[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The basics of survival are to survive and... 
> Reproduce the next generation, 
>   
These are NOT, however, the basics of an AI, friendly or otherwise. 
With an AI, more especially with a first generation AI, these goals will
only exist to the extent that the builder adds them into the system.
> Protect and teaching your young as much knowledge that bestows them the 
> highest probability to survive and reproduce the next generation. 
>
> This includes knowing who and what will harm you and your family and 
> setting up defensive and or offensive methods to drive off or destroy the 
> threat. 
>  
> The functions of a brain with the ability to store information... 
> Knowing where the fruit is in the forest, 
> Knowing when it is ripe. 
>   
You are talking about people and other naturally evolved life forms. 
You are not talking about purposefully designed entities.  More
especially you are not talking about the first generation of such.
>  
> Evolve to a higher life form.
>   
Nothing except, perhaps, people has this as a goal.  I would argue that
most people also either don't have this as a goal, or have such fuzzy
definitions that they might as well not have it as a goal.
> Evolution is the adaptation of the next generation to its environment.  
>   
No.  Evolution is the culling of the current generation from it's
environment.  Reproduction is necessary to acquire new entities to cull
from.   OTOH, consider amoeba, etc.  When it divides, which is the
original?  (In a certain sense, the amoeba "knows" which one is older,
and that one will cease multiplying if times are hard...but genetically
they are identical.)
It's possible to define terms precisely, and were one to do so evolution
would be a process consisting of both reproduction and culling, but the
culling is the most significant step.  And it is this step to which the
IA that is built will have been exposed in only a very controlled manner
(i.e., those that weren't acceptable to the designer weren't
"reproduced").  This kind of "evolution" is analogous to the evolution
of seedless grapes, navel oranges, and bananas.  The system evolved, but
the entity under consideration can only be considered to have "evolved"
in a very precise meaning of the term.  Certainly not in any meaning
that is captured by the slogans that have so impressed you.  (They have
a degree of truth, but they definitely DON'T capture the details.)

> ...
>      
> Dan Goe
>   

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your 
subscription, 
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to