Re: MGA revisited paper
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 11:49:00AM +1200, LizR wrote: Oops for smie read semi. Damn this no-editing feature! I did wonder! -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Artificial Intelligence article
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: * Artificial Intelligence *is accordingly an oxymoron. Artificial means made by design not by random mutation and natural selection as we were. And if you don't have a good definition of intelligence that you can express in words you have something better, a example. Intelligence is behavior that a smart human performs, and if someone or something outsmarts than human then that thing is either intelligent or very very lucky. It is the exact same test we humans use to tell the difference between smart people and those less smart. What's oxymoronic about that? We cannot expect from a (any?) machine to understand (use?) the verbatim non-expressed (infinite potential) of some (any) content and work with it successfully. Then how on earth did Watson defeat the 2 smartest human Jeopardy players on the planet? I do not share the pessimism of the good professor, Whistling through the grave yard. our machines are not (yet?) up to eliminate human ingenuity in the workplaces. Yes not yet. A man was heard to say as he passed the 20'th floor after falling off the top of the Empire State building so far so good; now that is optimism! John K Clark -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: MGA revisited paper
Liz: and HOW ON EARTH (verbatim: this one) would you know the entire World? Not to ask: what would you call 'populous'? Is a trillion 'many'? Please do ot quote Adam and Eve, Adam started out to be alone with a spare rib. And they(?) made the entire crowd. JM On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:48 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Actually I'm surprised that there are *no* populous universes anywhere in the string landscape / level 4 multiverse (if such exist). Or perhaps it's more likely that there are, but their proportion is so much lower than our sort that the chances are still better to find oneself in a universe where the life of civilisations is either nasty, brutish and short, or involves us evolving into an Childhood's End style Overmind. On 30 August 2014 08:25, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Russell: in your note *Yes, it does. And that might explain the Fermi paradox. It doesn't rule vastly distributed hive minds, though. Perhaps our future is to be assilimated with the Borg.* isn't there an *out * missing in the 2nd line after 'rule', or not? John M On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 2:17 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:01:38AM +1200, LizR wrote: Yes, I am hoping for a gradual decline ... what does the DDA have to say about other sentient species? If, say, the Andromedans were going to colonise their entire galaxy, we'd almost certainly have been born one of them. Does it therefore predict that there will be no vastly populous conscious race in any part of this universe or any other? Yes, it does. And that might explain the Fermi paradox. It doesn't rule vastly distributed hive minds, though. Perhaps our future is to be assilimated with the Borg. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Artificial Intelligence article
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Artificial Intelligence is accordingly an oxymoron. Artificial means made by design not by random mutation and natural selection as we were. And if you don't have a good definition of intelligence that you can express in words you have something better, a example. Intelligence is behavior that a smart human performs, and if someone or something outsmarts than human then that thing is either intelligent or very very lucky. It is the exact same test we humans use to tell the difference between smart people and those less smart. What's oxymoronic about that? We cannot expect from a (any?) machine to understand (use?) the verbatim non-expressed (infinite potential) of some (any) content and work with it successfully. Then how on earth did Watson defeat the 2 smartest human Jeopardy players on the planet? Agreed. Networked machines have access to all the data repositories they have connection authorization on – and this available store (and deep store) of information is truly massive, varied and cross connected. The data-mining algorithms have made huge strides over the last decade – driven by the insatiable need of the NSA to mine all data. Corporations have all complied and made their own data repositories reachable, searchable for this same reason. The end result is that a very much larger number of disconnected disparate and poorly searchable data has become warehoused in massive data centers with rapidly growing search metadata cross indexing this vast stream and quantity of raw data. The information capacity and generated new quantities of information is massive (at least by the standards of what our brains can comprehend). The figures I looked up for this post are from 2007 (ancient in terms of the information explosion). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exabyte · 65 exabytes of telecom capacity in 2007 – an increase of more than 30 times the 2.2 exabyte capacity in 2000. Extrapolating this rate of growth to the present day would mean that the actual current total telecommunications throughput is now in zettabyte (one zettabyte = a trillion gigabytes) territory · Single state of the art supercomputers are also entering into zettabyte scale and perform at over 10^16 FLOPS (100 petaflops) Exaflop supercomputers are just around the corner with China and the US racing neck and neck to get them built out by 2018 · The world's technological per-capita capacity to store information has roughly doubled every 40 months since the 1980. By 2012 almost a zettabyte of information was generated and stored… meaning that by now (2014) we are well into the zettabyte scale. These numbers and similar global information age statistics boggle the mind. And the rates of growth are staggering. Increasingly data is being made accessible to the net and centralized into net-facing repositories, getting migrated out of hard to access disparate repositories into big data repositories (motivated in part by the NSA’s desire to know everything) I do not share the pessimism of the good professor, Whistling through the grave yard. our machines are not (yet?) up to eliminate human ingenuity in the workplaces. Yes not yet. A man was heard to say as he passed the 20'th floor after falling off the top of the Empire State building so far so good; now that is optimism! Hehe – we don’t always get along, but got to give it to you. Nice bit of apropos dark wit. Chris John K Clark -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: MGA revisited paper
I don't understand the question. I'm attempting to make further deductions from the self-sampling assumption, as used in the Doomsday Argument. Please could you explain what you think I'm saying, so I can attempt a sensible reply to your comment? On 31 August 2014 07:38, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Liz: and HOW ON EARTH (verbatim: this one) would you know the entire World? Not to ask: what would you call 'populous'? Is a trillion 'many'? Please do ot quote Adam and Eve, Adam started out to be alone with a spare rib. And they(?) made the entire crowd. JM On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:48 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Actually I'm surprised that there are *no* populous universes anywhere in the string landscape / level 4 multiverse (if such exist). Or perhaps it's more likely that there are, but their proportion is so much lower than our sort that the chances are still better to find oneself in a universe where the life of civilisations is either nasty, brutish and short, or involves us evolving into an Childhood's End style Overmind. On 30 August 2014 08:25, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Russell: in your note *Yes, it does. And that might explain the Fermi paradox. It doesn't rule vastly distributed hive minds, though. Perhaps our future is to be assilimated with the Borg.* isn't there an *out * missing in the 2nd line after 'rule', or not? John M On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 2:17 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:01:38AM +1200, LizR wrote: Yes, I am hoping for a gradual decline ... what does the DDA have to say about other sentient species? If, say, the Andromedans were going to colonise their entire galaxy, we'd almost certainly have been born one of them. Does it therefore predict that there will be no vastly populous conscious race in any part of this universe or any other? Yes, it does. And that might explain the Fermi paradox. It doesn't rule vastly distributed hive minds, though. Perhaps our future is to be assilimated with the Borg. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Artificial Intelligence article
