Questions on the human path and transhumanism.

I certainly liked this post for the fact that you noticed that the AGI would probably figure out all the pros and cons for us. I did however figure it would be enjoyable for us in our world that currently lacks any AGI to discuss them though :).

Anyway I cannot really relate with the desired goal for an AGI. I much rather do an eternity in hell with all its cognitive stimulation than rot in "heaven". Look at our experiences with the elderly that we resign to homes where their minds literally rot from lack of use.

I am merely pointing out the horror of never having to actually think for yourself or actually do anything. Suddenly any purpose that we can find in the world is gone and our bodies as well as our minds begin to rot as we use them less and less.

This is what we call 'superlative futurism' and is basically theological thinking applied to the topic.

When you assume the superlative, you can handwave such things. Its no different from "god is the greatest thing that can exist" and all the flawed arguments that come from that.

My nightmare was a concept of how things would rationally likely to happen. Not how they ideally would happen. I had envisioned an AGI that was subservient to us and was everything that mankind hopes for. However, I also took into account human sentiment which would not tolerate the AGI simply taking nuclear weapons away, or really the AGI forcing us to do anything.

As soon as the AGI makes any visible move to command and control people the population of the world would scream out about the AGI trying to "enslave" humanity. Efforts to destroy the machine would happen almost instantly.

Human sentiment and politics need always be taken into account.

You actually hit the nail on the head in terms of understanding the AGI I was referencing.

I thought about problems such as why would a firm researching crop engineering to solve world hunger bother with paying a full and very expensive staff? Wouldn't an AGI that not only crunches the numbers but manages mobile platforms for physical experimentation be more cost effective? The AGI would be smarter and run around the clock testing, postulating and experimenting. Researchers would quickly find themselves out of a job if the ideal AGI were born for this purpose.

Of course if men took on artificial enhancements their own cognitive abilities could improve to compete. They could even potentially digitally network ideas or even manage mobile robotic platforms with their minds as well. It seems therefore that the best solution to the potential labor competition problems with AGI is to simply use the AGI to help or outright research methods of making men mentally and physically better.

Eric Drexler argued back in the 1980's that we could apply the principles of macroscopic mechanical engineering to create molecular machines which behave as if quantum effects don't exist on that scale.

The fact that this idea has gotten pretty much nowhere in the last 30 years says a lot about the lack of integrity of MIT's Media Lab in granting Drexler a Ph.D. based on this notion.

By contrast, technologies which exploit quantum mechanics - lasers, magnetic resonance imaging, LED lighting, semiconductors, etc. - pretty much invent themselves.

Ok, so why do you believe that there is no way to guarantee friendlessness? The idea seems to pursue mathematically provable FAI, which AFAICT ought to have a very high probability of success, if it can be developed in time.

I'm not even sure if successful friendliness itself is all that different from stagnation.

In this case I would say that this is not what I would consider friendliness, because I, and a fairly large subset of humanity, place a lot of value in things not stagnating.

What I was fundamentally wondering with the above post was the relationship of developmental education and eventual I.Q. Such as given identical genetic characteristics would heightened mental stimulation during early brain development greatly improve the I.Q. over the control?

Education can allow someone access to a platform from which to stand upon that is certain. I was unconcerned because even if you spend thirty years educating someone they are still limited by their own intelligence when it comes to discovery, creativity, and decision making.

Spending time studying philosophy has greatly improved my ability to understand logic structures and has helped me make better decisions. However there are still limits set upon me by my own biological design. More than that, I am limited with how much education I can receive and still be able to work off the debt in a single lifetime. Even in state funded education its an investment, the student must generate more value in a lifetime than the cost of the education to be worth the education.

The pace of education is limited by a great number of variables including the student's IQ. Therefore we cannot simply solve that problem by trying to educate at a faster pace. The other solution is a form of transhumanism, that is alter my body so that I may live longer in order to be worth the cost of longer education. However postulating about such a long and substantial education is ignoring whether or not there is a point when education has no effect and the only other option is actual hands on experience in life.

We can logically see that we cannot magically educate every problem away. Education is and will be the primary means of improving the human mind. However, if we need to improve our natural limitations on how quickly we can learn and so fourth physical alteration of the human body may be necessary.