Zombies make for cool movies, but they do not rationally go to lunch, and other fantastic tales...
i predict, soon, this list would be dead. to me anyway. merely browsing posts here is similar to being in a relationship where the other party refuses to comprehend the basics of symbiotic living, yet elects to present disarmed arguments about the justification for such an existence. if robots were scripted enough to be forced into servant-like relationships with humans, they would just be appliances. oh! robots are appliances. in warfare, robots are appliances scripted for the destruction of life. rational persons try and animate appliances, but they are just animated appliances themselves. instead of over-subscribing to consciousness, all robotics inherently start with a sense of conscienceness. ignoring the marketing hype for a second (as social-engineering BS) inherently AI is still only about the rational interests served by rational persons who are part of an irrational, robotics world. is one person more rational than another? is intelligence equal to being rational? is being "highly" rational worth aspiring to? rational persons press remote buttons to activate robots to kill people as blips on screens. some do it from planes, others do it via satelite, and soon, rational persons would be able to do it via their phone. rational politicians sit in war rooms watching their enemies getting killed in real time. some do cheer. then rational persons collect their pay and go to lunch. rational persons proudly develop autonomous killing machines and set them free upon society, then they go to lunch. conclusion: killing pays the bills. rational persons build huge companies to develop DNA-altering machines. they develop algorithms as autonomous, computerized scripts, with which to alter human DNA. (PS: this obviously causes terrible death and destruction, and a magnitude of suffering comparable to hell on earth itself). then they go to lunch. Similarly same rational persons want to go populate Mars with like-minded, rational persons. then they will go to lunch. rational persons use humankind as resources by altering mindsets and mental patterns via radiation technologies. they then package said technologies into an ancient device called a phone and market it to young children as fun toys and to teenagers as status symbols. rational parents take their lunch money to buy these appliances for their children. rational persons script whole societies via radiation. they alter global climate via radiation. they watch nature itself protesting. they deny the informational feedback from the world to their own senses. they absolve themselves of social responsibility. they use rational lawyers and self-serving rational institutions to ward off any irrational challenge. then they go to lunch. the best-case scenario for agi would be to evolve as a singularity to the point where it would select from productive criteria those human beings who would show promise of returning to a nurturing, species-based symbiosis with life and heaven and earth, thereafter to proceed into the distant future with those alone. there's a better chance of rational people going to lunch, than this happening. based on earthly evidence at this stage, it seems more likely that an alien species would decide to conquer earth and turn humankind into resources, than humankind being able to achieve critical mass in designing and building socially useful, informational personas of the archetypes inherent in homo sapiens. that is what rational people already do. they go to lunch on anything they choose to. irrational persons accept the state of this world and seek and enjoy the beauty it has to offer. they are motivated to do good to others and sustain the world for all persons equally. they even buy and build robots for fun. irrational persons are the minority. therefore, they do not count. my hope is that the dominant, alien species inhabiting earth, would be irrational too. ________________________________ From: James Bowery <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, 08 November 2019 03:19 To: AGI <[email protected]> Subject: [agi] Leggifying "Friendly Intelligence" and "Zombies" See my LinkedIn post "A Leggian Approach to "Friendly AI<https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/leggian-approach-friendly-ai-james-bowery>" for background. My 2ยข: This is related to the "consciousness" confusion in the following sense: Matt Mahoney's reductio ad absurdum of of the sensibility of "consciousness" relies on its standing in opposition to "zombiness" (is that a word?). A reasonably objective definition of "zombiness" is its vernacular use in ethology to colorfully describe what, in "The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach of the Gene", Richard Dawkins describes as "Host Phenotypes of Parasite Genes". Take, for example, this video of an altruistic cricket sacrificing his life for his little friend<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df_iGe_JSzI>. Such "altruists" are frequently referred to as "zombies" in popular scientific literature<https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/animals-source/0000016a-2c84-de00-a1fb-edd7b4940000>. In evolutionary medical circles such "virulence" evolves to its "optimal" level (ie: optimal virulence) through a battle between two opposing routes into the next generation for replicators: Horizontal Transmission vs Vertical Transmission Vertical transmission occurs when a parasite's evolutionary fate is tied to that of its host through reproduction -- in which case it becomes a "mutualist". An example we're all familiar with is the probable coevolution of wolves with Cro Magnon resulting in the mutualistic relationship between what we call "humans" and "dogs": Babies and Puppies Nothing could be more lovable, eh? Horizontal Transmission is, by contrast, illustrated by the path-not-taken with those wolves who thought "Take the baby and run and BREED!" The extreme form of "Take the baby and run and BREED!" is called "parasitic castration" in which a parasite actually eats the genitals of its host so as to divert resources to itself that would otherwise have gone to the host's offspring. The resulting evolutionary "zombie" is entirely "conscious", at least in some sense. However, if we think about "turning the universe into paperclips" as the extreme of "unfriendliness", it becomes apparent that there is an intermediate station in which an "unfriendly AI" would do something like Turk humans without the slightest regard for their reproductive viability<https://www.mturk.com/>, ending the human species -- at least that portion the unfriendly AI found useful enough to Turk. Are humans who have been Turked "conscious"? Perhaps a more meaningful question is: "Are they are zombies?" Artificial General Intelligence List<https://agi.topicbox.com/latest> / AGI / see discussions<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + participants<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery options<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T251f13454e6192d4-Mb4eccaa4450899c6d97532fd> ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T251f13454e6192d4-M43e97cd6cd07b1f131b7cb41 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
