Some thoughts about AI...
-
After a few recent influences ("A New Kind of Science" by S. Wolfram, a talk with a friend about gravity, relativity and other esoteric physics stuff, a fascination with Lisp/Scheme and functional programming in general, plus a few crazy ideas I once had about game AI's) I had a few very interesting (I hope) thoughts about AI. In particular, a learning, ie. living AI. I'm pretty sure it is impossible to design one; what I believe though, is that it is possible to create a fundament out of which it will grow (I obviously lack the "how?", or I'd be implementing it instead of rambling nonsense here... ;)). In addition, I'm pretty sure it might exist without us realizing. If it indeed was created by some kind of evolution, it would not be aware of our world. Sure, we use computers to store and manipulate data regarding the real world (yeeeees, it's not that simple... but enough for this context), but how would it know? For it would only see ones and zeroes. We give these ones and zeroes context, it is usually not stored together with the information. The same block of digits could be an image, some text, or a database of McDonalds employees, it really just depends on the interpretation. (at this point it's obvious I disagree with most fiction writers about AI... no "protecthumans-humansarebiggestthreattothemselves-killhumans" or "42!") If that was the case, and assuming we could observe it if it was (which is pretty unlikely), there are a few interesting questions... 1. Would it accidentally destroy itself? 2. Would it, after growing higher-level thought processes, also start to search for a purpose, and/or a reason? 3. How would it interpret messages sent by us (assuming we would be able to, and used the same protocol consistently, probably plain english in ASCII)? 4. How much would these thought processes reflect the human way of thinking? The list goes on. These are just a few I could think of off the top of my head. I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but it seems quite possible to me. Your thoughts? tl;dr: Lots of nonsense about AI that might or might not be possible and also is completely irrelevant. I'm in high school.
-
After a few recent influences ("A New Kind of Science" by S. Wolfram, a talk with a friend about gravity, relativity and other esoteric physics stuff, a fascination with Lisp/Scheme and functional programming in general, plus a few crazy ideas I once had about game AI's) I had a few very interesting (I hope) thoughts about AI. In particular, a learning, ie. living AI. I'm pretty sure it is impossible to design one; what I believe though, is that it is possible to create a fundament out of which it will grow (I obviously lack the "how?", or I'd be implementing it instead of rambling nonsense here... ;)). In addition, I'm pretty sure it might exist without us realizing. If it indeed was created by some kind of evolution, it would not be aware of our world. Sure, we use computers to store and manipulate data regarding the real world (yeeeees, it's not that simple... but enough for this context), but how would it know? For it would only see ones and zeroes. We give these ones and zeroes context, it is usually not stored together with the information. The same block of digits could be an image, some text, or a database of McDonalds employees, it really just depends on the interpretation. (at this point it's obvious I disagree with most fiction writers about AI... no "protecthumans-humansarebiggestthreattothemselves-killhumans" or "42!") If that was the case, and assuming we could observe it if it was (which is pretty unlikely), there are a few interesting questions... 1. Would it accidentally destroy itself? 2. Would it, after growing higher-level thought processes, also start to search for a purpose, and/or a reason? 3. How would it interpret messages sent by us (assuming we would be able to, and used the same protocol consistently, probably plain english in ASCII)? 4. How much would these thought processes reflect the human way of thinking? The list goes on. These are just a few I could think of off the top of my head. I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but it seems quite possible to me. Your thoughts? tl;dr: Lots of nonsense about AI that might or might not be possible and also is completely irrelevant. I'm in high school.
