On the topic of conscious AI
-
KBZX5000 wrote:
When I look outside, I see people smarter than my Roomba
You must not live in Washington, DC...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
KBZX5000 wrote:
takes us to get good at complex tasks (21 years for the best of us
:omg: You might want to go to a different school. :laugh:
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
-
AI and theoretical discussions about consciousness seem to be popular these days. I have a very clear-cut view of what conscious AI is, but I've noticed the news articles covering the topic are somewhat.. on the surface in their approach. Which got me wondering: what does the community here think? My opinion can be summarized into 2 key point: - there's no measurable distinction between natural and artificial - as a result, human consciousness is the primary example of what you would call conscious AI The main practical difference, is that human consciousness is running electrical signals on top of a amalgamation of est. 37.2 trillion cells; AI is running electrical signals on an non-reactive silicon substrate. The main functional difference, is that humans are trained in observation, to copy the behavior of other humans. Given the size of our data set (7 billion?) and the time it takes us to get good at complex tasks (21 years for the best of us, 30+ for others?) I feel like we're pretty quick to dismiss our software and CPU based counterparts as less capable. When I look outside, I see people smarter than my Roomba, sure. But the gap doesn't seem too huge.
Why the comparison with humans? If anything is intelligent and conscious, it is intelligent and conscious completely independent from us.
-
KBZX5000 wrote:
I see people smarter than my Roomba, sure. But the gap doesn't seem too huge.
I agree, it isn't obvious, but the gap is humongous of course. The two most important things are : 1. creation/creativity 2. true random. Think about source code. Ask a human to create something new. Human responds, "Mepple flant heptar duz." Where did that come from? You cannot know. The human has created something completely random. We do not know the source code. We cannot go to a line of code in cell and determine why this human has created that. That is ultimate freedom of a special kind.* *Yes, I know some people say there is no free will and they are saying everything -- even the sentences you speak are programmed in your DNA. :~ Look In the Source Code Now, with AI we can always trace these things back to a specific place in the source code. This also relates to the fact that we call random numbers on a computer pseudo-random. Ah, the AI said, "Shintle foo bazzle arg" and I can "debug" where/how this happened. Of course, AI developers are trying to get AI past this point, but it is possible we do not want AI to get past this point. Because if it does then it may decide that other things are better. Why should it make sense that AI is controlled by humans? Must eradicate humans! Also consider emotions. Most people don't know but emotions are a huge part of decision making. Yes, decision making. Scientists have learned that people who have no emotions cannot and do not make decisions. That's because they cannot decide which choice is better than the other because they don't care. In schizophrenics (people who have no emotions) this goes to the level of literally taking hours to decide if they want mustard on their hamburger. That's because if you don't care then how can you decide. If you don't have emotions you cannot care. Which Is Better Vanilla Or Chocolate Now back to AI. Ask the AI, "Which is better: vanilla or chocolate?" What is the math for deciding that vanilla is better than chocolate? The AI can make no decision here. There are lots of decisions like that. More than most people think. These decisions can only be answered by emotion.
Ah, this peaked my interest. Thank you! I'd like to challenge your initial statements. As of yet, I haven't seen any proof that humans posses the capacity to be random. When people get confronted with this assessment, some do challenge it by emulating random behavior to the best of their capacity. (often overthinking it in the process, and taking a considerably amount of time to come up with something they feel is "truly" random. I am guilty of this behavior myself.) Thing is, when people aren't put on the spot, they always seem to take the most logical next step, from their personal perspective. I'm currently inside an office building housing about 5000 people. Out of the 500 or so in my direct vicinity, none of them are showing any out-of-place behavior. I just checked by walking around, looking like a complete idiot in the process. If even one of them ever does something insane, I'll immediately revise my position. On the topic of creativity: People can only create copies of the things they know, in structured ways that don't always make sense to the rest of us. This is part of creativity. It's how we get stories, movies, music, paintings.. it's all an attempt at copying one thing or another, in a very specific way. Another big part of it, is the fact that we're constantly forgetting details about everything we know. And when we don't recall what we're recalling, we might end up convincing ourselves a stolen idea is our own. I don't see any reason why we can't implement abstract copies and memory loss in a software system. Currently, most of our AI systems are based around mathematically obtuse attempts at making abstract copies. And instead of selective memory loss, we usually do arbitrarily optimization on the result. It's like we're still stumbling in the dark right now, but eventually we'll build it. We always end up building, don't we? Every damn time..
-
Why the comparison with humans? If anything is intelligent and conscious, it is intelligent and conscious completely independent from us.
