From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!think.com!Think.COM!moravec Tue May 12 15:50:32 EDT 1992
Article 5570 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!think.com!Think.COM!moravec
>From: moravec@Think.COM (Hans Moravec)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: AI failures
Date: 12 May 1992 02:33:21 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Lines: 36
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <unaphINNpv8@early-bird.think.com>
References: <1992May11.160456.15469@math.okstate.edu> <1992May11.183017.14806@psych.toronto.edu> <1992May11.210524.30977@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992May12.002440.5501@psych.toronto.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: turing.think.com

In article <1992May12.002440.5501@psych.toronto.edu>, michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
|> 
|> My comment above was not regarding the notions put forth regarding the
|> treatment of AI's, but the treatment of *humans*.  Both Hans and Eric have
|> essentially proposed abolishing ethics, not only in the realm of
|> computers, but in the realm of people.  Yes, I agree that AI ethics is 
|> a tricky question, but I will assert that it is at least a *question*.
|> Hans thinks the whole notion is ridiculous because *ethics itself* is
|> a meaningless social construct, and Eric (the poster who I was responding
|> to in the posting quoted above) states fatalistically that *lots* of
|> thinking things die everyday, so what's another more or less, human or
|> computer.  It is this denial of ethics in the *human* realm that has
|> me worried.  I sure don't want to be on a desert island with these
|> guys...
|> 

   I'm not particularly interested in being on a deserted island with
you either (you'd just torment me with your humanistic drek), but my
acquaintances find me pretty trustworthy (square, actually).  I
think the usual social ethics are the basis of good relationships,
and successful functioning in life, but they are a pragmatic system,
not a higher truth.  Making them an absolute ossifies your thinking,
and produces ridiculously inappropriate suggestions, like the ones you
have made about what we should do in radically different circumstances
in the future, where AIs can be created cheaply in the wink of an eye,
and where humans can be backed up and duplicated almost as easily.

Brining things closer to home, if the two of us were trapped foodless
in a Andean winter, maybe we would have to draw straws for who eats who.
Or would your higher ethics say we both must starve?  I would recommend
drawing up and signing as legal as possible a document stating the
voluntary nature of our respective participations, and doing the best
we can under the circumstances.

Try to remember to bring pepper.
				-- Hans


