From: Rick Nielsen <nilthchi.nul> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 21:08:23 -0800 (PST) Archived: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 06:54:00 -0500 Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence >From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 15:39:35 -0500 (EST) >Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence <snip> >Not slaves, cyborgs. Humanity will most likely split but it's >split would be into the cyborgs and those merging with >technology versus the minority of humans who will wish >to remain human. As a transhumanist I fully support >any person's wish to remain a pure human. In fact, if I were to >ever become like the gods via merging with machines I >would actually dedicate my life to the preservation of the >human species, making sure that pure humans survive and >defending them from say another of the 'gods' who may >think they have other plans for the humans. >As we progress far into the future where most of the population >is cyborgs or have completely uploaded their minds into machines >the pure humans will play less and less a role in society. There >will quickly come a time when they literally contribute >absolutely nothing to society and are instead just like pets. At >this time they will become vulnerable to the 'gods' who may wish >to wipe them out, use them as a resource, or make them slaves. >That's why it's important to have friendly 'gods' protecting >humanity. >I've even toyed around with the idea that I would need at least >24 young, healthy specimens of each race in order to produce a >healthy breeding population but perhaps that itself is too low a >number. I would quietly choose my humans, abduct them against >their will, talking about a crises capable of wiping out >humanity here, and then transport them to a new planet in which >I would have prepared in advance. I would repeat the process as >necessary. I would not interfere per say with their development >but I do know I would have to help them jump start their culture >via agriculture, language, and the basics of civilization, that >same things that the old gods allegedly taught humanity. But >that would be it. No more interfering. >In fact, I would probably sleep most of the time only awakening >when I am alerted to a potential threat or when my humans are >ready to split off again into gods and men. I might have to >guide them through that process as well. Which brings me to >something else I've wanted to touch on. What if our visitors are >here because they know we are about to create A.I. and thus, >about to become gods ourselves? >I do have this sneaky suspicion that this process of splitting >off has occurred multiple times in the history of humanity. But >I guess that would be better left to the science fiction writers >to explore. >Jason Gammon I'd like to add to this discussion. I hope my comments are better late than never. Intelligence could be defined as an interaction (I) between an individual (A) and something outside (B) the individual. That something outside (B) could be the environment, other individual(s), etc. The interaction (I) infers, in the individual (A), self-awareness and other-awareness and willingness to interact with the other (B). The interaction is the key to this definition of intelligence. Please note that this is not a definition of life, per se. Based on the above definition, intelligence exists if all these exist: Intelligence =3D A + I + B This definition does not differentiate between biologics or non- biologics. Artificial intelligence could be included in this definition. So could viruses. So could humans. So could planets and stars and grains of sand, and elements, etc. Intelligence could also be measured as the comparison of how 'well' two individuals (A and B) interact (I). This comparison isn't an "IQ test." It's only a subjective comparison of intelligences. It could be seen as a ratio: I =3D A : B But this would only work as a measurement, even if only subjectively, if A and B could be quantified, and their values be represented by numbers. Due to the multitude of types of intelligence, this ratio may not be reducible to numbered values or any subsequent fractional representation, like 4:3. This relationship might forever remain only a ratio of each of the individual's labels, for example: (red ant) : (boy focusing sunlight on the red ant) We might say the boy is the "most intelligent" of the pair because he's acting on the ant. But the ant would also be acting (interacting) in response to the boy's act. Each would show intelligence, by the definition above. But who can say which is more intelligent? I'd prefer to not be the ant in this interaction. But judging by my personal past, (past behavior being the best predictor of future behavior), I seldom control what will happen to me, and even less give a thought to what my response will be. It appears to me to be easier to define intelligence than to measure it. Be that as it may, types of human intelligences have been listed and measured, most subjectively. Here are some of the types that have been quantified for humans: Agreeableness; Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence; Conscientiousness; Emotional intelligence; Existential intelligence; Extraversion; Interpersonal intelligence; Intrapersonal intelligence; Linguistic intelligence; Logical- mathematical intelligence; Musical intelligence; Naturalistic intelligence; Neuroticism; Openness; and Spatial intelligence. These types of intelligences could be ordered as more or less important to a given situation, among humans. There have also been experiments in so-called "animal cognition". But the apex of this so far has been in getting non- human primates to interact with humans using American Sign Language. The Turing test was also an attempt to get past an apples and oranges kind of comparison, in the case of human judgment and computer thinking. Turing devised the test as a human "imitation game". He proposed that if a computer could imitate human responses in a text-only interaction, then determining whether computers could think, wasn't necessary. Many artificial intelligence proponents have used the Turing test as a way to show that comparing human intelligence to artificial intelligence is possible. But the Turing test is not an intelligent interaction between human and computer, since the computer's responses were programmed by humans. The Turing test remains just another human to human interaction, in this case through a computer program via text messages only. So again, it appears to me to be easier to define intelligence than to measure it, except in a subjective human to human way. Now, about AI. I believe you've been inferring a self-aware AI. Is that correct? If you are, how would you measure self-awareness in an AI? Would you only infer it, as I have, by saying that any observable interaction between AI and any "other" would do? If so, when would you proclaim that the AI's response was "original" and not the result of pre-programmed combinations of pre-programmed algorithms? When would AI's truly original interaction, (proof of intelligence), not be the result of a human to human interaction through programming? Would you use that measure=E2=80=94genuine AI, (or NOT-human), to human interaction=E2=80=94as the pre-cursor to AI creating its own next generation? Would these intelligent AI's necessarily be benevolent to humans, regardless of their human or non-human origin? How would you know? How could you predict that? Frankly, neither a Wachowski nor an Isaac Asimov version of AI ascension would be the only way it could happen. Sometimes plot devices and story arcs are just that. And lastly, for now, is it necessary that the TRUFOs or their occupants need to be AI? Or could these be something other than AI? Couldn't the TRUFOs or their occupants be biological entities? 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