On 5/25/2015 5:03 PM, cogmission (David Ray) wrote:
Let me try and think this through. Only in the context of scarcity does the question of AGI **or** us come about. Where there is no scarcity, I think an AGI will just go about its business - peeking in from time to time to make sure we're doing ok. Why in a universe where it can go anywhere it wants and produce infinite energy and not be bound by our planet, would a super-super intelligent being even be obsessed over us, when it could merely go someplace else? I honestly thing that is the way it will be. (and maybe is already!)On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Matthew Lohbihler <m...@serotoninsoftware.com <mailto:m...@serotoninsoftware.com>> wrote:Forgive me David, but these are very loose definitions, and i've lost track of how they relate back to what an AGI will think about humanity. But to use your terms - hopefully accurately - what if the AGI satisfies its sentient need for "others" by creating other AGIs, ones that it can love and appreciate? I doubt humans would ever be up such a task, unless 1) as pets, or 2) with cybernetic improvements. On 5/25/2015 4:37 PM, David Ray wrote:Observation is the phenomenon of distinction, in the domain of language. The universe consists of two things, content and context. Content depends on its boundaries in order to exist. It depends on what it is not for it's being. Context is the space for things to be, though it is not quite space because space is yet another thing. It has no boundaries and it cannot be arrived at by assembling all of its content. Ideas; love, hate, our sense of who we are, our histories what we know to be true all of those are content. Context is what allows for that stuff to be. And all of it lives in language without which there would be nothing. There maybe would be a "drift" but we wouldn't know about it and we wouldn't be able to observe it. Sent from my iPhone On May 25, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Matthew Lohbihler <m...@serotoninsoftware.com <mailto:m...@serotoninsoftware.com>> wrote:You lost me. You seem to be working with definitions of "observation" and "space for thinking" that i'm unaware of. On 5/25/2015 4:14 PM, David Ray wrote: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 <m...@serotoninsoftware.com <mailto:m...@serotoninsoftware.com>> 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 <thadd...@vlab.ca <mailto:thadd...@vlab.ca>> wrote:Small point: Even if they did decide that our diverse intelligence is worth keeping around (having not alreadymapped it into silicon) why would they need all of us. Surely 10% of the population would give them enough 'samplesize' 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 <mailto:e:fergalbyrnedub...@gmail.com> t:+353 83 4214179 <tel:%2B353%2083%204214179> Join the quest for Machine Intelligence at http://numenta.org Formerly of Adnet edi...@adnet.ie <mailto:edi...@adnet.ie> http://www.adnet.ie On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Matthew Lohbihler <m...@serotoninsoftware.com <mailto: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 <mailto:e:fergalbyrnedub...@gmail.com> t:+353 83 4214179 <tel:%2B353%2083%204214179> Join the quest for Machine Intelligence at http://numenta.org Formerly of Adnet edi...@adnet.ie <mailto:edi...@adnet.ie> http://www.adnet.ie On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 5:04 PM, cogmission (David Ray) <cognitionmiss...@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:d....@cortical.io> http://cortical.io <http://cortical.io/>-- /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 <mailto:d....@cortical.io> http://cortical.io <http://cortical.io/>
