On 16 Sep 2016, at 16:03, Telmo Menezes wrote:

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


I will look at it next week, as I am marry my niece today, and it is a busy week-end and beginning of week.




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."

Nice!




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?

The work on the logic of self-reference G and G* and some intensional variants KGrz, S4Grz. I will give more reference later. They have complex name, except Blok and Esapia, who discovered interesting topological semantics for those logics. They are influenced by Helena Rasiowa & Roman Sikorski's important contribution in algebraic and topologic semantics in logic. I have to (re)study their main treatise myself.

In the G-G* field, that is the logic of self-reference, it is the Russian and the Georgian who made the last breakthrough, and solved notably the open problems on the quantified version (qG, qG*) presented by George Boolos in the 1979 book, and explained in his 1993 book. Unlike G and G*, qG and qG* are maximally undecidable. This has been seen by Serguei Artemov, and made precise by other Russian logicians.






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.


Yes. In South America, they are quickly eliminated when they talk. Only "Pepe", the (ex)-president of Uruguay succeeded (apparantly) in legalizing cannabis. But even there it looks like the state is just a mafia having its own interest in cannabis as a source of financement.




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

That's courageous.




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.


I am not yet sure I understand why an evolutionary process, or not, would change this. Evolution ("bad replication") is supposed to filter only some amount of self-referential correctness, which might include lies, like with camouflage, which is indirect correct self-reference. But I have not yet finished the reading of the entirety of your paper, I might asked this again later.

My country is leader in euthanasia, and just today euthanasia has been applied to a kid in terminal cancer phase. There has been some amount of young adult euthanized recently for depression, judged non curable. I was in favor of euthanasia, but I am realizing that it makes not much sense when prohibition laws exist. That kid and those young adult should have tried some "illegal" cures before. They are known to have some efficaciousness. To make medication illegal is the worst cruel treatment a state can impose to the people. It is applied criminal nonsense when mixed with (kid) permissive euthanasia .

There is a relation with the subject of your paper. We will get opportunity to elaborate. I guess you see it.

Bruno




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- l...@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.

Reply via email to