Craig, my Kraxlwerk (PC) stole the half-baked text and mailed it away. I am thankful: the rest would have been silly, anyway. John
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 3:55 PM, John Mikes <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]>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 [email protected]. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>> >>>> 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 [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
