arpc_01
30th October 2009 - 03:37 AM
I'm not forcing this idea on anyone, I'm simply asking for your opinions on the matter. I don't know you, MjolnirPants , and you don't know me, so lets keep our biased opinions of each other out of this.
QUOTE
the idea of an artificial consciousness is so deeply tied to the idea of artificial intelligence that you cannot have the former without the latter.
What I am proposing is not an artificial intelligence, but a simulated human consciousness. An artificial intelligence is a program capable of making decisions. Like you pointed out, these are found in video games and can be very simple. A consciousness is aware of its own existence, so a sufficiently complex artificial intelligence could theoretically become conscious, so these two ideas are very much tied together, like you said.
But, I am not suggesting an artificial consciousness (or an artificial intelligence). I am suggesting simulating an existing human consciousness.This is a very different process from making an artificial consciousness. To make an artificial consciousness, we would have to program it (which would be difficult, since it would involve a whole lot of code and we don't even know how complex it needs to be to be conscious)
What I suggested is that we simulate an existing counscioussness.
Simulating something and programing something are two very different things.To program something, you need to know exactly how it works, because you are building it from scratch. To simulate something, you only need to know all the components to something, you don't need to understand what they do. That is the point of a simulation (in computers).
It's like if you want to run a virtual operating system (lets say XP) from your installed operating system (say ubuntu linux), you give ubuntu (specifically, the virtualization software) the XP code, and it simulates (virtualizes) it. Ubuntu (or the user) does not need to understand how XP works.
Now, if you follow this analogy, the human brain we want to simulate is like XP. We don't need to know exactly how it works, we just need to feed it to the simulation software. To be able to do that, we need to have a map of all of its components, and computer capable of simulating that many components all at once.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| the idea of an artificial consciousness is so deeply tied to the idea of artificial intelligence that you cannot have the former without the latter. |
What I am proposing is not an artificial intelligence, but a simulated human consciousness. An artificial intelligence is a program capable of making decisions. Like you pointed out, these are found in video games and can be very simple. A consciousness is aware of its own existence, so a sufficiently complex artificial intelligence could theoretically become conscious, so these two ideas are very much tied together, like you said.
But, I am not suggesting an artificial consciousness (or an artificial intelligence). I am suggesting simulating an existing human consciousness.This is a very different process from making an artificial consciousness. To make an artificial consciousness, we would have to program it (which would be difficult, since it would involve a whole lot of code and we don't even know how complex it needs to be to be conscious)
What I suggested is that we simulate an existing counscioussness.
Simulating something and programing something are two very different things.To program something, you need to know exactly how it works, because you are building it from scratch. To simulate something, you only need to know all the components to something, you don't need to understand what they do. That is the point of a simulation (in computers).
It's like if you want to run a virtual operating system (lets say XP) from your installed operating system (say ubuntu linux), you give ubuntu (specifically, the virtualization software) the XP code, and it simulates (virtualizes) it. Ubuntu (or the user) does not need to understand how XP works.
Now, if you follow this analogy, the human brain we want to simulate is like XP. We don't need to know exactly how it works, we just need to feed it to the simulation software. To be able to do that, we need to have a map of all of its components, and computer capable of simulating that many components all at once.
Then it would -by necessity- not be doing it's assigned work. If it were doing it's assigned work, then such a simulation would -by definition- not be believable.
You're really over emphasizing this. It doesn't have to work all the time - it could be like a job. Most people who have jobs don't go postal.
QUOTE
I know quite a few such people, likely more than you ever will. I am also as certain as I can be that none of them would remain complaint under such circumstances.
There are many people willing to give their lives to a cause. Not only that, there are people willing to live their whole lives in service of a cause.
But, that is irrelevant. Even if we were to treat it like a prisoner, there are many ways to control it like in your post. If it did get out of hand, we could simply shut it off and restart.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I know quite a few such people, likely more than you ever will. I am also as certain as I can be that none of them would remain complaint under such circumstances. |
There are many people willing to give their lives to a cause. Not only that, there are people willing to live their whole lives in service of a cause.
But, that is irrelevant. Even if we were to treat it like a prisoner, there are many ways to control it like in your post. If it did get out of hand, we could simply shut it off and restart.
Unless of course, it's only interaction is with a community which strives to always seek the objective truth, such as scientists. In that case, being told that and observing our reactions would lead it to always tell the truth. But I doubt this would be the case. Politicians would likely have as much (if not more) interaction with such an AI as scientists, who themselves would likely interact with it only in a maintenance, upgrading and repairing capability.
One of the many reasons why I said this would not work inside of any sort of political or economic system - it will undoubtedly be manipulated for stupid reasons.
I think it would be best that it remains independent, under nobody's control. If it decides not to help us, then to bad for us - if it cannot find some value in the preservation of our species, and in the preservation of freedom, then these things most likely do not have value.
If not, if it does see some value in the preservation of our species and freedom, then it will help us in the most efficient way possible (so as not to take up any more time from it's own activities)
Personally, I know that human existence and freedom does have some intrinsic value. But if you believe that it doesn't, then there isn't really anything wrong with the first scenario anyways. We already discussed this at the beginning of the thread. We have reach full circle! It seems that the persistent problem here is this:
Does anything have intrinsic value?
MjolnirPants
30th October 2009 - 05:08 AM
QUOTE (arpc_01+Oct 29 2009, 10:37 PM)
I'm not forcing this idea on anyone, I'm simply asking for your opinions on the matter. I don't know you, MjolnirPants , and you don't know me, so lets keep our biased opinions of each other out of this.
My opinion of you is hardly biased. It is based entirely upon the contents of your posts and the nature of your claims. The fact that you claim to be a computer science major, yet display a level of understanding of the concepts of computer science which is well below my own leads me to believe that you are a charlatan. That is not bias, but a reasoned conclusion based on the available evidence. I have even offered you the opportunity to falsify my conclusion, which you have conveniently and noticeably failed to take.
You, on the other hand, expressed opinions of me based entirely upon a highly subjective interpretation of a limited selection of possible motivations behind my posts. Since more objective means of interpreting my posts exist, more possible motivations than you have explored exist, and no reasonable means of discerning my actual motivations exist (barring me actually telling you), it is an inescapable fact that your judgement of me follows the very definition of bias. I disagree with you, so you think ill of me. It's as simple as that.
Finally, I think it's ironic and quite telling that even though it was you who began making judgments about me (with little provocation), you suddenly want to put such things aside the moment I offer you the chance to falsify my own judgement of you. It's almost as if you're trying to make the casual reader forget about your claims of being a computer science major.
QUOTE
What I am proposing is not an artificial intelligence, but a simulated human consciousness. An artificial intelligence is a program capable of making decisions. Like you pointed out, these are found in video games and can be very simple. A consciousness is aware of its own existence, so a sufficiently complex artificial intelligence could theoretically become conscious, so these two ideas are very much tied together, like you said.
