Ian, I don't know what the future will bring in the form of AI. Interesting all of the really interesting thought about this is in speculative fiction. The recent "I, Robot" captured the conflict beautifully; Sonny the robot with dreams and Will Smith the unwilling cyborg. The one struggling to understand the humanity programmed into him and the other furious at having been made partially machine.
In another Asimov Robot story Robin William's robot evolves over time until he is allowed to become fully human so that he can age and die with the woman he loves. One that really concerns me is Jane in Orson Card's Ender's game. She begins as Ender's personal tutor and help file. She eventually becomes a personality that exists through out the information network omnipresent and omniscient. In the short run though I suspect it is not the AI President that should concern us it's the President's AI. Krimel Krim, Fortunately for us (humans) the Turing Test is not the full and final word in tests of real alternative intelligence ... (every piece of science had a circumstantial aim - if it's honest, the Turing test and the Chinese room are no different - they make a point.) I'd want a future ruler of the world to pass more than a Turing test ;-) At least two further human generations to get used to that idea - hence the full 70/ 80 year cycle of three generations. No, the AI-bot would have to negotiate the left and right-wing press minefield, raise significant funding, get itself elected to public office more than once, recover from the odd scandal or two, give me some reason to trust it, before putting itself up for president. The usual stuff. Don't be distracted by my use of the word meme - a habit I gotta kick - we're just talking about ideas "catching on" - a big complicated process (as your examples illustrate) - I'm never trying to be reductive when I use that simple four-letter word. Hold still sir, please, this surgical robot passed its Turing test only last week - yeah right. OK, trust me I'm a doctor - that's more like it. Ian On 6/11/07, Krimel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Ian] > Nothing supernatural here (or anywhere real for that matter, by my > definition), but yes it's the threat to the "sense of autonomy" - I > referred to controlling the press, the media, the internet, the > text-books, prevailing thought, basis of decision-making, etc. Yes ? > > [Krimel] > This could easily spark an extreme rant on a total tangent. The > consolidation of the media over the past 30 years is one of the biggest > threats to western culture ever. It has been advanced by all political > parties and the conspiracy theory buff in me traces it to the fear inspired > by the Washington Post bringing down the Nixon administration. I am hard > press to recall a similar instance of an institution going from white knight > to demon in so short of time. Oh wait, there was the Raygun assault on "We > the People." > > The internet was inadvertently set up as an open ended, transparent system > and ever since somebody figured this out they have been working to shut it > down, close it off and fence it in. > > [Ian] > Humanity is not going to give those up without a (Darwinian) > fight. So no physical / technological limits, just limits to > humanity's acceptance of an idea (meme). > > [Krimel] > Much as I like the idea I think DM has hinted at the difficulty of memetics. > What constitutes a meme? How are they manifested? How would we measure > change etc. Several large scale sweeping examples come to mind the > differences between democratic institutions in the Americas and in Europe. > Or perhaps the religious practices of Catholics on various continents. In > both cases you have ideas developing in relative isolation. > > [Ian] > ie We humans will have something to say about when AI "overtakes" us, > and that will affect the take-over process. I'm sure Kurzweil's dates > are simply "provocative". > > [Krimel] > That basic need to feel special is a big one. Reminds me of the hoopla over > ape language research, on the other end of the spectrum. Many argued that > despite the accomplishments of Lana, Washoe, even Nim Chimpsky, whatever > they were doing, was not what we do. They invoked everything from pigeons > modeling similar behavior on one side to Clever Hans phenomena from the > semiotic camp. But the underlying theme of it all was humans are special. > > Whether the threat to our "specialness" comes from those lower than us or > those potentially higher than us, it is still perceived as a threat. The > response is predictable. Kurzweil claims it will be an ongoing source of > tension well beyond the point where AIs are routinely passing Turing tests. > > [Ian] > (BTW to me the A in AI stands for "alternative" - nothing real is > "artificial".) > > [Krimel] > Nice one, I'd like to see it catch on! > > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