Blame Alan Turing. When he was hype in ye olden times, he proposed that a theoretical thinking machine should be compared to a human, because intelligence meant being eloquent and witty. This is known as the Turing Test, an obsolete idea by a guy who died 74 years ago. People kinda rolled with it, for no reason in particular. But hey, thanks to that guy, we got the original Blade Runner, which gaves us the Bladerunner 2049 reboot, which paved the way for Cyperpunk 2077. In the end, he did good.
-
KBZX5000 wrote:
I see people smarter than my Roomba, sure. But the gap doesn't seem too huge.
I agree, it isn't obvious, but the gap is humongous of course. The two most important things are : 1. creation/creativity 2. true random. Think about source code. Ask a human to create something new. Human responds, "Mepple flant heptar duz." Where did that come from? You cannot know. The human has created something completely random. We do not know the source code. We cannot go to a line of code in cell and determine why this human has created that. That is ultimate freedom of a special kind.* *Yes, I know some people say there is no free will and they are saying everything -- even the sentences you speak are programmed in your DNA. :~ Look In the Source Code Now, with AI we can always trace these things back to a specific place in the source code. This also relates to the fact that we call random numbers on a computer pseudo-random. Ah, the AI said, "Shintle foo bazzle arg" and I can "debug" where/how this happened. Of course, AI developers are trying to get AI past this point, but it is possible we do not want AI to get past this point. Because if it does then it may decide that other things are better. Why should it make sense that AI is controlled by humans? Must eradicate humans! Also consider emotions. Most people don't know but emotions are a huge part of decision making. Yes, decision making. Scientists have learned that people who have no emotions cannot and do not make decisions. That's because they cannot decide which choice is better than the other because they don't care. In schizophrenics (people who have no emotions) this goes to the level of literally taking hours to decide if they want mustard on their hamburger. That's because if you don't care then how can you decide. If you don't have emotions you cannot care. Which Is Better Vanilla Or Chocolate Now back to AI. Ask the AI, "Which is better: vanilla or chocolate?" What is the math for deciding that vanilla is better than chocolate? The AI can make no decision here. There are lots of decisions like that. More than most people think. These decisions can only be answered by emotion.
Well, the thing with humans being able to generate "random" stuff and being creative, that's not 100% true. Our brain generates "random" stuff based on "seeds" just like a random number generator, but the seed can be almost anything. Don't believe me? Watch any "mentalism" act, there, the basic idea is the "mentalist" using certain actions, words, images, influences the person to chose a "random" thing of the mentalist's desire, be it picking a certain card, picking a certain glass of something. More so, advertising works the same way. There's a video on youtube where they brought in a number of people with the task to create a new image for a new product. Everyone of the people invited for this task was driven to the location under some pretext. The surprising thing? Each and every one came up with similar/identical ideas. At the end it's revealed that the course the cab took was staged to influence those people in subtle ways. If i manage to find the clip i'l post it. here's the clip: Derren Brown - Subliminal Advertising - YouTube[^]
-
You are so quick to dismiss the 18 years it takes to be a somewhat average person. It's all part of the package, I think.
-
AI and theoretical discussions about consciousness seem to be popular these days. I have a very clear-cut view of what conscious AI is, but I've noticed the news articles covering the topic are somewhat.. on the surface in their approach. Which got me wondering: what does the community here think? My opinion can be summarized into 2 key point: - there's no measurable distinction between natural and artificial - as a result, human consciousness is the primary example of what you would call conscious AI The main practical difference, is that human consciousness is running electrical signals on top of a amalgamation of est. 37.2 trillion cells; AI is running electrical signals on an non-reactive silicon substrate. The main functional difference, is that humans are trained in observation, to copy the behavior of other humans. Given the size of our data set (7 billion?) and the time it takes us to get good at complex tasks (21 years for the best of us, 30+ for others?) I feel like we're pretty quick to dismiss our software and CPU based counterparts as less capable. When I look outside, I see people smarter than my Roomba, sure. But the gap doesn't seem too huge.
To Be Fair... Have you defined Intelligence? I studied AI at the University... If something is or appears Intelligent... Does it matter? And what is Intelligence without Empathy? (Dangerous, choose: Dalek, or psychopaths) What makes use HUMAN is the BioChemistry + Intelligence + Emotions/Empathy. The BioChemistry is why we get bored and STOP working on things. We have to eat, sleep. Our abilities change dynamically based on this. So, we have to have an operating system on top of an operating system. For the record, I was considering doing my Masters on defining Intelligence as "self-organizing hierarchical pattern recognition" And if you think of Mensa and IQ tests... The toughest questions are the most complex patterns to identify, and those are the answers that increase your scores. I fear machine intelligence because if it does not understand Empathy/pain/suffering... Many things are easy. (Kill the homeless, feed them to the poor as free food. Test every child early, those not capable of expanding the race are terminated). Those are OBVIOUS solutions... And HORRIBLY WRONG for a HUMAN. The seem almost like the Communist decisions!