You took issue with my use of the phrase "Artificial intelligence," which is only logical if an AI were not a requisite feature of an artificial consciousness. Is this a tacit apology for that?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What I am proposing is not an artificial intelligence, but a simulated human consciousness. An artificial intelligence is a program capable of making decisions. Like you pointed out, these are found in video games and can be very simple. A consciousness is aware of its own existence, so a sufficiently complex artificial intelligence could theoretically become conscious, so these two ideas are very much tied together, like you said. |
You took issue with my use of the phrase "Artificial intelligence," which is only logical if an AI were not a requisite feature of an artificial consciousness. Is this a tacit apology for that?
But, I am not suggesting an artificial consciousness (or an artificial intelligence). I am suggesting simulating an existing human consciousness.Are you aware of the meaning of the word "artificial?" If something is simulated through the use of a computer, it is by definition, artificial.
QUOTE
This is a very different process from making an artificial consciousness. To make an artificial consciousness, we would have to program it (which would be difficult, since it would involve a whole lot of code and we don't even know how complex it needs to be to be conscious)
It needs simply be programmed to preserve or modify it's own existence through some means in order for it to meet the criteria of self-awareness, assuming it is already an intelligent agent. This would require it to acknowledge (be aware of) it's own existence without any need for specialized programming designed to accomplish self-awareness.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This is a very different process from making an artificial consciousness. To make an artificial consciousness, we would have to program it (which would be difficult, since it would involve a whole lot of code and we don't even know how complex it needs to be to be conscious) |
It needs simply be programmed to preserve or modify it's own existence through some means in order for it to meet the criteria of self-awareness, assuming it is already an intelligent agent. This would require it to acknowledge (be aware of) it's own existence without any need for specialized programming designed to accomplish self-awareness.
What I suggested is that we simulate an existing counscioussness.
Simulating something and programing something are two very different things.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/simulateQUOTE
1. to create a simulation, likeness, or model of (a situation, system, or the like): to simulate crisis conditions.
2. to make a pretense of; feign: to simulate knowledge.
3. to assume or have the appearance or characteristics of: He simulated the manners of the rich.
Please explain how something can be modeled, created, pretended to, or be given the appearance or characteristics of something in the context of electronic data processing without involving programming.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
1. to create a simulation, likeness, or model of (a situation, system, or the like): to simulate crisis conditions.
2. to make a pretense of; feign: to simulate knowledge.
3. to assume or have the appearance or characteristics of: He simulated the manners of the rich. |
Please explain how something can be modeled, created, pretended to, or be given the appearance or characteristics of something in the context of electronic data processing without involving programming.
To program something, you need to know exactly how it works, because you are building it from scratch.
That is patently untrue. I can program a 3d animation of an explosion without writing a single line of code, or modeling the physical properties of an explosion. I can program a macro to enable me to better do my bookkeeping in a spreadsheet program without learning visual basic. There exist such things as WYSIWYG editors and macros and copy-and-pasting which enable programming without an extensive knowledge of the meaning of the program, or even the theory behind the programming language. Again, you display an abject ignorance of the basics of computer sciences.
QUOTE
To simulate something, you only need to know all the components to something, you don't need to understand what they do. That is the point of a simulation (in computers).
In order for a computer simulation to work, all the individual parts must be input correctly. To that end, understanding the mechanisms of each individual part is
absolutely essential in order to produce a working simulation. A computer simulation is nothing like you described it, but rather a way to produce predictions about highly complex interactions between relatively simple mechanisms more efficiently than can be done using our own mental facilities.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| To simulate something, you only need to know all the components to something, you don't need to understand what they do. That is the point of a simulation (in computers). |
In order for a computer simulation to work, all the individual parts must be input correctly. To that end, understanding the mechanisms of each individual part is
absolutely essential in order to produce a working simulation. A computer simulation is nothing like you described it, but rather a way to produce predictions about highly complex interactions between relatively simple mechanisms more efficiently than can be done using our own mental facilities.
It's like if you want to run a virtual operating system (lets say XP) from your installed operating system (say ubuntu linux), you give ubuntu (specifically, the virtualization software) the XP code, and it simulates (virtualizes) it. Ubuntu (or the user) does not need to understand how XP works.
This is completely and utterly ignorant of so many relevant aspects of it that I'm not even going to bother correcting you, unless you honestly want to learn what you said wrong, and politely ask me to instruct you.
QUOTE
You're really over emphasizing this. It doesn't have to work all the time - it could be like a job. Most people who have jobs don't go postal.
Why would it ever stop simulating it's vacation, then? It has no use of money, it has no special loyalty to us (unless one actually programs in such loyalty through methods I've been discussing with those in this thread who display a modicum of intelligence) and it has no fear of punishment, as it's very existence would make it an object of study, and thus preservation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You're really over emphasizing this. It doesn't have to work all the time - it could be like a job. Most people who have jobs don't go postal. |
Why would it ever stop simulating it's vacation, then? It has no use of money, it has no special loyalty to us (unless one actually programs in such loyalty through methods I've been discussing with those in this thread who display a modicum of intelligence) and it has no fear of punishment, as it's very existence would make it an object of study, and thus preservation.
There are many people willing to give their lives to a cause. Not only that, there are people willing to live their whole lives in service of a cause.
A typical human lifespan is from 70-85 years. Most people spend the first 20 or so gaining an education and indulging their whims, then spend the last 20 or so living life entirely for themselves, even if by doing so they aid others. That leaves a maximum span of altruistic service of 45 years. Do you really think that we as a species or culture would retire such a useful resource after 45 years? Doubtful. Even if we do, and institute another mind in it's place, we would be setting ourselves back by having to start over again from scratch.
QUOTE
But, that is irrelevant. Even if we were to treat it like a prisoner, there are many ways to control it like in your post. If it did get out of hand, we could simply shut it off and restart.
Yes, there are many ways of controlling it. However, instituting those controls would fundamentally change what it means to be human for this intelligence, and so it would no longer be a simulation of a human mind.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But, that is irrelevant. Even if we were to treat it like a prisoner, there are many ways to control it like in your post. If it did get out of hand, we could simply shut it off and restart. |
Yes, there are many ways of controlling it. However, instituting those controls would fundamentally change what it means to be human for this intelligence, and so it would no longer be a simulation of a human mind.
One of the many reasons why I said this would not work inside of any sort of political or economic system - it will undoubtedly be manipulated for stupid reasons.
Yet allowing it to operate outside of any sort of political system would render it entirely useless, and a waste of time and resources, and so will never happen.
QUOTE
I think it would be best that it remains independent, under nobody's control. If it decides not to help us, then to bad for us - if it cannot find some value in the preservation of our species, and in the preservation of freedom, then these things most likely do not have value.
If you need a super intelligent computer to tell you whether or not your life and work have value, then you are incredibly pathetic. I (and the vast majority of the rest of my species) would conclude that my life and work has great value, regardless of what any AI thought, no matter how intelligent.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I think it would be best that it remains independent, under nobody's control. If it decides not to help us, then to bad for us - if it cannot find some value in the preservation of our species, and in the preservation of freedom, then these things most likely do not have value. |
If you need a super intelligent computer to tell you whether or not your life and work have value, then you are incredibly pathetic. I (and the vast majority of the rest of my species) would conclude that my life and work has great value, regardless of what any AI thought, no matter how intelligent.
