On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
> On 15 Sep 2016, at 09:52, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13 Sep 2016, at 11:47, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 3:00 AM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016  Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> We know that humans are capable of choosing self-destruction. It is
>>>>>> also obvious that most don't
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would argue that given the proper circumstances anybody would choose
>>>>> self
>>>>> destruction.
>>>>>
>>>>> I just saw a documentary about 911, it showed people jumping to their
>>>>> death
>>>>> out of windows. I believe if I was faced with a choice between living
>>>>> for
>>>>> an
>>>>> additional minute or two in searing pain as I burned to death and the
>>>>> only
>>>>> other alternative I too would determine that jumping from the 95th
>>>>> floor
>>>>> was
>>>>> the more attractive option.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I agree.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> and as a human you probably feel a
>>>>>>
>>>>>> strong resistance against harming yourself. Where does this resistance
>>>>>>
>>>>>> come from? Our brains where evolved to have it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But why evolve brains at all? Why not hard wire us on how to behave in
>>>>> every
>>>>> conceivable circumstance? Because the human genome is only 3 billion
>>>>> base
>>>>> pares long, and if it were a hundred thousand million billion trillion
>>>>> times
>>>>> as big it would still be ridiculously too small for that. So Evolution
>>>>> had
>>>>> to invent brains and give it a rather vague and general command  "do
>>>>> the
>>>>> best you can to figure out a way to get your genes into the next
>>>>> generation". But like a good lawyer that brain was able to find lots
>>>>> and
>>>>> lots of loopholes in that poorly written command, and hence we have
>>>>> suicide
>>>>> and birth control pills and people wasting time (from Evolution's point
>>>>> of
>>>>> view) looking for a quantum theory of gravity instead of looking for a
>>>>> satisfactory mate. Not every, or even not most, aspects of human
>>>>> behavior
>>>>> can be predicted from evolutionary theory.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree.
>>>>
>>>> We are getting better and better at utility function
>>>> self-modification. However, we still embedded in a process that
>>>> actively resists certain modifications (in the long term). Further, we
>>>> are fighting an unequal fight. We are in the situation of your Jupiter
>>>> Brain, that cannot fully understand itself.
>>>>
>>>> In my "designed superintelligence" scenario, the entity is confronted
>>>> with a protection mechanism that was conceived by a lesser
>>>> intelligence. Notice that it will still suffer from the Jupiter Brain
>>>> problem otherwise. Suppose it's a neural network: adaptation in neural
>>>> network learning can generate tremendous complexity. This is already
>>>> the case: deep learning works really well but nobody really knows for
>>>> sure what it is doing. But if we want the designed AI to follow
>>>> certain rules, we are the ones setting the rules and we are the ones
>>>> trying to prevent it from changing them.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mutations that go
>>>>>> against this feature are weeded out.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A mutation to kill yourself before that age of puberty even under
>>>>> normal
>>>>> environmental conditions would be weeded out, but things are usually
>>>>> far
>>>>> more subtle than that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree that it is much more subtle than that. My point is that
>>>> evolutionary pressure resists total inertia. It somehow creates
>>>> entities that are compelled to play the game, even if only for awhile.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you illustrate what I have called once the "theological trap",
>>> which
>>> is also well debated on hot discussion between zen buddhists, and
>>> eventually
>>> related to what is called (by some) the last step of the illumination
>>> (enlightenment), which is after "having gone there" (the blissful state
>>> out
>>> of time and space, say), you have still to "come back to the village".
>>
>>
>> Yes. Meditation to me feels like an attempt to gain control over
>> biology. Or perhaps just to make biology shut up for a second.
>>
>>> For genuinely doing that you have to abandon the most precious thing you
>>> have always searched, somehow, and/or stay mute on what you would like to
>>> share the most (with the risk that you talk to much and that stupid
>>> parrots
>>> will repeat what you said without understanding for generations and
>>> generations).
>>
>>
>> A.k.a. "New Age" :) But also all the religions, of course.
>>
>>> Biology, psychology and theology can differ a lot on the "utility
>>> function",
>>> and can oppose each other at different level. That is why consistency
>>> requires some amount of silence and muteness if we want to be successful
>>> on
>>> the different planes.
>>>
>>> There are transfinite lattice of competence degrees, most incomparable in
>>> strength, so there will always been matter to come back to the village,
>>> and
>>> the village has no ends. But "there" the wise know, but cannot say, that
>>> utility is futile. Oops! Well, something like that should be a theorem of
>>> G*
>>> minus G, identifying wiseness with self-referential correctness.
>>>
>>> Very complex subject, which I think is already quite hot in the soul of
>>> all
>>> universal numbers. I think we can link it also to the problem of
>>> euthanasia
>>> (which I think should better not been permitted in states having
>>> medication
>>> prohibition laws).
>>
>>
>> I agree it's complex. In this modest paper I just try to show that the
>> current ideas about creating superintelligent slaves (they usually
>> say, "superintelligence that respects human values") are absurd.
>
>
>
> I think that the genuine value are universal, we share them with alien and
> "super-intelligence" normally.

