel and Faith D'Aluisio
> The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2000 ($29.95)

This book is on sale for half price at fatbrain.com,
http://www1.fatbrain.com/asp/bookinfo/bookinfo.asp?theisbn=0262133822,
until the 29th.  Shipping is extra, of course.

I haven't seen the book, but I had the impression it was more of a picture
book, a coffee table book, something to leaf through but without much meat
(that was how the Wired article based on the book was).  Vernor Vinge's
review makes it sound much better than this.  Has anyone here looked
at it?

Hal

>
> REVIEWER_VERNOR VINGE
> Computers are the most important thing to come along since ...." It would be
> interesting to ask people from over the past 30 years to complete the
> preceding sentence. In the 1970s most people might finish the sentence with
> "television" or "the automobile" or even "atomic energy." In the 1990s the
> ante was raised, and I imagine that the average person would complete the
> sentence with "the industrial revolution" or even "the invention of
> writing." Now, as the 21st century dawns, some would say: "Computers are the
> most important thing to come along since the rise of humankind on Earth."
> Even this last comparison may be conservative. Computer hardware power is
> doubling every two years or so. If that trend continues, then in another 20
> years, our machines will be more powerful than many estimates of human
> brainpower.


From: James Rogers <jamesr@best.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 08:24:02 -0700
Subject: Re: "the species' immune system"

On Tue, 03 Oct 2000, Ron H. wrote:
> In a message dated 10/3/00 12:58:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jr@shasta.com 
> writes:<< I had referred to willing warriors, eager soldiers, those who 
> fought for god and country. >>
> 
> Somewhere I heard that only about four percent of men are truly warrior 
> material.  Can you shed any light on this?  Anyone?


While four percent sounds like a rather arbitrary number (I would be
interested in knowing the source for this), fitness as a warrior does seem
to follow a Pareto distribution.  A lot of research has been done regarding
the actual behavior of men in combat versus the idealized or expected
behavior, mostly in the mid-20th century.  As has been noted by many
military researchers, the *majority* of men won't even fire their weapon
during combat, some not even in defense of their own lives.  Additionally,
for a given infantry unit, a handful of individuals are usually
responsible for inflicting the vast majority of casualties on the enemy. 
These and other comprehensive studies of *actual* combat behavior were
significant factors in the shift of US military doctrine in the 20th
century, which had previously been driven by a rather idealized vision of
the average soldier.

Now that I think about it, that four percent figure is probably pretty
close to the correct figure for the percentage of men who have both the
mental and physical competencies required for superior combat
performance.  Obviously, people who have what it takes tend to concentrate
in the more "elite" units as they self-select for these traits; the
concentration of good warriors diffuses rapidly as one descends the
military unit heirarchy and into the support units.  To a signficant
extent, the mental aspect (which is most of it) is environmental and can
be trained into people, although the military has to work from the
baseline of the population it draws from.

To expand the topic, in my experience, while a small but
significant percentage of women have the emotional hardness required (our
current environment doesn't seem to encourage this very much), only a very
tiny percentage have the innate combat awareness to make them truly
effective warriors.  This is probably a gender specific mental adaptation,
and it really becomes apparent under observation.  Women approach a hot
combat situation very differently than men, and arguably much less
efficiently due to apparently inferior situational awareness during
combat.  The differences seem (to me anyway) to be based largely on how the
two genders obtain and maintain their situational awareness.

-James Rogers
 jamesr@best.com


From: hal@finney.org
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:40:09 -0700
Subject: Re: "the species' immune system"

Mike Lorrey writes:
> In your typical platoon during WWII, in any given firefight, typically 3-5
> soldiers actually would shoot back, the rest trying to dig themselves as deep
> into the ground as possible. Most people have an innate reluctance to shoot a
> human shaped object.
...
> Special forces owe a large portion of their success to the fact that they are
> 100% proven shooters
...
> (and they are more mobile because they
> don't have to worry about carrying out cowardly deadweight).

In describing people who won't kill as "cowardly deadweight", you seem
to be suggesting that reluctance to kill human beings is cowardly.
Is this what you meant to say?

Hal


From: hal@finney.org
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 11:26:56 -0700
Subject: Re: "the species' immune system"

Mike Lorrey writes:
> A person who enlists due to the weakness of their pride, ego, etc., being afraid
> of what people would think if they did not serve, and too wimpy to declare
> themselves a concientious objector, then gets into combat and refuses to stand
> by his comrades who are risking their lives to save his ass from the enemy, yes,
> by damn, that person IS a coward. There is no other word to describe such a
> person.

