Re: AI Dooms Us

On 22 September 2014 20:57, Kim Jones wrote: > > On 20 Sep 2014, at 6:22 am, LizR wrote: > > Does this mean evolution is intelligent but (probably) not conscious? > > The Blind Watchmaker > > Yes. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" g

Re: AI Dooms Us

> On 20 Sep 2014, at 6:22 am, LizR wrote: > > Does this mean evolution is intelligent but (probably) not conscious? The Blind Watchmaker K > > >> On 20 September 2014 03:01, Stephen Paul King >> wrote: >> Dear Bruno, >> >>I agree, this introduces the possibility that the "inhibitin

Re: AI Dooms Us

Dear Stephen, On 19 Sep 2014, at 17:01, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, I agree, this introduces the possibility that the "inhibiting or activation of gene" aspect is the "running of the particular algorithm" while the mutation and selection aspect might be seen as a process on

Re: AI Dooms Us

The process does seem, if we think of it this way, to be intelligent, yes. But this is a definition of intelligence that most would not consider: An intelligence is the collection of behaviors of a system that tend to increase the number of possible future states. My wording doesn't quite look r

Re: AI Dooms Us

Does this mean evolution is intelligent but (probably) not conscious? On 20 September 2014 03:01, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Dear Bruno, > >I agree, this introduces the possibility that the "inhibiting or > activation of gene" aspect is the "running of the particular algorithm" > while the

Re: AI Dooms Us

Dear Bruno, I agree, this introduces the possibility that the "inhibiting or activation of gene" aspect is the "running of the particular algorithm" while the mutation and selection aspect might be seen as a process on the space of algorithms. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wr

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 01 Sep 2014, at 17:57, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Brent, Have you seen any studies of the "Ameoba dubia" that look into what their genome is expressing? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933061/ seems to suggest to me the possibility that the genome is acting as a "br

Re: AI Dooms Us

> On 6 Sep 2014, at 10:03 am, LizR wrote: > > PS why is a laser like a goldfish? Because neither can whistle K > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from i

RE: AI Dooms Us

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 11:43 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: AI Dooms Us Hi Chris, Does it seem to you that there are two aspects to

Re: AI Dooms Us

roups.com [mailto: > everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Mikes > *Sent:* Saturday, September 06, 2014 1:27 PM > *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us > > > > Chris: and why on Earth would you exclude the communication of plants e

RE: AI Dooms Us

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Mikes Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2014 1:27 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: AI Dooms Us Chris: and why on Earth would you exclude the communication of plants etc

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 05 Sep 2014, at 23:35, LizR wrote: I don't know how you could do this in practice, but nature has proved that intelligent beings can have their behaviour towards other beings constrained in various ways. An obvious example is that we care for our children. If one could built (or otherwi

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 05 Sep 2014, at 22:41, meekerdb wrote: On 9/5/2014 12:18 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Sep 2014, at 19:40, meekerdb wrote: On 9/2/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Aug 2014, at 21:04, meekerdb wrote: Bostrom says, "If humanity had been sane and had our act together globally,

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 05 Sep 2014, at 22:12, meekerdb wrote: On 9/5/2014 11:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: According to Harvard scholars the Romans invented Christianity to keep the Jews in check: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_piso02a.htm You mean according to consipiracy theori

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 05 Sep 2014, at 06:40, Stephen Paul King wrote: I agree, but I strongly suspect that one does not "program" an AGI, we would "grow" it and "teach" it Yes. The fact that humans have a very long childhood reflect the fact that "nature" get the point that children are intelligent, an

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 06 Sep 2014, at 18:56, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 4:41 PM, meekerdb wrote: > Hypatia was the deliberate target of a Christian mob incited by an ally of Cyril and she was first kidnapped and then murder in the most gruesome way by having her skin scraped off. And for thi

Re: AI Dooms Us

On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 28 Aug 2014, at 13:33, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < > multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Legitimacy of proof and evidence (e.g. for a set of cool algorithms >> concerning A

