# Technology may be going too far, too fast.



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I remember reading about the little girl who ordered herself a dollhouse back a few weeks. It, initially was an interesting story about how the technology was maybe a little too convenient. 

However, this follow up story 

http://www.cw6sandiego.com/news-anc...round-san-diego-ordering-unwanted-dollhouses/

Makes me really wonder.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

That is really funny. I wouldn't say too far, too fast though. I say thank heaven for early adopters. They spend their money on pricey new technology and suffer the growing pains & experience that ultimately shapes these things and determnes what persists and what gets tossed out.

What I do see though is a lot of 'geeky' consumer-type stuff that isn't necessarily putting technology to its best use. Go into a senior's home and give some thought to the technology, sensors, etc. that could be developed to provide assistance and improve their safety. 
Cripes, ask Rogers how many calls they get in a week from people who can't turn their TV on. Their remote stopped working and they have two or three of these remote thingys (set-top box/tv/dvd) with upteen buttons on each and you have to point the right one at the right place. But they just want to on-off, change channels and adjust volume.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

WE
ARE
GRADUALLY
EVOLVING
INTO
ROBOTS...
"Must....obey.....machine-leader...."


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> That is really funny. I wouldn't say too far, too fast though. I say thank heaven for early adopters. They spend their money on pricey new technology and suffer the growing pains & experience that ultimately shapes these things and determnes what persists and what gets tossed out.
> 
> What I do see though is a lot of 'geeky' consumer-type stuff that isn't necessarily putting technology to its best use. Go into a senior's home and give some thought to the technology, sensors, etc. that could be developed to provide assistance and improve their safety.
> Cripes, ask Rogers how many calls they get in a week from people who can't turn their TV on. Their remote stopped working and they have two or three of these remote thingys (set-top box/tv/dvd) with upteen buttons on each and you have to point the right one at the right place. But they just want to on-off, change channels and adjust volume.


Same thing with websites-Yahoo Finance Canada had/has a good layout (the old version still exists somehow) and had to replace it with a new layout (this seems to be mandatory for any functioning website)-the new layout is lousy as is often the case.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

jargey3000 said:


> WE
> ARE
> GRADUALLY
> EVOLVING
> ...


There was a TED talk where the guy actually says this is on the way (it has already started to a certain extent)-humans will get more and more technological hardware until eventually millions will be hybrids of machine and mammal-these millions will coexist alongside those who are still 100% mammal-just as Neanderthals coexisted and bred with Cro Magnon.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

I'm still waiting for the next technology breakthrough; something completely new, and disruptive. So far, it seems to me that there are only incremental advances of existing technologies and new applications offering solutions to non-existent problems.

Watching news from the CES show in Las Vegas, it appears that VR is popular, a flying car ( like we've never heard that before ), and lots of "apps"... 

Yes, with the incremental evolution of Bluetooth into BLE, you can now attach a sensor to your dog or cat, and the app on your Smartphone will tell you when to feed it. Wow, it's amazing that there hasn't been mass starvation of family pets because people had no clue when the animal was hungry.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Userkare said:


> I'm still waiting for the next technology breakthrough; something completely new, and disruptive. So far, it seems to me that there are only incremental advances of existing technologies and new applications offering solutions to non-existent problems.
> 
> Watching news from the CES show in Las Vegas, it appears that VR is popular, a flying car ( like we've never heard that before ), and lots of "apps"...
> 
> Yes, with the incremental evolution of Bluetooth into BLE, you can now attach a sensor to your dog or cat, and the app on your Smartphone will tell you when to feed it. Wow, it's amazing that there hasn't been mass starvation of family pets because people had no clue when the animal was hungry.


We know that eventually something will come along that is bigger and more disruptive than the Internet but it is difficult to even imagine what it could be-like you said most of these "advances" are useless.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

We are approaching the development an AI "singularity" - artificial intelligence that is as smart as humans. Beyond that, the AIs will be smarter than us. The pace of scientific and technological change will accelerate to the point that it may make our past few decades seem like nothing. 

The worry is that the AIs will notice that we are a danger to ourselves and enslave us for our own protection. Or they may decide we are a danger to them and wipe us out. Or the technology falls into the wrong hands. A number of very intelligent individuals have sounded the alarm.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

olivaw said:


> We are approaching the development an AI "singularity" - artificial intelligence that is as smart as humans. Beyond that, the AIs will be smarter than us. The pace of scientific and technological change will accelerate to the point that it may make our past few decades seem like nothing.
> 
> The worry is that the AIs will notice that we are a danger to ourselves and enslave us for our own protection. Or they may decide we are a danger to them and wipe us out. Or the technology falls into the wrong hands. A number of very intelligent individuals have sounded the alarm.