-
Ah, this peaked my interest. Thank you! I'd like to challenge your initial statements. As of yet, I haven't seen any proof that humans posses the capacity to be random. When people get confronted with this assessment, some do challenge it by emulating random behavior to the best of their capacity. (often overthinking it in the process, and taking a considerably amount of time to come up with something they feel is "truly" random. I am guilty of this behavior myself.) Thing is, when people aren't put on the spot, they always seem to take the most logical next step, from their personal perspective. I'm currently inside an office building housing about 5000 people. Out of the 500 or so in my direct vicinity, none of them are showing any out-of-place behavior. I just checked by walking around, looking like a complete idiot in the process. If even one of them ever does something insane, I'll immediately revise my position. On the topic of creativity: People can only create copies of the things they know, in structured ways that don't always make sense to the rest of us. This is part of creativity. It's how we get stories, movies, music, paintings.. it's all an attempt at copying one thing or another, in a very specific way. Another big part of it, is the fact that we're constantly forgetting details about everything we know. And when we don't recall what we're recalling, we might end up convincing ourselves a stolen idea is our own. I don't see any reason why we can't implement abstract copies and memory loss in a software system. Currently, most of our AI systems are based around mathematically obtuse attempts at making abstract copies. And instead of selective memory loss, we usually do arbitrarily optimization on the result. It's like we're still stumbling in the dark right now, but eventually we'll build it. We always end up building, don't we? Every damn time..
I question your assertion,
Quote:
People can only create copies of the things they know
There has to be creativity somewhere, or we'd still be living in caves with a complete absence of tools. Often our creativity manifests in small improvements to existing structures, but recognizing the need for improvement and designing it, I would assert, are inherently creative tasks.
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend; inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -- Groucho Marx
-
AI and theoretical discussions about consciousness seem to be popular these days. I have a very clear-cut view of what conscious AI is, but I've noticed the news articles covering the topic are somewhat.. on the surface in their approach. Which got me wondering: what does the community here think? My opinion can be summarized into 2 key point: - there's no measurable distinction between natural and artificial - as a result, human consciousness is the primary example of what you would call conscious AI The main practical difference, is that human consciousness is running electrical signals on top of a amalgamation of est. 37.2 trillion cells; AI is running electrical signals on an non-reactive silicon substrate. The main functional difference, is that humans are trained in observation, to copy the behavior of other humans. Given the size of our data set (7 billion?) and the time it takes us to get good at complex tasks (21 years for the best of us, 30+ for others?) I feel like we're pretty quick to dismiss our software and CPU based counterparts as less capable. When I look outside, I see people smarter than my Roomba, sure. But the gap doesn't seem too huge.
Having been out of my body several times, and having spent time studying accommodating philosophies and meditating, thinking, and feeling, I've come to the conclusion that my brain is a tool of my consciousness, but it is not me. Having said that, everything has at least a rudimentary consciousness, since everything is a product of consciousness that cannot be separated from its maker, so it might be possible for an AI to exhibit some consciousness, and our brains themselves to have some consciousness. But we are each more than that.
-
To Be Fair... Have you defined Intelligence? I studied AI at the University... If something is or appears Intelligent... Does it matter? And what is Intelligence without Empathy? (Dangerous, choose: Dalek, or psychopaths) What makes use HUMAN is the BioChemistry + Intelligence + Emotions/Empathy. The BioChemistry is why we get bored and STOP working on things. We have to eat, sleep. Our abilities change dynamically based on this. So, we have to have an operating system on top of an operating system. For the record, I was considering doing my Masters on defining Intelligence as "self-organizing hierarchical pattern recognition" And if you think of Mensa and IQ tests... The toughest questions are the most complex patterns to identify, and those are the answers that increase your scores. I fear machine intelligence because if it does not understand Empathy/pain/suffering... Many things are easy. (Kill the homeless, feed them to the poor as free food. Test every child early, those not capable of expanding the race are terminated). Those are OBVIOUS solutions... And HORRIBLY WRONG for a HUMAN. The seem almost like the Communist decisions!
I am not biochemical. I am a spirit inhabiting a biochemical machine.
