Hi Horse, and John ... Pessimistic ? cautious I'd say. But I agree - orders of magnitude faster than the evolution from slime to humans so far - (much faster I said) even so ... many lifetimes / many tens of lifetimes - who knows ?
As I said in an earlier response, the social level is the interesting topic, and I'm sure existing and ongoing human activity must influence the outcome - Humans "allowing" AI Machines to have social power BEFORE they evolve intellect ? Over Platt's dead body, and John's too it seems. And John, That Penrose argument is not devastating at all. It simply says AI will not arise in the physical level of computers - "computers as presently constructed" he says - which all Pirsigians already knew. AI, like human intellect has nothing to do with calculations and algrithms. You're making the same mistake John ... AI is not about "computers". Regards Ian On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Horse <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ian > > Comments below: > > On 17/04/2010 09:23, Ian Glendinning wrote: >> >> Horse is right people are confusing "computers" with AI, etc. >> > > It's very common as most people are pretty much unaware of the technology > contained within everyday items in their pockets, homes, cars etc. As I said > they are ubiquitous (everywhere to save anyone looking that up in a > dictionary!). What is also very common is the misunderstanding of the > differences between software and hardware that makes up what we see as a > "machine". You can have purely hardware machines, purely software machines > or combinations to greater or lesser degrees. It's not surprising that most > people make these errors. > >> Bo said in response to John, >> "Right, intellect - science - constructed computers that mimics memory >> and logical circuits, these surpasses the biological counterparts in >> certain aspects (calculation) but LAGS light-years behind in other >> aspects. And this can NEVER be the building block of the Q-social >> development." >> >> Apart from the fact that light years are a measure of distance, not time >> .... >> A long time is NOT the same as never. Is it Bo ? >> It's a matter of perspective. >> >> AI will exist when it evolves to be so - it won't be "artificial" >> then. Those "machines" will be highly biological and social by they >> time they do - by definition - but the biology and social / somatic >> communication aspects could be vastly different to the carbon-based >> mammalian experience we are accustomed to. Don't hold your breath - it >> will be a very long time, in human individual lifespans, even though >> it could be very much faster than our evolution so far as species. >> > > I think you may be being a bit pessimistic here Ian for a number of reasons. > If you look at the time-scales involved in carbon-based > biological/social/intellectual evolution and the orders of magnitude > reductions involved from one to the other and then look at the silicon > equivalents we may well see intelligent computers in our lifetimes - I'd > make a hefty bet that they'll be around in our grand-children's lifetimes. > Also, what I'm talking about here is not computers as machines in the common > idiom, but software machines and how they evolve. Viruses and similar are > software not hardware and their environment is pretty flexible. The > distinction between AI and ALife is quite blurry in certain areas but ALife > seems to be progressing faster than GOF AI. > The way I'm thinking about it is that 'artificial' life or intelligence is > _non-human_ intelligence and fits within the MoQ as a different branch or > network of evolution and maybe solves the problem that some have here about > ant, ape or whale societies and intellects etc. as, using this network model > within the MoQ allows us to consider other carbon-based life as separate > from human evolution. The human evolutionary network is qualitatively > different in structure and value patterns to the way evolutionary networks > of other types of life will appear beyond the biological level - if you take > a 'systems thinking' approach of relationships and connectedness where the > properties of these systems are properties of the whole and are not > properties of the parts. > Looking at MoQ patterns of Value as networks (of patterns of value) shows > different branching's at different places at all levels - in many cases > comparing these different branches is pointless in terms of what is better > contextually. Is it better to have gills or lungs? It depends on whether > you're a fish or a pony! > >> The reason it's an interesting is question - how dystopian the outcome >> might be - is that it affects our attitude to whether we (humans) >> resist or support that evolution. People who say it'll never happen, >> are simply opting out of the question for their own lifetime. >> Understanding seems the better choice to me. >> >> > > Yeah, me too. Saying something will never happen is facile more often than > not. And I'm an optimist so 'vive la evolution' :) > > Horse > > -- > > Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving > safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, > chocolate in one hand, wine in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally > worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"... Hunter S Thompson > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