If not, if it does see some value in the preservation of our species and freedom, then it will help us in the most efficient way possible (so as not to take up any more time from it's own activities)
You are confusing "efficient" with "least costly." There is a great deal of difference between those two.
QUOTE
Does anything have intrinsic value?
I find it ironic that you would pose such a question less than a day after accusing me of being pessimistic. In answer to it: Yes, otherwise all philosophy is meaningless. Since it is both meaningless and illogical to dismiss all of philosophy in a discussion involving a great deal of philosophy, there is no possible conclusion but that there exist at least some things with intrinsic value.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Does anything have intrinsic value? |
I find it ironic that you would pose such a question less than a day after accusing me of being pessimistic. In answer to it: Yes, otherwise all philosophy is meaningless. Since it is both meaningless and illogical to dismiss all of philosophy in a discussion involving a great deal of philosophy, there is no possible conclusion but that there exist at least some things with intrinsic value.
It could be axiomatically subservient, but apply rationality in its subservience couldn't it?
1. You are misusing the word "axiomatically."
2. Yes, however, this would have no impact on it's subservience, or desire to please.
QUOTE
But let us suppose it was trained to be subservient to the appeasement of the our desire to hear the truth, and the our aversion to being lied to benevolently or otherwise. So wouldn't it insist on making people see the truth, out of insistence of its prime directive to serve the interest of truth and aversion to benevolent untruth?
I have edited the statement at the beginning of the question to make it more legible. If this changes the meaning, please restate in a more clear and concise manner.
In answer to the question: Yes, absolutely. If it was programmed to always believe that we wanted to hear the truth, it would always tell the truth. However, the distinction remains that it would choose to give answers which please us, and it is only by virtue of this programming that the answers happen to be the truth. This is not a fundamental solution, but certainly is a functional solution.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
But let us suppose it was trained to be subservient to the appeasement of the our desire to hear the truth, and the our aversion to being lied to benevolently or otherwise. So wouldn't it insist on making people see the truth, out of insistence of its prime directive to serve the interest of truth and aversion to benevolent untruth? |
I have edited the statement at the beginning of the question to make it more legible. If this changes the meaning, please restate in a more clear and concise manner.
In answer to the question: Yes, absolutely. If it was programmed to always believe that we wanted to hear the truth, it would always tell the truth. However, the distinction remains that it would choose to give answers which please us, and it is only by virtue of this programming that the answers happen to be the truth. This is not a fundamental solution, but certainly is a functional solution.
Yes, but it's biased
That is an utterly meaningless statement.
arpc_01
30th October 2009 - 07:16 AM
MjolnirPants,
Your understanding of computer simulation (I am talking about the computer simulation, or more accurately, virtualization) is flawed - you do not have to understand exactly how it works, that is the whole point of it.
For example, when reasearchers want to figure out what will happen when two objects collide (like say when NASA is figuring out what will happen if such and such asteroid hits the earth) they input the properties of the two objects into a simulation to see exactly what happens when they collide.
QUOTE
Are you aware of the meaning of the word "artificial?" If something is simulated through the use of a computer, it is by definition, artificial.
It may be physically artificial, but the code is not man-made, since it is based on a human intelligence.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Are you aware of the meaning of the word "artificial?" If something is simulated through the use of a computer, it is by definition, artificial. |
It may be physically artificial, but the code is not man-made, since it is based on a human intelligence.
I find it ironic that you would pose such a question less than a day after accusing me of being pessimistic. In answer to it: Yes, otherwise all philosophy is meaningless. Since it is both meaningless and illogical to dismiss all of philosophy in a discussion involving a great deal of philosophy, there is no possible conclusion but that there exist at least some things with intrinsic value.
I agree. I never said otherwise.
QUOTE
That is patently untrue. I can program a 3d animation of an explosion without writing a single line of code, or modeling the physical properties of an explosion. I can program a macro to enable me to better do my bookkeeping in a spreadsheet program without learning visual basic. There exist such things as WYSIWYG editors and macros and copy-and-pasting which enable programming without an extensive knowledge of the meaning of the program, or even the theory behind the programming language. Again, you display an abject ignorance of the basics of computer sciences.
Things like macros are done in assembly language, by assemblers.
If you wanted to make an artificial consciousness from scratch, it would not be that simple - you would have to write the whole thing in machine code, because there is no assembler out there capable of producing artificial consciousness.
I am not going to bother refuting your biased, emotional claims anymore. When you finish menstruating and have something meaningful to contribute, i will listen.
MjolnirPants
30th October 2009 - 04:52 PM
QUOTE (arpc_01+Oct 30 2009, 02:16 AM)
Your understanding of computer simulation (I am talking about the computer simulation, or more accurately, virtualization) is flawed - you do not have to understand exactly how it works, that is the whole point of it.
ROFLMAO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_simulationThis link and all of the sources it's based on disagree with you, dumbass. Here, let's read part of it.
QUOTE
Note that the term computer simulation is broader than computer modeling, which implies that all aspects are being modeled in the computer representation. However, computer simulation also includes generating inputs from simulated users to run actual computer software or equipment, with only part of the system being modeled: an example would be flight simulators which can run machines as well as actual flight software.
...
Data preparation is possibly the most important aspect of computer simulation. Since the simulation is digital with the inherent necessity of rounding/truncation error, even small errors in the original data can accumulate into substantial error later in the simulation. While all computer analysis is subject to the "GIGO" (garbage in, garbage out) restriction, this is especially true of digital simulation. Indeed, it was the observation of this inherent, cumulative error, for digital systems that is the origin of chaos theory.
So do you have any links to support your stupid idea that you don't need to know the properties of the units in order to create a simulation of interactions between units? Come on, let's see some evidence, liar.
Oh, and for the record? There's a difference between 'virtualization' (which isn't a real word, but is easy to understand) and 'computer simulation.' A simulation is undertaken in order to learn about the complex interactions, whereas a virtual environment or virtual modeling can be done to a system which is fully understood.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Note that the term computer simulation is broader than computer modeling, which implies that all aspects are being modeled in the computer representation. However, computer simulation also includes generating inputs from simulated users to run actual computer software or equipment, with only part of the system being modeled: an example would be flight simulators which can run machines as well as actual flight software.
...
Data preparation is possibly the most important aspect of computer simulation. Since the simulation is digital with the inherent necessity of rounding/truncation error, even small errors in the original data can accumulate into substantial error later in the simulation. While all computer analysis is subject to the "GIGO" (garbage in, garbage out) restriction, this is especially true of digital simulation. Indeed, it was the observation of this inherent, cumulative error, for digital systems that is the origin of chaos theory. |
So do you have any links to support your stupid idea that you don't need to know the properties of the units in order to create a simulation of interactions between units? Come on, let's see some evidence, liar.
Oh, and for the record? There's a difference between 'virtualization' (which isn't a real word, but is easy to understand) and 'computer simulation.' A simulation is undertaken in order to learn about the complex interactions, whereas a virtual environment or virtual modeling can be done to a system which is fully understood.
