From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 00:12:08 -0500 (EST) Archived: Sat, 05 Jan 2013 07:34:42 -0500 Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence >From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 12:08:05 -0500 >Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence >>From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 00:59:07 -0500 (EST) >>Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence >>>From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:11:00 -0500 >>>Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence >>>>From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> >>>>To: post.nul >>>>Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 02:28:54 -0500 (EST) >>>>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 >>>>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 >>>Well, with that one sentence, this entire thread is trivialized. >>>Unfortunately, Jason has put his finger on a fundamental >>>problem. There have always only been operational definitions - >>>intelligence is what intelligence tests measure. Such >>>definitions don't help much to understand the putative goal of >>>autonomous machines. >>>Our operational definitions of intelligence can only arise from >>>human expectations about human behaviour. How would we even know >>>when a machine is intelligent, much less when it becomes super- >>>intelligent? It would be like trying to understand the >>>intelligence of a tree. >>I had to flip it on Ray to show how bad the Chinese Argument is. >>Well, not bad exactly. It's a brilliant trap. I say we should >>rename it 'the Chinese Finger Trap' instead, as it assumes >>humans are intelligent and makes no distinction between >>conscious and unconscious intelligence. So we are better off >>just ignoring the argument altogether. >>The good news is that we don't have to understand something in >>order to exploit it. For example, we don't fully understand >>gravity but we each exploit it every single day. >This is a poor analogy since the effect of gravity is simple, >unvarying, and certainly not intelligent so that it can be >unpredictable as you use it. Then how about this... Peter Cochrane in the video below uses the example of aerodynamics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puis1LSWeuQ >>The key is behavior. We will know A.I. is intelligent when it >>behaves in a manner in which we interpret as intelligence. We >Psychologists tried to develop stimulus-response theories about >human behavior and ran up against a wall. They had to resort to >black boxes in between containing mechanisms needed to >adequately explain the behavior, such as instincts, drives, >ethics, etc. We will have to do the same with future evolving >automatons, so we will end up interpreting their behavior in >terms of our own. Because we will not really understand what >motivates their behavior, we could easily conclude that they are >psychotic and react defensively. Interpreting super-AI behavior >correctly will be a big problem because it will be alien to us. I understand what you are tryig to communicate but I do not share your pessimism. I do believe that hostile A.I. behavior would be interpreted as being hostile by humans. Likewise, I believe cooperative, friendly behavior would be interpreted the same. >>will likewise know A.I. has advanced to a state beyond human >>intelligence when humans can no longer compete with it. This >>process won't occur all at once but will continue as it is now >>doing, with various fields that were formerly dominated by human >>now being replaced with machines. Eventually a time will come >>when human are no longer proficient in creating computers. So >>from that time onward machines will be in control of the >>creation of new and better computers. Same thing goes with >>computer programmers. In the future there won't be any human >>computer programmers. Machines will be far superior in designing >>new computer programming. I don't think people quite understand >>this. It's not a matter of cost or anything like that. It's a >>matter of the human mind not being able to keep up with >>technology, hence why we will just allow A.I. to takeover. >>So personally, I'm not afraid of an A.I. takeover. What I'm >>afraid of is human behavior that will force machines to defend >>and protect themselves. For a good example of such, check out >As I suggested above, if humans see the AI behavior as >aggressive and unpredictable and react defensively, the AI might >interpret that defensive posture as aggressive and, in turn, >react defensively, given they have a need to survive. It's all a >matter of perspective, and when one side can't properly >understand the motivations of the other, all bets are off. Your >sunny(?) view that humans will be superfluous and ignored may >prevail, or we may be brushed off like pesky, interfering ants >in a garden. This was the issue raised in the article that >started this thread. I think you are over-thinking this and are far too pessimistic. When we first create A.I. on the level of a human being it will not be in a position to immediately wipe us out if it so chose. Doom-and-gloomers always skip the golden age that will develop and fast-forward just to a potential threat. >>the segments of the Animatrix below titled, The Second >>Renaissance Part 1 & 2. This is the official prequel to the >>Matrix trilogy. I love these segments because 'the truth' is so >>different than humans present in the movies. For example, in the >>movies Morpheus states that no one knows who started the war. As >>you will see that's not quite true. >>The Second Renaissance >>Part 1 >>http://tinyurl.com/mpl6az >>Part 2 >>http://tinyurl.com/anfd688 >Unfortunately, these pages can only be seen from inside the US. Try googling them. It's the official prequel of the Matrix trilogy, explaining the how and why of the machine take over. It also allows the speculation that the machines were always acting in our best interest. They could have used nuclear energy to survive and let humanity die when humans destroyed the sky. Instead, they chose a symbiotic relationship with mankind by building the matrix, thus allowing humanity to survive. I love it because 'the truth' is so vastly different compared to what the humans present in the movies. -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