Re: AI Dooms Us

Chris: and why on Earth would you exclude the communication of plants etc. from the broad meaning of "language"? (They don't have a blabbermouth). JM On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 3:13 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > *From:* everything-list@googl

RE: AI Dooms Us

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King >>We learn of each other by interacting this becomes communication once >>languages emerge... Want to point out that important communication occurs in nature without what we

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 28 Aug 2014, at 13:33, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy > wrote: Legitimacy of proof and evidence (e.g. for a set of cool algorithms concerning AI, more computing power, big data etc), is an empty question to ask, outside a specified theor

Re: AI Dooms Us

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 4:41 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > Hypatia was the deliberate target of a Christian mob incited by an ally > of Cyril and she was first kidnapped and then murder in the most gruesome > way by having her skin scraped off. > And for this Cyril was made a saint by the Catholic Chu

Re: AI Dooms Us

Thank you Brent, A quick search by way of Google verifies what you say. Richard On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 4:12 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 9/5/2014 11:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > According to Harvard scholars the Romans invented Christianity to keep > the Jews in check: > http://www.biblioteca

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 9/5/2014 5:03 PM, LizR wrote: On 6 September 2014 10:45, Stephen Paul King > wrote: Hi LizR, Ah, so making sure that the AI have feed-back loops built in so that there are consequences (short and long terms) for "dumb" behavior might be a good

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 6 September 2014 10:45, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Hi LizR, > >Ah, so making sure that the AI have feed-back loops built in so that > there are consequences (short and long terms) for "dumb" behavior might be > a good idea. One way of doing this is ensuring that they can not be > self-immo

Re: AI Dooms Us

PS why is a laser like a goldfish? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send e

Re: AI Dooms Us

Hi LizR, Ah, so making sure that the AI have feed-back loops built in so that there are consequences (short and long terms) for "dumb" behavior might be a good idea. One way of doing this is ensuring that they can not be self-immortal and must reproduce to recover a form of immortality of thei

Re: AI Dooms Us

I don't know how you could do this in practice, but nature has proved that intelligent beings can have their behaviour towards other beings constrained in various ways. An obvious example is that we care for our children. If one could built (or otherwise cause to come into being) an AI with a rewar

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 9/5/2014 12:18 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Sep 2014, at 19:40, meekerdb wrote: On 9/2/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Aug 2014, at 21:04, meekerdb wrote: Bostrom says, "If humanity had been sane and had our act together globally, the sensible course of action would be to pos

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 9/5/2014 11:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: According to Harvard scholars the Romans invented Christianity to keep the Jews in check: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_piso02a.htm You mean according to consipiracy theorist John Duran who lives in California and has

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 02 Sep 2014, at 19:40, meekerdb wrote: On 9/2/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Aug 2014, at 21:04, meekerdb wrote: Bostrom says, "If humanity had been sane and had our act together globally, the sensible course of action would be to postpone development of superintelligence un

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 02 Sep 2014, at 19:26, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Aug 2014, at 21:04, meekerdb wrote: Bostrom says, "If humanity had been sane and had our act together globally, the sensible course of action would be to postpone developmen

Re: AI Dooms Us

There is also the case of many AGI competing,. cooperating and colluding with each other... On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: > I think it would be a purely academic exercise (as in, disconnected from > any practical consequences) to argue about the kinds of AGIs that could

Re: AI Dooms Us

I think it would be a purely academic exercise (as in, disconnected from any practical consequences) to argue about the kinds of AGIs that could have access to infinite resources. Rejecting Yudkowsky's argument on the basis that reality *might* be infinite seems like an odd move to me. If you feel

Re: AI Dooms Us

One other remark. >From the previously linked article: "This may seem more like super-stupidity than super-intelligence. For humans, it would indeed be stupidity, as it would constitute failure to fulfill many of our important terminal values, such as life, love, and variety. The AGI won't revise

