Dear Ian,
Agreed.
But I think what I, Cheri and Yunus were trying to do here is take the
opportunity to develop this conversation more deeply (as per the attached
set of poems). Actually, what I would have most difficulty with in the
depiction is the notion of 'autonomy', which is in its turn an artefact of
'starting with a definition'.
Warmest
Alan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Glendinning" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: artiificial moral agents (AMA)
> Hi Folks, I think we are being a little unfair on Tom's question.
>
> Notwithstanding the simplistic reduction - of the power to act and the
> wisdom to do the right thing - to a two-dimensional graph.
> Notwithstanding the fact that I share a view that wisdom is more
> "child-like" than received (westen, objective) intellectual wisdom.
> Tom's starting point is "defintional" - placing a new-born child
> "bottom-left" is just defining his axes - the autonomy and wisdom "of
> a new born child".
>
> I think a child has high "potential" to the top-right, and is clearly
> well above a dead physical object, having innate evolved capabilities
> to act and evaluate. A "bot" starts well of the bottom-left scale.
> The point is a development & learning one, surely ?
> And a question of what qualities and processes define moving (up and)
> to the right (and which ones don't) ?
>
> The usual qustion - What defines wisdom, how is it learned, developed ?
> When could one "bot" be said to be more "wise" than another; in what
> way is a developing human wiser than a bot ?
>
> I think Tom's questiion is valid, because as he points out "bots"
> already have autonomy with moral consequences, even for those who
> believe a bot could never have the moral wisom to be trusted with such
> decisions and actions.
>
> Regards
> Ian
>
>
|