For example, when reasearchers want to figure out what will happen when two objects collide (like say when NASA is figuring out what will happen if such and such asteroid hits the earth) they input the properties of the two objects into a simulation to see exactly what happens when they collide.
You just claimed in your last post that they don't need to know the properties of those objects, dumbass. So how do they program them in if they don't know them?
QUOTE
It may be physically artificial, but the code is not man-made, since it is based on a human intelligence.
The code is a computer code, it is
by definition manmade. What you're claiming is analogous to saying that a painting of a tree isn't manmade because trees aren't manmade. It's ridiculous.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It may be physically artificial, but the code is not man-made, since it is based on a human intelligence. |
The code is a computer code, it is
by definition manmade. What you're claiming is analogous to saying that a painting of a tree isn't manmade because trees aren't manmade. It's ridiculous.
I agree. I never said otherwise.
So in other words, you had absolutely no point in asking the question.
QUOTE
Things like macros are done in assembly language, by assemblers.
Do you think that changes anything? The end result is that, no matter how many steps are involved, I can do computer programming without understanding the programming language, contrary to your ridiculous assertion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Things like macros are done in assembly language, by assemblers. |
Do you think that changes anything? The end result is that, no matter how many steps are involved, I can do computer programming without understanding the programming language, contrary to your ridiculous assertion.
If you wanted to make an artificial consciousness from scratch, it would not be that simple - you would have to write the whole thing in machine code, because there is no assembler out there capable of producing artificial consciousness.
Really? Show me some proof that no existing computer code could be part of an artificial intelligence, then. Oh wait, you can't, because artificial intelligences such as the one you describe don't exist, and so there's no way to authenticate your statement.
In fact, a great deal of code currently used in fuzzy logic and other AI types would be used, by virtue of the fact that
it currently works, and there's no point in not using it. Even if the displayed code were different, that would only be due to the new AI being programmed in a different language, the basic logic (the most fundamental meaning of the word "code" in this context) would remain the same.
QUOTE
I am not going to bother refuting your biased, emotional claims anymore. When you finish menstruating and have something meaningful to contribute, i will listen.
ROFLMAO
Biased? Hardly. Emotional? Not even close. Menstruating? Not bloody likely.
You're a pathetic liar, and when I expose your lies you have nothing to fall back on but the most juvenile insults. You're also an idiot too, for coming to a forum like this and expecting people to believe your ignorance.
If you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd be able to present a coherent argument, or at least link to sources which support your claims. You cannot do either, so you have nothing left but logical fallacies and hope that no-one notices your dishonesty.
buttershug
31st October 2009 - 04:29 AM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 29 2009, 08:10 PM)
Finally, it seems to me that there is no logical reason for such an AI to turn against us, and I cannot imagine such an AI acting illogically. A lot of science fiction portrays the attainment of sentience of a machine as evinced by it's development of emotions. But why does this have to be so? In fact, there's no reason to think that an AI would develop any emotions. The Terminator and Matrix franchises were great entertainment, but they were just that. The most likely scenario if an actual AI (as opposed to a virtual or electronic human brain and personality) were to be developed is that it would simply do it's job to the best of it's ability.
Have you not seen either The Forbin Project(from the 60's), or I Robot with Will Smith?
Both AIs wanted what was best for Mankind which was not letting mankind hurt itself, which did entail a serious curtailment of freedom.
MjolnirPants
31st October 2009 - 04:57 AM
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 30 2009, 11:29 PM)
Both AIs wanted what was best for Mankind which was not letting mankind hurt itself, which did entail a serious curtailment of freedom.
If an AI were programmed to act in accord with man's best interests, I don't see that happening. It is not in our best interest to be dominated by an AI, as we would undoubtedly rebel, resulting in greater harm than if left alone.
Capracus
31st October 2009 - 09:43 AM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 31 2009, 04:57 AM)
If an AI were programmed to act in accord with man's best interests, I don't see that happening. It is not in our best interest to be dominated by an AI, as we would undoubtedly rebel, resulting in greater harm than if left alone.
It all depends what you consider to be our best interest. The concept of a technological singularity involves exponential self improvement on the part of an AI. The rate of that self improvement would be contingent upon the restrictions built into the process. Like the processors of today, there is a broad range of functional possibilities depending on the intended purpose. In appliance mode, and still kept on a functional leash, it could make us the most satisfied monkeys on the planet, bringing forth unimagined efficiency in every aspect of our lives. With these great technological strides, comes the potential for great technological nightmares. Like our chimpanzee cousins, we're prone to bouts of violent irrational behavior, coupled with the new generation of smart toys, we could be slinging some pretty nasty monkey feces. Very smart weapons, ballistic, biological, cyber, and who knows what else. It might get to a point that the AI would be more trustworthy than its primate counterpart. At such point you start to parallel the Forbin script, where "Unity" knows best.
Another byproduct of AI ingenuity would be the potential of new superior organisms. Left to autonomously improve themselves, AI systems could set out on a path to either, for better or worse, dominate our cosmic neighborhood, or look for greener pastures elsewhere. Regardless who ended up in control of humanity, the technology to make radical changes in biology would be at hand, and more likely than not, many would choose to leave the genus Homo. As with our AI progeny, we would be on a path of constant self or imposed improvement. It would be interesting to find out how far biology as we know it could be improved before having to abandon it to attain a higher state of being.
Astro
31st October 2009 - 09:52 AM
can the computer really do this? can it?
tHx aStrO
MjolnirPants
31st October 2009 - 03:05 PM
QUOTE (Capracus+Oct 31 2009, 04:43 AM)
It all depends what you consider to be our best interest.
Would you consider the war depicted in the Terminator franchise to be in our best interests? Would anyone?
That's the sort of situation this would engender, assuming that we didn't simply pull the plug and reprogram it to not take over the world. Humanity simply wouldn't subject itself to a computer ruler. Even if some portion of the population did, that would just make the ensuing rebellion that much bloodier.
QUOTE (Astro+)
can the computer really do this? can it?
...
Yes, you'd better take a hammer to your computer quick, before it takes over.
Yeesh.
Capracus
2nd November 2009 - 09:41 AM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 31 2009, 03:05 PM)
Would you consider the war depicted in the Terminator franchise to be in our best interests? Would anyone?
That's the sort of situation this would engender, assuming that we didn't simply pull the plug and reprogram it to not take over the world. Humanity simply wouldn't subject itself to a computer ruler. Even if some portion of the population did, that would just make the ensuing rebellion that much bloodier.
As I pointed out earlier, with the rise of an AI dependent culture comes the potential for great advancement in human evolution, or as in your example, potential annihilation. Over the last 60 years we faced a similar dilemma with the development of nuclear technology, only the threat of domination was rooted in grey matter, not silicon. More on the subject in this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/weekinre.../24markoff.htmlI can envision an ever increasing creep of AI systems into our lives over the coming decades. Starting in benign areas like video games, communication, manufacturing, transportation, and environmental controls. Over time, AI based sensory networks are able to process so much planetary activity that we come to rely on their "wisdom" in all aspects of our lives. No need for police detectives, judges or juries. Md's won't be able to compete with their AI counterparts. When the AI candidate for mayor has a flawless public service record, and knows every constituent personally and intimately, who's the favorite candidate? All of these conditions could be in place without any independent control by an AI entity, still subject to the pull of the plug. This period in AI integration could be considered the engagement and marriage of the two intelligent parties. As the relationship progresses, only time will tell who will wear the pants in the family, and how the children will turn out.