To be absolutely clear - the Artificial in AI refers to the machine which hosts the intelligence, not to the intelligence itself. The problem with machines defeating Jeopardy players (I assume this refers to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeopardy_%28TV_series%29 ?) is that the machines concerned almost certainly have no concepts of what the answers were about. Hence they aren't in fact doing what humans do (or at least not most humans do, apart from perhaps *idiots savant*). Likewise, Deep Junior almost certainly has no concept of what it's doing when it scores a 3-3 tie aganst Kasparov. It has no concept of itself or its opponent, or very limited concepts embedded in relatively small* data structures - and it experiences no emotions on winning or losing. According to Bruno, at least, its possible for a machine to do all the above, but I don't think we've got one yet (apart from the ones made all over the world by unskilled labour, of course). *At least I imagine that the human concept of self involves more than, say, a few megabytes. -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Artificial Intelligence article
On Sunday, August 31, 2014, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: To be absolutely clear - the Artificial in AI refers to the machine which hosts the intelligence, not to the intelligence itself. The problem with machines defeating Jeopardy players (I assume this refers to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeopardy_%28TV_series%29 ?) is that the machines concerned almost certainly have no concepts of what the answers were about. Hence they aren't in fact doing what humans do (or at least not most humans do, apart from perhaps *idiots savant*). Likewise, Deep Junior almost certainly has no concept of what it's doing when it scores a 3-3 tie aganst Kasparov. It has no concept of itself or its opponent, or very limited concepts embedded in relatively small* data structures - and it experiences no emotions on winning or losing. According to Bruno, at least, its possible for a machine to do all the above, but I don't think we've got one yet (apart from the ones made all over the world by unskilled labour, of course). *At least I imagine that the human concept of self involves more than, say, a few megabytes. How do you know that a machine (or human) really knows what the answers are about? You can ask more questions, but how do you know they really know what *those* answers they give are about? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Artificial Intelligence article
On 8/30/2014 4:04 PM, LizR wrote: To be absolutely clear - the Artificial in AI refers to the machine which hosts the intelligence, not to the intelligence itself. The problem with machines defeating Jeopardy players (I assume this refers to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeopardy_%28TV_series%29 ?) is that the machines concerned almost certainly have no concepts of what the answers were about. How do you have a concept of what Who was Charlamagne? about? Isn't a lot of of it verbal and relational; stuff Winston does know. Of course Winston is ignorant about a lot of basic things about being a person because it doesn't have perceptive sensors and the ability to move and manipulate things. Hence they aren't in fact doing what humans do (or at least not most humans do, apart from perhaps /idiots savant/). Likewise, Deep Junior almost certainly has no concept of what it's doing when it scores a 3-3 tie aganst Kasparov. It has no concept of itself or its opponent, or very limited concepts embedded in relatively small* data structures - and it experiences no emotions on winning or losing. Isn't the reason you think that is because its input/output is so limited? It wouldn't be at all difficult to add to Deep Blue's program so that on winning it composed a poem of celebration and displayed fireworks on a screen - or even set off real fireworks - and on losing it shut down and refused to do anything for three days. Brent According to Bruno, at least, its possible for a machine to do all the above, but I don't think we've got one yet (apart from the ones made all over the world by unskilled labour, of course). *At least I imagine that the human concept of self involves more than, say, a few megabytes. -- 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Artificial Intelligence article
On 31 Aug 2014, at 9:04 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: To be absolutely clear - the Artificial in AI refers to the machine which hosts the intelligence, not to the intelligence itself. How can anything be artificial??? What in fact does this word mean? The loose way in which we use this word suggests that whatever is deemed artificial is somehow an order of real that is less than real, or, in some sense missing some ingredient X which takes it from vaguely unreal - real. Artifice = clever or cunning devices and expedients. Nature does that all the time. Nothing is artificial, nothing. And I mean that substantively. Kim -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Artificial Intelligence article
On 8/30/2014 5:29 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 31 Aug 2014, at 9:04 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: To be absolutely clear - the Artificial in AI refers to the machine which hosts the intelligence, not to the intelligence itself. How can anything be artificial??? Artificial means somebody made it, while there is a natural form that nobody made. Hence artificial flower, artifact, artificial fur,... Brent What in fact does this word mean? The loose way in which we use this word suggests that whatever is deemed artificial is somehow an order of real that is less than real, or, in some sense missing some ingredient X which takes it from vaguely unreal - real. Artifice = clever or cunning devices and expedients. Nature does that all the time. Nothing is artificial, nothing. And I mean that substantively. Kim -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Artificial Intelligence article
On 31 August 2014 12:29, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 31 Aug 2014, at 9:04 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: To be absolutely clear - the Artificial in AI refers to the machine which hosts the intelligence, not to the intelligence itself. How can anything be artificial??? What in fact does this word mean? The loose way in which we use this word suggests that whatever is deemed artificial is somehow an order of real that is less than real, or, in some sense missing some ingredient X which takes it from vaguely unreal - real. Artifice = clever or cunning devices and expedients. Nature does that all the time. Nothing is artificial, nothing. And I mean that substantively. You can remove or distort the meaning of most words if you try hard enough, nevertheless this is a useful distinction. Artificial in this context means created by humans. -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Artificial Intelligence article
On 31 August 2014 12:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/30/2014 4:04 PM, LizR wrote: To be absolutely clear - the Artificial in AI refers to the machine which hosts the intelligence, not to the intelligence itself. The problem with machines defeating Jeopardy players (I assume this refers to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeopardy_%28TV_series%29 ?) is that the machines concerned almost certainly have no concepts of what the answers were about. How do you have a concept of what Who was Charlamagne? about? Isn't a lot of of it verbal and relational; stuff Winston does know. Of course Winston is ignorant about a lot of basic things about being a person because it doesn't have perceptive sensors and the ability to move and manipulate things. That's the point. Winston or whatever isn't immersed in an environment, or its environment only involves abstract relations. So I do have a better idea of who charlemagne was, even if I'd never heard of him before. Hence they aren't in fact doing what humans do (or at least not most humans do, apart from perhaps *idiots savant*). Likewise, Deep Junior almost certainly has no concept of what it's doing when it scores a 3-3 tie aganst Kasparov. It has no concept of itself or its opponent, or very limited concepts embedded in relatively small* data structures - and it experiences no emotions on winning or losing. Isn't the reason you think that is because its input/output is so limited? It wouldn't be at all difficult to add to Deep Blue's program so that on winning it composed a poem of celebration and displayed fireworks on a screen - or even set off real fireworks - and on losing it shut down and refused to do anything for three days. No, I think that because there's no evidence whatsoever that Deep Blue etc have feelings, at least none that I've come across. I'd be happy to be proved wrong (which would be a boost for comp, I suppose). -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Artificial Intelligence article
I should have added - an environment that only involves abstract relations; it has no referents to a reality richly experienced via senses. On 31 August 2014 12:54, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 31 August 2014 12:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/30/2014 4:04 PM, LizR wrote: To be absolutely clear - the Artificial in AI refers to the machine which hosts the intelligence, not to the intelligence itself. The problem with machines defeating Jeopardy players (I assume this refers to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeopardy_%28TV_series%29 ?) is that the machines concerned almost certainly have no concepts of what the answers were about. How do you have a concept of what Who was Charlamagne? about? Isn't a lot of of it verbal and relational; stuff Winston does know. Of course Winston is ignorant about a lot of basic things about being a person because it doesn't have perceptive sensors and the ability to move and manipulate things. That's the point. Winston or whatever isn't immersed in an environment, or its environment only involves abstract relations. So I do have a better idea of who charlemagne was, even if I'd never heard of him before. Hence they aren't in fact doing what humans do (or at least not most humans do, apart from perhaps *idiots savant*). Likewise, Deep Junior almost certainly has no concept of what it's doing when it scores a 3-3 tie aganst Kasparov. It has no concept of itself or its opponent, or very limited concepts embedded in relatively small* data structures - and it experiences no emotions on winning or losing. Isn't the reason you think that is because its input/output is so limited? It wouldn't be at all difficult to add to Deep Blue's program so that on winning it composed a poem of celebration and displayed fireworks on a screen - or even set off real fireworks - and on losing it shut down and refused to do anything for three days. No, I think that because there's no evidence whatsoever that Deep Blue etc have feelings, at least none that I've come across. I'd be happy to be proved wrong (which would be a boost for comp, I suppose). -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Artificial Intelligence article
On 8/30/2014 5:54 PM, LizR wrote: On 31 August 2014 12:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/30/2014 4:04 PM, LizR wrote: To be absolutely clear - the Artificial in AI refers to the machine which hosts the intelligence, not to the intelligence itself. The problem with machines defeating Jeopardy players (I assume this refers to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeopardy_%28TV_series%29 ?) is that the machines concerned almost certainly have no concepts of what the answers were about. How do you have a concept of what Who was Charlamagne? about? Isn't a lot of of it verbal and relational; stuff Winston does know. Of course Winston is ignorant about a lot of basic things about being a person because it doesn't have perceptive sensors and the ability to move and manipulate things. That's the point. Winston or whatever isn't immersed in an environment, or its environment only involves abstract relations. So I do have a better idea of who charlemagne was, even if I'd never heard of him before. Sure, you have a better idea. But I don't think that shows that Winston has no concept of what the answers are about. His concepts are limited to verbal relations, but he probably has more of those related to Charlemagne than I do. Hence they aren't in fact doing what humans do (or at least not most humans do, apart from perhaps /idiots savant/). Likewise, Deep Junior almost certainly has no concept of what it's doing when it scores a 3-3 tie aganst Kasparov. It has no concept of itself or its opponent, or very limited concepts embedded in relatively small* data structures - and it experiences no emotions on winning or losing. Isn't the reason you think that is because its input/output is so limited? It wouldn't be at all difficult to add to Deep Blue's program so that on winning it composed a poem of celebration and displayed fireworks on a screen - or even set off real fireworks - and on losing it shut down and refused to do anything for three days. No, I think that because there's no evidence whatsoever that Deep Blue etc have feelings, at least none that I've come across. I'd be happy to be proved wrong (which would be a boost for comp, I suppose). I'm asking what would constitute evidence for Deep Blue's having feelings? Fireworks and sulking aren't enough? Brent -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Artificial Intelligence article
On Aug 30, 2014 9:10 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/30/2014 5:54 PM, LizR wrote: On 31 August 2014 12:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/30/2014 4:04 PM, LizR wrote: To be absolutely clear - the Artificial in AI refers to the machine which hosts the intelligence, not to the intelligence itself. The problem with machines defeating Jeopardy players (I assume this refers to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeopardy_%28TV_series%29 ?) is that the machines concerned almost certainly have no concepts of what the answers were about. How do you have a concept of what Who was Charlamagne? about? Isn't a lot of of it verbal and relational; stuff Winston does know. Of course Winston is ignorant about a lot of basic things about being a person because it doesn't have perceptive sensors and the ability to move and manipulate things. That's the point. Winston or whatever isn't immersed in an environment, or its environment only involves abstract relations. So I do have a better idea of who charlemagne was, even if I'd never heard of him before. Sure, you have a better idea. But I don't think that shows that Winston has no concept of what the answers are about. His concepts are limited to verbal relations, but he probably has more of those related to Charlemagne than I do. Hence they aren't in fact doing what humans