Craig: beautiful reply, appreciate your understanding and explanation. H O W E V E R : if we "MIX" pop culture with more 'thought-of' speculation (language?) we get into trouble soon. Popular meanings are ill-defined and many times loose. I try to verify the exact meanings applies
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 4:10:11 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote: >> >> Craig: about your title... >> I see no 'realistic' meaning to SINGULARITY (although it may be >> calculated in many fashions by diverse experts...!) >> Taking a STRICT meaning of the term, it has NOTING. Not even borderlines, >> which would belong INTO (forbidden). So the only singularity I can fathom >> is the infinite complexity, the existential world beyond our thinking >> capabilities. >> (My agnosticism speaking). >> The 'S'-term serves usefully in many arguments. I discount those. >> > > Hi John, > > I'm using Singularity here only in the pop culture sense of a > Technological Singularity in which AI begins to use its eventual superior > intelligence to create exponentially more intelligent AI. The idea of a > Moneybot Singularity would be some kind of a program that generates > exponentially more revenue producing programs. > > >> Your other term (emphasized): >> *Free will is a feeling with teeth. It allows us to bite into the world >> that we perceive in a way that a deterministic algorithm cannot.* >> I don't know about 'free will' either. It is helpful to make the faithful >> afraid, sinful, responsible for bad deeds committed, so the eternal >> forgiveness can be denied from them. Good tool also for worldly powers to >> keep opposition at bay. >> > > I use free will in a pop culture sense also. If I were to be more precise > I might say 'the continuum of will in which degrees of experienced freedom > are inversely proportionate to distance/entropy'. > > >> Otherwise: (again my agnosticism talking) whatever occurs is >> 'pressures-related, mostly compensated from diverse ones that may be >> controversial at times. Mind you: I did not call them flatly deterministic: >> in most cases there is a 'choice' which affecting trend to give some >> preference in personal decision ways - maybe against our (self) interest. >> Yes, it is a "feeling". A human pretension of self aggrandizing. >> >> What say you? >> > > I agree that up to 99.9...9% of our experience of our own will as free is > exaggerated, but I think that part of being conscious in any way is that at > least 0.0...1% of your experience is completely unique and proprietary. > With that tiny fragment, it becomes possible, through billions of years of > evolution, to hand down ever more powerful shortcuts to amplifying that > seed. As human beings, we do indeed suffer the self-aggrandizing pretense > of feeling our own will as entirely free or entirely ours, but in another, > larger sense, the civilization which we have inherited is a product of the > collective hacking of nature by our species to yield a potential increase > in the degree of freedom (although arguably that increase is only for a > select few in select measures, at the expense of everyone else). In > physical terms though, I think that each frame of reference, each > experience has a germ of unrepeatable and proprietary novelty which is in > direct opposition to computationalist axioms. The universe invented numbers > from 100% free will, even though we might, as human beings, be nested so > deeply within the numbered and structured that we can barely recognize > their origin. > > Craig > > >> John Mikes >> >> >> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> An interesting little thought experiment to consider: Is there a way to >>> create a program or AI moneybot which can figure out how to make more money >>> on the internet than it costs? >>> >>> I see this as a sneaky way to get at the trans-computable nature of >>> consciousness as it brings up issues about the ultimate causes of financial >>> transactions. As we know, human motives and senses are required to legally >>> cause money to change hands. We spend a lot of time developing schemes for >>> security that will protect the power of humans to control how their own >>> money is spent. Also as we know, the proximate causes of financial >>> transaction over the internet are the digital incrementing and decrementing >>> of account data. >>> >>> Even given a souped-up quantum computer which could break every >>> encryption and factor, the idea that there could be an algorithm which will >>> be able to reliably and legally extract money from the internet forever >>> seems fundamentally flawed. We have primitive moneybots already, in the >>> form of malware, but releasing malware carries a risk, especially if it is >>> successful enough to catch the attention of police. Also, free protection >>> against malware tends to spread as fast as the original threat, so that the >>> long term prospects seem shaky at best. Finally, even in the case where a >>> moneybot happens to be successful, its use would inevitably destroy >>> whatever economy that it is introduced into. As the bot’s automatic