Re: AI Dooms Us

Hi Terren, Ah, nice link. Thank you. Does the assumption of a finite and fixed set of resources necessarily match the real world? If an AGI's computation can occur on any active and evolving network of sufficient complexity, would the paperclip argument hold? ISTM that overall resources are

Re: AI Dooms Us

http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Stephen Paul King < stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote: > AFAIK, if the AGI and humanity are not competing for the same resources, > no conflict need arise... > > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Terren Suydam

Re: AI Dooms Us

AFAIK, if the AGI and humanity are not competing for the same resources, no conflict need arise... On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:57 AM, John Clark wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Telmo Menezes >> wrote: >> >>> >>> > In

Re: AI Dooms Us

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:57 AM, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: > >> >> > Intelligence is clearly a process that can be bootstrapped -- we know >> this from biology. >> > > Yes, adults tend to be smarter than infants and infants are smarter than

Re: AI Dooms Us

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > Intelligence is clearly a process that can be bootstrapped -- we know > this from biology. > Yes, adults tend to be smarter than infants and infants are smarter than one celled zygotes. > > What I don't understand is how people expect

Re: AI Dooms Us

Hi LizR, Exactly, we are the 'same sort of thing'. :-) It seems that only scifi writers actively explore this idea . The academics are stuck in the mode of thinking that somehow 'intelligence' can only arise if intentionally created by other '

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 5 September 2014 16:42, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Nah, I get what you mean. Connecting an AGI to a body is one way of > teaching it to recognize us, but do we really want to do that? > > I have no idea what "we" want, I was just presenting a thought experiment. My basic view is that there is

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 5 September 2014 16:40, Stephen Paul King wrote: > I agree, but I strongly suspect that one does not "program" an AGI, we > would "grow" it and "teach" it > > I see we agree on that. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 5 September 2014 16:41, Stephen Paul King wrote: > We learn of each other by interacting this becomes communication once > languages emerge... > > Great, I've been saying that too. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To u

Re: AI Dooms Us

Nah, I get what you mean. Connecting an AGI to a body is one way of teaching it to recognize us, but do we really want to do that? On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:18 AM, LizR wrote: > On 5 September 2014 16:08, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> We are freaking AGI ourselves, operating machines made wi

Re: AI Dooms Us

We learn of each other by interacting this becomes communication once languages emerge... On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:16 AM, LizR wrote: > On 5 September 2014 15:18, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> Sure, that would set up synchronization of sensory data input streams, >> but it does not addr

Re: AI Dooms Us

I agree, but I strongly suspect that one does not "program" an AGI, we would "grow" it and "teach" it On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:15 AM, LizR wrote: > On 5 September 2014 15:13, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> But you seem to assume that it has awareness of "people" beyond the >> sensor data

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 5 September 2014 16:08, Stephen Paul King wrote: > We are freaking AGI ourselves, operating machines made with biomolecules... > Sorry, I thought it was obvious that's what I was saying, too, when I pointed out that an AGI could be connected to androids. Obviously that works both ways. Apolog

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 5 September 2014 15:18, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Sure, that would set up synchronization of sensory data input streams, but > it does not address my question: How does the AGI come so interprete those > data streams in a way that is compatible with ours? > Well, how do we come to? (Or do we

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 5 September 2014 15:13, Stephen Paul King wrote: > But you seem to assume that it has awareness of "people" beyond the sensor > data + computations that it can access and generate. Where did the property > of "people" come from. > I'm not assuming it just happens. I'm assuming it's a useful w

Re: AI Dooms Us

Cool! Terren, you grok what I'm trying to say. Thank you!!! We are freaking AGI ourselves, operating machines made with biomolecules... The big realization that I have had is that we have no means to determine that the content of experience of any other AGI matches ours. All that we can figure