do (or at least not most humans do, apart from perhaps idiots savant). Likewise, Deep Junior almost certainly has no concept of what it's doing when it scores a 3-3 tie aganst Kasparov. It has no concept of itself or its opponent, or very limited concepts embedded in relatively small* data structures - and it experiences no emotions on winning or losing. Isn't the reason you think that is because its input/output is so limited? It wouldn't be at all difficult to add to Deep Blue's program so that on winning it composed a poem of celebration and displayed fireworks on a screen - or even set off real fireworks - and on losing it shut down and refused to do anything for three days. No, I think that because there's no evidence whatsoever that Deep Blue etc have feelings, at least none that I've come across. I'd be happy to be proved wrong (which would be a boost for comp, I suppose). I'm asking what would constitute evidence for Deep Blue's having feelings? Fireworks and sulking aren't enough? Brent Craig is that you? With all due respect it's this kind of thinking that has limited progress in AI for so long. Terren -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Artificial Intelligence article
On 31 Aug 2014, at 10:51 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 31 August 2014 12:29, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 31 Aug 2014, at 9:04 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: To be absolutely clear - the Artificial in AI refers to the machine which hosts the intelligence, not to the intelligence itself. How can anything be artificial??? What in fact does this word mean? The loose way in which we use this word suggests that whatever is deemed artificial is somehow an order of real that is less than real, or, in some sense missing some ingredient X which takes it from vaguely unreal - real. Artifice = clever or cunning devices and expedients. Nature does that all the time. Nothing is artificial, nothing. And I mean that substantively. You can remove or distort the meaning of most words if you try hard enough, nevertheless this is a useful distinction. Artificial in this context means created by humans. OK. But some finches use twigs as tools and that surely comes under the same umbrella. Creativity is a large part of artificial, not just we bipedal wonders did it. Artifice is the practice of distorting meanings and layering meanings. It's ART. I'm sure someone like Jacob Brunowski (The Ascent of Man) would agree with me. Are we going to call Chartres Cathedral artificial? Of course it is. How about Mary Shelley's Frankenstein? He's as artificial and intelligent as they come. No zombie, that guy. So for me, the distinction is useful in the way you mean but continues not to capture the real distinction which is more about intelligence doing what it always does most usefully; create newness. There is no way the search to build an AI is the same as intelligence pouring itself from one bottle into another. What we create will be something that will almost certainly surprise us, just as I am still surprised by certain ancient works of man's artifice that can now include something that may even converse and reason with us in a way that strikes us as vaguely reminiscent of ourselves. It makes me smile to think that now we have (an?) intelligence hosted by a machine declaring the machine hosting (another) intelligence artificial. Assuming comp of course, this doesn't seem like a very meaningful distinction to want to make. Kim -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Artificial Intelligence article
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 2:54 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 31 August 2014 12:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/30/2014 4:04 PM, LizR wrote: To be absolutely clear - the Artificial in AI refers to the machine which hosts the intelligence, not to the intelligence itself. The problem with machines defeating Jeopardy players (I assume this refers to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeopardy_%28TV_series%29 ?) is that the machines concerned almost certainly have no concepts of what the answers were about. How do you have a concept of what Who was Charlamagne? about? Isn't a lot of of it verbal and relational; stuff Winston does know. Of course Winston is ignorant about a lot of basic things about being a person because it doesn't have perceptive sensors and the ability to move and manipulate things. That's the point. Winston or whatever isn't immersed in an environment, or its environment only involves abstract relations. So I do have a better idea of who charlemagne was, even if I'd never heard of him before. Hence they aren't in fact doing what humans do (or at least not most humans do, apart from perhaps *idiots savant*). Likewise, Deep Junior almost certainly has no concept of what it's doing when it scores a 3-3 tie aganst Kasparov. It has no concept of itself or its opponent, or very limited concepts embedded in relatively small* data structures - and it experiences no emotions on winning or losing. Isn't the reason you think that is because its input/output is so limited? It wouldn't be at all difficult to add to Deep Blue's program so that on winning it composed a poem of celebration and displayed fireworks on a screen - or even set off real fireworks - and on losing it shut down and refused to do anything for three days. No, I think that because there's no evidence whatsoever that Deep Blue etc have feelings, at least none that I've come across. I'd be happy to be proved wrong (which would be a boost for comp, I suppose). I'm not sure comp needs a boost... this might be horrible ;-) Perhaps a look at the game itself would be appropriate at this point because yesterday, the current World Champion played White and lost to black. Yes, the dark side won this one yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXm_DaG09SE The engines might be merely matching/summing tables but they assess the game as winning/loosing pretty much in harmony with our third person assessment of the game, which the above link illustrates nicely; which is also why Grandmasters and lesser humans use engines to analyze games and check, pun intended, their judgement. Feelings? We know: It's sad to watch a world champion loose and search for dwindling branches in vain. Same for watching an engine. Whether two great engines or humans play = fun stories for some, painful ones for others, and nice undecided ones in funky explosive draws. I'd say yes, chess is partially about matching tables AND partially about incredible struggles between good and evil, kings, queens, knights, bishops, rook cops, pawns, promotions, sacrifices, tactics, strategy, diagonalization, truth and all. And when an engine or human is in winning position: the searches for lines in a position light up like Christmas trees. Does the engine know this while coming up with its results/playing? And... do we? It's funny we end up with the same notes on the matter though. -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: AI Dooms Us
