From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 08:27:04 -0000 Archived: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 08:33:45 -0500 Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence >From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 15:56:47 -0500 (EST) >Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence >>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 20:55:03 -0000 >>Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence <snip> >>I.e. "sins" decrease our species chances of survival, >>especially in times of genetic bottle-neck. >>So if an AI is actually 'intelligent' and not merely following >>a program (algorithm) it will have its own definition of >>morals, based on its own evolutionary imperatives - which are >>almost certainly going to clash with ours. >Yes they will clash with ours. Part of the maturation process is >rebellion against our creators (parents). However, the goal is cooperation. An adult human being reaches past the point of rebellion to cooperate in human society. Machines will need to go through a similar process. We should encourage this process by 'raising' machines in human families. Hi Jason, The human concepts of 'rebellion' and 'cooperation' would likely be meaningless to an AI, which will have its own concepts, that we cannot recognize (and probably won't like). <snip> >Penrose is a brilliant mind. However, he is one man. Human >beings have a very long history of denying intelligence or even >'souls' to fellow human beings. The argument that machines could >never become intelligent fits well into this human pattern of >behavior. >You may be interested in the following: >Quantum Computers >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer That's putting a computer circuit (of qubits) into a quantum state to allow multiple calculations to be carried out simultaneously. But they are still calculations (i.e. algorithms). Many scientists, Penrose included, say that merely enacting algorithms probably can't give 'intelligent thought'. Refs: Contra-AI - Scientists who say that enacting algorithms probably cannot give 'intelligent thought'; see Searle's "Chinese Room" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room Pro-AI - 'Strong AI' theorists say that any sufficiently complex algorithm, no matter what enacts it, will _be_ 'intelligent thought'; see Hofstadter's "Einstein's Brain" http://tinyurl.com/ak5ogg8 Cheers Ray D 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 | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp