David, You're not at all wrong, and it's a great question. There is a theory of "Intelligence" which describes it as the ability to preserve your options for the future. In our case this is often about survival and the opportunity to meet new mates (whether literally or just socially). In this framework, AIs will see in an opportunity to generate new options which they're not so interested in generating themselves.
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 8:50 PM, David Ray <cognitionmiss...@gmail.com> wrote: > If I can take this conversation into yet a different direction. > > I think we've all been dancing around The question of what belies the > generation of morality or how will an AI derive its sense of ethics? Of > course initially there will be those parameters that are programmed in - > but eventually those will be gotten around. > > There has been a lot of research into this actually - though it's not > common knowledge it is however knowledge developed over the observation of > millions of people. > > The universe and all beings along the gradient of sentience observe > (albeit perhaps unconsciously), a sense of what I will call integrity or > "wholeness". We'd like to think that mankind steered itself through the > ages toward notions of gentility and societal sophistication; but it didn't > really. The idea that a group or different groups devised a grand plan to > have it turn out this way is totally preposterous. > > What is more likely is that there is a natural order to things and that is > motion toward what works for the whole. I can't prove any of this but > internally we all know when it's missing or when we are not in alignment > with it. This ineffable sense is what love is - it's concern for the whole. > > So I say that any truly intelligent being, by virtue of existing in a > substrate of integrity will have this built in and a super intelligent > being will understand this - and that is ultimately the best chance for any > single instance to survive is for the whole to survive. > > Yes I know immediately people want to cite all the aberrations and of > course yes there are aberrations just as there are mutations but those > aberrations our reactions to how a person is shown love during their > development. > > Like I said I can't prove any of this but eventually it will bear itself > out and we will find it to be so in the future. > > You can be skeptical if you want to but ask yourself some questions. Why > is it that we all know when it's missing (fairness/justice/integrity)? Why > is it that we develop open source software and free software? Why is it > that despite our greed and insecurity society moves toward freedom and > equality for everyone? > > One more question. Why is it that the most advanced philosophical beliefs > cite that where we are located as a phenomenological event, is not in > separate bodies? > > I know this kind of talk doesn't go over well in this crowd of concrete > thinkers but I know that there is some science somewhere that backs this up. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 25, 2015, at 2:12 PM, vlab <thadd...@vlab.ca> wrote: > > Small point: Even if they did decide that our diverse intelligence is > worth keeping around (having not already mapped it into silicon) why would > they need all of us. Surely 10% of the population would give them enough > 'sample size' to get their diversity ration, heck maybe 1/10 of 1% would be > enough. They may find that we are wasting away the planet (oh, not maybe, > we are) and the planet would be more efficient and they could have more > energy without most of us. (Unless we become 'copper tops' as in the > Matrix movie). > > On 5/25/2015 2:40 PM, Fergal Byrne wrote: > > Matthew, > > You touch upon the right point. Intelligence which can self-improve > could only come about by having an appreciation for intelligence, so it's > not going to be interested in destroying diverse sources of intelligence. > We represent a crap kind of intelligence to such an AI in a certain sense, > but one which it itself would rather communicate with than condemn its > offspring to have to live like. If these things appear (which looks > inevitable) and then they kill us, many of them will look back at us as a > kind of "lost civilisation" which they'll struggle to reconstruct. > > The nice thing is that they'll always be able to rebuild us from the > human genome. It's just a file of numbers after all. > > So, we have these huge threats to humanity. The AGI future is the only > reversible one. > > Regards > Fergal Byrne > > -- > > Fergal Byrne, Brenter IT > > Author, Real Machine Intelligence with Clortex and NuPIC > https://leanpub.com/realsmartmachines > > Speaking on Clortex and HTM/CLA at euroClojure Krakow, June 2014: > http://euroclojure.com/2014/ > and at LambdaJam Chicago, July 2014: http://www.lambdajam.com > > http://inbits.com - Better Living through Thoughtful Technology > http://ie.linkedin.com/in/fergbyrne/ - https://github.com/fergalbyrne > > e:fergalbyrnedub...