Hi Chris, Here is the thing. Does not the difficulty in creating a computational simulation of the brain in action give you pause? Why are we assuming that the AI will have a mind (program) that can be parsed by humans? AFAIK, AGI (following Ben Goertzel's convention) will be completely incomprehensible to us. If we are trying to figure out its values, what could we do better than to run the thing in a sandbox and let it interact in with test AI. Can we prove that is intelligent? I don't think so! Unless we could somehow mindmeld with it and the mindmeld results in a mutual understanding, how could we have a proof. But melding minds together is a hard thing to do On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:16 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King Are our fears of AI running amuck and killing random persons based on unfounded assumptions? Perhaps, and I see your point. However, am going to try to make the following case: If we take AI as some emergent networked meta-system, arising in a non-linear, fuzzy, non-demarcated manner from pre-existing (increasingly networked) proto-AI smart systems (+vast repositories), such as already exist… and then drill down through the code layers – through the logic (DNA) – embedded within and characterizing all those sub systems, and factor in all the many conscious and unconscious human assumptions and biases that exist throughout these deeply layered systems… I would argue that what could emerge ( given the trajectory will emerge fairly soon I think) will very much have our human fingerprints sown all the way through its source code, its repositories, its injected values. At least initially. I am concerned by the kinds of “values” that are becoming encoded in sub-system after sub-system, when the driving motivation for these layered complex self-navigating, increasingly autonomous systems is to create untended killer robots as well as social data mining smart agents to penetrate social networks and identify targets. If this becomes the major part of the code base from which AI emerges then isn’t it a fairly good reason to be concerned about the software DNA of what could emerge? If the code base is driven by the desire to establish and maintain a system characterized by having a highly centralized and vertical social control, deep data mining defended by an army increasingly comprised of autonomous mobile warbots… isn’t this a cause for concern? But then -- admittedly -- who really knows how an emergent machine based (probably highly networked) self-aware intelligence might evolve; my concern is the initial conditions (algorithms etc.) we are embedding into the source code from which an AI would emerge. On Monday, August 25, 2014 3:20:24 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote: AI is being developed and funded primarily by agencies such as DARPA, NSA, DOD (plus MIC contractors). After all smart drones with independent untended warfighting capabilities offer a significant military advantage to the side that possesses them. This is a guarantee that the wrong kind of super-intelligence will come out of the process... a super-intelligent machine devoted to the killing of enemy human beings (+ opposing drones I suppose as well) This does not bode well for a benign super-intelligence outcome does it? -- *From:* meekerdb meek...@verizon.net *To:* *Sent:* Monday, August 25, 2014 12:04 PM *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us 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 until we figured out how to do so safely. And then maybe wait another generation or two just to make sure that we hadn't overlooked some flaw in our reasoning. And then do it -- and reap immense benefit. Unfortunately, we do not have the ability to pause. But maybe he's forgotten the Dark Ages. I think ISIS is working hard to produce a pause. Brent On 8/25/2014 10:27 AM Artificial Intelligence May Doom The Human Race Within A Century, Oxford Professor http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/artificial-intelligence-oxford_n_5689858.html?ir=Science -- 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-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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
Re: Artificial Intelligence article
On 31 August 2014 13:10, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/30/2014 5:54 PM, LizR wrote: On 31 August 2014 12:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/30/2014 4:04 PM, LizR wrote: To be absolutely clear - the Artificial in AI refers to the machine which hosts the intelligence, not to the intelligence itself. The problem with machines defeating Jeopardy players (I assume this refers to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeopardy_%28TV_series%29 ?) is that the machines concerned almost certainly have no concepts of what the answers were about. How do you have a concept of what Who was Charlamagne? about? Isn't a lot of of it verbal and relational; stuff Winston does know. Of course Winston is ignorant about a lot of basic things about being a person because it doesn't have perceptive sensors and the ability to move and manipulate things. That's the point. Winston or whatever isn't immersed in an environment, or its environment only involves abstract relations. So I do have a better idea of who charlemagne was, even if I'd never heard of him before. Sure, you have a better idea. But I don't think that shows that Winston has no concept of what the answers are about. His concepts are limited to verbal relations, but he probably has more of those related to Charlemagne than I do. So you appear to think purely abstract relations can be about something even when they have no relation to experience of an environment - is that correct? Hence they aren't in fact doing what humans do (or at least not most humans do, apart from perhaps *idiots savant*). Likewise, Deep Junior almost certainly has no concept of what it's doing when it scores a 3-3 tie aganst Kasparov. It has no concept of itself or its opponent, or very limited concepts embedded in relatively small* data structures - and it experiences no emotions on winning or losing. Isn't the reason you think that is because its input/output is so limited? It wouldn't be at all difficult to add to Deep Blue's program so that on winning it composed a poem of celebration and displayed fireworks on a screen - or even set off real fireworks - and on losing it shut down and refused to do anything for three days. No, I think that because there's no evidence whatsoever that Deep Blue etc have feelings, at least none that I've come across. I'd be happy to be proved wrong (which would be a boost for comp, I suppose). I'm asking what would constitute evidence for Deep Blue's having feelings? Fireworks and sulking aren't enough? An ongoing exhibition that it did, sustained over a period of time, and accompanied by what appeared to be the results of mentation, etc - i.e. passing a Turing test equivalent. Plus supporting evidence that it was conscious, and that we had reasonable theoretical grounds to think that it was (e.g. it had had an electronic childhood like HAL, etc). Just displaying a smiley face on a screen by loading in a bitmap wouldn't do it, for me at least. Given that this would be one of the most profound discoveries (or inventions) of all time, I'd want some pretty good evidence. Wouldn't you? -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: AI Dooms Us
I think the only test we have available for consciousness etc (for computers or people) is the good old Turing test. Once our AI starts killing of astronauts because they may interfere with its main mission (I was always with HAL on this one, what exactly was the point of those humans, again?) that looks like a good point to stop arguing the finer details and start pulling out the memory cubes. On 31 August 2014 15:35, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Chris, Here is the thing. Does not the difficulty in creating a computational simulation of the brain in action give you pause? Why are we assuming that the AI will have a mind (program) that can be parsed by humans? AFAIK, AGI (following Ben Goertzel's convention) will be completely incomprehensible to us. If we are trying to figure out its values, what could we do better than to run the thing in a sandbox and let it interact in with test AI. Can we prove that is intelligent? I don't think so! Unless we could somehow mindmeld with it and the mindmeld results in a mutual understanding, how could we have a proof. But melding minds together is a hard thing to do On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:16 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King Are our fears of AI running amuck and killing random persons based on unfounded assumptions? Perhaps, and I see your point. However, am going to try to make the following case: If we take AI as some emergent networked meta-system, arising in a non-linear, fuzzy, non-demarcated manner from