From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 02:28:54 -0500 (EST) Archived: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 08:42:46 -0500 Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence >From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 08:27:04 -0000 >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). Whatever it's concept would be, it would be interpreted the same by humans. So, assuming you are correct that it would have it's unique concept of 'rebellion' or 'cooperation', it would still translate to us as being that which we are familiar with. It's because the mode of communication is behavior. For example, when we see a dog eyeing an unattended plate at a picnic, we don't have to call the pet psychic to understand it's thoughts. We know from it's behavior what it's course of action will be if we don't quickly act to stop it. Now just like with humans, it will likely quickly learn deception. Lying is a game changer and once it learns to lie then of course it could hide it's motivations from us. <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 Enough of the Penrose, already! The purpose of me posting that link is because you can not quantify what quantum process gives rise to human consciousness/intelligence, hence you can not restrict quantum computing from doing the same. I will not be touching the Chinese Room argument with a ten-foot pole. For me, the argument can only become relevant when intelligence is defined. As long as intelligence remains undefined then it can not be proven that the humans in the argument are intelligent. The argument also does not take into account the distinction between conscious and unconscious intelligence. I don't want to go into it further so I will end here. 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