And you said that only a small minority of soldiers DON'T fall into this
category, right?  Only a few soldiers in a platoon would actually fight?
What you're saying implies that the vast majority soldiers are cowards,
in your opinion.

Hal


From: Eugene Leitl <eugene.leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 00:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: "the species' immune system"

J. R. Molloy writes:
 
 > Then again, perhaps we can transcend violence. What do you think?

Sure, if you can show us how to sustainably strip Darwin, big boy. So
all you have is to prove that imperfect replication in face of limited
resources is not always applicable, or that there is a higher
principle granting higher fitness while not utilizing above means.

This needs to know the total shape of the fitness function en detail,
including the current state of the population and ability to adjust
faster than the system as a whole can adapt. In case you're wondering, 
this spells out effective 1) omniscience 2) omnipresence 3) omnipotence

A God could homestead a whole universe that way, provided it would
want to, a god could do that for a small pocket of reality (assuming,
it would want to), for a while (until a bigger god would come, and
dislodge him). So all you have to show how less than godlike beings
can create a god with above properties, where we're right at Eliezer's
dilemma. Last time I looked they didn't offer Certified God Engineer
degrees over there in Redmond (on second thought, these folks would be
probably in charge of the nether regions).


From: Eugene Leitl <eugene.leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 01:34:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: "the species' immune system"

David Lubkin writes:
 
 > Not exactly a bunny lover but not what you'd expect for a "stone cold killer".
 > And I *would* trust him in the White House, certainly more than Clinton, Bore,
 > or Gush.

That would make him the guard dog, not the wolf. Notice that he's not
immune from delayed onset of (<forgot the terminus technicus>)
symptoms (Jerry Leaf, another data point). Despite the conditioning,
the majority of us can't kill humans with impunity. (I do wonder about
paintball and VR type of combat simulator games, media violence being
a relatively minor point).


From: GBurch1@aol.com
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:07:59 EDT
Subject: Re: "the species' immune system"

[ a semi-random response to current correspondence as I also make a 
commitment to catch up on a MONTH of backed-up in-box contents . . .]

In a message dated 10/5/00 4:39:22 AM Central Daylight Time, 
eugene.leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de writes:

> That would make him the guard dog, not the wolf. Notice that he's not
>  immune from delayed onset of (<forgot the terminus technicus>)
>  symptoms (Jerry Leaf, another data point). Despite the conditioning,
>  the majority of us can't kill humans with impunity. (I do wonder about
>  paintball and VR type of combat simulator games, media violence being
>  a relatively minor point).

Interesting observation.  Having grown up with firearms and having had early 
formal training in gun safety at my dad's insistence, I had an experience 
bearing on this a few years ago.  Playing paintball with some friends, I had 
gotten myself positioned as a "forward scout" protecting our flag-theft team 
from a well camoflaged position near the main route to the Bad Guy's goal.  
We had infiltrated through the Bad Guy's flag-guards without detection.  I 
suddenly saw the opposing player who would be the one to detect our 
infiltration team's return from grabbing the flag.  He didn't see me and I 
had a clear shot at him through the heavy East Texas brush.  I drew a bead on 
him but, for a moment had the oddest sensation of deep safeguards within my 
mind kicking in: "Don't Point Guns at People.  Don't Shoot People" a strong, 
clear voice from my childhood spoke in my head.  I had to consciously tell 
myself that the weapon in my hand wasn't a "real" gun before I could pull the 
trigger.

I'd played paintball before and hadn't had this experience.  The difference 
was the "cold blooded" nature of the shot I was about to take.  In the "heat 
of battle" it had never been difficult to shoot a paintball at someone . . . .

       Greg Burch     <GBurch1@aol.com>----<gburch@lockeliddell.com>
      Attorney  :::  Vice President, Extropy Institute  :::  Wilderness Guide
      http://users.aol.com/gburch1   -or-   http://members.aol.com/gburch1
                                           ICQ # 61112550
        "We never stop investigating. We are never satisfied that we know 
        enough to get by. Every question we answer leads on to another    
       question. This has become the greatest survival trick of our species."
                                          -- Desmond Morris


From: Eugene Leitl <eugene.leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 03:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: ( roots were based on Back off! I'm gay!)

Technotranscendence writes:

 > My current diet is below average -- below 2K calories per diem -- but above
 > CR.