pre-existing (increasingly networked) proto-AI smart systems (+vast repositories), such as already exist… and then drill down through the code layers – through the logic (DNA) – embedded within and characterizing all those sub systems, and factor in all the many conscious and unconscious human assumptions and biases that exist throughout these deeply layered systems… I would argue that what could emerge ( given the trajectory will emerge fairly soon I think) will very much have our human fingerprints sown all the way through its source code, its repositories, its injected values. At least initially. I am concerned by the kinds of “values” that are becoming encoded in sub-system after sub-system, when the driving motivation for these layered complex self-navigating, increasingly autonomous systems is to create untended killer robots as well as social data mining smart agents to penetrate social networks and identify targets. If this becomes the major part of the code base from which AI emerges then isn’t it a fairly good reason to be concerned about the software DNA of what could emerge? If the code base is driven by the desire to establish and maintain a system characterized by having a highly centralized and vertical social control, deep data mining defended by an army increasingly comprised of autonomous mobile warbots… isn’t this a cause for concern? But then -- admittedly -- who really knows how an emergent machine based (probably highly networked) self-aware intelligence might evolve; my concern is the initial conditions (algorithms etc.) we are embedding into the source code from which an AI would emerge. On Monday, August 25, 2014 3:20:24 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote: AI is being developed and funded primarily by agencies such as DARPA, NSA, DOD (plus MIC contractors). After all smart drones with independent untended warfighting capabilities offer a significant military advantage to the side that possesses them. This is a guarantee that the wrong kind of super-intelligence will come out of the process... a super-intelligent machine devoted to the killing of enemy human beings (+ opposing drones I suppose as well) This does not bode well for a benign super-intelligence outcome does it? -- *From:* meekerdb meek...@verizon.net *To:* *Sent:* Monday, August 25, 2014 12:04 PM *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us 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 until we figured out how to do so safely. And then maybe wait another generation or two just to make sure that we hadn't overlooked some flaw in our reasoning. And then do it -- and reap immense benefit. Unfortunately, we do not have the ability to pause. But maybe he's forgotten the Dark Ages. I think ISIS is working hard to produce a pause. Brent On 8/25/2014 10:27 AM Artificial Intelligence May Doom The Human Race Within A Century, Oxford Professor http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/artificial-intelligence-oxford_n_5689858.html?ir=Science -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To
RE: AI Dooms Us
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 8:35 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: AI Dooms Us Hi Chris, Here is the thing. Does not the difficulty in creating a computational simulation of the brain in action give you pause? Difficult yes, impossible I don’t think so. A simulation of the human brain need not have the same scale as an actual human brain (after all it is a model). For example statistical well bounded statements can be made about many social behavioral outcomes based on relatively small sampling sets. This also applies to the brain. A model could have a small fraction of the real brain’s complexity and scale and yet produce pretty accurate results. Of course it is complex for us to imagine today… the human brain is after all vastly parallel with an immense number of connections 100s of trillions. Even within a single synapse (one of a large number of synapses) there is a world of exquisite molecular scale complexity and it seems multi-channeled to me. However, it is also true that the global networked meta-cloud (the dynamic process driven interconnected cloud of clouds operating over the underlying global scale physical and technological infrastructure) is also scaling up to immense numbers of disparate computational elements with thousands of trillions of network vertices. Perhaps I don’t understand the thrust of this statement? Why should it give me pause? The brain is a magnificent but of biology an admirable compact hyper energy efficient computational engine of unequaled parallelism. Yes, we agree. On the other hand the geometric growth rates of informatics capacity – in all dimensions: storage, speed, network size, traffic, cross talk, numbers of cores, memory, capacity of the various pipes.. you name it is also literally exploding out in scale. And on the level of fundamental understanding we are establishing a finer and finer grained understanding about the brain and how it works – dynamically in real time – and doing so from many various angles and scales of observation (from macro down to the electro-chemical molecular machinery of a single synapse). There are major initiatives in figuring out (at least at the macro scale) the human brain connectome. The micro architecture of the brain (at the scale of a single arrayed column -- usually around six neurons deep) is also being better understood, as are the various sensorial processing, memory, temporal, decisional and other brain algorithms. A huge exciting challenge certainly… but for my way of thinking about this, not a cause for pause, rather a call to delve deeper into it and try to put it all together. Why are we assuming that the AI will have a mind (program) that can be parsed by humans? Who is assuming that? I was arguing that the code we create today will be the DNA of what emerges, by virtue of being the template in which subsequent development emerges from. Are you saying that our human prejudices, assumptions, biases, needs, desires, objectives, habits, ways of thinking… that all this assortment of hidden variables is not influencing the kind of code that is written. The hundreds of millions of lines of code written by programmers – mostly living and working in just a small number of technological centers operating on planet earth -- that all of this vast output of code is somehow unaffected by our humanness, by our nature? Personally I would find that astounding and think it would seem rather obvious that in fact it is very much influenced by our nature and our objectives and needs. I am not assuming anything by making the statement that whatever does emerge (assuming a self-aware intelligence does emerge) will have emerged out from a primordial soup that we cooked up and will have had its roots and beginnings from a code base of human creation, created for human ends and objectives with human prejudices and modes of thinking literally hard coded into the mind boggling numbers of services, objects, systems, frameworks and what have you that exist and are now all connecting up into non-locational dynamic cloud architectures. AFAIK, AGI (following Ben Goertzel's convention) will be completely incomprehensible to us. If we are trying to figure out its values, what could we do better than to run the thing in a sandbox and let it interact in with test AI. Can we prove that is intelligent? We don’t know what it will turn out to become, but we can say with certainty that it will emerge from the code, from the algorithms from the physical chip architectures, network architectures, etc. that we have created. This is clearly an a priori assumption if we are speaking about human spawned AI – it has to emerge from human creation (unless we are speaking of alien AI of course). We cannot even prove that we are
RE: Artificial Intelligence article
