XPost: comp.robotics.misc, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net   
      
   On 26 Feb 2005 07:52:35 -0800, "dave.harper"    
   in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:   
      
   >   
   >Lester Zick wrote:   
   >> On 24 Feb 2005 07:13:34 -0800, "dave.harper"    
   >> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >Lester Zick wrote:   
   >> >> Mainly social sciences I expect and socially oriented sciences   
   >that   
   >> >> Republicans feel are more properly capitalized by the market.   
   >> >   
   >> >You mean any socially oriented science that didn't clash with the   
   >> >general religious beliefs of the GOP.   
   >>   
   >> Certainly. Appeals to science are often justified in religious terms.   
   >> It doesn't mean the science is flawed.   
   >   
   >1.  It just means that the researchers are more likely to be biased   
   >towards results that don't conflict with any religious beliefs.   
      
   Science is pursued for a variety of subjective reasons not open to   
   scrutiny. What's important is the end product and not the motivation.   
      
   >2.  It means that some other valid research isn't pursued based on   
   >religious reasons.   
      
   What's the criterion for valid research as opposed to invalid   
   research? Motivations are what drive research and motivations are   
   subjective. You don't like religious motivations and I agree. It   
   doesn't, however, speak to the significance of the science that   
   results from religious motivations as opposed, say, to academic   
   career advancement motivations.   
      
   >> >> And   
   >> >> what makes anyone think an ai artifact wouldn't be just as   
   >vulnerable   
   >> >> to corruption as people?   
   >> >   
   >> >It would be vulnerable.  The main advantage is that it could, if   
   >> >properly programed, go through a set of choices along with probable   
   >> >results alot faster than a current government could.   
   >>   
   >> The hell you say! So now we're supposed to leave political decisions   
   >> to the tender mercies of ai theorists and computer programmers to   
   >> properly program issues even they admit they don't fully grasp just   
   >so   
   >> we can make decisions faster? I could make bad decisions even faster.   
   >   
   >As opposed to leaving political decisions to the tender mercies of   
   >career politicians, some of which are corrupt and have hidden agendas,   
   >as well as being hampered by special interest groups that eliminate   
   >many options that an AI wouldn't have to eliminate...   
      
   I'd rather leave political decisions to the tender mercies of me. All   
   career politicians are corrupt and have hidden agendas. So do I.   
   They're hidden because they're subjective and they're corrupt because   
   they involve choices among competing ideas some of which have to be   
   drawn at the expense of others. Show me a robot that isn't subjective   
   and doesn't make such choices and I'll show you a robot that doesn't   
   know what it's doing or should be doing much less what anyone else   
   should be doing.   
      
   >This was a thought exersize, and I'm not saying AI could or will ever   
   >become a factor in government.  However, one thing that would make AI   
   >less suseptable to corruption is that the programming could be open   
   >source.  Politicians can always spin things, lie, etc.  It would be a   
   >lot harder to hide corruption in an open source code.   
      
   We can open source the code for human intelligence. That isn't going   
   to make the results of that code any less subjective in terms of the   
   results of its mechanization. Show me a political robot and I'll show   
   you a subjective and corrupt robot with hidden agendas.   
      
   Regards - Lester   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)