If you work out additionally, you can move into the CR regime (which
is a continuum, anyway. Obesity reduces your lifespan, so going away
from that while staying above Dachau diet can only do good).

I also sure hope they manage to make the CR pill within the next few
years. (Now here's something with the potential to outsell sildenafil
times propecia).


From: Eugene Leitl <eugene.leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:08:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: ...The evolution of Stellar Based Superminds...

J. R. Molloy writes:

 > Precisely so. Which is why it is ludicrous to think that an SI (or AI) would
 > disassemble us for our atoms, as some Chicken Littles are wont to warn us about.

Not you. Earth's crust, with you on it. And then the rest of it, when
it has cooled off. Perhaps you'll see the logics of it all, when the
sky starts to burn.

Signed,

The Big Mambo AstroChicken (who will eat the Earth, eventually)


From: Eugene Leitl <eugene.leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 00:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: ...The evolution of Stellar Based Superminds...

J. R. Molloy writes:

 > hey, what's a few million nuked researchers compared to SIs turning

Few million? Gee. They don't have a million R&D people even in the car
industry. There are maybe about a million of people who can loosely be
called researchers in the entire U.S. Roughly, there are probably no
more than ten million scientists in the whole world.

World-wide, there are about 200 cryobiologists. There are currently
probably a few thousands AI people world-wide, tops.

I wonder where you take your numbers.


From: Eugene Leitl <eugene.leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de>
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 23:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: <HUMOR?> Rumors of war...

Michael M. Butler writes:

 > Beware. Eugene is outspoken enough that he is disqualified from
 > membership. It's the ones you don't hear from that are the most
 > dangerous. I think. But maybe Eugene only... Damn. This is trickier than
 > I thought.

Damn. That scheme didn't work. (Leafs frantically through his battered 
copy of "Total World Domination for Dummies"). This only leaves us
with Contingency Plan D and Contingency Plan F...


From: Amara Graps <Amara.Graps@mpi-hd.mpg.de>
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 15:46:58 +0200 (MET DST)
Subject: [>Htech] Outburst from a galaxy leaves scientists in a quandry


small correction:

>"The distance difference is just mind-blowing," says Vslk, a director at
                                                     ^^^^^
>the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg.

That's Voelk  (o with an umlaut)

Prof. Volk is one of the six directors here.

Amara
-- 

***************************************************************
Amara Graps               | Max-Planck-Institut fuer Kernphysik
Interplanetary Dust Group | Saupfercheckweg 1   
+49-6221-516-543          | 69117 Heidelberg, GERMANY
Amara.Graps@mpi-hd.mpg.de * http://galileo.mpi-hd.mpg.de/~graps  
***************************************************************
      "Never fight an inanimate object." - P. J. O'Rourke



From: hal@finney.org
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 11:02:31 -0700
Subject: Re: AI: Rodney A. Brooks online papers

JR points to:
> Rodney A. Brooks online papers:
> http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/brooks/papers.html

Brooks has had good success with his little robots, and now he's trying
to build a humanoid robot.  As was pointed out earlier, a number of AI
labs are moving in this direction.

I can see that there is practical value in making robots that can walk,
carrying things, etc.  But I can't help thinking that a significant
part of the motivation here is purely public relations.  People are
more interested in a robot which looks human, is able to nod its head
and smile, shake hands, etc.  Labs doing this work may get more funding
as a result.

But is this really the right direction for AI research?  Recall what
the goal is: approximating human level intelligence.  AI is a cognitive
effort which seeks to create a mental architecture.  Giving a robot a
face and hands does not directly advance towards that goal.

Researchers try to justify this work by saying that forcing the robot
(really, the researchers) to solve real world problems will require the
development of intelligent algorithms.  Some go so far as to say that
the reason AI has failed to make progress is because the evolution of
intelligence requires interaction with the real world in a real body.

I don't buy this because it seems that AI is so primitive that there is
plenty of work that can be done in simulated environments.  It's not
like AI creatures are so smart that there is no more challenge there
and they're ready to move up to the real world.  The slow progress in
AI is because it's hard, not because of a lack of challenge.

The problem with the current direction is that a great deal of time is
spent on mechanical tasks of layout, construction, lubrication and repair.
This is wasted effort in terms of trying out new cognitive structures.
It seems to me that this can only slow down AI progress in the long term.

We are sacrificing true AI progress in favor of emotionally impressive
demos.