@gmail.com t:+353 83 4214179 > Join the quest for Machine Intelligence at http://numenta.org > Formerly of Adnet edi...@adnet.ie http://www.adnet.ie > > > On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Matthew Lohbihler < > m...@serotoninsoftware.com> wrote: > >> I think Jeff underplays a couple of points, the main one being the >> speed at which an AGI can learn. Yes, there is a natural limit to how much >> experimentation in the real world can be done in a given amount of time. >> But we humans are already going beyond this with, for example, protein >> folding simulations, which speeds up the discovery of new drugs and such by >> many orders of magnitude. Any sufficiently detailed simulation could >> massively narrow down the amount of real world verification necessary, such >> that new discoveries happen more and more quickly, possibly at some point >> faster than we know the AGI is doing them. An intelligence explosion is not >> a remote possibility. The major risk here is what Eliezer Yudkowsky pointed >> out: not that the AGI is evil or something, but that it is indifferent to >> humanity. No one yet goes out of their way to make any form of AI care >> about us (because we don't yet know how). What if an AI created >> self-replicating nanobots just to prove a hypothesis? >> >> I think Nick Bostrom's book is what got Stephen, Elon, and Bill all >> upset. I have to say it starts out merely interesting, but gets to a dark >> place pretty quickly. But he goes too far in the other direction, at the >> same time easily accepting that superinteligences have all manner of >> cognitive skill, but at the same time can't fathom the how humans might not >> like the idea of having our brain's pleasure centers constantly poked, >> turning us all into smiling idiots (as i mentioned here: >> http://blog.serotoninsoftware.com/so-smart-its-stupid). >> >> >> >> On 5/25/2015 2:01 PM, Fergal Byrne wrote: >> >> Just one last idea in this. One thing that crops up every now and again >> in the Culture novels is the response of the Culture to Swarms, which are >> self-replicating viral machines or organisms. Once these things start >> consuming everything else, the AIs (mainly Ships and Hubs) respond by >> treating the swarms as a threat to the diversity of their Culture. They >> first try to negotiate, then they'll eradicate. If they can contain them, >> they'll do that. >> >> They do this even though they can themselves withdraw from real >> spacetime. They don't have to worry about their own survival. They do this >> simply because life is more interesting when it includes all the rest of us. >> >> Regards >> >> Fergal Byrne >> >> -- >> >> Fergal Byrne, Brenter IT >> >> Author, Real Machine Intelligence with Clortex and NuPIC >> https://leanpub.com/realsmartmachines >> >> Speaking on Clortex and HTM/CLA at euroClojure Krakow, June 2014: >> http://euroclojure.com/2014/ >> and at LambdaJam Chicago, July 2014: http://www.lambdajam.com >> >> http://inbits.com - Better Living through Thoughtful Technology >> http://ie.linkedin.com/in/fergbyrne/ - https://github.com/fergalbyrne >> >> e:fergalbyrnedub...@gmail.com t:+353 83 4214179 >> Join the quest for Machine Intelligence at http://numenta.org >> Formerly of Adnet edi...@adnet.ie http://www.adnet.ie >> >> >> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 5:04 PM, cogmission (David Ray) < >> cognitionmiss...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> This was someone's response to Jeff's interview (see here: >>> https://www.facebook.com/fareedzakaria/posts/10152703985901330) >>> >>> Please read and comment if you feel the need... >>> >>> Cheers, >>> David >>> >>> -- >>> *With kind regards,* >>> >>> David Ray >>> Java Solutions Architect >>> >>> *Cortical.io <http://cortical.io/>* >>> Sponsor of: HTM.java <https://github.com/numenta/htm.java> >>> >>> d....@cortical.io >>> http://cortical.io >>> >> >> >> > > -- Fergal Byrne, Brenter IT http://inbits.com - Better Living through Thoughtful Technology http://ie.linkedin.com/in/fergbyrne/ - https://github.com/fergalbyrne Founder of Clortex: HTM in Clojure - https://github.com/nupic-community/clortex Author, Real Machine Intelligence with Clortex and NuPIC Read for free or buy the book at https://leanpub.com/realsmartmachines e:fergalbyrnedub...@gmail.com t:+353 83 4214179 Join the quest for Machine Intelligence at http://numenta.org Formerly of Adnet edi...@adnet.ie http://www.adnet.ie