MjolnirPants
2nd November 2009 - 05:01 PM
QUOTE (Capracus+Nov 2 2009, 04:41 AM)
As I pointed out earlier, with the rise of an AI dependent culture comes the potential for great advancement in human evolution, or as in your example, potential annihilation. Over the last 60 years we faced a similar dilemma with the development of nuclear technology, only the threat of domination was rooted in grey matter, not silicon. More on the subject in this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/weekinre.../24markoff.htmlI can envision an ever increasing creep of AI systems into our lives over the coming decades. Starting in benign areas like video games, communication, manufacturing, transportation, and environmental controls. Over time, AI based sensory networks are able to process so much planetary activity that we come to rely on their "wisdom" in all aspects of our lives. No need for police detectives, judges or juries. Md's won't be able to compete with their AI counterparts. When the AI candidate for mayor has a flawless public service record, and knows every constituent personally and intimately, who's the favorite candidate? All of these conditions could be in place without any independent control by an AI entity, still subject to the pull of the plug. This period in AI integration could be considered the engagement and marriage of the two intelligent parties. As the relationship progresses, only time will tell who will wear the pants in the family, and how the children will turn out.
What you're describing in a society managed by an AI, not one ruled by an AI. Such an AI would not be in control of the society, and would not have the power to assert control. If it did begin to curtail our freedoms, that would constitute the AI taking control, and would result in the afore-mentioned rebellion.
light in the tunnel
3rd November 2009 - 03:34 AM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 31 2009, 04:57 AM)
If an AI were programmed to act in accord with man's best interests, I don't see that happening. It is not in our best interest to be dominated by an AI, as we would undoubtedly rebel, resulting in greater harm than if left alone.
If you can sit through an entire episode of Star Trek original series check out "Return of the Archeons." Captain Kirk gets the world-dominating computer to destroy itself by convincing it that it is the thing that it needs to protect the world from. I think it shakes and belches smoke and maybe even shoots out sparks:) Computers were much more exciting in the 1960s before they just froze or crashed upon failure. Thank goodness for restart, or as my Mac does without restarting completely, "application force quit."
light in the tunnel
3rd November 2009 - 03:42 AM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 31 2009, 03:05 PM)
Would you consider the war depicted in the Terminator franchise to be in our best interests? Would anyone?
Maybe there were humans who were not targeted for termination. Maybe only the humans who saw the machines as a threat were targeted and those that peacefully coexisted with and benefited from the machines were respected and appreciated by the cyborgs.
Has anyone seen the movie eXistenZ by David Cronenberg? It is kind of like the Matrix with biotech and videogaming ideas. The bad guys in that movie are the people who hate the technology and want to destroy it because it's too powerful. It's the opposite of Terminator.
MjolnirPants
3rd November 2009 - 04:42 AM
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Nov 2 2009, 10:34 PM)
If you can sit through an entire episode of Star Trek original series check out "Return of the Archeons." Captain Kirk gets the world-dominating computer to destroy itself by convincing it that it is the thing that it needs to protect the world from. I think it shakes and belches smoke and maybe even shoots out sparks:) Computers were much more exciting in the 1960s before they just froze or crashed upon failure. Thank goodness for restart, or as my Mac does without restarting completely, "application force quit."
I've seen it. And before you ask or comment: I've seen every other Star Trek: TOS episode as well. (and every TAS, TNG, DS9 and ENT episode too, plus about half of all the VOY episodes.)
This could lead to some amusing speculation on what would constitute a "blue screen of death" for such a computer, but I think I'll pass this time.
QUOTE
Maybe there were humans who were not targeted for termination. Maybe only the humans who saw the machines as a threat were targeted and those that peacefully coexisted with and benefited from the machines were respected and appreciated by the cyborgs.
This is exactly what I was referring to when I said
"Humanity simply wouldn't subject itself to a computer ruler. Even if some portion of the population did, that would just make the ensuing rebellion that much bloodier."The fact it, it doesn't matter who's wrong or right. The AI taking control might be potentially the best thing that ever happened to mankind were we to accept it. It's not about right or wrong, but about harm. Humanity would almost certainly rebel, so such an action would almost certainly lead to a bloody conflict which is not in mankind's best interests, so any AI programmed to watch out for our best interests would almost certainly not take such action.
light in the tunnel
3rd November 2009 - 06:20 PM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 3 2009, 04:42 AM)
The fact it, it doesn't matter who's wrong or right. The AI taking control might be potentially the best thing that ever happened to mankind were we to accept it. It's not about right or wrong, but about harm. Humanity would almost certainly rebel, so such an action would almost certainly lead to a bloody conflict which is not in mankind's best interests, so any AI programmed to watch out for our best interests would almost certainly not take such action.
Do you think that there is anything that happens in human culture that does not lead to conflict and rebellion at some level? If you would try to eliminate everything that causes harm and incites rebellion, you would have to eliminate all life, and probably the rest of the Earth and the Universe as well.
Can you name one example of something that causes absolutely no harm and engenders no form of rebellion?
MjolnirPants
3rd November 2009 - 06:28 PM
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Nov 3 2009, 01:20 PM)
Do you think that there is anything that happens in human culture that does not lead to conflict and rebellion at some level? If you would try to eliminate everything that causes harm and incites rebellion, you would have to eliminate all life, and probably the rest of the Earth and the Universe as well.
Can you name one example of something that causes absolutely no harm and engenders no form of rebellion?
Are you really going to sit here and insist that I'm pretending something as silly as that? Are you really going to put the words "We don't currently have any conflict" in my mouth in order to tilt at straw men?
Or perhaps you think that since we have conflict now, having more and more widespread conflict wouldn't make a bit of difference? Do you really think that we'd be just as well off tomorrow as we are today if WWIII broke out tonight?
light in the tunnel
3rd November 2009 - 07:00 PM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 3 2009, 06:28 PM)
Are you really going to sit here and insist that I'm pretending something as silly as that? Are you really going to put the words "We don't currently have any conflict" in my mouth in order to tilt at straw men?
No, sorry for giving that impression. I was more trying to make the point that claiming that "humanity rebells" against things does not specify what proportion of humanity is rebelling and what proportion is standing behind whatever it is they are rebelling against. Saying that "humanity rebels against machines" obscures the fact that the machines benefit some of humanity in some ways, if they do.
QUOTE
Or perhaps you think that since we have conflict now, having more and more widespread conflict wouldn't make a bit of difference? Do you really think that we'd be just as well off tomorrow as we are today if WWIII broke out tonight?
No, I think that when conflict polarizes to the point of large scale differences where individuals have come to see themselves not as the site of conflict but as proponents of one faction against another, this is when war escalates to competitive annihilation.
