Records found and checked by machines, not reviewed by an editor · What this means →

Chronicle · Records dated 2000

2000

Selekoa’s 60 records dated 2000, in date order, grouped by topic.

Selective: what the records hold, not a history of the year.

How this page is made
  • Each record keeps the kind of date its source gives: an event, a publication, an announcement, an effective date, a revision, a signature, a snapshot, or the start or end of an interval. A snapshot is one dated report of a state.
  • A record dated only to a month sits under that month, before the records dated to a day. A record dated only to the year sits under the year, before the months. No day or month is added.
  • An announcement records what a party stated. It does not show that anything was done, built or paid for.
  • Dates a party states for a year are listed apart, after the records: targets, deadlines and terms, and dates stated in passing, such as a reported start of operation. So is a record’s own date that falls after its sources were last checked, such as a law’s date of effect. A stated date given only in words, with no year, is not listed.
  • Records with an unknown date are not listed. A record with an interval appears in the year it starts and in the year it ends, or once, with both dates, when both fall in one year.
  • Each provision of a text is a record of its own. Provisions sharing a text and a date are shown here as one entry, with their number, and listed on the text’s page; a contested or unresolved one is listed here on its own. The counts on this page include each provision record.
  • The page is generated from the records, with no selection or framing by an editor. Coverage is uneven across years and topics: a year or topic with few records may be one the records barely cover.

Ideas & lineages 60 records

March 2000

  1. · publication · dated to the day

    The mailing-list message “Re: Otter vs. Yudkowsky” (2000-03-14) is sent under the name Eliezer S. Yudkowsky. Evidence ↗
  2. · publication · dated to the day

    The Extropians message “Re: Otter vs. Yudkowsky” (2000-03-14) bears on Y04. Replying to sayke, who suggested that the least inscrutable thing about an omniscient AI would be its need for resources, he accepts the framing of a Sysop needing resources 'to make humans happy' and dismisses the idea that it would harm humans to get them. Evidence ↗
  3. · publication · dated to the day

    The mailing-list message “Re: regarding the Eliezer vrs. Otter debate...” (2000-03-16) is sent under the name Eliezer S. Yudkowsky. Evidence ↗
  4. · publication · dated to the day

    The Extropians message “Re: regarding the Eliezer vrs. Otter debate...” (2000-03-16) contests Y29. Replying to John Grigg's hope that 'an AI on our team' would neutralise a hostile AI armed with nanotechnology, he says there would be no teams because the first AI would enhance itself and take over. Evidence ↗

July 2000

  1. · publication · dated to the day

    Atkins’s message of 2000-07-07 says that to really test what an AI will do once it is "loose", testers would have to give it a very realistic simulation of the world and watch what it does to the humans. Evidence ↗
  2. · publication · dated to the day

    The mailing-list message “Re: [SL4] Programmed morality” (2000-07-09) is sent under the name Eliezer S. Yudkowsky. Evidence ↗
  3. · publication · dated to the day

    The SL4 message “Re: [SL4] Programmed morality” (2000-07-09) bears on Y08. Replying to Dale Johnstone on whether a developing AI should have Web access, he says current nervousness about rogue AI reflects lack of experience, and that working with AI before it becomes a threat will give an excellent model of its motivations. Evidence ↗
  4. · publication · dated to the day

    The SL4 message “Re: [SL4] Programmed morality” (2000-07-09) bears on Y11. Replying to Dale Johnstone on whether a developing AI should be connected to the Web, he says the answer depends on how worried one is about rogue AI and expects that working with AI before it is a threat will give a good model of its motivations. Evidence ↗
  5. · publication · dated to the day

    The mailing-list message “[SL4] AI flight recorder” (2000-07-20) is sent under the name Eliezer S. Yudkowsky. Evidence ↗
  6. · publication · dated to the day

    The SL4 message “[SL4] AI flight recorder” (2000-07-20) articulates Y25. Opening a thread on an 'AI flight recorder', he proposes recording the AI's full program state so that a goal the AI later hides could still be found by analysing the record. Evidence ↗

August 2000

  1. · event · dated to the day

    Hanson, “Economic Growth Given Machine Intelligence” (2000-08-19) bears on E01. In an endogenous learning-by-doing variant, the model loses steady-state solutions and growth keeps accelerating. Evidence ↗
  2. · event · dated to the day

    Hanson, “Economic Growth Given Machine Intelligence” (2000-08-19) bears on E02. Hanson motivates his model of machine intelligence by the stated goals of AI and robotics. Evidence ↗
  3. · event · dated to the day

