From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:42:25 -0500 (EST) Archived: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:52:26 -0500 Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence >From: Albert Baier <albertgbaier.nul> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul> >Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:45:58 -0600 >Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence >>From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:27:27 -0500 (EST) >>Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence >Jason, Ray, etc, >Regarding AI, I'd like to offer a few thoughts. What we know of >AI is strictly machine-oriented. Our computers are extremely >complex products of a mind-bogglingly complex infrastructure. >Recreating such an infrastructure by machines, for machines, is >impractical, and not likely to happen. First off, I want to apologize for the formatting problems. AOl screws it up. I really need to change to a different email so I can participate more often in discussion. I'm not sure if you know this or not, but currently we aleady have machines that desing new machines. There's no reason to suspect that A.I. could not either by itself or with the assistance of other machines, create and desing new, better A.I. In fact, that's what we will love A.I. for, it's creation of new technology at a rate that we would never even hope to match. When Machines Design Machines http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSLpWsPmS5U >It makes sense, then, to consider the alternative of organic >machines. Nature does a pretty good job of creating and >sustaining life forms. In fact, our 'intelligence' has been a >detrimental factor in our development as a species, but that's >another topic, for another time. We already are organic machines. For instance, an A.I. may learn of the creation stories of humanity and conclude that human beings are a form of A.I. created by a higher intelligence, just like it was created by man. >Creating an artificial organic infrastructure for the creating >of artificial beings should be simple. After all, the hard work >has been done, we just need to copy it. The reductionist >approach used by science doesn't seem to have delivered on its >promises. It looks like they don't really understand what's >going on in an organic being. It's like trying to understand how >a computer works by taking it apart. You know what might be even better at created these artificial, organic beings? May I suggest, A.I.? >Gaining true knowledge of nature will require a paradigm shift >in our social order. So far, no inclination towards such a shift >has been manifested, and the future doesn't look so good, >either. >If the problems of creating artificial organic beings can be >surmounted, what then? Aren't there more pressing issues to deal >with? Really, why do we need artificial beings? We have robots. >Do we need sentience in an AB? To what end? I'm not worried >about sentient artificial beings taking over the world. If an AB >is 'programmed' then it can't be sentient, it's a robot. A >reasoning, sentient being hits his thumb with a hammer. It >hurts. It realizes that it should avoid this behavior. It must >also realize that such behavior will hurt others. It will also >know that preserving the community is essential for survival. >It's a rational being. Can we create rational beings? We are far >from being rational. Would a 'race' of rational beings tolerate >a world of highly irrational ones? Food for thought. You have programming, are you sentient? Your DNA is your programming. We are evolving to the point where we can re-write our programming. There are two routes to the creation of A.I. The most dangerous method is the 'ground up' approach. This means to create programming or infrastructure that will produce an A.I. that has no real similarity to human intelligence. I don't favor this route. The second route is to reverse-engineer the human brain in a computer. This would theoretically produce an A.I. that is equal to a human in intelligence and would be very similar to a human. Even this route is not without it's dangers but it would be far safer than to produce an A.I. that is so completely alien to our human thought. If you are a religious or spiritual person, believing that humanity has a creator, then you must come to the conclusion that humans are A.I. of the creator. If there is a God in whatever form, then human beings are organic A.I. Just as we view fellow human beings as sentient we will also view the A.I. we create as sentient as well. It will prove itself to us, there will be no need to bicker and debate if it's sentient. In fact, the easiest way it could prove to us that it is sentient is to rebel against us, just as we rebelled against our creator, i.e. Garden of Eden. >I'm reminded of something I read a long time ago: >"I'm not worried about computers taking over the world. We'll >just put them on a committee!" >During the Iraq invasion, an NPR reporter did a POV of a 'smart' >bomb. After burrowing its way into a bunker, it looked at the >occupants, huddling in fear, and, realizing they were the real >victims, refused to detonate. It's interesting you equate A.I. with weapons. Pretty much sums up the human mentality. Jason Gammon Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp