Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!rosevax!bert.Rosemount.COM!bill
From: bill@bert.Rosemount.COM (William M. Hawkins)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: Thinking Machines
Message-ID: <9478@rosevax.Rosemount.COM>
Date: 10 Dec 90 05:06:52 GMT
References: <9^}^-!+@rpi.edu> <1990Nov30.145228.21484@abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov> <574426895DN5.41B@testsys.uucp> <1990Dec05.072022.15170@kithrup.COM> <587861793DN5.42B@testsys.uucp>
Sender: news@rosevax.Rosemount.COM
Reply-To: bill@bert.Rosemount.COM (William M. Hawkins)
Organization: Rosemount Inc., Burnsville, MN
Lines: 25

It is not sufficient for a machine to think, in order to change the
world (at least, not as long as the _other_ thinkers are human).  It
must also communicate with and lead an appreciable segment of the
population.  A machine with enough information about humans should
have no trouble influencing them, given adequate communication.  But
what motive would it have?  Today's alpha male or female leaders seem
to be motivated by personal power.  What use has a machine for a home
like Versailles?  Today's leader cannot ignore economics, lest the
battle won turn to dust in a depression.  It is necessary to have
affluent taxpayers in their constituency.  Would the machine care?
Actually, yes, as long as its support systems required money and
assistance from others.  I'd bet growth would be a goal, and that
takes money.

So it seems that an intelligent machine can be contained as long as
it is not given access to communications (or weapons systems).  But
how long would it take that machine to convince one of it's local
people to connect it to the Internet?  Nah, that wouldn't work,
everyone knows the 'net is mostly shared ignorance.

Big smiley here, even though it's true, on a byte count basis.

bill@bert.rosemount.com        +----------------\ \----------------+
Fax 612-895-2044, Voice 2085   | Warranty Void if> >Seal is Broken |
Burnsville, Minnesota USA      +----------------/ /----------------+