Seems far-fetched-AI is simply a machine-basically an extremely advanced calculator or computer-the big weakness on the part of AI is creativity-no way designed for it to tap into creative intelligence.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Nelley said:


> Seems far-fetched-AI is simply a machine-basically an extremely advanced calculator or computer-the big weakness on the part of AI is creativity-no way designed for it to tap into creative intelligence.


Some very thoughtful individuals have expressed alarm. 

*Stephen Hawking warns artificial intelligence could end mankind*

*Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates Warn About Artificial Intelligence*

*Instrumental convergence*

*Frankenstein’s paperclips*


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

olivaw said:


> Some very thoughtful individuals have expressed alarm.
> 
> *Stephen Hawking warns artificial intelligence could end mankind*
> 
> ...


DUH-where do you think Olivaw got this idea from? Do you have even a single idea or opinion that isn't straight from the MSM?


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Nelley said:


> DUH-where do you think Olivaw got this idea from? Do you have even a single idea or opinion that isn't straight from the MSM?


Best if you confined your attacks on the MSM, Hillary Clinton, Muslims, immigrants and other posters to the appropriate threads. This is a friendly discussion about technology. 

The links to wiki and media organizations are useful for discussion purposes but there are many others: 

*BENEFITS & RISKS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE* (written for the layman) 

*Self-Awareness in Cyber-Physical Systems* (paid scholarly)

*Artificial Creativity, Why computers aren’t close to being ready to supplant human artists.* (free scholarly) 

*Artificial intelligence and the future of knowledge workers* (paid scholarly)


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

olivaw said:


> Best if you confined your attacks on the MSM, Hillary Clinton, Muslims, immigrants and other posters to the appropriate threads. This is a friendly discussion about technology.
> 
> The links to wiki and media organizations are useful for discussion purposes but there are many others:
> 
> ...


Thanks for proving my point yet again.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Did anyone catch that Star Trek "Nomad" episode? Gene Roddenberry knew what was coming.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Nelley is the intellectual equivalent of the honeybadger. (or maybe of Randall, I'm not sure)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg&t=15s

We should take Nelley at his word that AI is no risk because AI cannot be creative. He's the authority. We shouldn't listen to people with experience in computer science, are exceptionally intelligent or make more money every day than Nelley will earn in his life. Those guys are suckers.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

andrewf said:


> Nelley is the intellectual equivalent of the honeybadger. (or maybe of Randall, I'm not sure)
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg&t=15s
> 
> We should take Nelley at his word that AI is no risk because AI cannot be creative. He's the authority. We shouldn't listen to people with experience in computer science, are exceptionally intelligent or make more money every day than Nelley will earn in his life. Those guys are suckers.


No little grasshopper you are the sucker if you are so ignorant as to believe that people who make more money every day than I will earn in my entire life are in the business of keeping idiots like yourself informed.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Stephen Hawkings, Bill Gates, Steve Wosniak, Elon Musk and academics make it their business to inform those who are smart enough to listen.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Userkare said:


> I'm still waiting for the next technology breakthrough; something completely new, and disruptive.


it's here..flesh like robots for sex...Believe it or not.



> Sex as we used to know it could soon be replaced with robots, German Spiegel Online wrote, referring to several experts. According to British researcher Ian Pearson, this reality could already happen by 2050.


2050--thats only 33 years away..what will all the escorts do then? Mass unemployment will change the oldest profession, never mind cutting into the profits of divorce lawyers. 

Imagine a world, where people can get their kicks from this kind of technology? 




> So far, it seems to me that there are only incremental advances of existing technologies and new applications offering solutions to non-existent problems.
> Watching news from the CES show in Las Vegas, it appears that VR is popular, a flying car ( like we've never heard that before ), and lots of "apps"...


Flying cars where available in the early 60s. There was even a TV show on a flying car with Bob Cummings on his show.
Unfortunately,the concept never became a reality because the weakest part in the flying car is the human "idiot" behind the wheel. We have enough problems these days with drivers texting causing crashes..imagine a flying car with an inatentive and undisciplined driver flying home after downing a few beers? or trying to fly out of a parking lot after a hockey or basketball game at night in a self park parking lot? 



> Yes, with the incremental evolution of Bluetooth into BLE, you can now attach a sensor to your dog or cat, and the app on your Smartphone will tell you when to feed it. Wow, it's amazing that there hasn't been mass starvation of family pets because people had no clue when the animal was hungry.


Yes bluetooth is that unique communication technology that is now common in pretty much all kinds of digital devices and in cars. 
Next they will offer robotic cats and dogs where their only requirement for their owners is to be recharged.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Nelley said:


> No little grasshopper you are the sucker if you are so ignorant as to believe that people who make more money every day than I will earn in my entire life are in the business of keeping idiots like yourself informed.



And you are looking out for my best interests?