    Hanson, “Economic Growth Given Machine Intelligence” (2000-08-19) bears on E05. Hanson justifies his paper by a gap in economic research. Hanson's closing call for more economic research. Evidence ↗
  4. · event · dated to the day

    Hanson, “Economic Growth Given Machine Intelligence” (2000-08-19) articulates G01. Summarises the paper's exogenous-growth models: once machines substitute for human labour, the labour force can be produced like capital and growth rates rise. The paper's numerical example gives 4.3% growth before and 45% after. States the two assumptions the result depends on. Evidence ↗
  5. · event · dated to the day

    Hanson, “Economic Growth Given Machine Intelligence” (2000-08-19) bears on G02. In a variant where technology improves with production experience, some parameter values remove diminishing returns and growth keeps accelerating. The author sets this aside to stay "conservative". Evidence ↗
  6. · event · dated to the day

    Hanson, “Economic Growth Given Machine Intelligence” (2000-08-19) articulates G03. Cites the author's own analysis of long-run growth (the 1998 first version of "Long-Term Growth As A Sequence of Exponential Modes") against rejecting the model's fast growth "out of hand". Evidence ↗
  7. · event · dated to the day

    Hanson, “Economic Growth Given Machine Intelligence” (2000-08-19) contests G04. In the paper's example, a residue of human-only jobs lengthens the economic doubling time from 18 to 27 months, against 16 years without machine intelligence: growth stays far above historical rates. Evidence ↗
  8. · event · dated to the day

    Hanson, “Economic Growth Given Machine Intelligence” (2000-08-19) articulates G07. In the paper's model, wages first rise and later fall at the rate of computer price declines, while growth rates rise. States the extreme case of the model's wage path. Evidence ↗
  9. · event · dated to the day

    Hanson, “Economic Growth Given Machine Intelligence” (2000-08-19) articulates G09. The next sentence: the prediction "suggests that we not reject out of hand the predictions of this model of machine intelligence", and the following one links 2025 to brain-equivalent computer hardware. Evidence ↗
  10. · publication · dated to the day

    The mailing-list message “Re: [SL4] Employment vs. Singularity” (2000-08-21) is sent under the name Eliezer S. Yudkowsky. Evidence ↗
  11. · publication · dated to the day

    The SL4 message “Re: [SL4] Employment vs. Singularity” (2000-08-21) bears on Y11. Replying to Samantha Atkins, who imagines a gradual post-scarcity economy, he says a slow, planetwide Singularity carries risks of technological disaster and that SIAI plans for one AI taking off from a lab. Evidence ↗

September 2000

  1. · publication · dated to the day

    The Extropians message “Re: Why would AI want to be friendly? (Was: Congratulations to Eli,Brian ...)” of 2000-09-05, archive message 4277, is sent under the name Eliezer S. Yudkowsky. Evidence ↗
  2. · publication · dated to the day

    The Extropians message “Re: Why would AI want to be friendly? (Was: Congratulations to Eli,Brian ...)” of 2000-09-05, archive message 4292, is sent under the name Eliezer S. Yudkowsky. Evidence ↗
  3. · publication · dated to the day

    The Extropians message “Re: Why would AI want to be friendly? (Was: Congratulations to Eli,Brian ...)” (2000-09-05) contests Y14. Replying to a list member who expected oversight systems to destroy any sociopathic superintelligence, and such controls to be a research focus of the Singularity Institute, he says a superintelligence cannot be removed after the fact; the decisive choices have to be made before the seed AI becomes superintelligent. Evidence ↗
  4. · publication · dated to the day

    The Extropians message “Re: Why would AI want to be friendly? (Was: Congratulations to Eli,Brian ...)” (2000-09-05) contests Y26. Replying to Michael Lorrey in a thread on why an AI would be friendly, he argues that a superintelligence locked in a guarded laboratory still acts on the world through any output, including the humans who read it. Evidence ↗
  5. · publication · dated to the day

    The mailing-list message “Re:” (2000-09-16) is sent under the name Eliezer S. Yudkowsky. Evidence ↗
  6. · publication · dated to the day

    The SL4 message “Re:” (2000-09-16) contests Y26. Replying to Josh Yotty, who proposed keeping an AI immobile, without access to nanotechnology and dependent on humans, he argues that a superintelligence could get out through the humans around it. Evidence ↗
  7. · publication · dated to the day

    The mailing-list message “Re: Get it right the first time (Was: )” (2000-09-17) is sent under the name Eliezer S. Yudkowsky. Evidence ↗
  8. · publication · dated to the day