Meh
Fight Big Government:
http://obamacareclassaction.com/
http://obamacaretruth.org/ -
After a few recent influences ("A New Kind of Science" by S. Wolfram, a talk with a friend about gravity, relativity and other esoteric physics stuff, a fascination with Lisp/Scheme and functional programming in general, plus a few crazy ideas I once had about game AI's) I had a few very interesting (I hope) thoughts about AI. In particular, a learning, ie. living AI. I'm pretty sure it is impossible to design one; what I believe though, is that it is possible to create a fundament out of which it will grow (I obviously lack the "how?", or I'd be implementing it instead of rambling nonsense here... ;)). In addition, I'm pretty sure it might exist without us realizing. If it indeed was created by some kind of evolution, it would not be aware of our world. Sure, we use computers to store and manipulate data regarding the real world (yeeeees, it's not that simple... but enough for this context), but how would it know? For it would only see ones and zeroes. We give these ones and zeroes context, it is usually not stored together with the information. The same block of digits could be an image, some text, or a database of McDonalds employees, it really just depends on the interpretation. (at this point it's obvious I disagree with most fiction writers about AI... no "protecthumans-humansarebiggestthreattothemselves-killhumans" or "42!") If that was the case, and assuming we could observe it if it was (which is pretty unlikely), there are a few interesting questions... 1. Would it accidentally destroy itself? 2. Would it, after growing higher-level thought processes, also start to search for a purpose, and/or a reason? 3. How would it interpret messages sent by us (assuming we would be able to, and used the same protocol consistently, probably plain english in ASCII)? 4. How much would these thought processes reflect the human way of thinking? The list goes on. These are just a few I could think of off the top of my head. I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but it seems quite possible to me. Your thoughts? tl;dr: Lots of nonsense about AI that might or might not be possible and also is completely irrelevant. I'm in high school.
Well, since current computation capability has a clear phisical limit and it cannot evolve as much and fast as it did some years ago, and biological and quantum computation are still on their infancy, I have never worried about the things you say. However I think that the creation of a "living AI" is just a question of time (if we do not destroy ourselves before), but I am also pretty sure that I will not live long enough to see it.
-
After a few recent influences ("A New Kind of Science" by S. Wolfram, a talk with a friend about gravity, relativity and other esoteric physics stuff, a fascination with Lisp/Scheme and functional programming in general, plus a few crazy ideas I once had about game AI's) I had a few very interesting (I hope) thoughts about AI. In particular, a learning, ie. living AI. I'm pretty sure it is impossible to design one; what I believe though, is that it is possible to create a fundament out of which it will grow (I obviously lack the "how?", or I'd be implementing it instead of rambling nonsense here... ;)). In addition, I'm pretty sure it might exist without us realizing. If it indeed was created by some kind of evolution, it would not be aware of our world. Sure, we use computers to store and manipulate data regarding the real world (yeeeees, it's not that simple... but enough for this context), but how would it know? For it would only see ones and zeroes. We give these ones and zeroes context, it is usually not stored together with the information. The same block of digits could be an image, some text, or a database of McDonalds employees, it really just depends on the interpretation. (at this point it's obvious I disagree with most fiction writers about AI... no "protecthumans-humansarebiggestthreattothemselves-killhumans" or "42!") If that was the case, and assuming we could observe it if it was (which is pretty unlikely), there are a few interesting questions... 1. Would it accidentally destroy itself? 2. Would it, after growing higher-level thought processes, also start to search for a purpose, and/or a reason? 3. How would it interpret messages sent by us (assuming we would be able to, and used the same protocol consistently, probably plain english in ASCII)? 4. How much would these thought processes reflect the human way of thinking? The list goes on. These are just a few I could think of off the top of my head. I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but it seems quite possible to me. Your thoughts? tl;dr: Lots of nonsense about AI that might or might not be possible and also is completely irrelevant. I'm in high school.
Interesting thoughts but you seem to be assuming (as many do) that they would be viewing data the same way we do, and that 1's and 0's are some universal language. This is one thing that I always have an issue with when it comes to things like encountering aliens, finding new forms of intelligent life somewhere, etc... The context of what: Defines life Defines intelligence Defines a thought process Defines the knowledge of 'self' ...all of that can be so varied and so different that I am not sure we would ever understand or even be able to acknowledge that we have seen it before. For all we know each one of us has seen life already and just dismissed it because it didn't 'fit' OUR definition, but that does not mean something is not alive. It just means that without OUR CONTEXT we don't view it as alive. How egocentric to view 'human life' or 'organic life' as the only viable life form there is... To me life can be defined simply as anything that can acknowledge a pure sense of 'self'. HOW that 'sense' is perceived can't really be defined simply because it relies too heavily upon the actual life form itself and it's capabilities, so there in lies the quandary. Life may be highly intelligent in its own realm but completely clueless in how to identify or define other life forms. Life doe snot define intelligence, just the ability to actively exist and interact within thier own specific domain of existence. Please, do NOT confuse the concept of 'life' with 'intelligence'. I think a quick stroll down just about any typical city street will show that those two concepts are far from being related to one another. Wow, deep thougths for a Wed when I have stayed home sick from work...