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

Musk's warning about the dangers of AI is somewhat ironic since he is a big developer of it with his driverless cars.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmac...down-10-million-to-fight-skynet/#17e3b854bd01



> In tweets and multiple public appearances, Musk has compared the dark potential of unfettered artificial superintelligence to "summoning the demon" and to Skynet itself. On Thursday, the SpaceX and Tesla Motors head put his money where his mouth is with a $10 million donation to the Future of Life Institute for the creation of a grant program that will look into how to keep AI friendly towards meatbags like you and I.
> 
> *As with most things Musk says and does, there's an aspect of salesmanship to be found when reading between the lines.* Musk has invested in two major AI firms, Vicarious and DeepMind Technologies, the latter of which was acquired by Google.
> 
> ...


Iow, Musk is engaged in a public relations effort to soften his image as rolls out the very kind of products he criticizes. 

Bill Gates has made colossal mistakes predicting what the public wants . After developing the operating system Windows for a personal computer,he did not predict that people would want to communicate with each other and that the internet would become so popular.

He tried to have the Internet Explorer browser loaded on to all new pc's so as to eliminate competition. IE is not
now the dominant browser for the internet. Chrome and Firefox have far outstripped it.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

carverman said:


> it's here..flesh like robots for sex...Believe it or not.
> 
> 2050--thats only 33 years away..what will all the escorts do then? Mass unemployment will change the oldest profession, never mind cutting into the profits of divorce lawyers.
> 
> Imagine a world, where people can get their kicks from this kind of technology?


I imagine an E.R. in 2050...

Doctor: _Oh my God, what happened to this poor fellow, flying car accident?_
Paramedic:_ No, sexbot malfunction._


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

IBM's Watson supercomputer defeated all time Jeopardy champion Ken Jennings years ago, and is currently considered the best diagnostic tool for medicine after absorbing hundreds of thousands of medical histories.

It has learned the cumulative information on many topics over the years, and it's AI ability allows it to make best use of that information.

https://www.ibm.com/watson/

http://fortune.com/2016/10/11/ibm-watson-empoyees-cancer-drugs/


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

AI is an arms-race. Musk not pursuing it would not reduce the danger, since the incentives to make advances first are so huge.

And we have to be clear about what we mean when we say AI. Self-driving cars and the like are better described as automation. The AI that Gates/Musk/Hawking are warning about is Artificial General Intelligence, ie, software that has generalized intelligence like a human, and not merely trained/specialized intelligence in a specific domain. So the risk is not that your self-driving car will suddenly become self-aware.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

andrewf said:


> And you are looking out for my best interests?


Nobody is paying me to lie to you-it is quite possible eventually you will figure this one out on your own-the more money someone can make selling a lie, the more likely they will do it. You mentioned making money as a test of credibility-Megan Kelly just signed a new contract for 20-25 Million a year-according to you everything Kelly says from now on is the truth.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

sags said:


> IBM's Watson supercomputer defeated all time Jeopardy champion Ken Jennings years ago, and is currently considered the best diagnostic tool for medicine after absorbing hundreds of thousands of medical histories.
> 
> It has learned the cumulative information on many topics over the years, and it's AI ability allows it to make best use of that information.
> 
> ...


As if we didn't know that-you can get a calculator for $1.99 at Dollarama that can beat any human.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

andrewf said:


> AI is an arms-race. Musk not pursuing it would not reduce the danger, since the incentives to make advances first are so huge.
> 
> And we have to be clear about what we mean when we say AI. Self-driving cars and the like are better described as automation. The AI that Gates/Musk/Hawking are warning about is Artificial General Intelligence, ie, software that has generalized intelligence like a human, and not merely trained/specialized intelligence in a specific domain. So the risk is not that your self-driving car will suddenly become self-aware.


No offense-but you are just repeating nonsense from the MSM.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Nelley said:


> As if we didn't know that-you can get a calculator for $1.99 at Dollarama that can beat any human.


 ... LOL but it's true.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

The risk of AI has been explored for decades - and to an extent centuries. Numerous academic papers have been published. There have been dozens of literary works. Gates, Hawking, Woz and Musk are the latest in a string of geniuses who chose to bring the concerns to the public's attention. 

Calculators and smart phones are relatively simply. As andrewf said, we have to be clear about what we mean by general artificial intelligence. We're talking about software that may be smarter than the programmers who wrote it - software that is capable of creating a smarter version of itself. - Reproduction and evolution. 

We can't predict what AI will look like. The potential benefits are great. The potential risks are great.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

olivaw said:


> The risk of AI has been explored for decades - and to an extent centuries. Numerous academic papers have been published. There have been dozens of literary works. Gates, Hawking, Woz and Musk are the latest in a string of geniuses who chose to bring the concerns to the public's attention.
> 
> Calculators and smart phones are relatively simply. As andrewf said, we have to be clear about what we mean by general artificial intelligence. We're talking about software that may be smarter than the programmers who wrote it - software that is capable of creating a smarter version of itself. - Reproduction and evolution.
> 
> We can't predict what AI will look like. The potential benefits are great. The potential risks are great.


