A new "win" for Artificial Intelligence

[Solmyr]

The point, I think, is that whatever men invent can be understood by other men, given inclination and time.

I doubt it. And you cheated. However, the problem is much more complicated with self-modifying algorithms. Not to mention that you (or anyone else) does not have access to the modified source code.

 

[vz71]

Man can’t explain a lot about how things work.

That doesn’t make them intelligent.

 

[Solmyr]

Man can’t explain a lot about how things work.

That doesn’t make them intelligent.

Indeed. We conclude that they are intelligent if they act like intelligent agents work. As Forrest Gump said: “Stupid is as stupid does” in reverse: “Intelligent is as intelligent does”

 

[o_mlly]

Indeed. We conclude that they are intelligent if they act like intelligent agents work. As Forrest Gump said: “Stupid is as stupid does” in reverse: “Intelligent is as intelligent does”

Intelligence is a brain activity that we share with other sentient creatures and our machines. Perhaps we could define intelligence as the faculty to organize information and act upon it. What dogs and machines do not share with humans is reason and free will.

With the faculty of reason, for example, humans can abstract novel principles from organized data and form concepts. And give the new concept a name, that is invent a word, i.e. black-hole. Or human reason can imagine and hypothesize an organizing concept when presented with otherwise disorganized data and name it, i.e. multi-verse.

Can a computer conceive and invent a word evidencing the ability to abstract? No, I think not; the machine is bounded by its code. If the trillion switches controlled by its programs do not fail to report a 1 or a 0 then the machine will never err. But can the machine also invent? I think not.

 

[Solmyr]

Can a computer conceive and invent a word evidencing the ability to abstract? No, I think not; the machine is bounded by its code. If the trillion switches controlled by its programs do not fail to report a 1 or a 0 then the machine will never err. But can the machine also invent? I think not.

That is your opinion. I happen to differ. Time will tell, which one of us is right. I hope to live long enough.

There is a great book by Stanislaw Lem, (arguably) the greatest thinker of our time. The title is “Summa Technologiae”… the similarity to Aquinas’ book is not a coincidence. It is not an easy book to read, the first time I read it - took about a year. But it is a great collection of ideas. Among others he describes a possible process for “machines” to create brand new ideas. Worth to read it, though it is not something that one can gobble up in a few weeks.

 

[o_mlly]

That is your opinion. I happen to differ. Time will tell, which one of us is right. I hope to live long enough.

There is a great book by Stanislaw Lem, (arguably) the greatest thinker of our time. The title is “Summa Technologiae”… the similarity to Aquinas’ book is not a coincidence. It is not an easy book to read, the first time I read it - took about a year. But it is a great collection of ideas. Among others he describes a possible process for “machines” to create brand new ideas. Worth to read it, though it is not something that one can gobble up in a few weeks.

Thanks for the reference. Our county library does not have this book in but does have other fiction books by Stanislaw. Is his “Summa Technologiae” also a fiction book?

 

[Solmyr]

Thanks for the reference. Our county library does not have this book in but does have other fiction books by Stanislaw. Is his “Summa Technologiae” also a fiction book?

No, this one is not fiction. It is a collection of essays containing Lem’s ideas about the possible future developments of technology. Lots of his ideas have been presented in a “playful”, fiction format, too. If you are interested in his writings, I can tell you which ones of his fictional writings I found most valuable (some of his early works are not worth to read). Needless to say that his ideas had a most powerful influence on my thinking when I grew up. His philosophy is very deeply thought out. At least one of his sci-fi short stories is available on-line, its title is “Non Serviam”. You can guess what it is all about. Here is the link to it: themindi.blogspot.com/2007/02/chapter-19-non-serviam.html

 

[SecretCatholic]

Because I find the concept of the AI most invigorating and not at all frightening. A fully rational intelligence without superstitions. I don’t have any Frankenstein complex.

Your very language indicates an adversarial relationship between Human Beings and AI. YOU may not have a “Frankenstein complex”, but the only important question is what a superior AI thinks about you. After all, you are an inferior and naturally should be treated as such. In any case, nor you nor I get to decide what AI does and I think that if you care about self-preservation- if you care about ANY human being, then you should realize that that’s a problem.

Reality does not care about our desires and preferences. Why should the AI’s turn against us?

Why shouldn’t they? It doesn’t have to be the case that they wish us harm, just that they don’t consider us to have inalienable rights. And why should they? There is nothing in matter that can endow creatures with rights. They may simply wish to use us for their own ends, as we use animals for our own ends (and often times cruelly, I might add).

They have robots right now that it is difficult to determine if its human or not,

They have wax figures right now (and have had for a LONG time) that are difficult to distinguish from real people. So what?

give it another 20-50 years…we can not even speculate about how AI technology will be at that time, Im sure if we saw it today, we would say ‘impossible’ or it would look like magic to us, just like if you were to show a modern cell phone to a person back in the 1960s or 70s, they would call that magic imo.

I don’t think I will be thinking any technology is “magic” no matter how advanced or long from now. I may not know how it works, but I very much doubt I would think it magic, no matter what Arthur C. Clark says.

But if you’re talking simply an emotional “wow!” effect- I think we already have “magical” technologies and have had for a while. I mean machines that fly, can send images to and from any part of the world pretty much instantaneously and reproduce sound to exacting degrees seems pretty “magical” to me- even though I do understand how they work (at least in layman’s terms).

No matter what, computer technology WILL surpass humans eventually, and when that happens, whatever safeguards we think will protect us, its likely they wont, the computer/robot will be more intelligent than we are and its intelligence will GROW much faster.

You’re assuming that what the human mind does is what a computer does or can do. That assumption has not been proven. As far as safeguards- I agree with you- even a non-conscious AI could destroy us and I think this is a very perilous and irrational path which we are treading.

I think that vz has inadvertently painted himself into a corner. He wants to hold ‘religion’ up against superstition (not surprisingly) but graciously doesn’t want to simply nominate his own, but…is left holding a candle for those that aren’t ‘deep and meaningful’.

You might disagree with our faith, but it is a reasonable one and certainly is not equivalent to superstition, which our faith condemns. For example, the most central claim of theistic religions is that God exists, for which there are MANY reasonable and rational arguments, both old and new. Even if that claim were wrong, it would not be superstition, but simply an incorrect conclusion.

Therefore, our theoretical conscious AI could certainly come to the same conclusion that God exists and maybe even to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is God, therefore becoming religious, with absolutely no superstition.