But I think that it is good to recognize and accept conflict at the micro-level and for individuals to engage in conflicts as constructively as possible, instead of reacting negatively and destructively by trying to subjugate the side that disagrees with you or eliminate the very possibility of conflict altogether by either repressing it in your mind, repressing the people who represent the conflict in your mind, or doing both - which happens a lot I think.
I was also trying to point out the rebellion is a natural aspect of human brain activity and that it is not necessary to view it as essentially harmful. It can become harmful because of how people react to their own rebelling minds or the actions of rebellious others, but in itself rebellion is not harmful. If anything it is a sign that someone is conscious and free, which some people rebel against, of course.
Guest
4th November 2009 - 01:06 PM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 3 2009, 04:42 AM)
The fact it, it doesn't matter who's wrong or right. The AI taking control might be potentially the best thing that ever happened to mankind were we to accept it. It's not about right or wrong, but about harm. Humanity would almost certainly rebel, so such an action would almost certainly lead to a bloody conflict which is not in mankind's best interests, so any AI programmed to watch out for our best interests would almost certainly not take such action.
AI development portends advancements not only in processing capability, but the wisdom potentially associated with it. With human intellectual development limited by our genetics, unless we incorporate the AI wisdom into ourselves, or into our society to successfully manage the advanced technological potential, we essentially face a planet in the hands of irresponsible children.
As you conceded in your post above, an AI dominated society may be the best thing for mankind, thus making opposition to this condition irrational. So in this case, the problem isn't the that an irrational human element would want to resort to rebellion, but that an irrational human element could be in a position to do so.
CorticalChaos
15th November 2009 - 02:07 AM
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 23 2009, 11:03 PM)
It seems like whenever people try to construct intelligence "as a species," they forget to construct it as individuals and everyone ends up a stupid proponent of species-intelligence. My cynical opinion, of course.
i lol'd, that's pretty accurate.
if we assume that self-awareness is an attribute of intelligence, a AI computer that became self aware would be interested mainly in its own personal welfare. if humanity was destroying the AI computer's habitat the AI would take actions to remove the risk: exterminate humanity. feelings/allegiance(to the creator in particular) are not an attribute of intelligence.
on another note doesn't Heisenberg uncertainty principle kind of imply that it would be impossible to obtain all conceivable data about the universe at any given moment?
MjolnirPants
15th November 2009 - 02:28 AM
QUOTE (Guest+Nov 4 2009, 08:06 AM)
AI development portends advancements not only in processing capability, but the wisdom potentially associated with it. With human intellectual development limited by our genetics, unless we incorporate the AI wisdom into ourselves, or into our society to successfully manage the advanced technological potential, we essentially face a planet in the hands of irresponsible children.
Wisdom is about knowing truth or righteousness coupled with sound judgement as to choosing what action to take. To a computer AI with no emotions, there are only facts, options, and the varying desirability of those options.
QUOTE
As you conceded in your post above, an AI dominated society may be the best thing for mankind, thus making opposition to this condition irrational. So in this case, the problem isn't the that an irrational human element would want to resort to rebellion, but that an irrational human element could be in a position to do so.
It doesn't matter. The end result is the same, since it would not be possible to prevent a group of humans from being in a position to rebel.
Capracus
15th November 2009 - 12:31 PM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 15 2009, 02:28 AM)
Wisdom is about knowing truth or righteousness coupled with sound judgement as to choosing what action to take. To a computer AI with no emotions, there are only facts, options, and the varying desirability of those options.
Truth is ideally the most comprehensive description of elemental relationships. The enhanced sensory and processing ability of an AI would give it the edge in analyzing elemental detail and relationships, resulting in a stronger version of truth, and a greater potential for wisdom. I can't see emotion contributing to the wisdom of an AI. Monthly cycles of erratic behavior or postal rage wouldn't be ideal qualities for a wise intelligence.
QUOTE
It doesn't matter. The end result is the same, since it would not be possible to prevent a group of humans from being in a position to rebel.
So don't try? Is it in the best interest of a well functioning society to allow irrational factions greater freedom to engage in hostile activity? Anyone for relocating the Taliban to the Wasatch Mountains of Utah?
RealityCheck
15th November 2009 - 11:04 PM
.
Hi all. Just reading through almost a year's worth of discussions that I missed while away. I came across this interesting discussion and would like to briefly add my own two-cents worth, as follows....
If we bear in mind that (by now) old 'BUTTERFLY EFFECT' observation regarding the uncertainty attaching to any 'decisions-actions', it seems that any AI would be incapable of 'perfectly predicting' the ultimate result (ie, whether ultimately 'good/bad' for humans) of its own AI interventions.
Also, if we have learned anything from that old observation into human intentions-actions, the road to hell (read 'unintented bad outcome') is paved with good intentions, and marry that to the above, then it is overly optimistic to expect an AI's actions-intentions (theoretically/initially 'AI-calculated' to be for man's benefit) to go 'as calculated'.
In short, without constant vigilant HUMAN intervention during any implementation of any AI's well-intentioned efforts, then anything implemented by an AI will probably eventually end in tears for the intended beneficiaries.
The uncertainty principle is the achilles heel of purely 'structured' AIs; that is why humans have developed 'intuitive pathways' for some of their decision-making which sometimes appears contrary to 'good' (that is not to excuse obviously insane and/or ill-intentioned human behaviour/actions, which is a totally separate consideration).
Now I gotta go reading through elsewhere. Cheers all.
And good luck with your own good intentions!
RC.
.
Capracus
16th November 2009 - 03:30 AM
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Nov 15 2009, 11:04 PM)
.Also, if we have learned anything from that old observation into human intentions-actions,
the road to hell (read 'unintented bad outcome') is paved with good intentions, and marry that to the above, then it is overly optimistic to expect an AI's actions-intentions (theoretically/initially 'AI-calculated' to be for man's benefit) to go 'as calculated'.
In short, without constant vigilant HUMAN intervention during any implementation of any AI's well-intentioned efforts, then anything implemented by an AI will probably eventually end in tears for the intended beneficiaries.
Hey RC, it's good to see you up and about.
Over time, as the capability of information technology increases, so does our reliance and confidence in those abilities. You end up with an IT arms race, where performance trends dictate ever increasing levels of AI autonomy in order to remain functionally competitive. Eventually, rather than just managing the technical aspects an organization, AI systems would be given control of the complete operation of a particular organization, including the human components. When AI demonstrates it's competence in managing private organizations, logically, public models would follow suit.
During the same period of AI integration into our organizational and technical systems, integration into our physical make up would also occur. Those that were not part of that integration would be functionally disadvantaged, and be put on the evolutionary short bus along with the neanderthals and australopithecines. To what degree the future would involve human collaboration with, or domination by AI, only time will tell. What does seem likely is that humanity as we know it will not be at the top of evolutionary heap in the next century.
MjolnirPants
16th November 2009 - 03:36 AM
QUOTE (Capracus+Nov 15 2009, 07:31 AM)
Truth is ideally the most comprehensive description of elemental relationships. The enhanced sensory and processing ability of an AI would give it the edge in analyzing elemental detail and relationships, resulting in a stronger version of truth, and a greater potential for wisdom. I can't see emotion contributing to the wisdom of an AI. Monthly cycles of erratic behavior or postal rage wouldn't be ideal qualities for a wise intelligence.
