Canadian Money Forum banner

Technology may be going too far, too fast.

16K views 111 replies 14 participants last post by  olivaw 
#1 ·
#83 ·
They have many computer languages that are specifically designed to actually allow code to self generate. In other words, we can now write code that is able to modify itself. This isn't some clever trick of human programming that emulates human behaviour, this is self evolving computer code.

While it hasn't reached self awareness yet, it has been able to deduce new objects from sensory input such as cameras or microphones. Also, computational evolution occurs several orders of magnitude faster than biological evolution. Anyone who is actually involved with high tech, as opposed to the dark ages with closed minded thinking, can see the possibilities to come.

Not saying it will happen, but I've seen some amazing things going on in research labs that the general public has no idea about...heck, I remember primitive holo deck technology back when I was in university and that was a while ago...
 
#84 ·
Human beings are alive. They are not inanimate. So what is the definition of life?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

From a physics perspective, living beings are thermodynamic systems with an organized molecular structure that can reproduce itself and evolve as survival dictates.[19][20] Thermodynamically, life has been described as an open system which makes use of gradients in its surroundings to create imperfect copies of itself.[21] Hence, life is a self-sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.[22][23] A major strength of this definition is that it distinguishes life by the evolutionary process rather than its chemical composition.[24]
So you have to include the idea of a self-sustaining chemical system. The system we use on earth is the copying of the DNA molecule.
It is a complex molecule which has the ability to code for proteins which make up the body of the animal and to make copies of itself.
Nobody tells this molecule to copy itself, It just does it. Without this ability there is no life.

How can you emulate this ability without actually having this ability to copy oneself?

A picture of a human being may be very realistic but it is not alive itself.



On the stage at Stratford ,Ontario I saw a man pretending to be King Lear. But he really wasn't.

Pretending to be alive isn't being alive. To be alive you need to possess a molecule which copies itself.

Life is an artifact of the very nature of physics and chemistry plus evolution.

Either an entity possesses these characteristics or it doesn't. You can't fake it.
 
#90 ·
Human beings are alive. They are not inanimate. So what is the definition of life?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life



So you have to include the idea of a self-sustaining chemical system. The system we use on earth is the copying of the DNA molecule.
It is a complex molecule which has the ability to code for proteins which make up the body of the animal and to make copies of itself.
Nobody tells this molecule to copy itself, It just does it. Without this ability there is no life.

How can you emulate this ability without actually having this ability to copy oneself?

A picture of a human being may be very realistic but it is not alive itself.



On the stage at Stratford ,Ontario I saw a man pretending to be King Lear. But he really wasn't.

Pretending to be alive isn't being alive. To be alive you need to possess a molecule which copies itself.

Life is an artifact of the very nature of physics and chemistry plus evolution.

Either an entity possesses these characteristics or it doesn't. You can't fake it.
You're begging the question. Are you saying that the chemical/biological computers in our heads have some quality that can't be replicated in silicon. Fine. Humans have also made biological computers, so could such a computer become self-aware? You're still arguing that there is something physically possible in our heads, that can't be physically constructed using non-biological means.
 
#86 ·
We'll just ignore the usual Nelley useless comment between this instead of copying the quote.

What happens if a machine could construct itself, many robots actually control the manufacturing process already. Silicon chips are an imperfect copy, many functioning chips actually have sections which aren't used, so chips aren't identical, they have redundant circuitry to compensate.

As for passing on "genetic" material the software code which tells the device how to operate, with an ability to learn and grow sure sounds a lot like DNA to me, just in a different form.

I'm not implying pretending to be human, I'm talking about a different type of life form. Or are you implying that in the universe, the only forms of life have to have evolved exactly like they did on this one planet? Our world is pretty diverse, and we're less than a spec of dust in relation to the universe...I expect there's a lot of diversity out there that we can't even comprehend.
 
#87 ·
It is a machine. You keep saying it is a different type of life form-that is like saying GOOGLE search engine is a life form-that is stupid on your part-no offense. It has absolutely nothing to do with self awareness or creativity or humans-it is simply a machine that can do some things better than any human can-just like a tractor can plow a field better than a human by hand-the tractor is not an advanced human life form-just a machine. You seem to be obsessed on this subject-why is it so important to you to believe that machines can come to life? We both agree that the inroads into formerly human occupations are going to be staggering in any event.
 
#88 ·
Never said google was a life form. An algorithm that analyzes data for indexing is quite a bit different from a self replicating, self writing program with sensory input. Just like single celled organisms are different from a whale or a human.

instead of constantly repeating yourself that it'll never happen, maybe try educating yourself on what is being done in the research lab. For example, look at your creativity comment...

http://www.popsci.com/can-computer-make-art

Of course, there are those flat worlders still out there and those who think the earth is only about 6000 years old too...or are you the traditionalist who believes mice are born from laundry?

https://www.wired.com/2014/06/fanta...-grow-a-mouse-out-of-wheat-and-sweaty-shirts/
 
#89 ·
You seem to struggle with logic-wow-a machine can make "art"-next you will tell us someone invented a camera or moving pictures-IMO if your authority figures told you the earth was 6000 years old no one could convince you otherwise-you seem rather closed minded.
 