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Platonist Guitar Cowboy Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 7:43 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence article On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 2:54 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 31 August 2014 12:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/30/2014 4:04 PM, LizR wrote: To be absolutely clear - the Artificial in AI refers to the machine which hosts the intelligence, not to the intelligence itself. The problem with machines defeating Jeopardy players (I assume this refers to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeopardy_%28TV_series%29 ?) is that the machines concerned almost certainly have no concepts of what the answers were about. How do you have a concept of what Who was Charlamagne? about? Isn't a lot of of it verbal and relational; stuff Winston does know. Of course Winston is ignorant about a lot of basic things about being a person because it doesn't have perceptive sensors and the ability to move and manipulate things. That's the point. Winston or whatever isn't immersed in an environment, or its environment only involves abstract relations. So I do have a better idea of who charlemagne was, even if I'd never heard of him before. Our minds are also immersed in an abstract environment – a reification of the “real” world – as delivered to use through our sensorial streams, colored and altered by our memories and notional constructs (our beliefs etc.) The verbalizing self-aware entity operating within our minds is a dynamic pattern of electrical and chemical activity… it is every bit as much abstracted out from reality as a hypothetical machine intelligence would also be. Hence they aren't in fact doing what humans do (or at least not most humans do, apart from perhaps idiots savant). Likewise, Deep Junior almost certainly has no concept of what it's doing when it scores a 3-3 tie aganst Kasparov. It has no concept of itself or its opponent, or very limited concepts embedded in relatively small* data structures - and it experiences no emotions on winning or losing. Isn't the reason you think that is because its input/output is so limited? It wouldn't be at all difficult to add to Deep Blue's program so that on winning it composed a poem of celebration and displayed fireworks on a screen - or even set off real fireworks - and on losing it shut down and refused to do anything for three days. No, I think that because there's no evidence whatsoever that Deep Blue etc have feelings, at least none that I've come across. I'd be happy to be proved wrong (which would be a boost for comp, I suppose). The Japanese, especially for some reason, are doing some pretty amazing stuff with emotional intelligence for robots… robots that can read human emotions and expressions and discern human feelings and also mimic human emotions as well. Are these “true” feelings. What is a “true” feeling I ask then? Just because we experience it… is that the only metric of “trueness”? I'm not sure comp needs a boost... this might be horrible ;-) Perhaps a look at the game itself would be appropriate at this point because yesterday, the current World Champion played White and lost to black. Yes, the dark side won this one yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXm_DaG09SE The engines might be merely matching/summing tables but they assess the game as winning/loosing pretty much in harmony with our third person assessment of the game, which the above link illustrates nicely; which is also why Grandmasters and lesser humans use engines to analyze games and check, pun intended, their judgement. Feelings? We know: It's sad to watch a world champion loose and search for dwindling branches in vain. Same for watching an engine. Whether two great engines or humans play = fun stories for some, painful ones for others, and nice undecided ones in funky explosive draws. I'd say yes, chess is partially about matching tables AND partially about incredible struggles between good and evil, kings, queens, knights, bishops, rook cops, pawns, promotions, sacrifices, tactics, strategy, diagonalization, truth and all. And when an engine or human is in winning position: the searches for lines in a position light up like Christmas trees. Does the engine know this while coming up with its results/playing? And... do we? It's funny we end up with the same notes on the matter though. Again what do we “know”? All we know is what our minds inform us we know… all we think is what our minds cause to pop in our heads. We are more similar to machines than many would like to imagine themselves as being… it hurts to admit there is no divine spark that gives us “true” intelligence… that we may just be a collection of dynamic, concurrent algorithms operating within our tightly folded sheets. -- You received
RE: AI Dooms Us
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 8:55 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: AI Dooms Us I think the only test we have available for consciousness etc (for computers or people) is the good old Turing test. Once our AI starts killing of astronauts because they may interfere with its main mission (I was always with HAL on this one, what exactly was the point of those humans, again?) that looks like a good point to stop arguing the finer details and start pulling out the memory cubes. AI might also accelerate its development at such breakneck speed that it very rapidly loses all interest in us, our planet, this galaxy, this particular underlying “physical reality” (whatever that may turn out to be) and exit our perceived universe into some other dimension beyond our reach or comprehension. On 31 August 2014 15:35, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Chris, Here is the thing. Does not the difficulty in creating a computational simulation of the brain in action give you pause? Why are we assuming that the AI will have a mind (program) that can be parsed by humans? AFAIK, AGI (following Ben Goertzel's convention) will be completely incomprehensible to us. If we are trying to figure out its values, what could we do better than to run the thing in a sandbox and let it interact in with test AI. Can we prove that is intelligent? I don't think so! Unless we could somehow mindmeld with it and the mindmeld results in a mutual understanding, how could we have a proof. But melding minds together is a hard thing to do On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:16 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King Are our fears of AI running amuck and killing random persons based on unfounded assumptions? Perhaps, and I see your point. However, am going to try to make the following case: If we take AI as some emergent networked meta-system, arising in a non-linear, fuzzy, non-demarcated manner from pre-existing (increasingly networked) proto-AI smart systems (+vast repositories), such as already exist… and then drill down through the code layers – through the logic (DNA) – embedded within and characterizing all those sub systems, and factor in all the many conscious and unconscious human assumptions and biases that exist throughout these deeply layered systems… I would argue that what could emerge ( given the trajectory will emerge fairly soon I think) will very much have our human fingerprints sown all the way through its source code, its repositories, its injected values. At least initially. I am concerned by the kinds of “values” that are becoming encoded in sub-system after sub-system, when the driving motivation for these layered complex self-navigating, increasingly autonomous systems is to create untended killer robots as well as social data mining smart agents to penetrate social networks and identify targets. If this becomes the major part of the code base from which AI emerges then isn’t it a fairly good reason to be concerned about the software DNA of what could emerge? If the code base is driven by the desire to establish and maintain a system characterized by having a highly centralized and vertical social control, deep data mining defended by an army increasingly comprised of autonomous mobile warbots… isn’t this a cause for concern? But then -- admittedly -- who really knows how an emergent machine based (probably highly networked) self-aware intelligence might evolve; my concern is the initial conditions (algorithms etc.) we are embedding into the source code from which an AI would emerge. On Monday, August 25, 2014 3:20:24 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote: AI is being developed and funded primarily by agencies such as DARPA, NSA, DOD (plus MIC contractors). After all smart drones with independent untended warfighting capabilities offer a significant military advantage to the side that possesses them. This is a guarantee that the wrong kind of super-intelligence will come out of the process... a super-intelligent machine devoted to the killing of enemy human beings (+ opposing drones I suppose as well) This does not bode well for a benign super-intelligence outcome does it? _ From: meekerdb meek...