Charlie Springer wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:14:46 -0700, Michael J. Mahon wrote (in article <4--dndLX9plR1LnbnZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@comcast.com>):My only assumption is that it is possible to create an intelligence greater than our own--which would naturally lead to the creature discovering this fact. If this discovery were to contradict an earlier assumption, then "disillusionment" is the resulting state.Do you think a smarter AI would be stupid enough to design one even smarter? I would guess only if the smarter one is still itself.
In a sense, we are always engaged in creating intelligences greater than our own (or so we hope)--our children. And there is evidence that our brighter children can take either the course of losing respect for their parents because of their flawed judgements, or of appreciating them as well-intentioned despite their limitations. Often children progress from one point of view to the other as they mature and gain perspective. In a similar way, a "Mark IV" creature would be interested in creating the "Mark V" version--if it could be clearly seen as a "cultural heir" and had improved survival potential. Of course, this leaves out the crucial role of death in any evolutionary scenario. Having one's progenitors "get off the stage" is quite important to supporting change. If our successors manage practical immortality, then it will probably necessitate creating relatively isolated "islands" of culture to permit cultural evolution to continue. The universe seems to provide good support for such relative isolation. ;-) -michael NadaNet networking for Apple II computers! Home page: http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/ "The wastebasket is our most important design tool--and it's seriously underused."