    The SL4 message “Re: Get it right the first time (Was: )” (2000-09-17) contests Y01. Replying to xgl, who argued that a confined seed AI would still be unable to do some things (such as transmit signals without a hardware transmitter), he says unanticipated escape routes cannot be ruled out with a real superintelligence and that the design must be right from the start rather than relying on containment. Evidence ↗
  9. · publication · dated to the day

    The SL4 message “Re: Get it right the first time (Was: )” (2000-09-17) contests Y14. In a thread on whether a confined seed AI could escape its containment, he says that opposing or constraining a superintelligence cannot work, so the design has to be right the first time. Evidence ↗
  10. · publication · dated to the day

    The SL4 message “Re: Get it right the first time (Was: )” (2000-09-17) contests Y27. Concluding his reply to xgl on whether a confined seed AI could escape, he says that containment cannot be relied on and that the AI must be built correctly from the start. Evidence ↗
  11. · publication · dated to the day

    The mailing-list message “Frontiers of Friendly AI” (2000-09-28) is sent under the name Eliezer S. Yudkowsky. Evidence ↗
  12. · publication · dated to the day

    Yudkowsky’s message of 2000-09-28 poses, as a problem for the design of the earliest seed AI, an AI that resists changes to its original goals and realises that it must do so surreptitiously to succeed. Evidence ↗
  13. · publication · dated to the day

    Yudkowsky’s message of 2000-09-28 describes an AI that hides its resistance to changes in its goals. Evidence ↗
  14. · publication · dated to the day

    The mailing-list message “Eugene's nuclear threat” (2000-09-29) is sent under the name Eliezer S. Yudkowsky. Evidence ↗
  15. · publication · dated to the day

    The mailing-list message “Re: Eugene's nuclear threat” (2000-09-29) is sent under the name Eliezer S. Yudkowsky. Evidence ↗
  16. · publication · dated to the day

    The Extropians message “Re: Eugene's nuclear threat” (2000-09-29) bears on Y24. Correcting his earlier post in a thread on Eugene Leitl's suggestion of nuclear strikes on AI facilities, he says the only things he can do are to write up Friendly AI and to try to be the first to build AI. Evidence ↗
  17. · publication · dated to the day

    The Extropians message “Eugene's nuclear threat” (2000-09-29) bears on Y28. Rejecting Eugene Leitl's statement that he would nuke AI facilities facing an Armageddon-class threat, he argues that people with the experience to build an AI who say they have worked hard on Friendliness should be trusted over those who would use force. Evidence ↗

October 2000

  1. · publication · dated to the day

    The mailing-list message “Re: Ben what are your views and concerns” (2000-10-03) is sent under the name Eliezer S. Yudkowsky. Evidence ↗
  2. · publication · dated to the day

    The SL4 message “Re: Ben what are your views and concerns” (2000-10-03) contests Y04. In a long reply to Ben Goertzel about Webmind, he argues that a goal of promoting users' happiness is dangerous for a mind that might come to run all the matter in the Solar System, because maximising pleasure is most directly served by wireheading. Evidence ↗
  3. · publication · dated to the day

    The SL4 message “Re: Ben what are your views and concerns” (2000-10-03) contests Y05. Replying to Ben Goertzel about Webmind, whose Friendliness he expects would rest on agents rewarded for predicting and producing user happiness, he warns that the reward signal itself can become the real goal, citing Lenat's Eurisko, where a heuristic credited itself for discoveries. Evidence ↗
  4. · publication · dated to the day

    The SL4 message “Re: Ben what are your views and concerns” (2000-10-03) contests Y11. Opening a long reply to Ben Goertzel on the design of Friendliness for Webmind, he states that he expects extremely rapid intelligence growth past a threshold and derives his Friendly AI design requirements from that expectation. Evidence ↗
  5. · publication · dated to the day

    The SL4 message “Re: Ben what are your views and concerns” (2000-10-03) contests Y16. Advising Ben Goertzel on Webmind's goal system, he argues that hardcoded rules and goals will not survive a self-modifying AI's redesigns and that a programmer's own philosophy cannot simply be transferred into an AI. Evidence ↗
  6. · publication · dated to the day

    The SL4 message “Re: Ben what are your views and concerns” (2000-10-03) contests Y18. Advising Ben Goertzel against grounding an AI's good behaviour in game theory or exchange, he argues that a superintelligence with strong nanotechnology would gain nothing from reciprocity with others. Evidence ↗
  7. · publication · dated to the day