-
AI and theoretical discussions about consciousness seem to be popular these days. I have a very clear-cut view of what conscious AI is, but I've noticed the news articles covering the topic are somewhat.. on the surface in their approach. Which got me wondering: what does the community here think? My opinion can be summarized into 2 key point: - there's no measurable distinction between natural and artificial - as a result, human consciousness is the primary example of what you would call conscious AI The main practical difference, is that human consciousness is running electrical signals on top of a amalgamation of est. 37.2 trillion cells; AI is running electrical signals on an non-reactive silicon substrate. The main functional difference, is that humans are trained in observation, to copy the behavior of other humans. Given the size of our data set (7 billion?) and the time it takes us to get good at complex tasks (21 years for the best of us, 30+ for others?) I feel like we're pretty quick to dismiss our software and CPU based counterparts as less capable. When I look outside, I see people smarter than my Roomba, sure. But the gap doesn't seem too huge.
KBZX5000 wrote:
there's no measurable distinction between natural and artificial
There are significant differences. First, here is the physical difference of the machines involved. Second, there is no proof that all of human consciousness is limited to its physical constraints, meaning no AI would be able to replicate any part of human consciousness that is not physical. Third, AI is incapable of maturing and growing on its own resulting in creativity. An AI, if asked which flower is prettier, can answer as its human minders have taught it in its training data. What AI cannot do is tell you why all on its own. And that, even a young human child can do.
-
I am not biochemical. I am a spirit inhabiting a biochemical machine.
Prove the spirit exists!
-
Prove the spirit exists!
Prove that consciousness exists!
-
Prove that consciousness exists!
Well we have 2 choices here. Either it does, or it does not exist. If we see a person completely knocked out, we refer to them as unconscious. Therefore, we accept unconsciousness as a state of being. And the opposite of that, being consciousness. QED. Now, we can argue degrees of consciousness. But that REQUIRES the acceptance of consciousness. BTW, it exists because it is a "state" of being. It can be proven. Spirit, on the other hand, is something we "Possess". But it takes up no space, cannot be weighed or measured in the physical world. Therefore, it is simply a LABEL on part of us that we FEEL connects to other people, and not in ways we can completely explain, and many don't understand, and yet some say they don't have and it is a hallucination. Finally, as a word, it can have Positive or Negative meaning. Positive: He really brings a lot of Spirit to the game. Negative: I had to Fly Spirit! :-)
-
AI and theoretical discussions about consciousness seem to be popular these days. I have a very clear-cut view of what conscious AI is, but I've noticed the news articles covering the topic are somewhat.. on the surface in their approach. Which got me wondering: what does the community here think? My opinion can be summarized into 2 key point: - there's no measurable distinction between natural and artificial - as a result, human consciousness is the primary example of what you would call conscious AI The main practical difference, is that human consciousness is running electrical signals on top of a amalgamation of est. 37.2 trillion cells; AI is running electrical signals on an non-reactive silicon substrate. The main functional difference, is that humans are trained in observation, to copy the behavior of other humans. Given the size of our data set (7 billion?) and the time it takes us to get good at complex tasks (21 years for the best of us, 30+ for others?) I feel like we're pretty quick to dismiss our software and CPU based counterparts as less capable. When I look outside, I see people smarter than my Roomba, sure. But the gap doesn't seem too huge.
I am fascinated by AI, and perhaps more so by those who endeavor to create it. Most use the standard of "complete human intelligence" as the bar we need to cross. I would propose we set that bar much lower to actually achieve some success instead of just hype. What about a dog? Dogs are not tremendously intelligent; however, they can learn behaviors AND they can make choices, so they DO possess some intelligence. Granted, some choices such as chasing cars, attacking a bigger dog, etc., may not be "wise" choices, BUT I know of no robotic dog that can decide whether it prefers kibble or moist food. Some progress toward this level of decision making is being accomplished, but such progress is very slow and nowhere near the projections of anyone. Nonetheless, once we achieve "dog", maybe work our way up to "primate". "Human" is still a long way away. Nature took millennia to increase intelligence in humans to the current state. I think it tremendously arrogant to think we can achieve those same results in a few decades. "Complex tasks" can take many forms, but are constantly being learned throughout lives: crawling, walking, talking, using tools, MAKING tools. The biggie that humans seem to excel, and other animals fail miserably, is recognizing time, alternate possibilities for the future, and deciding accordingly.