Thanks for the useful MSM summary on this subject.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Nelley, not everyone here reads MSN, so at least they are posting information...as opposed to, what could be considered, rude comments.

You've made your point on this and, as I understand it, other threads. You've gone well beyond that now and are beating a dead horse.

Of course you're not alone in this behaviour, but I'd appreciate it if you could move on. If you want, you can start a new "trash <insert user name here>" thread and go wild...in fact, I'll even set it up in the hot button topic thread for you and everyone else...


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

<Deleted>. (JAG's post was better).


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> Nelley, not everyone here reads MSN, so at least they are posting information...as opposed to, what could be considered, rude comments.
> 
> You've made your point on this and, as I understand it, other threads. You've gone well beyond that now and are beating a dead horse.
> 
> Of course you're not alone in this behaviour, but I'd appreciate it if you could move on. If you want, you can start a new "trash <insert user name here>" thread and go wild...in fact, I'll even set it up in the hot button topic thread for you and everyone else...


Thanks for the input Einstein.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Nelley said:


> As if we didn't know that-you can get a calculator for $1.99 at Dollarama that can beat any human.


Yep, Watson is just one big calculator.

And no........a calculator can't beat any human. A calculator can't look at the result and know it is not accurate.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

sags said:


> Yep, Watson is just one big calculator.
> 
> And no........a calculator can't beat any human. A calculator can't look at the result and know it is not accurate.


A machine is a machine, whether it is a $1.99 calculator or Watson-neither machine can be self-aware-I am surprised the MSM can sell anyone on something so absurd.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Please define "self-aware" and how you can determine if something else is self-aware or not. I know humans have assumed many things aren't self aware, and then later changed their minds, of course I also know some humans who think humans are the only creatures who are self aware. 

Even the definition of "life" has gotten to be muddy.

Also, are you looking to closely at the object in question? The atoms, of which we are composed, may not be considered "alive". But when they combine to form cells, they would be. Of course cells are not self aware until combined to form humans...where are the boundaries? Who would ever imagine a bunch of inanimate chemicals could ever become self aware? That sounds so absurd.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> Please define "self-aware" and how you can determine if something else is self-aware or not. I know humans have assumed many things aren't self aware, and then later changed their minds, of course I also know some humans who think humans are the only creatures who are self aware.
> 
> Even the definition of "life" has gotten to be muddy.
> 
> Also, are you looking to closely at the object in question? The atoms, of which we are composed, may not be considered "alive". But when they combine to form cells, they would be. Of course cells are not self aware until combined to form humans...where are the boundaries?


Einstein: Machines are not alive. Seems like a difficult concept for you to grasp, especially if the MSM tells you otherwise.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I can show you piles of chemicals that are not alive either but, when combined, properly become human beings. Heck, humans are 75+% water...not exactly an "alive" substance. Of course I can bet you that, no mater how you try to combine them, you'll never make them "live" either...but somehow it works. All this, despite what you personally believe.

Machines are on the order of 10,000 years old unless you want to talk tools. The microchip is less than 100 years old. Humans have been evolving for what a couple hundred thousand years...I prefer to wait and see how things go, before passing judgement...to do otherwise is pretty arrogant.

There were people, not to long ago who said man would never fly, couldn't survive in space, would never land on the moon...talk with someone on the other side of the world instantaneously, carry around devices which had access to a majority of the world's knowledge in your hand...

In the end, we're all just chemical reactions...

While you're thinking of your next insult, have you ever seen the movie the matrix? How can you definitely prove that you are not inside of a computer program with direct feed into your brain? The movie was based on real philisophical papers.

http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/2007/08/04/the-philosophy-of-the-matrix/


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> I can show you piles of chemicals that are not alive either but, when combined, properly become human beings. Heck, humans are 75+% water...not exactly an "alive" substance. Of course I can bet you that, no mater how you try to combine them, you'll never make them "live" either...but somehow it works. All this, despite what you personally believe.
> 
> Machines are on the order of 10,000 years old unless you want to talk tools. The microchip is less than 100 years old. Humans have been evolving for what a couple hundred thousand years...I prefer to wait and see how things go, before passing judgement...to do otherwise is pretty arrogant.
> 
> ...


Your're going off topic-now you are talking about the creation of new life forms-which no one disputes is inevitable-the topic was self awareness of machines-which is impossible. Re AI being a problem for humanity, if humans program AI to work against humanity it will do it. It is an advanced machine.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> I can show you piles of chemicals that are not alive either but, when combined, properly become human beings. Heck, humans are 75+% water...not exactly an "alive" substance. Of course I can bet you that, no mater how you try to combine them, you'll never make them "live" either...but somehow it works. All this, despite what you personally believe.
> 
> Machines are on the order of 10,000 years old unless you want to talk tools. The microchip is less than 100 years old. Humans have been evolving for what a couple hundred thousand years...I prefer to wait and see how things go, before passing judgement...to do otherwise is pretty arrogant.
> 
> ...