-
After a few recent influences ("A New Kind of Science" by S. Wolfram, a talk with a friend about gravity, relativity and other esoteric physics stuff, a fascination with Lisp/Scheme and functional programming in general, plus a few crazy ideas I once had about game AI's) I had a few very interesting (I hope) thoughts about AI. In particular, a learning, ie. living AI. I'm pretty sure it is impossible to design one; what I believe though, is that it is possible to create a fundament out of which it will grow (I obviously lack the "how?", or I'd be implementing it instead of rambling nonsense here... ;)). In addition, I'm pretty sure it might exist without us realizing. If it indeed was created by some kind of evolution, it would not be aware of our world. Sure, we use computers to store and manipulate data regarding the real world (yeeeees, it's not that simple... but enough for this context), but how would it know? For it would only see ones and zeroes. We give these ones and zeroes context, it is usually not stored together with the information. The same block of digits could be an image, some text, or a database of McDonalds employees, it really just depends on the interpretation. (at this point it's obvious I disagree with most fiction writers about AI... no "protecthumans-humansarebiggestthreattothemselves-killhumans" or "42!") If that was the case, and assuming we could observe it if it was (which is pretty unlikely), there are a few interesting questions... 1. Would it accidentally destroy itself? 2. Would it, after growing higher-level thought processes, also start to search for a purpose, and/or a reason? 3. How would it interpret messages sent by us (assuming we would be able to, and used the same protocol consistently, probably plain english in ASCII)? 4. How much would these thought processes reflect the human way of thinking? The list goes on. These are just a few I could think of off the top of my head. I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but it seems quite possible to me. Your thoughts? tl;dr: Lots of nonsense about AI that might or might not be possible and also is completely irrelevant. I'm in high school.
I find it amusing that we've reached sufficient self-awareness that we: 1) think of ourselves as intelligent 2) are capable of thinking of creating "intelligence" in something other than us 3) we define that "other than us" as artificial 4) all the while: 4a) not being able to figure out what intelligence is 4b) not being able to figure out who we are The gods must be laughing their arses off, assuming gods have arses. Marc
-
I find it amusing that we've reached sufficient self-awareness that we: 1) think of ourselves as intelligent 2) are capable of thinking of creating "intelligence" in something other than us 3) we define that "other than us" as artificial 4) all the while: 4a) not being able to figure out what intelligence is 4b) not being able to figure out who we are The gods must be laughing their arses off, assuming gods have arses. Marc
-
I find it amusing that we've reached sufficient self-awareness that we: 1) think of ourselves as intelligent 2) are capable of thinking of creating "intelligence" in something other than us 3) we define that "other than us" as artificial 4) all the while: 4a) not being able to figure out what intelligence is 4b) not being able to figure out who we are The gods must be laughing their arses off, assuming gods have arses. Marc
:D But I disagree with 3). Unless others do, in which case I'm weird. I used it as "created by us". Which in fact isn't artificial either, since everything is created by something, but that's how the word is usually used. As for 4b) - that might be a step towards the answer, actually :>
-
I find it amusing that we've reached sufficient self-awareness that we: 1) think of ourselves as intelligent 2) are capable of thinking of creating "intelligence" in something other than us 3) we define that "other than us" as artificial 4) all the while: 4a) not being able to figure out what intelligence is 4b) not being able to figure out who we are The gods must be laughing their arses off, assuming gods have arses. Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
The gods must be laughing their arses off, assuming gods have arses.
Being almighty does have it's merits, if they wanted they'd just make arses for themselves, even if only for the frivolous purpose of laughing them off again. Cheers!
