On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 03:28:09PM -0400, John Mikes wrote:
> You wrote:
>
>
>
>
> *"Then you have not met an algorithm whose output is directly influencedby
> the environment. Most robots are agents in this sense. If the agents
> areprocessing and reacting to rules, then those agents can be
You wrote:
*"Then you have not met an algorithm whose output is directly influencedby
the environment. Most robots are agents in this sense. If the agents
areprocessing and reacting to rules, then those agents can be punishedfor
breaking the rules." *
As I understand: a 'robot' is not an
On 29 Oct 2015, at 03:11, Jason Resch wrote:
At some level, an algorithm cannot be held responsible for its
actions because it was doing the only thing it could do, what it was
programmed to do. At some point between a simplistic algorithm and a
human level AI, however, we seem able to
Responsibility/culpability is a feature of our own programming allowing
us to modify the program of our closely related copies, including
ourselves. If we have precise control of the source code of an AI then
this notion is rather pointless as we can directly modify the code.
However, an AI
On 10/28/2015 7:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
At some level, an algorithm cannot be held responsible for its actions
because it was doing the only thing it could do, what it was
programmed to do. At some point between a simplistic algorithm and a
human level AI, however, we seem able to
Jason, Russell, Stathis, Brent
I am not a Platonian, not a physicist and not a believer, just an agnostic
(in my OWN sense of the term). I don't believe that an algorithm *"DOES"*,
or *"ACTS" * so it cannot be 'held responsible'. We, the People do all
this.
*Russell's* 'sense of agency' requires
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 03:28:22PM -0400, John Mikes wrote:
> Jason, Russell, Stathis, Brent
>
> I am not a Platonian, not a physicist and not a believer, just an agnostic
> (in my OWN sense of the term). I don't believe that an algorithm *"DOES"*,
> or *"ACTS" * so it cannot be 'held
On Thursday, 29 October 2015, Jason Resch wrote:
> At some level, an algorithm cannot be held responsible for its actions
> because it was doing the only thing it could do, what it was programmed to
> do. At some point between a simplistic algorithm and a human level AI,
>
On 10/29/2015 6:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Russell Standish
> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 09:11:34PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
> At some level, an algorithm cannot be held responsible for its
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 10/29/2015 6:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Russell Standish <
> li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 09:11:34PM -0500, Jason
On 10/29/2015 9:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote:
On 10/29/2015 6:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Russell Standish
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Russell Standish
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 09:11:34PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
> > At some level, an algorithm cannot be held responsible for its actions
> > because it was doing the only thing it could do, what it was programmed
>
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 09:11:34PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
> At some level, an algorithm cannot be held responsible for its actions
> because it was doing the only thing it could do, what it was programmed to
> do. At some point between a simplistic algorithm and a human level AI,
> however, we
At some level, an algorithm cannot be held responsible for its actions
because it was doing the only thing it could do, what it was programmed to
do. At some point between a simplistic algorithm and a human level AI,
however, we seem able to assigning responsibility/culpability. What does an
14 matches
Mail list logo