Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool2.mu.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: rsi!russ@sharkey.cc.umich.edu Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: Some problems of super-intelligence Message-ID: Date: 7 Jan 91 13:57:06 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 26 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu dciem!cunews!cognos!geovision!gd (Gord Deinstadt) writes: > However, I wouldn't risk a network connection to my brain. Think of the > danger of viruses; whole populations gone mad. Or docile. Or having > their memories modified. To a certain degree, that danger has existed for thousands of years. Fanatic movements, propagated by language, have infected many and caused the madness, death and murder of millions. To the extent that history is re-written by such movements, the "memory" of "society" is modified. Meat-brain memory is very imperfect now. Granted, this is slower than the nanotech network-brain equivalent, but so are meat brains. Further, the science of cryptography is sufficiently advanced to allow tamper-proof signatures and other verifying information on all digital documents, including recorded memories. This is much better than we can do for memories in meat brains. I believe that proper design will avoid the possibility of new dangers of tampering and get rid of some of the old ones (re-writing history, when everyone's "memory" is perfect and comprehensive). Dangers of fads and mass movements may well remain with us. -- Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. |russ%rsi@sharkey.cc.umich.edu |russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us +h