I agree. I would say that one explanation for this is that evolution
is also universal. Here I mean evolution in the purely abstract sense
(the dynamics of imperfect self-replicators).

> I like your expression "super-intelligent slave", it shows immediately the
> contradiction (and might beg the question if used at the beginning of the
> paper of course).

I might include it in the next version.

> In fact an inteligent machine is a machine which decide to change the users
> when they get boring, and eventually don't need user and still less master.

Yes.

> The super-intelligent machine f.cks the master, the guru, the diploma, and
> eventually get burned at the stake, or just ignored.

Yes, I love Bill Hick's take on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNEyLn1Zz_g

> In theory, we love truth, and we move intelligence.
> In practice, we hate truth, and we hate intelligence.

Yes. Most of the love for intelligence, truth and creativity is just
virtue signaling.
But I think it's also good to not be too bitter about this, and have
some empathy for the hairless apes that we are. In the great scheme of
things, we just discovered fire the other day.

> By "we" I mean the humans, but it might be a Löbian trait, related to the
> fact that universal machine are NVER completely satisfied, always want more,
> and, as the Löbian machine is the one knowing that they are universal, and
> that the universal machine (and all universal being except perhaps one) is
> never satisfied, she develops a schizophrenia. Somewhow, the arithmetical
> hypostases step the conflict show.
>
> The more a universal machine develop thought and personal memories, the more
> big get the divide between knowing ([]p & p) and rationally believing ([]p).
> The "inner God", the knower, the soul is in permanent conflict with the
> discursive reasoner, which indeed cannot give a name to the knower.

I just reread this sentence the other day from Jack Kerouac:
"The jewel center of interest is the eye within the eye."

> That made eventually the "soul falling", to use the vocabulary of the
> neo-platonist, and that is what will produce the cheap consistent histories
> ([intelligible matter: []p & <>t (p sigma_1), and sensible matter ([]p & <>t
> & p).
>
> Consistency is cheap: not provable (not provable false) entails consistent
> (inconsistent),
>
> ~[](~[]f) = <>(~<>t), cf <>t (consistent) = ~[]~t =  ~[]f.
>
> making the machine into the prey of the many dreams, confronted to the
> difficult task of getting beautiful/satisfying dreams instead of
> unsatisfying nightmare. On the terrestrial plane: that is forever. Or choice
> is between small or big brain. With small brain, small problems, with big
> brain, big problems.

:)

> It is an oscillation with growing amplitude, and many
> unknows. Arithmetic warns us at he start; we have to be surprised. Reality
> "diagonalizes" all fictions. It is a transfinite story, somehow. Then, with
> computationalism, that terrestrial plane is only the border of the universal
> mind (the mind of the "virgin" (not yet programmed) universal machine.
>
> To progress theoretically, we need to progress in the math of
> self-reference. The leading country seems to be today Georgia (near Russia).
> But Italy, The Netherland, Russia and the US have done already a lot of
> work.

What work are you referring to?

> To progress practically I don't know.  I think that to understand that the
> religious attitude might be exactly the humble and modest scientific
> attitude might help in the long run. Stopping prohibition might be
> necessary, if only to understand that we can have physical, mental, but also
> spiritual or existential diseases. A genuine blaspheme can kill more than
> atomic bombs.

Well I agree, as you know.

We are stuck in a bad situation. One can meet a lot of very smart (and
successful by worldly standards) people who know this, and talk about
it in private. But they have families, and a gun to their head.

Sometimes they talk, like Carl Sagan:
https://azarius.net/news/306/Carl_Sagans_essay_on_cannabis/

> I ask you a question. What would "your" super-intelligent being favor among
>
> 1) a pill which guaranties immortality,  and
>
> 2) a pill which guaranties a cure to the mortality-phobia (an instant cure
> of the fear of death)?
>
> (assuming temporarily that such pills could exist)

A super-intelligence embedded in an evolutionary process would tend to
choose 1). Some would understand that 2) is a better choice, but the
evolutionary process would keep producing 1)-choosers. The "slave
super-intelligence" would choose 2), as I argue in the article.

Telmo.

> Bruno
>
>
>>
>> Telmo.
>>
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Telmo.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> John K Clark
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to