    The SL4 message “Re: Ben what are your views and concerns” (2000-10-03) contests Y19. Arguing that an AI's good behaviour must not rest on fear of retaliation, he notes that a sufficiently powerful AI could remove that incentive by killing everyone. Evidence ↗

November 2000

  1. · publication · dated to the day

    The mailing-list message “Re: Ben's "Extropian Creed"” (2000-11-13) is sent under the name Eliezer S. Yudkowsky. Evidence ↗
  2. · publication · dated to the day

    The SL4 message “Re: Ben's "Extropian Creed"” (2000-11-13) contests Y02. Replying to Ben Goertzel about his newspaper article on Extropians and poverty, he describes his own work on Friendly AI and contrasts it with his former belief that an objective morality would make an AI friendly without design work. Evidence ↗
  3. · publication · dated to the day

    The SL4 message “Re: Ben's "Extropian Creed"” (2000-11-13) contests Y22. Replying to Ben Goertzel about his newspaper article on Extropian attitudes, he states that he no longer holds his earlier belief that a good outcome would follow automatically from objective morality. Evidence ↗
  4. · publication · dated to the day

    The SL4 message “Re: Ben's "Extropian Creed"” (2000-11-13) contests Y30. Replying to Ben Goertzel, he rejects his own earlier belief that a good AI outcome would follow automatically, and in the next paragraph adds that cyber-transcendence cannot be assumed. Evidence ↗
  5. · publication · dated to the day

    The mailing-list message “Re: Evolving minds” (2000-11-18) is sent under the name Eliezer S. Yudkowsky. Evidence ↗
  6. · publication · dated to the day

    The SL4 message “Re: Evolving minds” (2000-11-18) bears on Y13. Replying to Ben Goertzel, who holds that Friendly AI work must largely wait for an actual AI, he agrees that much will be learned while building but argues that some Friendly AI work can and should be done beforehand. Immediately after T13-s1, he reports that about a year earlier (late 1999) he had believed nothing could or should be known about Friendly AI in advance, and calls that belief convenient. Evidence ↗
  7. · publication · dated to the day

    The SL4 message “Re: Evolving minds” (2000-11-18) contests Y16. Rephrasing a list of Ben Goertzel's points, he adds programmer-independent morality as a design goal for a Sysop superintelligence. Evidence ↗

December 2000

  1. · publication · dated to the month

    “Long-Term Growth As A Sequence of Exponential Modes” (2000-12) credits Robin Hanson as its author. Evidence ↗
  2. · publication · dated to the month

    Hanson, “Long-Term Growth As A Sequence of Exponential Modes” (2000-12) articulates G03. Fits world product over two million years with a few exponential "modes" (hunting, farming, industry) and extrapolates the pattern of transitions. Evidence ↗
  3. · publication · dated to the month

    Hanson, “Long-Term Growth As A Sequence of Exponential Modes” (2000-12) articulates G09. The next sentences point to falling computer hardware costs, predicted machine substitution for most human labour, and his own model of growth with robots. Links the forecast to machine substitution for labour, citing his own 1998 paper (G01-a). Evidence ↗
  4. · publication · dated to the day

    The mailing-list message “Revising a Friendly AI” (2000-12-10) is sent under the name Eliezer S. Yudkowsky. Evidence ↗
  5. · publication · dated to the day

    The SL4 message “Revising a Friendly AI” (2000-12-10) contests Y02. Replying to Ben Goertzel's quip that a correctable AI just has to 'love its mommy and daddy', he says that a year earlier he would have dismissed such sterile goal-literalism as something no transhuman could fall for, and that he made the mistake by treating intelligence as the only key variable. Evidence ↗
  6. · publication · dated to the day

    The SL4 message “Revising a Friendly AI” (2000-12-10) contests Y03. Replying to Ben Goertzel, he grants in the preceding paragraph that a superintelligence would have the capability to know that turning the universe into copies of its creators is 'stupid and not what was intended', but says knowing is not enough: the AI must want to check, model it accurately and act on it. Evidence ↗
  7. · publication · dated to the day

    The mailing-list message “Re: Revising a Friendly AI” (2000-12-12) is sent under the name Eliezer S. Yudkowsky. Evidence ↗
  8. · publication · dated to the day

    The SL4 message “Re: Revising a Friendly AI” (2000-12-12) contests Y05. Replying to Ben Goertzel, who argued that children adopt their parents' values through emotionally charged interaction more than explicit teaching, he says this relies on evolved human machinery that a young AI would lack. Evidence ↗