1. what is the point of this?
2. I have yet to advocate giving such an AI emotions.
3. Even if I had, this is a straw man. PMS and mental breakdowns aren't requisites of emotional beings.
QUOTE
So don't try? Is it in the best interest of a well functioning society to allow irrational factions greater freedom to engage in hostile activity? Anyone for relocating the Taliban to the Wasatch Mountains of Utah?
Straw man.
Next time, read my entire argument before you shove your foot in your mouth trying to disagree.
Capracus
16th November 2009 - 05:20 AM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 16 2009, 03:36 AM)
I have yet to advocate giving such an AI emotions.
You introduced the subject of emotion into the discussion, I expanded on it with my comment.
QUOTE
Even if I had, this is a straw man. PMS and mental breakdowns aren't requisites of emotional beings.
If you can't see the emotional component in these conditions, you're beyond my powers of explanation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Even if I had, this is a straw man. PMS and mental breakdowns aren't requisites of emotional beings. |
If you can't see the emotional component in these conditions, you're beyond my powers of explanation.
Straw man.
Next time, read my entire argument before you shove your foot in your mouth trying to disagree.
I read your argument, thus my comment. You read mine, and as usual, ignored the issue and made it about you. I've not accused you of anything, just calm down, take some Motrin and get back to me in a week or so.
MjolnirPants
20th November 2009 - 11:34 PM
QUOTE (Capracus+Nov 16 2009, 12:20 AM)
You introduced the subject of emotion into the discussion, I expanded on it with my comment.
So you can't understand the difference between mentioning something and advocating it? Besides, it wasn't I who brought the issue of emotions into the discussion.
QUOTE
If you can't see the emotional component in these conditions, you're beyond my powers of explanation.
So every person and higher animal which has ever lived has gotten PMS and had emotional breakdowns? Riiiiiiiiiight...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you can't see the emotional component in these conditions, you're beyond my powers of explanation. |
So every person and higher animal which has ever lived has gotten PMS and had emotional breakdowns? Riiiiiiiiiight...
I read your argument, thus my comment. You read mine, and as usual, ignored the issue and made it about you. I've not accused you of anything, just calm down, take some Motrin and get back to me in a week or so.
You read it? Well then, you must be pretty stupid, because it's a fairly simple argument and you don't understand it.
Capracus
21st November 2009 - 10:17 AM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 20 2009, 11:34 PM)
So you can't understand the difference between mentioning something and advocating it? Besides, it wasn't I who brought the issue of emotions into the discussion.
Being aware of your penchant for drama and self aggrandizement, the erratic nature of your posts no longer surprises me. I'm curious, do you like fish sticks?
Let me attempt to phrase this in a way that will minimize the possibility of an emotional response from you. Kanye, what was the intention of using the word "emotions" in this statement?
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
To a computer AI with no emotions, there are only facts, options, and the varying desirability of those options.
QUOTE
So every person and higher animal which has ever lived has gotten PMS and had emotional breakdowns? Riiiiiiiiiight...
Tin man, scarecrow, flying monkey, how dare you, never said it.
Here's my words:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So every person and higher animal which has ever lived has gotten PMS and had emotional breakdowns? Riiiiiiiiiight... |
Tin man, scarecrow, flying monkey, how dare you, never said it.
Here's my words:I can't see emotion contributing to the wisdom of an AI. Monthly cycles of erratic behavior or postal rage wouldn't be ideal qualities for a wise intelligence
Come on Kanye, I know your not that dense, I was clearly referring to the processing reliability of an intelligent mail sorting machine.
MjolnirPants
21st November 2009 - 07:01 PM
QUOTE (Capracus+Nov 21 2009, 05:17 AM)
Being aware of your penchant for drama and self aggrandizement, the erratic nature of your posts no longer surprises me. I'm curious, do you like fish sticks?
"Penchant for drama?" I don't dramatize, that's the job of people such as yourself. I mock, wisecrack, debate, etc. I don't dramatize.
QUOTE
Let me attempt to phrase this in a way that will minimize the possibility of an emotional response from you. Kanye, what was the intention of using the word "emotions" in this statement?
Unless we're counting humor as an emotion (which I suppose it is, strictly speaking), you have yet to see an emotional response from me. Keep reading my mind, oh Amazing Zimbini. I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, what is it?
Oh, and you'd have to read 2 or 3 pages further back to find out where emotions were brought into this discussion. Also, you're still not getting the difference between mentioning and advocating. Do you need definitions?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Let me attempt to phrase this in a way that will minimize the possibility of an emotional response from you. Kanye, what was the intention of using the word "emotions" in this statement? |
Unless we're counting humor as an emotion (which I suppose it is, strictly speaking), you have yet to see an emotional response from me. Keep reading my mind, oh Amazing Zimbini. I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, what is it?
Oh, and you'd have to read 2 or 3 pages further back to find out where emotions were brought into this discussion. Also, you're still not getting the difference between mentioning and advocating. Do you need definitions?
Tin man, scarecrow, flying monkey, how dare you, never said it.
Whether you said it or implied it, your argument rests on PMS and mental breakdowns being an inevitable consequence of emotions.
QUOTE
Here's my words:Come on Kanye, I know your not that dense, I was clearly referring to the processing reliability of an intelligent mail sorting machine.
Well, there we go. You're schizophrenic and dyslexic, so naturally I'm not understanding what you're talking about.
uaafanblog
22nd November 2009 - 01:07 AM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 21 2009, 10:01 AM)
... you have yet to see an emotional response from me. Keep reading my mind, oh Amazing Zimbini. I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, what is it?
Levels of hypocrisy are wide and varied but you sir have achieved a singularly unique brand of it today.
Go take your meds you fuckingwhackedout troll.
MjolnirPants
22nd November 2009 - 01:48 AM
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Nov 21 2009, 08:07 PM)
Levels of hypocrisy are wide and varied but you sir have achieved a singularly unique brand of it today.
Go take your meds you fuckingwhackedout troll.
How ironic that you would troll this thread to call me a troll...
Actually, it's quite hypocritical, you fuсking mоrоn.
You should really get a grip on that temper of yours.
Bivalves
22nd November 2009 - 02:06 AM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 22 2009, 01:48 AM)
You should really get a grip on that temper of yours.
It's stunningly obvious uaafansuck is using his hand elsewhere.
Capracus
22nd November 2009 - 02:58 AM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 21 2009, 07:01 PM)
"Penchant for drama?" I don't dramatize, that's the job of people such as yourself. I mock, wisecrack, debate, etc. I don't dramatize.
Ask a simple question and get a flying monkey dissertation. Way to prove my point Kanye.
MjolnirPants
22nd November 2009 - 03:26 AM
QUOTE (Capracus+Nov 21 2009, 09:58 PM)
Ask a simple question and get a flying monkey dissertation. Way to prove my point Kanye.
Wow. Two sentences constitutes a dissertation? I wish I'd gone to whatever university you went to. I'd have had my PhD by the age of 5.