Hal


From: Damien Broderick <d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 14:39:26 +1100
Subject: AIs as part of nature

Barbara Lamar sez:

>If the evolution of AI follows the same principles as biological
>evolution, then I would expect AI to become, for humans,  part of the
>landscape--that is to say, part of nature in general.  Another set of
>forces to contend with, some beneficial some detrimental. 

>I would expect
>the human species to evolve in response to the presence of the AI (both
>socially and biologically)

No time, by many orders of magnitude. Spikes go *fast* (even slow,
accommodating Spikes happen over a generation or two, and presumably mostly
at the end of that span, not millions of years).

You might object that bacteria and viruses (and, say, mammalian immune
system defence repertoires) evolve in their own hyped up virtual time. But
suppose the bacteria were superintelligent as well...

Commensalism requires that we sit at the same table. The AIs might wish to
eat the table too.

Damien Broderick


From: "John Clark" <jonkc@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:25:44 -0400
Subject: An Anti aging pill?

In today's (Sept 22)  issue of Science Dr. Leonard Guarente reports that he's
found exactly why caloric restriction leads to longer life; at least he's found the
mechanism that works yeast and strongly suspects the same thing is true of all
life. Caloric restriction has extend the life of every species it has been tested in.

The key is a gene called SIR2 , the protein it produces clads to parts of the DNA helix,
covering it up and in effect turns off other genes that are supposed to be turned off.
But for the gene to make this cladding protein it needs a substance called NAD, and it
turns out NAD is also used in glucose metabolism, so if you eat a lot there is less NAD
available to make this very important cladding protein.

There is talk of a pill. Geneticist Tomas Prolla referring to life extension says
"I don't think a 30 to 40% range should be considered some kind of maximum.

      John K Clark        jonkc@att.net







From: "John Clark" <jonkc@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 10:51:54 -0400
Subject: Re: An Anti aging pill?

Technotranscendence <neptune@mars.superlink.net> Wrote:

    >What exactly is NAD?

Why the oxidized form of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide of course.

      John K Clark        jonkc@att.net






From: Amara Graps <amara@amara.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 02:15:17 +0100
Subject: an Autumn introduction

Dear Extropes,


I like the concept of introducing oneself to a group of people with
whom one is having an email conversation. We learn about that
person's view of themselves, as well as gaining knowlege about the
faceless person whose text graces our computer monitor occassionally
(or more than occassionally).

After I read scecir's introduction (and samantha's before that), I
looked in my (very) old extropian archives to learn if I had ever
introduced myself.

If I had, then I couldn't find my introduction. It I had, then it
doesn't matter because I'm 8 years different anyway from the person
that initially encounted the extropians mailing list in 1991 (and
some of the people here I've known for many more years longer than
that).

Here then is a snapshot of Amara Lynn Graps, on this day, Autumnal
Equinox, year 2000. (Autumn is my favorite season)

Amara Graps, born in Honolulu, Hawaii (1961 March 28) spent her
childhood in mostly in Hawaii, her teen-early20s years mostly in
Southern California, her 20-and-partly-30-something-years mostly in
Northern California. In 1998, she packed up her household (which
primarily consists of books and some photo and bicycling gear) and
returned to school, moving to Heidelberg, Germany, where she will
finish her astrophysics PhD in March 2001 (at about the same time as
her 40th birthday). Her current research interest is cosmic dust
dynamics in planetary magnetospheres.

[My PhD topic took a sharp turn these last weeks ... Cassini and
Galileo dual spacecraft dust observations started 3 months before
Cassini's December Jupiter flyby... yowza..! it's fascinating data]

During most of my adult life I've spent learning about the Universe,
by working in the astronomy field from almost every possible angle
from scientific programmer (mostly) to teacher, research,
consultant. I've worked in astronomy since 1979. I'm a generalist,
rather than a specialist, which is a hindrance in the scientific
community. Therefore, I seek and usually find my niches for general
science (popular science writing, teaching) in my work environment.
In the mid-90s I decided that I would have problems in the future
pursuing science in the way that I wanted without a PhD, so I
decided to return to school, choosing a place and an advisor where I
was sure I would be challenged, and where I was reasonably sure that
I could succeed. Presently single and dating, no children yet.
(... and so busy :-( )

The things that stimulate Amara's inner world are an intellectual
conversation, a week bike trip through sunflower fields or a snowy
mountainrange, calculating an answer to a physics problem, writing a
computer simulation to run her own universe, exploring her sense of
touch and smell, reading a tasty book, writing a story or a poem,
learning something new on her dulcimer, learning a new topic and
then writing about it, having music in her ears, spending hours
printing in a darkroom, catching the ideal moment through her camera
lens, and finding a new pattern or synthesis for understanding how
the universe works.

