Well, these artificial identities need to complete a loop. Say the artificial identity acquires an email address, phone#, a physical address, a bank account, logs onto Amazon and purchases stuff automatically it needs to be able to put money into its bank account. So let's say it has a low profit scheme to scalp day trading profits with its stock trading account. That's the loop, it has to be able to make money to make purchases. And then automatically file its taxes with the IRS. Then it's really starting to look like a full legally functioning identity. It could persist in this fashion for years.
I would bet that these identities already exist. What happens when there are many, many of them? Would we even know? John From: Steve Richfield [mailto:steve.richfi...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 8:17 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Epiphany - Statements of Stupidity Ian, I recall several years ago that a group in Britain was operating just such a chatterbox as you explained, but did so on numerous sex-related sites, all running simultaneously. The chatterbox emulated young girls looking for sex. The program just sat there doing its thing on numerous sites, and whenever a meeting was set up, it would issue a message to its human owners to alert the police to go and arrest the pedophiles at the arranged time and place. No human interaction was needed between arrests. I can imagine an adaptation, wherein a program claims to be manufacturing explosives, and is looking for other people to "deliver" those explosives. With such a story line, there should be no problem arranging deliveries, at which time you would arrest the would-be bombers. I wish I could tell you more about the British project, but they were VERY secretive. I suspect that some serious Googling would yield much more. Hopefully you will find this helpful. Steve ========= On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote: I wanted to see what other people's views were.My own view of the risks is as follows. If the Turing Machine is built to be as isomorphic with humans as possible, it would be incredibly dangerous. Indeed I feel that the biological model is far more dangerous than the mathematical. If on the other hand the TM was not isomorphic and made no attempt to be, the dangers would be a lot less. Most Turing/Löbner entries are chatterboxes that work on databases. The database being filled as you chat. Clearly the system cannot go outside its database and is safe. There is in fact some use for such a chatterbox. Clearly a Turing machine would be able to infiltrate militant groups however it was constructed. As for it pretending to be stupid, it would have to know in what direction it had to be stupid. Hence it would have to be a good psychologist. Suppose it logged onto a jihardist website, as well as being able to pass itself off as a true adherent, it could also look at the other members and assess their level of commitment and knowledge. I think that the true Turing/Löbner test is not working in a laboratory environment but they should log onto jihardist sites and see how well they can pass themselves off. If it could do that it really would have arrived. Eventually it could pass itself off as a "peniti" to use the Mafia term and produce arguments from the Qur'an against the militant position. There would be quite a lot of contracts to be had if there were a realistic prospect of doing this. - Ian Parker On 7 August 2010 06:50, John G. Rose <johnr...@polyplexic.com> wrote: > Philosophical question 2 - Would passing the TT assume human stupidity and > if so would a Turing machine be dangerous? Not necessarily, the Turing > machine could talk about things like jihad without ultimately identifying with > it. > Humans without augmentation are only so intelligent. A Turing machine would be potentially dangerous, a really well built one. At some point we'd need to see some DNA as ID of another "extended" TT. > Philosophical question 3 :- Would a TM be a psychologist? I think it would > have to be. Could a TM become part of a population simulation that would > give us political insights. > You can have a relatively stupid TM or a sophisticated one just like humans. It might be easier to pass the TT by not exposing too much intelligence. John > These 3 questions seem to me to be the really interesting ones. > > > - Ian Parker ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/? <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> & Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com agi | <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Modify Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> agi | <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Modify Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