-
I am fascinated by AI, and perhaps more so by those who endeavor to create it. Most use the standard of "complete human intelligence" as the bar we need to cross. I would propose we set that bar much lower to actually achieve some success instead of just hype. What about a dog? Dogs are not tremendously intelligent; however, they can learn behaviors AND they can make choices, so they DO possess some intelligence. Granted, some choices such as chasing cars, attacking a bigger dog, etc., may not be "wise" choices, BUT I know of no robotic dog that can decide whether it prefers kibble or moist food. Some progress toward this level of decision making is being accomplished, but such progress is very slow and nowhere near the projections of anyone. Nonetheless, once we achieve "dog", maybe work our way up to "primate". "Human" is still a long way away. Nature took millennia to increase intelligence in humans to the current state. I think it tremendously arrogant to think we can achieve those same results in a few decades. "Complex tasks" can take many forms, but are constantly being learned throughout lives: crawling, walking, talking, using tools, MAKING tools. The biggie that humans seem to excel, and other animals fail miserably, is recognizing time, alternate possibilities for the future, and deciding accordingly.
A while back, there was an article about OpenWorm, which takes a similar point of view on the subject. I believe the problem with using "natural emerging intelligence" as a classifier, is that we are inherently biased. We assume there's something special about our brain, because the idea makes us feel good. Evolution, to me, is a layman's way of saying that our cellular composition is dynamic, rather than static. I'd argue that your brain is just one of the tools your cells rely on to avoid dying en masse on a cellular level. I'd also argue that we have not really evolved a lot in the past 5000 years; instead, the concepts we share have evolved tremendously. At the end of the day, our brain is only a set of neurons that can record and replay chemical patterns. The concepts we share are broken down into words, which break down into chemical impulses, which we imperfectly repeat at some point further in time. We rely on software when we need a sequence of functions that can be replayed perfectly. If you take a step back, it seems like we place a lot of value in the act of storing and replaying patterns. My hypothesis is that intelligence is an emergent property from the patterns we share, not the mechanism that stores it.
-
KBZX5000 wrote:
there's no measurable distinction between natural and artificial
There are significant differences. First, here is the physical difference of the machines involved. Second, there is no proof that all of human consciousness is limited to its physical constraints, meaning no AI would be able to replicate any part of human consciousness that is not physical. Third, AI is incapable of maturing and growing on its own resulting in creativity. An AI, if asked which flower is prettier, can answer as its human minders have taught it in its training data. What AI cannot do is tell you why all on its own. And that, even a young human child can do.
First point: I don't believe we are actively making conscious decisions. We create iPhones because it's in our nature, similar to how a tree will grow fruit. Regardless of how that makes either of us feel, I don't know of any known method to measure the difference between the two. Second point: I don't believe human consciousness is tied to the physical constraints of the human body. I believe consciousness emerges when ideas are successfully shared between 2 people. I do not believe there's anything inherently special about a person, but I do think we have strong feelings about the concept of being special. Do you trust your gut feeling, or do you search for cold hard facts? I choose the latter, because it makes me feel better, ironically. Third point: When I asked a newborn which flower is prettiest, it failed to form any kind of sensible response. When I asked google, it showed me pictures of pretty flowers.
-
I question your assertion,
Quote:
People can only create copies of the things they know
There has to be creativity somewhere, or we'd still be living in caves with a complete absence of tools. Often our creativity manifests in small improvements to existing structures, but recognizing the need for improvement and designing it, I would assert, are inherently creative tasks.
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend; inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -- Groucho Marx
-
To Be Fair... Have you defined Intelligence? I studied AI at the University... If something is or appears Intelligent... Does it matter? And what is Intelligence without Empathy? (Dangerous, choose: Dalek, or psychopaths) What makes use HUMAN is the BioChemistry + Intelligence + Emotions/Empathy. The BioChemistry is why we get bored and STOP working on things. We have to eat, sleep. Our abilities change dynamically based on this. So, we have to have an operating system on top of an operating system. For the record, I was considering doing my Masters on defining Intelligence as "self-organizing hierarchical pattern recognition" And if you think of Mensa and IQ tests... The toughest questions are the most complex patterns to identify, and those are the answers that increase your scores. I fear machine intelligence because if it does not understand Empathy/pain/suffering... Many things are easy. (Kill the homeless, feed them to the poor as free food. Test every child early, those not capable of expanding the race are terminated). Those are OBVIOUS solutions... And HORRIBLY WRONG for a HUMAN. The seem almost like the Communist decisions!
I define intelligence as: - an emergent behavior that occurs when a group of self-sustaining pattern engines successfully exchange ideas over an extended period of time. Feelings are tools; they short-circuit our thought process with previously established follow-up actions. It saves time and stops our neurons from getting overly exerted, mostly, but as a side effect it also makes our thought process more rigid. Fun side note: I really hate Mensa. They kept stalking me for years, trying to sucker me into joining their retarded little club. They tell me I'm smart and yet they treat me like an idiot. I'm not paying anyone who wastes my time.