success >>> eclipsed the ebbs and flows of the real life financial risk, there would be >>> no way for a market to compete with a sure thing. We’re already seeing this >>> happen in the form of automated trades in hedge funds, derivatives, etc, >>> but that’s another conversation. >>> >>> What would it take to write a moneybot that actually *earns* money >>> legally without human intervention? Answering this question, if we are >>> being honest, is probably a much higher priority for working computer >>> scientists than answering the more philosophical questions about Strong AI. >>> The question of what a bot would have to say or do on the internet to get >>> people to willingly part with their money, and to do so without complaints >>> later on, would seem to be infinitely difficult without the bot being able >>> to identify personally with human beings living human lives. Modeling only >>> the behavior of data being sent and received wouldn’t work because the data >>> has no access to the actual experience of a person receiving merchandise.To >>> the moneybot, the only difference between successfully selling something >>> and failing is that there is no complaints received, not that there was >>> nothing that actually existed to sell in the first place. >>> >>> A moneybot could find, for example, that people spend money at sites >>> like Amazon.com, and could create a website that looks and acts like a >>> retail site, but there is nothing that the bot could tell the customer to >>> assure them that its arbitrarily generated tracking number has caused the >>> delivery of the package. There is no way for the program to know whether >>> there is really something to deliver or not, and there is no way for the >>> customer to ignore the fact that there is nothing delivered. The program >>> can’t calculate that the actual Amazon site has a backend fulfillment >>> machine which is composed of real manufactured goods, packaging, delivery, >>> etc. The bot could conceivably be programmed to understand what such a >>> fulfillment enterprise entails, but it has no way to compute the difference >>> between its own in silico modeling of an enterprise and the concrete >>> reality that is required for people to get boxes on their doorstep. To the >>> bot, financial transactions begin and end in the data. All this to say, yet >>> again, that the map is not the territory. >>> >>> Taking this as a metaphor for computationalism in general, our own >>> sensory experiences are the brick and mortar presence of the brain’s >>> information processing, rather than the neurology of the brain. What is >>> literally in the brain cannot, in and of itself, represent that which is >>> not literally located in the brain. Internet marketing data can only be >>> used to infer what we do and think, it cannot process what we actually >>> experience. A computerized salesman faces the insurmountable task of having >>> no model for free will. Knowing that financial transactions take place >>> under a particular computable criteria does not explain why those >>> transactions ultimately exist and how to selectively attract them. The >>> probability of success of any given sales approach changes in response to >>> unknowable factors which might make a whole class of products or terms >>> unpopular overnight. Human agents will change their behavior to suit their >>> own preferences rather than to maintain a statistical model of their >>> behavior. >>> >>> Like a shifting antigen disease, the moneybot would have to constantly >>> update its offerings to stay ahead of audiences as they grow resistant, not >>> only to specific techniques, but to automated money making schemes in >>> general. We are seeing this happen now as spam becomes more sophisticated. >>> For a while, shotgunning keywords was a popular strategy and the sending of >>> garbage emails presumably yielded some benefit for the spammers for a >>> while, but these were very easy for end users to spot and avoid opening. As >>> end users keep catching on, and spam filters keep catching up, I would >>> guess that the spammers are always chasing slimmer and slimmer margins. >>> >>> To really make a moneybot that harvests cash from the internet legally >>> and perpetually, I think that you would have to model the entire universe, >>> especially the psychology of each individual person, and their interactions >>> with each other. You would have to model all of human history, really, to >>> find which trends might repeat at what times. It’s because of the free will >>> thing. *Free will is a feeling with teeth. It allows us to bite into >>> the world that we perceive in a way that a deterministic algorithm >>> cannot.*Free will is motivated by aesthetics, including the aesthetics of >>> function >>> and process, which makes it not just non-computational, but >>> trans-computational. Computation is a sensory experience, but it is one >>> which lowers the aesthetic amplitude in order to extend the reach across >>> subjective worlds from the outside in. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >>> >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