#94 ·
You like putting words into people's mouths. I never said they'd lead us, nor did I say human intelligence was simple. I also never implied it would happen in my lifetime...but then your not one to let facts get in the way of a good arguement.

I agree though that this arguement is going nowhere.
 
#96 ·
The point here is that making human-level AI is not impossible. It may take a long time, but there is a really good chance it won't (it will happen in the next 30 years). And the risks are potentially huge. We need to be careful, and we need a lot of time to work on making AI in a way that is safe.
 
#97 ·
You are back to the comic book stuff again. First of all, making AI to imitate high level human intelligence would be a total waste of time-the machine excels at any mental task requiring memory, concentration and stamina. That is a lot of white collar jobs that can be done by machines. An accounting dept of 90 years ago-say GM-hundreds of accountants replaced by a single software program of today-and that is only the beginning of this.
 
#98 · (Edited)
Just a Guy said:
I'm not implying pretending to be human, I'm talking about a different type of life form.
Actually that is exactly what you have been doing. You are emphatically saying that this robot can pass as a human, that it will have generalized intelligence. Otherwise what are we arguing about?

Since you extol it's human-like characteristics,what would be the penalty for destroying this creature? Would it be considered murder?

In the movie The Blade Runner the Harrison Ford character is given the job of 'retiring' four replicants

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner#Plot

The film depicts a dystopian Los Angeles in which genetically engineered replicants, which are visually indistinguishable from adult humans, are manufactured by the powerful Tyrell Corporation. The use of replicants on Earth is banned and they are exclusively utilized for dangerous or menial work on off-world colonies. Replicants who defy the ban and return to Earth are hunted down and killed ("retired") by special police operatives known as "Blade Runners". The plot focuses on a group of recently escaped replicants hiding in L.A. and the burnt-out expert Blade Runner, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), who reluctantly agrees to take on one more assignment to hunt them down.
When he retires these replicants ,is it murder?


Replicants lack memory of parents and family. Are you going to give them false memories so they can pass as true humans?

That's what they did in the movie.

Rachael visits Deckard at his apartment to prove her humanity by showing him a family photo, but after Deckard reveals that her memories are implants from Tyrell's niece, she leaves his apartment in tears
Will these robots be born as children?
Will they get bigger and under go puberty?
Will they have memories of their youth?
Will they have sexual desires?
Will they defecate and urinate?
Will they get older and their bodies decline as well as their mental ability?
Will they die because all humans die?

You seem to have forgot about the body in your emphasis on the mind.

Our brain constantly receives sensory input from the organs of the body.Is this robot going to have a body because part of being a normal human being is to receive input from the body.
 
#100 ·
Actually that is exactly what you have been doing. You are emphatically saying that this robot can pass as a human, that it will have generalized intelligence. Otherwise what are we arguing about?

Since you extol it's human-like characteristics,what would be the penalty for destroying this creature? Would it be considered murder?

In the movie The Blade Runner the Harrison Ford character is given the job of 'retiring' four replicants

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner#Plot
You are just utterly failing to understand what is meant by artificial general intelligence. AGI won't necessarily be conscious/self-aware. It merely has cognitive faculties that are general enough to perform intellectual tasks at the level of a human.


When he retires these replicants ,is it murder?


Replicants lack memory of parents and family. Are you going to give them false memories so they can pass as true humans?

That's what they did in the movie.
This is an entirely different question, related to whether they would be (or could be considered to be) conscious. It's also an ethical question, not a question of technical feasibility (what we are talking about).



Will these robots be born as children?
Will they get bigger and under go puberty?
Will they have memories of their youth?
Will they have sexual desires?
Will they defecate and urinate?
Will they get older and their bodies decline as well as their mental ability?
Will they die because all humans die?
You are anthropomorphizing. The fact that humans are animals does not mean that other intelligent entities would need to be animals in the same way.

You seem to have forgot about the body in your emphasis on the mind.

Our brain constantly receives sensory input from the organs of the body.Is this robot going to have a body because part of being a normal human being is to receive input from the body.
Computers will not lack for sensory input. In fact, this is a way in which computers will exceed humanity that it is hard for us limited meat-bags to comprehend. Our sensory experience is very limited.
 
#101 ·
Blade Runner, mentioned above, is my favourite movie. It explored interesting ethical dilemnas surrounding our treatment of conscious AIs. That's a little beyond the scope of the discussion here. Consciousness is not a prerequisite to AI. Neither are mobility, the ability to pass the Turing test or adherence to our definition of "life".
 
#107 ·
andrewf said:
Are you saying that the chemical/biological computers in our heads have some quality that can't be replicated in silicon.
Absolutely yes. Silicon can't emulate our carbon-based biology. Those computers aren't just in our head. You get feedback from different parts of the body such as the gut that create emotions . A person needs emotions in order to be rational.The mind is not separate from the body
which is what some of you have been saying.