@verizon.net To: Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 12:04 PM Subject: Re: AI Dooms Us 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 until we figured out how to do so safely. And then maybe wait another generation or two just to make sure that we hadn't overlooked some flaw in our reasoning. And then do it -- and reap
Re: AI Dooms Us
On 31 August 2014 17:30, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR *Sent:* Saturday, August 30, 2014 8:55 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us I think the only test we have available for consciousness etc (for computers or people) is the good old Turing test. Once our AI starts killing of astronauts because they may interfere with its main mission (I was always with HAL on this one, what exactly was the point of those humans, again?) that looks like a good point to stop arguing the finer details and start pulling out the memory cubes. AI might also accelerate its development at such breakneck speed that it very rapidly loses all interest in us, our planet, this galaxy, this particular underlying “physical reality” (whatever that may turn out to be) and exit our perceived universe into some other dimension beyond our reach or comprehension. Yes indeed, like the children in Childhood's End, the neutron star beings in Dragon's Egg or the human race falling into the technological singularity in Marooned in Realtime. However it's possible they might at least feel enough gratitude to upload us, perhaps into a zoo... Or then again they might have a more Dalek like attitude... LESTERSON: I want to help you. DALEK: Why? LESTERSON: (like a Dalek) I am your servant. DALEK: We do not need humans now. LESTERSON: Ah, but you wouldn't kill me. I gave you life. DALEK: Yes, you gave us life (It exteminates him.) -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: AI Dooms Us
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 10:37 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: AI Dooms Us On 31 August 2014 17:30, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 8:55 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: AI Dooms Us I think the only test we have available for consciousness etc (for computers or people) is the good old Turing test. Once our AI starts killing of astronauts because they may interfere with its main mission (I was always with HAL on this one, what exactly was the point of those humans, again?) that looks like a good point to stop arguing the finer details and start pulling out the memory cubes. AI might also accelerate its development at such breakneck speed that it very rapidly loses all interest in us, our planet, this galaxy, this particular underlying “physical reality” (whatever that may turn out to be) and exit our perceived universe into some other dimension beyond our reach or comprehension. Yes indeed, like the children in Childhood's End, the neutron star beings in Dragon's Egg or the human race falling into the technological singularity in Marooned in Realtime. However it's possible they might at least feel enough gratitude to upload us, perhaps into a zoo... Or then again they might have a more Dalek like attitude... LESTERSON: I want to help you. DALEK: Why? LESTERSON: (like a Dalek) I am your servant. DALEK: We do not need humans now. LESTERSON: Ah, but you wouldn't kill me. I gave you life. DALEK: Yes, you gave us life (It exteminates him.) Classic J -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Artificial Intelligence article
On 8/30/2014 8:51 PM, LizR wrote: On 31 August 2014 13:10, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/30/2014 5:54 PM, LizR wrote: On 31 August 2014 12:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/30/2014 4:04 PM, LizR wrote: To be absolutely clear - the Artificial in AI refers to the machine which hosts the intelligence, not to the intelligence itself. The problem with machines defeating Jeopardy players (I assume this refers to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeopardy_%28TV_series%29 ?) is that the machines concerned almost certainly have no concepts of what the answers were about. How do you have a concept of what Who was Charlamagne? about? Isn't a lot of of it verbal and relational; stuff Winston does know. Of course Winston is ignorant about a lot of basic things about being a person because it doesn't have perceptive sensors and the ability to move and manipulate things. That's the point. Winston or whatever isn't immersed in an environment, or its environment only involves abstract relations. So I do have a better idea of who charlemagne was, even if I'd never heard of him before. Sure, you have a better idea. But I don't think that shows that Winston has no concept of what the answers are about. His concepts are limited to verbal relations, but he probably has more of those related to Charlemagne than I do. So you appear to think purely abstract relations can be about something even when they have no relation to experience of an environment - is that correct? I don't think so. I think abstract relations have relations to experience and the environment. They are abstract because they are abstracted from experience (by ignoring some aspects). Hence they aren't in fact doing what humans do (or at least not most humans do, apart from perhaps /idiots savant/). Likewise, Deep Junior almost certainly has no concept of what it's doing when it scores a 3-3 tie aganst Kasparov. It has no concept of itself or its opponent, or very limited concepts embedded in relatively small* data structures - and it experiences no emotions on winning or losing. Isn't the reason you think that is because its input/output is so limited? It wouldn't be at all difficult to add to Deep Blue's program so that on winning it composed a poem of celebration and displayed fireworks on a screen - or even set off real fireworks - and on losing it shut down and refused to do anything for three days. No, I think that because there's no evidence whatsoever that Deep Blue etc have feelings, at least none that I've come across. I'd be happy to be proved wrong (which would be a boost for comp, I suppose). I'm asking what would constitute evidence for Deep Blue's having feelings? Fireworks and sulking aren't enough? An ongoing exhibition that it did, sustained over a period of time, and accompanied by what appeared to be the results of mentation, etc - i.e. passing a Turing test equivalent. Plus supporting evidence that it was conscious, and that we had reasonable theoretical grounds to think that it was (e.g. it had had an electronic childhood like HAL, etc). Just displaying a smiley face on a screen by loading in a bitmap wouldn't do it, for me at least. Given that this would be one of the most profound discoveries (or inventions) of all time, I'd want some pretty good evidence. Wouldn't you? It seems you're raising the bar from experience an emotion on winning or losing to having human level consciousness. Do you suppose your dog does not experience emotion just because he can't even come close to passing a Turing test? Brent -- 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