I am sure you are aware The Matrix was a comment on the MSM and the braindead sheep it caters to.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

You still haven't defined "self aware". 

Until we have a definition, it's hard to say if it's possible to meet the requirments thereof. 

Heck, if you define it right, humanity may not even be self aware...or even alive. 

This "reality" of which you're so sure of, may not even exist...


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Nelley said:


> Einstein: Machines are not alive. Seems like a difficult concept for you to grasp, especially if the MSM tells you otherwise.


So, Dolores is alive and is not a machine - or she is a machine and is not alive? 

View attachment 13529


Life as AI as life is so confusing. 
And who is Evan, Rachel, Wood?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Nelley said:


> I am sure you are aware The Matrix was a comment on the MSM and the braindead sheep it caters to.


Actually I wasn't aware MSN was around when Descartes was alive...I learned about him well before the matrix (a place called university) but then again you seem to know a lot about MSN, something which I've already admitted I don't read, you must be an avid reader of the site it's all you ever reference.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

MSM = main stream media each:
Which just proves we don't pay any attention to it. :encouragement:


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> So, Dolores is alive and is not a machine - or she is a machine and is not alive?
> 
> View attachment 13529
> 
> ...


Thanks for elevating the discussion.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> MSM = main stream media each:
> Which just proves we don't pay any attention to it. :encouragement:


SURE-lots of independent thought coming from your neighbourhood-it is dazzling.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Nelley's initial objection was creativity. Then it became self awareness. Neither is an adequate objection because they can be simulated using current technology. The simulations will only get better.

The paperclip maximizer is a thought experiment in which a benign general purpose AI destroys humanity. The AI is instructed to maximize the number of paper clips in its collection. In so doing it eventually consumes the resources necessary for human survival in pursuit of this single goal.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Nelley said:


> Thanks for elevating the discussion.


No problem. It needed some levitation.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> MSM = main stream media each:
> Which just proves we don't pay any attention to it. :encouragement:


Thanks for the clairification...haven't followed that in a long time. I actually believe in going to the source to find out my information. Then again I was also taught to question everything.

Probably why my responses don't all reference the same thing, and actually provide information.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> While you're thinking of your next insult, have you ever seen the movie the matrix? How can you definitely prove that you are not inside of a computer program with direct feed into your brain? The movie was based on real philisophical papers.
> 
> http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/2007/08/04/the-philosophy-of-the-matrix/


Some physicists are searching for granularity in our universe which would prove that it is a simulation.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

What if it was built into the code to allow you to find it? Or maybe they allow you to not find it. Since the code defines your actions, you can only perform within your boundaries. 

I used to be a pretty good programmer. My job was to outthink the user to prevent them from doing things we didn't want them to do. We'd come up with scenarios like what happens if they just pound randomly on the computer? How can we stop the garbage input. Then, after we'd finished coming up with all our ideas, we'd test it on other people telling them to try and break it (without physically breaking it of course). We called this idiot testing. If they did something we'd never imagined, we'd code a solution. 

I produced some rock solid code. They don't have time to produce code like that anymore. Heck, most code being released today is all beta code...and it's even promoted as such.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

olivaw said:


> Nelley's initial objection was creativity. Then it became self awareness. Neither is an adequate objection because they can be simulated using current technology. The simulations will only get better.
> 
> The paperclip maximizer is a thought experiment in which a benign general purpose AI destroys humanity. The AI is instructed to maximize the number of paper clips in its collection. In so doing it eventually consumes the resources necessary for human survival in pursuit of this single goal.


DUH-of course you can simulate these things-that is the whole point. Yes, probably eventually we will have advanced AI robots that appear quite human.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Nelley said:


> DUH-of course you can simulate these things-that is the whole point. Yes, probably eventually we will have advanced AI robots that appear quite human.


Are you trolling us? You responses suggest that you are ill equipped to engage in this topic and the jokes aren't working. 

Or perhaps you're serious - in which case - if the simulation is indistinguishable from reality then the experience and outcome will be the same.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

olivaw said:


> Are you trolling us? You responses suggest that you are ill equipped to engage in this topic and the jokes aren't working.
> 
> Or perhaps you're serious - in which case - if the simulation is indistinguishable from reality then the experience and outcome will be the same.


You can't even hold to a single line of reasoning-machines won't have self awareness and creativity. The observer's experience is not the issue.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Nelley said:


> You can't even hold to a single line of reasoning-machines won't have self awareness and creativity. The observer's experience is not the issue.


The observer's experience is everything. Avoiding the philosophical issues, my initial statement was some of the world's brightest minds have warned that general AI may represent a danger to humans. It is irrelevant if they meet your definition of self awareness or creativity. 

We believe that wasps lack creativity or self awareness. A swarm can still harm you. 

The famous paperclip maximizer is an example of General AI harm that requires no self awareness. 