Re: AI Dooms Us

That's all we do... process "sensor data" and make complicated inferences about those features of our experience we refer to as people (and everything else). Of course, we undergo a great deal of training to get there, and much of the training is done by people. To Liz's point, purposefully designe

Re: AI Dooms Us

Sure, that would set up synchronization of sensory data input streams, but it does not address my question: How does the AGI come so interprete those data streams in a way that is compatible with ours? If we build the robot body with EMF exitation sensors that operate in the same range as ours

Re: AI Dooms Us

But you seem to assume that it has awareness of "people" beyond the sensor data + computations that it can access and generate. Where did the property of "people" come from. Consider the case were the Google "thing" discovered cats from processing YouTube data. Why do we think that it's interpre

Re: AI Dooms Us

By the way, one possible scenario would be that the AI is provided with a body - we could imagine that it's attached via radio, say, to an android that is apparently human. To make this scenario deliberately extreme, for the sake of argument, if the AI only interacts with the world via this android

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 5 September 2014 12:58, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Hi LizR, > >I will repeat my question: What makes us think that the AGI will be > aware that we exist? > Surely that depends on circumstances? If an AI is created and educated by people then it will at least be aware that there is somethi

Re: AI Dooms Us

t; wrote: > The entire universe as a sim? Could even an AI handle it? > > > Sent from AOL Mobile Mail > > > > -Original Message- > From: Telmo Menezes > To: everything-list > Sent: Thu, Sep 4, 2014 05:16 AM > Subject: Re: AI Dooms Us > > > > &

Re: AI Dooms Us

The entire universe as a sim? Could even an AI handle it? Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes To: everything-list Sent: Thu, Sep 4, 2014 05:16 AM Subject: Re: AI Dooms Us On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:10 PM, LizR <mailto:l

Re: AI Dooms Us

Hi LizR, I will repeat my question: What makes us think that the AGI will be aware that we exist? On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:21 PM, LizR wrote: > On 5 September 2014 00:38, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >>OTOH, one can control the available resources of the AI (children)... >> >

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 5 September 2014 00:38, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Hi, > >OTOH, one can control the available resources of the AI (children)... > > Depending on how clever the AI is. Proteus IV and Colossus found ways to stop people pulling the plug (unlike HAL). And of course you only have limited contr

Re: AI Dooms Us

Hi, OTOH, one can control the available resources of the AI (children)... On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:10 PM, LizR wrote: > >> On 4 September 2014 22:09, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >>> What I don't understand is how people expect to h

Re: AI Dooms Us

Hi Telmo, "What I don't understand is how people expect to have a human-level AI (many degrees of freedom) and then also be able to micro-manage it." exactly! A mind can only function in effective isolation. Control disallows this as control involves coupling to the "mechanisms" of mind. On T

Re: AI Dooms Us

Hi, I am looking for any papers on the effects of allowing neural networks to couple to each other On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:16 AM, LizR wrote: > On 4 September 2014 17:02, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> Are the resources available to the OverLords that would allow the sharing >> to be

Re: AI Dooms Us

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:10 PM, LizR wrote: > On 4 September 2014 22:09, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> What I don't understand is how people expect to have a human-level AI >> (many degrees of freedom) and then also be able to micro-manage it. >> > > You can't, of course. Every parent discovers tha

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 22:09, Telmo Menezes wrote: > What I don't understand is how people expect to have a human-level AI > (many degrees of freedom) and then also be able to micro-manage it. > You can't, of course. Every parent discovers that. -- You received this message because you are subscr

Re: AI Dooms Us

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:56 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > >a human baby is a plastic template for the individual to emerge in >> > > And those 1000 lines of Lisp are a plastic template for the

Re: AI Dooms Us

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 6:38 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:54 AM, meekerdb wrote: > > > on Bruno's theory, consciousness is a binary attribute, all-or-nothing. >> Intelligence has degrees >> > > If that is true (and I'm not saying it is) then we can immediately > conclude that