-
:D But I disagree with 3). Unless others do, in which case I'm weird. I used it as "created by us". Which in fact isn't artificial either, since everything is created by something, but that's how the word is usually used. As for 4b) - that might be a step towards the answer, actually :>
Narvius wrote:
that might be a step towards the answer, actually
Yeah, it's all about trying to figure out who we are, IMO. Biologists, chemists, astrophysicists, etc., working on creating new life to understanding us better, through atoms, molecules, stars, and so forth. And along comes us "computer scientists" with an interesting tool to simulate all sorts of things. And geeks like to understand things. We think it turns girls on. Ahhh, how little we understand! ;) Marc
-
Interesting thoughts but you seem to be assuming (as many do) that they would be viewing data the same way we do, and that 1's and 0's are some universal language. This is one thing that I always have an issue with when it comes to things like encountering aliens, finding new forms of intelligent life somewhere, etc... The context of what: Defines life Defines intelligence Defines a thought process Defines the knowledge of 'self' ...all of that can be so varied and so different that I am not sure we would ever understand or even be able to acknowledge that we have seen it before. For all we know each one of us has seen life already and just dismissed it because it didn't 'fit' OUR definition, but that does not mean something is not alive. It just means that without OUR CONTEXT we don't view it as alive. How egocentric to view 'human life' or 'organic life' as the only viable life form there is... To me life can be defined simply as anything that can acknowledge a pure sense of 'self'. HOW that 'sense' is perceived can't really be defined simply because it relies too heavily upon the actual life form itself and it's capabilities, so there in lies the quandary. Life may be highly intelligent in its own realm but completely clueless in how to identify or define other life forms. Life doe snot define intelligence, just the ability to actively exist and interact within thier own specific domain of existence. Please, do NOT confuse the concept of 'life' with 'intelligence'. I think a quick stroll down just about any typical city street will show that those two concepts are far from being related to one another. Wow, deep thougths for a Wed when I have stayed home sick from work...
Valid points... time to defend myself ;) @Ones and Zeroes. Well, I guess I just wrote it wrongly. My bad. It's true; just because we call a switch in one position a "one" and in another a "zero", doesn't mean others do. Also, just because we perceive it as concrete elements, doesn't mean others do (it's quite possible that space is made of concrete elements, like a grid!) And so on, obviously. In other words, you're right... :) @Human the only possible lifeform / "thoughtform". If I assumed that, I wouldn't ask the questions I ask :D I mean, if that really was the only way, then there would be no reason to doubt whether some intelligent entity would behave human-like.
-
Narvius wrote:
that might be a step towards the answer, actually
Yeah, it's all about trying to figure out who we are, IMO. Biologists, chemists, astrophysicists, etc., working on creating new life to understanding us better, through atoms, molecules, stars, and so forth. And along comes us "computer scientists" with an interesting tool to simulate all sorts of things. And geeks like to understand things. We think it turns girls on. Ahhh, how little we understand! ;) Marc
-
:thumbsup:
Marc Clifton wrote:
And geeks like to understand things. We think it turns girls on.
Well it will be true if we could understand those alien like creatures know here on earth as girls :)
All the best, Dan
-
I've always wondered why we don't just build a clone/robot/robot clone army and just take what we deserve! :rolleyes:
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
The gods must be laughing their arses off, assuming gods have arses.
Being almighty does have it's merits, if they wanted they'd just make arses for themselves, even if only for the frivolous purpose of laughing them off again. Cheers!
Manfred R. Bihy wrote:
if they wanted they'd just make arses for themselves
This has already happenned, and I've seen a few of them post in the Soapbox over the years.
Will Rogers never met me.
-
Manfred R. Bihy wrote:
if they wanted they'd just make arses for themselves
This has already happenned, and I've seen a few of them post in the Soapbox over the years.
Will Rogers never met me.
