XPost: comp.robotics.misc, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: chrisks@NOSPAMudel.edu   
      
   Ben Bradley wrote:   
      
   > In comp.robotics.misc,alt.cyberpunk,comp.ai.philosophy, "Chris S."   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >>In regards to your original question, of course. Assuming its eventual   
   >>technical feasibility, a computer assisted or fully automated government   
   >>would undoubtably be less corrupt and inefficient than its human based   
   >>equivalent.   
   >   
   >   
   >    If this is a true, conscious "intelligence" it may well have   
   > human-like motives and possibly be as corrupt, made even worse by its   
   > greater efficiency.   
      
   Possibly. Thus my remark about "being only as good as its programmer".   
      
   >>Although I don't think we'll ever give up *full* control.   
   >   
   >   
   >    Not without a fight...   
   >   
   >   
   >>Naturally, the end result will depend on who creates it. After all, a   
   >>computer is only a smart as the human who programs it.   
   >   
   >   
   >    There were those on a BBS 20 years ago who used the same argument   
   > to say I was wrong when I said that I believed a computer would   
   > someday beat the world's best human chess player.   
      
   You misunderstand me. Clearly we're able to create machines capable of   
   out-performing humans in nearly any specific category, from lifting   
   heavy weights to performing complex calculations. Why should the   
   function of intelligence or government be any different? What I meant   
   was that the degree of success or failure of our implementation will   
   depend on the skill of whoever creates it. Naturally, it's a lofty goal,   
   but like most obstacles, it's simply a matter of our technological   
   evolution.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)