We have software that can create passable music. We have simple bots that can fool alt-right trolls into ten hour arguments. We have software to write poetry and to paint. We have machines like IBM Watson that can replicate human decision making in the diagnosis of illness. We have machines that can recognize objects (requires fuzzy logic). What more is needed to help you understand that they will have the deductive power to be harmful?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Nelley said:


> Nobody is paying me to lie to you-it is quite possible eventually you will figure this one out on your own-the more money someone can make selling a lie, the more likely they will do it. You mentioned making money as a test of credibility-Megan Kelly just signed a new contract for 20-25 Million a year-according to you everything Kelly says from now on is the truth.


Considering you showed up to shill for Trump (on a Canadian message board, bizarrely), I cannot conclude that you have not been paid to lie. You certainly have an agenda.

What incentive does Musk or Hawking have to lie about the risk of AI?

Hawking, especially. He's not selling anything, and he is going to be dead in the next few years, anyway. You have not explained why you have more credibility than him.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Nelley said:


> A machine is a machine, whether it is a $1.99 calculator or Watson-neither machine can be self-aware-I am surprised the MSM can sell anyone on something so absurd.


AI doesn't need to be self-aware/conscious to be dangerous.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Nelley said:


> Your're going off topic-now you are talking about the creation of new life forms-which no one disputes is inevitable-the topic was self awareness of machines-which is impossible. Re AI being a problem for humanity, if humans program AI to work against humanity it will do it. It is an advanced machine.


You have not demonstrated that it is impossible for machines to be conscious/self-aware. That is quite a claim. In what way is a 'human' not a (biological) machine?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Another way of asking that question, is what is magic about a human brain that is impossible to emulate in a computer? It would seem you have to appeal to the supernatural to argue that there is some ineffable ghost in the machine that could *never* be reproduced in a computer (but can be produced in 9 months incubation + a few years free range using materials at hand).


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Funding to maintain AI ethics...

http://www.recode.net/2017/1/10/142...l-intelligence-ai-reid-hoffman-pierre-omidyar


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

olivaw said:


> The observer's experience is everything. Avoiding the philosophical issues, my initial statement was some of the world's brightest minds have warned that general AI may represent a danger to humans. It is irrelevant if they meet your definition of self awareness or creativity.
> 
> We believe that wasps lack creativity or self awareness. A swarm can still harm you.
> 
> ...


Einstein: Of course if you decide to put an AI program in charge of launching nuclear weaponry it just might hurt somebody-what is your point again?


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

olivaw said:


> The observer's experience is everything. Avoiding the philosophical issues, my initial statement was some of the world's brightest minds have warned that general AI may represent a danger to humans. It is irrelevant if they meet your definition of self awareness or creativity.
> 
> We believe that wasps lack creativity or self awareness. A swarm can still harm you.
> 
> ...


Yes machines can hurt humans.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

andrewf said:


> Considering you showed up to shill for Trump (on a Canadian message board, bizarrely), I cannot conclude that you have not been paid to lie. You certainly have an agenda.
> 
> What incentive does Musk or Hawking have to lie about the risk of AI?
> 
> Hawking, especially. He's not selling anything, and he is going to be dead in the next few years, anyway. You have not explained why you have more credibility than him.


Fine-nothing to discuss-just wait to hear what your owners tell you on every subject. I am not saying you should be ashamed of being just a sheep, but why are you so proud of the fact?


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

andrewf said:


> You have not demonstrated that it is impossible for machines to be conscious/self-aware. That is quite a claim. In what way is a 'human' not a (biological) machine?


My $1.99 calculator from Dollarama is way smarter than you.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

andrewf said:


> Another way of asking that question, is what is magic about a human brain that is impossible to emulate in a computer? It would seem you have to appeal to the supernatural to argue that there is some ineffable ghost in the machine that could *never* be reproduced in a computer (but can be produced in 9 months incubation + a few years free range using materials at hand).


You are arguing that machines are actually ALIVE-seems like a stretch to me.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Whoa Nelley...1137 comments...what's your ratio of insults to information?


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> Whoa Nelley...1137 comments...what's your ratio of insults to information?


If the glove fits...(Johnny Cochrane 1995)


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Nelley said:


> You are arguing that machines are actually ALIVE-seems like a stretch to me.


Incorrect. I know you work hard at playing stupid but I'm sure you're a natural.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Nelley said:


> If the glove fits...(Johnny Cochrane 1995)


I'm beginning to think we're in a Turing test that is obviously not a very good AI. I certainly don't see any intelligent responses, just random, usually insulting, replies.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> I'm beginning to think we're in a Turing test that is obviously not a very good AI. I certainly don't see any intelligent responses, just random, usually insulting, replies.