Neurologist Thomas D'amasio wrote a book called "Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain " explaining this
situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes'_Error

Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain is a 1994 book by neurologist António Damásio, in part a treatment of the mind/body dualism question. Damásio presents the "somatic marker hypothesis", a proposed mechanism by which emotions guide (or bias) behavior and decision-making, and positing that rationality requires emotional input. He argues that René Descartes' "error" was the dualist separation of mind and body, rationality and emotion.

.....

'Damasio argues in his well-known book that it is wrong to think that only minds think. The body and our emotions have a key role in the way we think and in rational decision-making'.[1] Since, in his words, 'the body...contributes a content that is part and parcel of the workings of the normal mind', it follows that 'the mind is embodied, in the full sense of the term, not just embrained'.[2]
Damasio's theory stresses 'the crucial role of feeling in navigating the endless stream of life's personal decisions....The intuitive signals that guide us in these moments come in the form of limbic-driven surges from the viscera that Damasio calls "somatic markers" - literally, gut feelings'.[3] Listening to your gut reactions, 'the somatic marker...may lead you to reject, immediately, the negative course of action and thus...allows you to choose from among fewer alternatives '.[4]
A mind without a body which is what is presented upthread by the advocates of AI will lead to completely wrong decisions.
 
#108 ·
The role of emotion in financial trading is documented in the book 'The Hour Between Dog and Wolf: Risk-Taking, Gut Feelings and the Biology of Boom and Bust' by John Coates.

http://www.economist.com/node/21555882

THE financial crisis was caused by many things: greedy bankers, a glut of Chinese savings, shoddy regulation, an obsession with home ownership—take your pick. John Coates, once a trader on Wall Street and now a neuroscientist at Cambridge University, presents yet another culprit: biology, or, more precisely, the physiology of risk-taking. Financial traders, he says, are influenced by what is going on in their bodies as well as in the markets. Two steroid hormones—testosterone and cortisol—come out in force during the excesses of bull and bear markets.

Testosterone, “the molecule of irrational exuberance”, is released into the body during moments of competition, risk-taking and triumph. In animals this leads to something called the “winner effect”. A male that wins one battle goes into the next one primed with higher levels of testosterone, helping him to win again. Eventually, though, confidence becomes cockiness. The animal starts more fights and experiences higher rates of mortality.

Mr Coates thinks the exuberance that turns a market rally into a bubble may be fuelled by the same chemical. Some of this is based on traders he knew who became ever more convinced of their own invincibility during the dotcom era. But he also offers harder evidence. In one experiment Mr Coates sampled testosterone levels in traders in London and found that higher levels of the hormone in the morning correlated with beefier profits in the afternoon. Such profits came from taking higher risks, not greater skill.

Biology may also be responsible for worsening market sentiment in bad times. The body's response to prolonged periods of stress is to secrete increasing amounts of cortisol, a hormone that marshals resources to cope with crises. Sure enough, Mr Coates finds that cortisol levels in traders' bodies fluctuate in line with market volatility, even displaying a striking correlation with the prices of derivatives.

A burst of chemicals can be helpful. Good traders seem to produce a lot of hormones, but only for short periods of time. The trouble comes when cortisol remains in the body for extended periods. Rational analysis becomes harder, allowing emotional responses to gain the upper hand; risk aversion grows as testosterone production is suppressed. “During a severe bear market,” writes Mr Coates, “the banking and investment community may rapidly develop into a clinical population.”
Should trading be turned over to the expert systems which don't have hormones and emotions? Would they do a better job? Male humans
seem to err on the upside with irrational exuberance and on the downside with irrational pessimism.

Nevertheless robots with no emotions because they didn't have biological bodies would not be useful.Some advocates of AI here have a desire to create a safe space in the computer far from the madding crowd. I don't think your project will work. The world isn't
a computer generated simulation.
 
#109 ·
You do realize that a lot of trading is already computerized already right? Wall Street is constantly tweaking their algorithms and working on data analysis and expert systems...it's been going on for years. The idea of one Jim Cramer studying charts and companies then making the call is quickly going away...
 
#111 · (Edited)
Oh right, he just sprang up out of nowhere to be a tv personality...

That whole working his way up in the industry, running a hedge fund thing was just his mythical back story...never really happened.

Wasn't it you who was saying "you can make your own at home, just leave some loose change in a pile of laundry and in 21 days you'll have your own personal financial advisor".
 
#112 ·
Robots That Teach Each Other What if robots could figure out more things on their own and share that knowledge among themselves? (Source MIT Technology Review)

The article is written in plain English and illustrates both the limits and the possibilities of the technology.

It discusses "AI" that has to do with general purpose robots. The AI needs to be able to recognize and grasp objects. It learns it through experimentation and experience. The next step is for the machines to teach each other.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top