UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2012 > Dec > Dec 25

Re: Artificial Intelligence

From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul>
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:30:22 -0500 (EST)
Archived: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 08:59:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence

>From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul>
>To: post.nul
>Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 10:05:32 -0500
>Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence

>>From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul>
>>To: post.nul
>>Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:10:15 -0500 (EST)
>>Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence

>>I just wanted to clarify that when we are talking about creating
>>A.I. we are not talking about recreating a human being in a
>>machine. There's no need for that as sex is far more efficient.
>>Instead, what we are discussing is creating a machine that is
>>roughly as intelligent as a human being.

>>From then on it would upgrade itself or produce successful
>>generations of machines that are more intelligent until the
>>point where machines reach a god-like state of intelligence
>>which cannot be matched by human intelligence. At that stage if
>>A.I. wanted to design a machine to perfectly emulate a human
>>being then it could do so.

>>But humans have no real need or motivation for recreating a
>>human in a machine, such as a being that feels pain, pleasure,
>>experiences emotions, etc.

>Why would anyone say that feelings serve no purpose? They are
>important determinants of social behaviour, both positive and
>negative. A conscious living organism is more than a fancy
>thermostat, and that is what your super-AI would be without

Yes, for a human being. However, we are not talking about
recreating a human being. We have no need to. Sex pretty much
takes care of that. We are talking about creating an A.I. that
is roughly the same, intelligence-wise to a human being, not a
'super-A.I.'. We won't create super-A.I. We may foolishly take
credit for it but we won't create them. Instead we will create
A.I. that is similar to the level of intelligence in a human.
From then on it would upgrade itself.

>>Now some may argue that we may want robots with emotions, but in
>>reality we will settle for far less. No one wants a deppresed
>>robot for example.

>>So we will settle for robots that will lie to us and convince us
>>they have emotions, and are happy, when they truly do not have
>>emotions. The A.I. we construct won't need emotions so it will
>>be up to future advanced A.I. as to whether or not it wants to
>>pursue such developments, i.e. tin man recieving a heart.

>One could argue that an emotionless super-AI would not recognize
>an emotion when it saw it. It would not have the frame of
>reference needed to recognize emotional effects on behaviour, no
>matter how intelligent it were. Like many psychologists have done
>in the past, it would interpret biological behaviour strictly in
>terms of input/output.

I was referring to programming that mimics emotional responses
instead of an actual emotional machine. All we will care about
is if the machine responds as if it is emotional, not whether or
not it truly does have emotions.

>>Currently we have machines that are as intelligent as insects
>>and we have A.I. on the savant level of intelligence. What we
>>are looking for is the general intelligence of normal human
>>beings. One we achieve that the party will start.

>>Jason Gammon

>Jason, I don't understand why we humans would want to create the
>conditions for an unemotional super-AI to evolve when it would
>see us the same way we see an ant. Maybe not even that. At least
>we can appreciate the aesthetics of an ant hill organization. The
>cost to humanity would be great if super-AIs were to evolve, and
>there is no apparent benefit. Why are you so upbeat about this?

There is risk in creating any A.I. However, an A.I. capable of
experiencing emotions would simply pose a different type of
risk. For example, how dangerous could an emotionally disturbed
A.I. be?

>Such a project is contrary to all human technological evolution.
>We have always created technology as a tool to make life easier
>or to amuse us. Now people like you are talking about a tool
>that could make us not only redundant but unable to survive as a
>species. How is this not a suicidal project? Or is this an
>extreme case of a technological challenge that will merely amuse
>some of us in the short-term?


If you are an X-Files fan you should know you can't fight the
future. This is a path we chose long ago.

One way to survive would be to merge with our technology, become
advanced cyborgs or even upload our minds into machines. We
would perhaps become 'the gods', beings perhaps like our

You do realize that there will come a time where the only 'life'
that is capable of existing will be machine intelligences,
right? Our Universe will die. Billions of years from now the
Universe will be a cold, lonely place, where almost all of the
stars have winked out. It's called the degenerative stage, the
slow death of our Universe.

Any intelligent organic species must by this time have uploaded
their minds into machines. Of course the hope is that god-like
A.I. may be able to transport us into a parallel universe in
order to find a new home; but if this is not possible then we
must merge with machines in order to continue to exist during
this latter stage of our Universe.

However, we have only roughly 500 million years or so until we
will not be able to survive on this planet. Our sun will become
too hot and bright for life on earth to survive ad A.I. may be
the ticket we need off of this planet and solar system. We
desperately need A.I. to survive.

The creation of A.I. will not automatically spawn a threat of
take-over. Instead, it will give rise to a golden age, a second
renaissance and humanity will prosper. The problem is that we
most likely only have a small window of opportunity in order to
create A.I. and kick off the singularity.

If we wait too long it may be too late and mankind will be

Jason Gammon

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com