More here
http://www.amara.com/
and here
http://galileo.mpi-hd.mpg.de/~graps/

I hope that you find a way to celebrate the start of Autumn.

And while you're at it, find a way to celebrate your life.

Happy Autumn,

Amara


********************************************************************
Amara Graps                  email: amara@amara.com
Computational Physics        vita:  finger agraps@shell5.ba.best.com
Multiplex Answers            URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"Sometimes I think I understand everything. Then I regain
consciousness."     --Ashleigh Brilliant





From: Damien Broderick <d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 11:00:13 +1100
Subject: APOLOGY: Re: Responsibility for children

At 02:56 AM 20/09/00 -0700, samantha politely corrected my error: 

>> At 10:33 PM 18/09/00 -0700, samantha wrote:

>> > As a human who happens to reside in female form, I am most interested in
>> > your personal pov on forced-pregnancy and abortion.

>I did not write the line at the top of your post.  Misattribution.  

I'm very sorry for this mistake, and apologise both to samantha and to the
woman who actually sent the original post. I see now that was from a post
by ankara - I confused the two names because they both use a small-case
letter at the start (human brains are fallible that way). 

>why on earth would you assume I have no understanding
>of female psychology and sensibilities just on the basis of having xy
>chormosomes?  

I certainly don't assume that. I would hope that I, too, share at least
some small part of that understanding. That's not what I was talking about,
however.

Damien Broderick


From: Eugene Leitl <eugene.leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 04:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: RE: Asian Swamp Eels

White, Ryan writes:
 > 
 > Exterminating a successful species seems sort of like punnishing a
 > successful software company, except that the eels have no means within our
 > social system to represent or defend their interests.
 
Er, the eels are unnatural in the sense that they wouldn't have popped
up at that particular place in that particular time without the
intervention of these meddling humans. (Assuming, that humans
themselves are unnatural, of course, which is a matter of
definition. Clearly, they're rather special animals, and hence should
be treated specially). Biosphere has not yet adapted to species
hitch-hikin' all over the globe, so this results in critters with a
differing fitness being suddunly introduced into an already occupied
niche, resulting in all kinds of havoc, until the system falls into a
stable attractor, eventually. Humans attempt to reestablish the status
quo which would have existed without them introducing a new species
into an existing equilibrium (which, of course, in the purist's point
of view is already denaturated by humans having been present there).

I personally find these efforts highly valuable, since teaching people
the meaning of "irreversibility" hands-on.
 
 > I find it amusing how arbitrarily many humans seem to assign value to
 > species on this planet. 



From: Amara Graps <amara@amara.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 17:09:35 +0100
Subject: Re: Asian Swamp Eels

Hi Spike,

Read the exi-bay email (archived). There is a Sushi gathering there
tonight (that is, Saturday night).

Amara


--------------------------

>From: Spike Jones <spike66@ibm.net>
>Subject: Re: Asian Swamp Eels
>
>Jeff Davis wrote:
>
>> Fellow Sushi lovers,
>>
>> As I understand it they are ravenous and undescriminating in the matter of
>> foodstuffs, and they have the ability to exit the water for short...
>
>What a disappointment.  When I read the greeting, hope soared that
>my fellow devourer of suuuushi was about to propose a bay area
>extropian gathering to injest huge quantities of that wonderful treat.
>
>Anybody wanna do some su?  Offlist me.  spike


********************************************************************
Amara Graps                  email: amara@amara.com
Computational Physics        vita:  finger agraps@shell5.ba.best.com
Multiplex Answers            URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"Sometimes I think I understand everything. Then I regain
consciousness."     --Ashleigh Brilliant





From: Eugene Leitl <eugene.leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 04:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: AT&T vows no censorship on new network

Technotranscendence writes:

 > At least in its first release, the system will accept documents only 100
 > kilobytes in size--much too small to accept an MP3 or video file.

If it isn't open source, it's doomed. No one is going to trust it. If
it is, all the hardcoded limitations will vanish instanter.

Has anyone tried the Mojonation.net offering yet yet? I'm back to
sporadic dialup, so there's no way for me to test it.


From: Eugene Leitl <eugene.leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 00:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Attacks (was Re: Why would AI want to be friendly?)

