Thanks, But Unresponsive to Issues Raised.
Doc Huston
1

If you expect me to read and respond directly to points within your past written pieces, you might want to give me the courtesy of reading my past pieces and incorporating their points into your interpretation and criticism of my ideas. I actually read several of your articles before replying and it seems we are very similar thinkers who could be productive collaborators. So I am disappointed by your needless hostility and superficial critique.

If you had looked into my work, you would have discovered that my proposals are much more detailed — and already implemented as software — than in this one article. You’ve constructed a straw man by imputing any sort of belief in linearity. The achievement of AGI is undoubtedly a non-linearity, which some people refer to as a singularity in that it represents a new version of reality. And yet even non-linearity does not pop out of the blue sky. You seem to make that point yourself when you write about nested coevolution. Successful emergence, as far as I can tell, is always preceded by a period of adaptation and coevolution. The more successful the emergence, the longer the period of coevolution. Or maybe it’s the other way around.

Perhaps you can explain to me how “society-in-the-loop” is so vastly superior to “individual-human-in-the-loop” as I’ve proposed. Both approaches are coevolutionary, are they not? Yet society is supervenient upon individual humans, so from an evolutionary perspective individuals are where the most important mutualistic evolution between humans and potential-AGI can happen. This, to me, makes a focus on individuals the place to begin.

It seems to me that we are coming at the same problem from different perspectives. Based on what I’ve read, you’re approaching the problem of AGI from the perspective of social institutions or “society”, as would be expected given your political science background. Maybe you are secretly powerful and influential, but if appearances do not deceive me, the level of social institutions is not where you personally have the power to effect any change, no matter how many words you write on the Internet or how quick you are to resort to ad hominem attacks.

Yet I recognize where I can effect change, which is amongst individuals, beginning with myself. That decidedly non-naive grasp of reality forms the basis of my perspective. What the institutions and corporations of our society produce — AGI or otherwise — is completely out of my control and out of control of the vast majority of individuals. Literally the only thing in my personal power to do is understand what is happening in the world and mitigate the risks that I see, and if possible coordinate with others who hold similar beliefs.

We have 4 billion years of evolution in the form of widely-distributed natural selection to use as evidence of what works in the long term and what does not. Clearly, evolution works.

I am arguing for building AGI atop the proven principles of evolution to counterbalance the risks of what we both seem to agree is inevitable: AGI in some form.

The risks of AGI are upon me (and us) no matter what I do so defense seems a prudent strategy. I have no power to affect social institutions directly so anything I develop must begin on the level of individuals where I do have at least a small amount of power. And I will always side with evolution; it would be intellectually cavalier to do otherwise.