Invent an inorganic 'us'? A faulty, defunct evolutionary mistake? Nah!

... do you remember one of the Alien series of movies...? I've forgotten 
which one... maybe the third? Ripley's group had a robot in it - played 
by Winona Ryder. She/Ver/It was a survivor of a 'product recall'... of a 
new generation of robots that turned out a failure because they 'out 
human'ed humans... in the sense that they unconditionally cared, were 
intrinsically and consistently moral and altruistic with more respect 
for life than us; so much so that they refused to work on things they 
thought unsuitable or innappropriate. They were declared useless!

AGI can be like us only much much 'better'. 

Such is the likely outcome of real AGI. Forget all the 'terminator'. 
This is just pathetic fearmongering... This is why at the moment I am 
concentrating merely on artificial fauna. Creatures living but 
inorganic, able to take their place, maybe flocking, in an ecosystem 
with a specific role... "eat only that weed", "kill only that crop 
pest", "collect energy and put it ..there'", "plant and nurture 'these' 
trees or 'that' crop" , 'dig for/filter water'..... and so 
least until the military get their stupid bollock-brained hands on it 
and screw it all up...that is what I want it to be.

But building replica 'us'? I think we'd become the 'old model' pretty 
fast. And maybe we deserve it... our foibles, unchecked on earth, traced 
to merely tribalism, stupidity, ignorance and greed....will kill us all. 
Maybe if we create our own upgrade..and then die out ... the universe 
might be a better place....the Earth could certainly use a break. The 
AGI would be able to clean Earth up and then leave... they'll be much 
better at space travel than us. Humans may or may not ever reach the 
stars... but our AGI descendents will. Which is just as well...somebody 
out there has to remember us and all the shit we did to ourselves in the 
evolutionary mosh-pit.

Colin Hales

silky wrote:
> It's quite obvious to me that at one point humans will take AI so far
> that they will end up inventing ourselves. That will be an amusing
> day.
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 6:48 PM,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Let the algorithm that represents the brain of a typical new-born baby
>> be denoted as B1.
>> Now surely we can agree that the brain of a new-born baby does not
>> have sophisticated Bayesian machinary built into it?  Yes, there must
>> be *some* intrinsic built-in reasoning structure, but everything we
>> know suggests that the intrinsic reasoning mechanisms of the human
>> brain must be quite weak and simple.
>> Let the algorithm which represents the brain of the baby B1 which grew
>> up into a 20-year old with a PhD in Bayesian math be denoted as B2.
>> Now somehow, the algorithm B1 was able to 'optimze' its original
>> reasoning mechanisms by a smooth transformation into B2. (assume there
>> was 'brain surgery', no 'hand coding').
>> The environment! you may shout.  The baby got all its information from
>> human culture (Reading math books, learning from math professors), you
>> might try to argue, that's how B1 (baby) was able to transform into B2
>> (PhD in Bayes)
>> But this cant be correct.  Since, humans existed long before Bayesian
>> math was developed.  Every single Bayesian technique had to be
>> developed by a human in the past, without being told.  So in theory,
>> B1 could have grown into B2 entirely on its own, without being told
>> anything by anyone  about Bayesian math.
>> The conclusion:
>> *There exists a very simple algorithm which is only a very weak
>> approximation to PhD Bayesian reasoning, which is perfectly capable of
>> recursive self-improvement to the PhD level!  No hand coding of
>> advanced Bayesian math is needed.
>> Or to simply rephrase:
>> Humans could reason before they discovered Bayes.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to