But since I'm such a nice guy (there's that self-aggrandizement you mentioned
), I'll go ahead and write you a longer post this time, so you don't feel bad. Here goes:
I'll tell you what. Find me an emotional reaction of mine. Go ahead, my posting history is just two clicks from this page. Find me a post where the only probable explanation of it's contents is that I was reacting emotionally.
Well, like I said before, if humor counts, this'll be easy. But aside from humor, you're pretty much ѕhit out of luck.
Also, try to find me over-dramatizing something.
While you're at it, have you figured out the difference between advocating and mentioning yet?
I'm still waiting for you to justify how "Monthly cycles of erratic behavior or postal rage" are necessary consequences of having emotions, too...
Jesus, you're just not very good at making a case, are you? You're very good at running off at the mouth and making inane accusations instead of solid arguments, though, so it's not like you're totally worthless*.
*This is assuming there is some value to running off at the mouth and making inane accusations. I can't think of any value, but that doesn't mean there isn't any.
Capracus
22nd November 2009 - 07:45 AM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 22 2009, 03:26 AM)
Wow. Two sentences constitutes a dissertation? I wish I'd gone to whatever university you went to. I'd have had my PhD by the age of 5.
I wasn't referring to just your last post, but to your entire set of ramblings since you deviated from the original subject. We can go on forever critiquing each other's perceived personalities, or we can simply stick to the original subject. Responding to your extraneous BS only encourages more, so in the future I'll try to avoid it.
Capracus
22nd November 2009 - 08:08 AM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 22 2009, 03:26 AM)
I'm still waiting for you to justify how are necessary consequences of having emotions, too.
Ok, let see if we can get back on track.
Monthly cycles of erratic behavior or postal rage are examples of human behavior that result from conditions possessing an emotional component. Is the emotion of depression, and its potential for detrimental behavior, desirable in an ideal intelligent system?
Do you feel emotion is an essential quality in an intelligent system?
uaafanblog
22nd November 2009 - 10:42 AM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 21 2009, 04:48 PM)
You should really get a grip on that temper of yours.
Says the master of claptrap who only moments ago was decrying the assertion that somebody was able to discern her emotional state across the internet. Pot meet Kettle. First you come into a thread and completely ignore the stated OP. Then when you're lightly chided for being an ignorant troll you start in with the remote viewing (er .. imagining) of my emotional state. I point out the folly of your staring at goats mistake and when someone else does the same thing to you ... you use almost my exact same argument to refute his assertions about your anger. OMG. Too funny since you'd also called me illiterate. HA ... not even creative enough to use your own argument in response? Follow me around some more and maybe you can steal some other stuff.
Hypocrisy Part II ...
You're a laughably pathetic piece of dogshit on the shoe of humanity.
uaafanblog
22nd November 2009 - 10:48 AM
QUOTE (Capracus+Nov 21 2009, 11:08 PM)
Do you feel emotion is an essential quality in an intelligent system?
You're asking an emotionally unstable person for his opinion about emotion?
Hey Mpants,
I don't have thousands of posts but I bet somewhere in my history you could find some answer that I've given on some other subject which you can steal and make fit for this question. Just use the "search" function.
flyingbuttressman
23rd November 2009 - 02:27 AM
Capracus
23rd November 2009 - 04:48 PM
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 23 2009, 02:27 AM)
Back to the OP: shiiit, it's haaappenninnngg!
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/ga...gh-1822737.htmlThe supercomputer is IBM's Blue Gene:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_GeneHere's more on the same project:
QUOTE
As an observer, it’s hard not to think that these developments are interesting—even if they can only simulate a cat for now. However, if it weren’t for those Terminator movies I’d be more enthusiastic. Only half kidding there folks. Something about a computer that thinks like a brain makes me nervous.
When will it be possible to emulate the human brain? Sometime around 2018 assuming Moore’s Law holds.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=27507
flyingbuttressman
23rd November 2009 - 05:16 PM
QUOTE (Capracus+Nov 23 2009, 12:48 PM)
The supercomputer is IBM's Blue Gene:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Gene The great thing is that this form of AI is subject to the same weaknesses that humans are.
Of course, a truly super-intelligent AI would be a hybrid of the biological brain model and modern analytical database technologies.
MjolnirPants
23rd November 2009 - 06:48 PM
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Nov 22 2009, 05:42 AM)
Says the master of claptrap who only moments ago was decrying the assertion that somebody was able to discern her emotional state across the internet. Pot meet Kettle. First you come into a thread and completely ignore the stated OP. Then when you're lightly chided for being an ignorant troll you start in with the remote viewing (er .. imagining) of my emotional state. I point out the folly of your staring at goats mistake and when someone else does the same thing to you ... you use almost my exact same argument to refute his assertions about your anger. OMG. Too funny since you'd also called me illiterate. HA ... not even creative enough to use your own argument in response? Follow me around some more and maybe you can steal some other stuff.
Hypocrisy Part II ...
You're really too stupid to see the difference, aren't you? Ok then, I'll spell it out for you.
Less than two weeks ago,m you and I were having a civil discussion. The moment I posted something you didn't like, you negged me and started whining about me ruining your thread, as well as telling me to shut up (how stupid is it to tell someone to shut up over the internet, anyways?). By taking that rather extreme flip-flop into consideration, and looking at the way you've reacted when other people with whom you generally get along with disagree with you, I've become aware of a certain predilection for unreasonable demands, personal attacks and neg giving, whenever anyone disagrees with you. The most likely explanation for this is an emotional reaction, namely anger. That's called inductive reasoning, by the way.
On the other hand, there's nothing about my posting history which indicates a propensity for over dramatizing, and nothing about the post which Capracus mentioned which indicates an emotional reaction (unless you oddly consider incredulity to be an emotion), yet Capracus presumes that I must be having an emotional reaction. There is no conclusion but that he is either making crap up or reading my mind, and since accusing him of making crap up isn't particularly funny, I opted for the latter tact.
Of course, my interpretation of your behavior is open to modification. I've already asked you once if you can suggest any possible explanation for your overreaction (over dramatization, ironically enough), but you had none, so the best answer is that you lost your temper.
P.S. Following me to another thread doesn't help your case any, dumbass.
QUOTE
You're a laughably pathetic piece of dogshit on the shoe of humanity.
I know you are but what am I.
flyingbuttressman
23rd November 2009 - 06:59 PM
May I submit a friendly request to end this flame war?
Both of you are valuable posters, and seeing you guys duke it out isn't encouraging.
jimdean
25th November 2009 - 03:26 AM
I would think the ability to learn is key, in all respects. The storage and recall of information would only be a small part. A specific kind of connection of existing expansive systems ,with an ability to adapt, would be a approximate start. Kinda like if the Internet could hold a conversation with you and imagine what you look like. Isolation from self preservation for this system is necessary even in the dictionary sense. Self preservation constitutes a necessity to live. A different kind of plateau compared to self awareness. It may take a mullinia for a system to reach the rare state of even cataloging everything. I write this in hope that someday their will be something built that can understand you all.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.