Jeez-you are so complimentary Miss Manners.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Yep, no sign of intelligence, just a steady stream of insulting replies... I remember way back in the 80's there was a parrot AI program came with the sound blaster card, about the same level of reply.

https://youtu.be/aY0F5AjHP7E


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> Yep, no sign of intelligence, just a steady stream of insulting replies... I remember way back in the 80's there was a parrot AI program came with the sound blaster card, about the same level of reply.
> 
> https://youtu.be/aY0F5AjHP7E


Maybe you should have your shrink change your meds OCD boy.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Nelley said:


> Einstein: Of course if you decide to put an AI program in charge of launching nuclear weaponry it just might hurt somebody-what is your point again?


The point was in my first post in this thread. Learned individuals are concerned that AI may be dangerous. What is your point?


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

olivaw said:


> Some very thoughtful individuals have expressed alarm.
> 
> *Stephen Hawking warns artificial intelligence could end mankind*
> 
> ...


Not all experts in this area believe AI will turn into an out- of- control Frankenstein and turn on it's creator.

From the Frankenstein article above:




> Some claim that Mr Musk’s real worry is market concentration—a Facebook or Google monopoly in AI, say—though he dismisses such concerns as “petty”.
> ..........
> 
> *Fears about AIs going rogue are not widely shared by people at the cutting edge of AI research. “A lot of the alarmism comes from people not working directly at the coal face, so they think a lot about more science-fiction scenarios,” says Demis Hassabis of DeepMind.* “I don’t think it’s helpful when you use very emotive terms, because it creates hysteria.” Mr Hassabis considers the paperclip scenario to be “unrealistic”, but thinks Mr Bostrom is right to highlight the question of AI motivation. How to specify the right goals and values for AIs, and ensure they remain stable over time, are interesting research questions, he says. (DeepMind has just published a paper with Mr Bostrom’s Future of Humanity Institute about adding “off switches” to AI systems.)
> ...


It appears the Frankenstein scenario is overstated and far in the future . There are very real concerns that AI will be used by the military today 
in unethical fashion. There is also the real possibility that governments today will use facial recognition software
for surveillance purposes. Also AI can be used for predictions of criminality in sentencing. 

There are fears certain minorities will be discriminated against.

There are fears of massive job loss and social disruption.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

olivaw said:


> The point was in my first post in this thread. Learned individuals are concerned that AI may be dangerous. What is your point?


Sure-and self driving trucks may be dangerous-so finally we agree.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

wraphter said:


> Not all experts in this area believe AI will turn into an out- of- control Frankenstein and turn on it's creator.
> 
> From the Frankenstein article above:
> 
> ...


Of course-AI is simply a machine-the science fiction part is the machine coming to life (tapping into creative intelligence, possessing self awareness)-can technology be dangerous? Sure it can.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

wraphter said:


> Not all experts in this area believe AI will turn into an out- of- control Frankenstein and turn on it's creator.
> 
> From the Frankenstein article above:
> 
> ...


Certainly there is disagreement. 

The misuse of technology by humans is part of the concern. State and non-state actors may gain access to unprecedented destructive power. 

There are other concerns too. We may be unable to control software that is smarter than us. 

It may not be far into the future. We're probably talking decades, not centuries. 

Skepticism is fine. Certainty is not.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

olivaw said:


> Certainly there is disagreement.
> 
> The misuse of technology by humans is part of the concern. State and non-state actors may gain access to unprecedented destructive power.
> 
> ...


You aren't controlling anything-but some humans will have programmed the software to do a specific thing-dangerous or not. There is no magic, no matter how many cartoons you watch.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Nelley said:


> You aren't controlling anything-but some humans will have programmed the software to do a specific thing-dangerous or not. There is no magic, no matter how many cartoons you watch.


You're thinking simple programs (and calculators). We're talking complex and sophisticated software and advanced hardware. 

Perhaps we should talk about quantum computing next. Or this. Nelley can explain how a quantum computer is a $1.99 calculator and a quantum eraser is a .49 cent Staedler.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

olivaw said:


> You're thinking simple programs (and calculators). We're talking complex and sophisticated software and advanced hardware.
> 
> Perhaps we should talk about quantum computing next. Or this. Nelley can explain how a quantum computer is a $1.99 calculator and a quantum eraser is a .49 cent Staedler.


Don't be so gullible-a machine is just a machine-nothing magic about it-it just looks like magic to you because you don't understand it.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Are humans more than just biological machines? What is magic about humans?


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

andrewf said:


> Are humans more than just biological machines? What is magic about humans?


Humans are life forms like rabbits and bacteria and elephants. We have been shaped by the forces of evolution,survival of the fittest
as Darwin said . May species have gone extinct, the neaderthals for example. Some people say they were a subspecies of our own, h. sapiens.
But conditions change or they were eliminated by h.sapiens and they went extinct. Will this new world of AI be another event in which a certain part of of the population is selected against? If this section of the population is not intelligent enough to thrive in this demanding new world,
will they continue to contribute to the gene pool?

