> > It doesn't matter so much, since you can back it up to offline storage
> > and turn it back on again.  Or duplicated it as much as you want.

> You're making the assumption that the AI is built using solely digital
> technology.

It's extremely likely that such a creation would be at least in part (ie
fatally) backuppable and turn offable. Also highly likely that digital
techniques will be a significant or total part of it. Of course, this
likelihood could change drastically with new discoveries. We may find how to
store information reliably and compactly and with low energy in an organic
matrix using low level analog signals - perhaps with some sort of level
triggering and stimulus / response characteristic. I think that this could
be made quite compact if you could work out how to build it. In such a case
backup may be difficult.

> Also I think the question is phrased wrong. I would have asked:
>   Could you in good concience destroy the machine or turn it off
>   perminantly?

In the case of an "AI" - definitely if necessary*. If turnoff became
desirable for some compelling reason then temporary shutdown would be by far
the preferred route, and failure to not build such a disabling capability
into a device potentially more "intelligent" than a human would be a
ludicrous oversight. As would allowing a system to progress to such a stage
that it produced such a device that did not have this capability. Something
akin to Asimov's laws would be essential. However, forcing ALL players to
implement such precautions would be impossible and the probability that
someone would circumvent such provisions is 1 (based on a very very very
large case history of human behaviour).(Current GE developments provide a
prime example of how willing we are to risk destroying the whole human race
in the pursuit of knowledge/financial reward/power/Nobel prizes and
more.)(Believe me not?: check this space (if still viable) in 10 years
time).




        Russell McMahon

* I'd 'probably' be willing under very very very qualified conditions (none
of which I'd like to even think about) to kill another human being. Not
something I hope will ever happen. Given that, a man-made creation would be
a far easier choice. If anyone can't see the difference then odds are that I
can't explain it to them.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.