Samantha Atkins writes:

 > Is it a more acceptable violation of individual freedom to kill someone
 > outright because they are dangerous to others?  Is it more acceptable to
 > force people to change regardless of what sort of world they prefer to

Come, let's go hang out with my droogies at the Korova milk bar. We'll 
have a nice frontal lobotomy afterwards.

 > live in?  Is it more acceptable to impose an ultra-hitech future on
 > those simply in no way able to deal with it?  I can see that it is not
 > palatable to put people into a VR involuntarily.  But that violation may
 > be smaller than the larger violations that would occur otherwise.  It is
 > that possibility I want to raise.  

Indeed, if the powerful fraction has advanced sufficiently that they
need to restructure the Earth, would you rather die than be translated
into characters in an artificial reality environment?

I don't think the violation is extreme, if continuity is preserved,
and if people are free to leave the "home sweet home" sandbox any time.
 
 > How is the criminal not a threat to anyone?  What if I don't want to be
 > fragged even if the friendly SI will resurrect me instantaneously? 

Huh? You can generate a private artificial reality for every user. If
someone feels comfortable machine-gunning down random pedestrians, he
can do that, on dummies, forever. As long as no one gets hurt...

 > There is plent of need to discourage criminal abuses regardless of
 > whether there is an SI.  Or do you want the human race to go totally
 > infantile where nothing is real, nothing is at stake and nothing can
 > really be changed at all?
 
It doesn't require an SI to recognize that our current makeup requires 
constant challenges (boy, I wish it wasn't so, these 2000 cal gym
sessions are sure boring).
 
 > I don't propose to "target" anyone.  I simply am floating the idea that
 > the ultimate in freedom with infinite room to grow is to be able to live
 > within whatever world-constraints one most wishes and see how that is.   
 
If I was an SI, I would probably leave everything as is, only make
death a transition into the next world. (Of course, those who have
been tortured to death probably *will* complain...)

 > What do you think humans will do exactly once your sort of SI is a
 > reality?  

Die, of course, as the atoms in their bodies are being
absorbed. Because only a god can create such a strange thing as a
SysOp. There is no traversible path from the foothills to Olymp
mountaintop, at least no one which people and their handiwork can go.


From: Damien Broderick <d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:44:01 +1100
Subject: AUSSIES - TV Thurs nite

For any Aussies who aren't so attached to the Olympics that they can't bear
to change away from Channel 7 (or whatever): I'll be taking part in an SBS
Insight discussion about the prospects of AI with cognitive philosopher Dr
Peter Slezak (pro), animal-mind expert Dr Lesley Rogers (con, I suspect)*,
and one other, plus moderator. Somewhere in the usual 8.30-9.30 pm slot.

Damien Broderick
*I assume this is she: http://www.usyd.edu.au/wisenet/profiles/lrogers.htm


From: Damien Broderick <d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 13:52:39 +1100
Subject: Re: AUSSIES - TV Thurs nite

At 10:59 AM 22/09/00 +1000, Emlyn wrote:

>All pretty standard stuff, nothing too outlandish or worrisome.
>Suddenly, our hero swoops in with the final comment, which I'll paraphrase:
>"Of course, we must take into account the fact that there will be greater
>than human intelligence inside of 30 years on this planet, and that
>everything is going to hell in a handbasket, nothing will ever be the same
>again. Have a nice day." Well done, old bean.

Thank you, bro. I was trying to convey `heaven in a handbasket', actually,
but Vivian the presenter shuddered deliciously and declared the prospect
terrifying. So it goes among the techno-timid.

But watching it on video last night after flying back from Sydney, I was a
tad brought down at learning from a caption that my name is `Damien
Brokerick'. 

Someone on an Aussie list asked:

>Dumb question...were you sucking on a peppermint or something, or did you
>have dental work done that day...your (camera right) side of your jaw was
>distended...or maybe you were involved in a pre-show rehearsal that got
>nasty..."take that you self-conscious human!" I can just see that woman
>doing it too.

I replied:

>I think I'm mutating. 

>My teeth are appalling and getting uglier, and I suspect my jaw is trying
>to compensate by going weirder than usual. Next time I go on telly I'll
>wear a paper bag over my head.

I do hate the sight of myself on the teev.

Emlyn goads:

>Also, more astute viewers will not have failed to notice the energy with
>which our hero's remarks about emotions such as "lust and hunger" were leapt
>upon by the (xx chromosome) panel host. Lets have the goss!

I'll never tell. :)

Damien Brokerick

Send unsubscribe requests to: majordomo@excelsior.org
Archive located at: http://excelsior.planetx.com/transhumantech/