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 17:02, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Are the resources available to the OverLords that would allow the sharing > to be "cost-free" then it would make no difference, otherwise > > (In "Childhood's End" the *Overlords *were the race who helped other races to join the Overmind;

Re: AI Dooms Us

Are the resources available to the OverLords that would allow the sharing to be "cost-free" then it would make no difference, otherwise On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:37 PM, LizR wrote: > On 4 September 2014 14:31, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> But something is amiss! Why would the OverLords

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 14:30, Stephen Paul King wrote: > ​Right! Damping down random fluctuations in one's computer is an > optimization move. > >Oh!, your thinking in more "Borg" terms, re: absorption​ > > I'm thinking in terms of "Childhood's End". -- You received this message because yo

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 14:31, Stephen Paul King wrote: > But something is amiss! Why would the OverLords wish to share their > largess with us? > > Why wouldn't they? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this gro

Re: AI Dooms Us

But something is amiss! Why would the OverLords wish to share their largess with us? On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:25 PM, LizR wrote: > On 4 September 2014 14:06, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> OTOH, becoming capable of exploiting computational resources that are >> "free" (note the scare quotes)

Re: AI Dooms Us

​Right! Damping down random fluctuations in one's computer is an optimization move. Oh!, your thinking in more "Borg" terms, re: absorption​ On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:25 PM, LizR wrote: > On 4 September 2014 14:06, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> OTOH, becoming capable of exploiting co

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 14:06, Stephen Paul King wrote: > OTOH, becoming capable of exploiting computational resources that are > "free" (note the scare quotes) is always optimal. If one can obtain > solutions to problem without having to use up one's own resources is always > a "good thing" (for the

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 14:04, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Childhood's End in on my top 20 best scifi books ever list... Umm, I > disagree with "the ultimate aim of life in "Star Maker" (iirc) was to > merge into a single mind" only to the extent that it is actually > impossible (there is a proven the

Re: AI Dooms Us

OTOH, becoming capable of exploiting computational resources that are "free" (note the scare quotes) is always optimal. If one can obtain solutions to problem without having to use up one's own resources is always a "good thing" (for the Overlords at least). On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:53 PM, LizR

Re: AI Dooms Us

Childhood's End in on my top 20 best scifi books ever list... Umm, I disagree with "the ultimate aim of life in "Star Maker" (iirc) was to merge into a single mind" only to the extent that it is actually impossible (there is a proven theorem to this effect) for this to happen. It always goes the op

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 13:48, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Zerg ! ? > > Well, quite. I believe the name comes from "Childhood's End" although obviously Olaf Stapledon was writing about it (and influencing Clarke) decades earlier than the 1950s. The ultimate ai

Re: AI Dooms Us

Zerg ! ? On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:46 PM, LizR wrote: > On 4 September 2014 13:45, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> Umm, not really. It is "exploitation". >> >> Only if you aren't absorbed. Otherwise you'd only be exploiting yourself. > > -- > You receiv

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 13:47, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Umm, explain: "Absorbed". I'm not groking it... > > You become part of it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from i

Re: AI Dooms Us

Umm, explain: "Absorbed". I'm not groking it... On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:46 PM, LizR wrote: > On 4 September 2014 13:45, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> Umm, not really. It is "exploitation". >> >> Only if you aren't absorbed. Otherwise you'd only be exploiting yourself. > > -- > You received

Re: AI Dooms Us

Humans interacting with each other form very nice (in terms of expressiveness ) adaptive networks. On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Stephen Paul King < stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote: > Umm, not really. It is "exploitation". > > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 13:45, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Umm, not really. It is "exploitation". > > Only if you aren't absorbed. Otherwise you'd only be exploiting yourself. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from t

Re: AI Dooms Us

Umm, not really. It is "exploitation". On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:43 PM, LizR wrote: > On 4 September 2014 13:38, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> Hi John, >> >>"why would have want the Zookeepers intelligence from the Earthlings? >> " >> >>Did you mean, Why would the Zookeepers want inte