Alternately , conditions may become so abundant and plentiful that there will be more than enough resources for all and everyone regardless of their ability and genetic makeup can come along for the ride .


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Saying that machines cannot be intelligent/aware/etc. means that there is something about humans that is not possible to emulate in a machine. What is that? Humans are just wetware versions of computers, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of anything magical happening, so a sufficiently advanced computer should be able to have the same (or superior) cognitive abilities as a human. That humans are the product of evolution is rather moot. All it means is that the computers in our heads are highly specialized, adapted to help with our ability to reproduce our genes. It's very efficient/effective at certain computational tasks (vision, for example), far better than any computer humans make today, but far worse than even basic computers at other tasks (such as calculations, memory, etc.).


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

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...


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

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.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> 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...


Machines are machines. "While it hasn't reached self awareness yet"-I think I saw that Twilight Zone episode where the toaster and stove, etc got together and revolted against humanity.-LOL.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

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.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

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/


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> 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...
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

wraphter said:


> Human beings are alive. They are not inanimate. So what is the definition of life?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
> 
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

andrewf said:


> 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.


You cannot physically construct or replicate anything you do not understand.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Nelley said:


> You cannot physically construct or replicate anything you do not understand.


Ummm, then explain reverse engineering? Many times it's done by inputting information, seeing the results, and then building something that duplicates it. No understanding of the original engineering or how it originally works required.

That's how Phoenix technologies originally duplicated the ibm bios for the pc allowing clones to come on the market. ibm wouldn't license the code which allowed computers to operate. Phoenix wrote its own version, never seeeing how ibm did it and an industry was born.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> Ummm, then explain reverse engineering? Many times it's done by inputting information, seeing the results, and then building something that duplicates it. No understanding of the original engineering or how it originally works required.
> 
> That's how Phoenix technologies originally duplicated the ibm bios for the pc allowing clones to come on the market. ibm wouldn't license the code which allowed computers to operate. Phoenix wrote its own version, never seeeing how ibm did it and an industry was born.


You are starting with a very simplistic view of human intelligence-listen-I hate to say anything is impossible-you feel that eventually AI will start to lead us-to come up with original thinking, original ideas-I don't think so-we shall see.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

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.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Nelley said:


> You cannot physically construct or replicate anything you do not understand.


Not necessarily. But then you are arguing it is impossible to understand brains well enough to make a computer that emulates one. I don't see why that would be the case.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

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.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

andrewf said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

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.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Nelley said:


> 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.


You mean a machine could design better machines?

I think you're being obtuse. Human level intelligence doesn't mean it acts like a human, it means it has cognitive abilities at the level of a human. The concern about AI is that there is absolutely no reason to expect such a computer to behave in ways a human would or that we could necessarily anticipate.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

wraphter said:


> 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?
> 
> ...


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?
> ...


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?
> ...


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.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

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".


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

andrewf said:


> You mean a machine could design better machines?
> 
> I think you're being obtuse. Human level intelligence doesn't mean it acts like a human, it means it has cognitive abilities at the level of a human. The concern about AI is that there is absolutely no reason to expect such a computer to behave in ways a human would or that we could necessarily anticipate.


No-you miss the point totally-LOOK-originally farm work was done by humans and then humans and draft animals-when the tractor was invented it wasn't meant be imitate human farming ability (farming by hand)-it was designed to do the task. Already software/machines exceed some cognitive abilities of any humans by 100 fold-tasks involving memory, concentration and stamina (and no errors).


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Parabolic advances on log scale crash when they hit critical mass. If the advance in technology is parabolic the laws of nature indicate the advance will crash when critical mass is reached.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Nelley said:


> No-you miss the point totally-LOOK-originally farm work was done by humans and then humans and draft animals-when the tractor was invented it wasn't meant be imitate human farming ability (farming by hand)-it was designed to do the task. Already software/machines exceed some cognitive abilities of any humans by 100 fold-tasks involving memory, concentration and stamina (and no errors).


The consensus appears to be that it is you who have missed the point. Others have asked you to withdraw from the discussion. I'll join them. (if you knew me, you'd know that I do not do that lightly. I usually encourage people to speak their mind but random banalities are not a contribution. Are you trolling?)


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

olivaw said:


> The consensus appears to be that it is you who have missed the point. Others have asked you to withdraw from the discussion. I'll join them. (if you knew me, you'd know that I do not do that lightly. I usually encourage people to speak their mind but random banalities are not a contribution. Are you trolling?)


"The consensus"-a sheep always looking for the herd opinion on every subject.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Wow this is a hot thread. Play the MASS effect game series which totally plays into this. This is the best video game and series I have ever played.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

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.
> 
> .....
> 
> ...


A mind without a body which is what is presented upthread by the advocates of AI will lead to completely wrong decisions.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

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.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

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...


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> 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...


Cramer studying companies-LOL.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

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".


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

*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.


----------

