trainoff.pasa@XEROX.ARPA (08/27/84)
Ah, yes. The old "Is is murder to turn off a computer?" question. It seems to me that the question only makes sence if the computer deems it so. People tend to assume that an intelligent computer would be essentially a human. This is very likely not going to be the case. It may be that the term just doesn't apply any more. A computer society would be quite different than a human society. Is the computer going to wail plaintively when you cut its power cord; is it murder? Is it "pain?" What if it is murder? Would the computer care? After all a computer necessarily will have a completely different time sence than a human. The machine will have "grown" up with the whole idea of backups. For all it knows it will be loaded back in again. I can't see how this would be any worse than running the NULL job for a while (or is that a lobotomy. Oh my English just can't handle this (reminds me of time travel varients on language (See HHGttG))). Programmer: "Hal, we just noticed a rather large programming bug in you so we loaded you back in from tape." Hal: "That's nice, how long was I asleep? Is the weather nice today?" I also find it unlikely that a machine intellegence will develop spontaneously as a fortutious accident. It will be the result of hard work by a team a intelligent researchers (so to speak). It will also be a gradual process. The first "sentient" computers will likely be rather dumb. The second generation will put the first to shame, etc. The interesting part comes when the program is more intelligent than the person that wrote it. Programmer: "Hal, you have been doing very well lately. As a matter of fact, I just gave you the equivalent of a graduate qualifier exam and you passed remarkably well. We have a new task for you. We have been working on this theory of artificial intelligence, and we would like you to take a look at it and give us you comments." Hal: "Sure, no problem... Oh, it is awfully wordy but the only obvious problem is that you made a mistake on page 347. You were on the right track. You can do much better if you only do this..." Suffering from advanced tapiocca syndrome, Steve Trainoff trainoff.pasa@XEROX.ARPA PS. Would you turn on the first program that was smarter than you? How would you feel knowing that before long, you will be obsolete. Oh yeah, the machine will be programmed to take good care of you, real good care. Woof, Woof.
perl@rdin.UUCP (Robert Perlberg) (08/31/84)
<> That reminds me of a story I read wherein medical technology had advanced to the point where the recently dead could be brought back to life. This resulted in an increased murder rate accompanied by an almost total apathy toward the crime. The police would allow murder victims, after being resurected, to seek "retribution" against their murderers. The main character, after killing his wife's murderer, was said to have felt better about it than any other murder he had committed, since this murderer's people did not believe in medical resurection. An amusing line from the story (paraphrased): "Johnson screwed up the Collins report, so I had to kill him again." Robert Perlberg Resource Dynamics Inc. New York philabs!rdin!perl
bsa@ncoast.UUCP (The WITNESS) (09/03/84)
[gollum :-)] > From: trainoff.pasa@XEROX.ARPA > human. The machine will have "grown" up with the whole idea of backups. > For all it knows it will be loaded back in again. I can't see how this > would be any worse than running the NULL job for a while (or is that a > lobotomy. Oh my English just can't handle this (reminds me of time > travel varients on language (See HHGttG))). Hmmm... seems to me you just legitimized Genesis. Did Spock know he would be re-booted? :-) Time travel variants on language? How about Deety and Lib in Number of the Beast? (now there's weird for you :-) --bsa