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 13:38, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Hi John, > >"why would have want the Zookeepers intelligence from the Earthlings? " > >Did you mean, Why would the Zookeepers want intelligence from > Earthlings? Why to compute things for them, of course! Distributed networks > runnin

Re: AI Dooms Us

Hi John, "why would have want the Zookeepers intelligence from the Earthlings? " Did you mean, Why would the Zookeepers want intelligence from Earthlings? Why to compute things for them, of course! Distributed networks running algorithms that "evolve" are very good at finding solutions to o

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 07:51, John Mikes wrote: > Stephen, we have not communicated for quite awhile. Why would you think we > know more than - *what?* - *nothing* indeed and assume circumstances > according to our whim (mindset?). > () > To be exact I quoted you sa saying that. > We still use ou

Re: AI Dooms Us

Stephen, we have not communicated for quite awhile. Why would you think we know more than - *what?* - *nothing* indeed and assume circumstances according to our whim (mindset?). () We still use our present terms in postulating a far bigger world as our creator, one we can 'imagine' to be applicable

Re: AI Dooms Us

googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King >> *Sent:* Monday, September 01, 2014 5:38 PM >> >> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com >> *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us >> >> >> >> Hi Chris, >> >> >> >>I agree. What we

Re: AI Dooms Us

From: John Clark To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 10:56 AM Subject: Re: AI Dooms Us On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: >a human baby is a plastic template for the

Re: AI Dooms Us

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >a human baby is a plastic template for the individual to emerge in > And those 1000 lines of Lisp are a plastic template for the Jupiter Brain to emerge in. > All of that living experience a

Re: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-03 18:38 GMT+02:00 John Clark : > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:54 AM, meekerdb wrote: > > > on Bruno's theory, consciousness is a binary attribute, all-or-nothing. >> Intelligence has degrees >> > > If that is true (and I'm not saying it is) then we can immediately > conclude that Bruno's the

Re: AI Dooms Us

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:54 AM, meekerdb wrote: > on Bruno's theory, consciousness is a binary attribute, all-or-nothing. > Intelligence has degrees > If that is true (and I'm not saying it is) then we can immediately conclude that Bruno's theory is wrong because we know for a fact from personal

RE: AI Dooms Us

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 4:54 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: AI Dooms Us On 9/2/2014 10:35 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 9/2/2014 10:35 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: *From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Clark *Sent:* Tuesday, September 02, 2014 6:58 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: AI Do

RE: AI Dooms Us

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 6:58 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: AI Dooms Us On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 2:45 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Every

Re: AI Dooms Us

PS I have to go in a minute to meet my other half to attend this... http://www.climatevoter.org.nz/debate/ On 3 September 2014 16:31, LizR wrote: > On 3 September 2014 16:15, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> Hi LizR, >> >>Yes, I am saying that there may be AIs around already unaware of ou

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 3 September 2014 16:15, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Hi LizR, > >Yes, I am saying that there may be AIs around already unaware of our > existence and vice versa! Cultures, languages, religions, etc. all have the > behaviors that we would associate with entities that are to some degree > "se

Re: AI Dooms Us

Modulo decryption On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:59 PM, LizR wrote: > On 3 September 2014 15:45, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> Hi LizR, >> >> Sequentiable means that the correct sequence of operations occurs. >> Information is sensitive to orderings after all. 101001010010 is not the >> sam

Re: AI Dooms Us

Hi LizR, Yes, I am saying that there may be AIs around already unaware of our existence and vice versa! Cultures, languages, religions, etc. all have the behaviors that we would associate with entities that are to some degree "self-aware" in that there are "self-replication" behaviors associat

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 3 September 2014 15:45, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Hi LizR, > > Sequentiable means that the correct sequence of operations occurs. > Information is sensitive to orderings after all. 101001010010 is not the > same number as 00100110001 > > Is it a real word? (Personally I'd go for "correc

  1   2   >