UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2013 > Jan > Jan 12

Re: Artificial Intelligence

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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com