Matthew L., It isn't a thought. It is there before observation or thoughts or thinking. It actually is the space for thinking to occur - it is the context that allows for thought. We bring it to the table - it is there before we are (ontologically speaking). (It being this sense of integrity/wholeness)
Sent from my iPhone > On May 25, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Matthew Lohbihler <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Goodness. I thought we agreed that an AGI would not think like humans. And > besides, "love" doesn't feel like something i want to depend on as obvious in > a machine. > > >> On 5/25/2015 3:50 PM, David Ray 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 <[email protected]> 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:[email protected] t:+353 83 4214179 >>>> Join the quest for Machine Intelligence at http://numenta.org >>>> Formerly of Adnet [email protected] http://www.adnet.ie >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Matthew Lohbihler >>>>> <[email protected]> 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:[email protected] t:+353 83 4214179 >>>>>> Join the quest for Machine Intelligence at http://numenta.org >>>>>> Formerly of Adnet [email protected] http://www.adnet.ie >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 5:04 PM, cogmission (David Ray) >>>>>>> <[email protected]> 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 >>>>>>> Sponsor of: HTM.java >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> http://cortical.io >