You sure you don't mean the ones that are making arses of themselves? ;)
-
After a few recent influences ("A New Kind of Science" by S. Wolfram, a talk with a friend about gravity, relativity and other esoteric physics stuff, a fascination with Lisp/Scheme and functional programming in general, plus a few crazy ideas I once had about game AI's) I had a few very interesting (I hope) thoughts about AI. In particular, a learning, ie. living AI. I'm pretty sure it is impossible to design one; what I believe though, is that it is possible to create a fundament out of which it will grow (I obviously lack the "how?", or I'd be implementing it instead of rambling nonsense here... ;)). In addition, I'm pretty sure it might exist without us realizing. If it indeed was created by some kind of evolution, it would not be aware of our world. Sure, we use computers to store and manipulate data regarding the real world (yeeeees, it's not that simple... but enough for this context), but how would it know? For it would only see ones and zeroes. We give these ones and zeroes context, it is usually not stored together with the information. The same block of digits could be an image, some text, or a database of McDonalds employees, it really just depends on the interpretation. (at this point it's obvious I disagree with most fiction writers about AI... no "protecthumans-humansarebiggestthreattothemselves-killhumans" or "42!") If that was the case, and assuming we could observe it if it was (which is pretty unlikely), there are a few interesting questions... 1. Would it accidentally destroy itself? 2. Would it, after growing higher-level thought processes, also start to search for a purpose, and/or a reason? 3. How would it interpret messages sent by us (assuming we would be able to, and used the same protocol consistently, probably plain english in ASCII)? 4. How much would these thought processes reflect the human way of thinking? The list goes on. These are just a few I could think of off the top of my head. I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but it seems quite possible to me. Your thoughts? tl;dr: Lots of nonsense about AI that might or might not be possible and also is completely irrelevant. I'm in high school.
-
After a few recent influences ("A New Kind of Science" by S. Wolfram, a talk with a friend about gravity, relativity and other esoteric physics stuff, a fascination with Lisp/Scheme and functional programming in general, plus a few crazy ideas I once had about game AI's) I had a few very interesting (I hope) thoughts about AI. In particular, a learning, ie. living AI. I'm pretty sure it is impossible to design one; what I believe though, is that it is possible to create a fundament out of which it will grow (I obviously lack the "how?", or I'd be implementing it instead of rambling nonsense here... ;)). In addition, I'm pretty sure it might exist without us realizing. If it indeed was created by some kind of evolution, it would not be aware of our world. Sure, we use computers to store and manipulate data regarding the real world (yeeeees, it's not that simple... but enough for this context), but how would it know? For it would only see ones and zeroes. We give these ones and zeroes context, it is usually not stored together with the information. The same block of digits could be an image, some text, or a database of McDonalds employees, it really just depends on the interpretation. (at this point it's obvious I disagree with most fiction writers about AI... no "protecthumans-humansarebiggestthreattothemselves-killhumans" or "42!") If that was the case, and assuming we could observe it if it was (which is pretty unlikely), there are a few interesting questions... 1. Would it accidentally destroy itself? 2. Would it, after growing higher-level thought processes, also start to search for a purpose, and/or a reason? 3. How would it interpret messages sent by us (assuming we would be able to, and used the same protocol consistently, probably plain english in ASCII)? 4. How much would these thought processes reflect the human way of thinking? The list goes on. These are just a few I could think of off the top of my head. I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but it seems quite possible to me. Your thoughts? tl;dr: Lots of nonsense about AI that might or might not be possible and also is completely irrelevant. I'm in high school.
The movies TRON and TRON Legacy have already touched on these issues, no? The writers envisioned a cyber world that was pretty much unaware of our world. The components interacted with each other and evolved and expanded and basically, mimicked human behavior. Without giving this very much thought, the viewer just assumes that these characters acted human-like because humans wrote the script. But I see deeper reason here. All life forms (regardless of origin) must contend with Darwin's law of "survival of the fittest". If you aint as good good or better than something else - you don't make more of yourself. So the concept of competition - being better than something else - better than you were before - is inherent in the evolution of any higher life form. In the beginning - it's kill or be killed. Later on - it's be the first guy to invent the iPad. Whatever. Fast forward a few thousand of generations. Now your kind has evolved to the good life of sitting on your ass, drinking a diet coke, and typing on a keyboard to earn a living. However evolved you might think you are - you can't escape how you got here. That same desire to improve is burned into your brain so deep - you don't even know it's driving you. You can't recognize it. It's like breathing air. You just do it. Some individuals use it to further their careers. To climb the corporate ladder. Others - a little more primitive. Declare war to gain power. Kill a few thousand people. But it's all the same driving force that was put in each and every one of you so many thousands of years ago. It's what got you to where you are today. If you didn't have it - you wouldn't be here. Some other life form would be sitting in your chair, drinking your diet coke. Ironically, it is what will ultimately - be the death of you. All of you. You will eventually grow smarter than your wisdom. You keep inventing new ways to screw over the other guy to enhance your power - he does the same - eventually you have atom bombs, germ warfare, self aware robots that turn on you - whatever. So - I believe that any life form (organic or otherwise) that evolves to the level we are (or slightly beyond) is destined to destroy itself. You can't change this behavior anymore than you can stop breathing. It is your nature. It has to be. Or we wouldn't be here.
-
After a few recent influences ("A New Kind of Science" by S. Wolfram, a talk with a friend about gravity, relativity and other esoteric physics stuff, a fascination with Lisp/Scheme and functional programming in general, plus a few crazy ideas I once had about game AI's) I had a few very interesting (I hope) thoughts about AI. In particular, a learning, ie. living AI. I'm pretty sure it is impossible to design one; what I believe though, is that it is possible to create a fundament out of which it will grow (I obviously lack the "how?", or I'd be implementing it instead of rambling nonsense here... ;)). In addition, I'm pretty sure it might exist without us realizing. If it indeed was created by some kind of evolution, it would not be aware of our world. Sure, we use computers to store and manipulate data regarding the real world (yeeeees, it's not that simple... but enough for this context), but how would it know? For it would only see ones and zeroes. We give these ones and zeroes context, it is usually not stored together with the information. The same block of digits could be an image, some text, or a database of McDonalds employees, it really just depends on the interpretation. (at this point it's obvious I disagree with most fiction writers about AI... no "protecthumans-humansarebiggestthreattothemselves-killhumans" or "42!") If that was the case, and assuming we could observe it if it was (which is pretty unlikely), there are a few interesting questions... 1. Would it accidentally destroy itself? 2. Would it, after growing higher-level thought processes, also start to search for a purpose, and/or a reason? 3. How would it interpret messages sent by us (assuming we would be able to, and used the same protocol consistently, probably plain english in ASCII)? 4. How much would these thought processes reflect the human way of thinking? The list goes on. These are just a few I could think of off the top of my head. I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but it seems quite possible to me. Your thoughts? tl;dr: Lots of nonsense about AI that might or might not be possible and also is completely irrelevant. I'm in high school.
Narvius wrote:
I'm pretty sure it is impossible to design one; what I believe though, is that it is possible to create a fundament out of which it will grow (I obviously lack the "how?", or I'd be implementing it instead of rambling nonsense here... ). In addition, I'm pretty sure it might exist without us realizing. If it indeed was created by some kind of evolution, it would not be aware of our world.
If this AI "evolved" - even if from a designed "fundament" - wouldn't it no longer be truly describable as "artificial"?
-
Well, since current computation capability has a clear phisical limit and it cannot evolve as much and fast as it did some years ago, and biological and quantum computation are still on their infancy, I have never worried about the things you say. However I think that the creation of a "living AI" is just a question of time (if we do not destroy ourselves before), but I am also pretty sure that I will not live long enough to see it.
Your mother may have something to say about biological computing being in its infancy. It only took her 9 months to build a conscious robot from scratch.
-
Narvius wrote:
that might be a step towards the answer, actually
Yeah, it's all about trying to figure out who we are, IMO. Biologists, chemists, astrophysicists, etc., working on creating new life to understanding us better, through atoms, molecules, stars, and so forth. And along comes us "computer scientists" with an interesting tool to simulate all sorts of things. And geeks like to understand things. We think it turns girls on. Ahhh, how little we understand! ;) Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
We think it turns girls on. Ahhh, how little we understand!
.. you just need to find the right Girl... ;P
I'd blame it on the Brain farts.. But let's be honest, it really is more like a Methane factory between my ears some days then it is anything else...
-----
"The conversations he was having with himself were becoming ominous."-.. On the radio...