Philosophers, What's Wrong with This

[Linusthe2nd]

Seems to me they’ll always need someone to work the screwdriver.

And to know how to find the raw ores and chemicals to make the screw driver and get those materials to a factory!.

Pax
Linus2bd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

With all due respect machines can never take over the world for numerous reasons. Hawking is showing sign of dementia with his ever increasing delusional statements.

A couple of reasons why machines couldn’t ever “take over” are:

1. They can’t think on their own, they are told what to do.
2. If they break who will fix them?
3. If the power goes out and there is no backup then what?
4. Computers need power. When the power source runs out how will computers harness it? After all they can’t mine coal nor uranium.

Bottom line is that computers can only act on programming that they have in their software/hardware. What happens when a problem arises for which there is no code?

Excellent response.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[BrassAnkles]

Excellent response.

Pax
Linus2nd

Thanks brother.

 

[Hee_Zen]

It won’t surprise you if I say yesterday’s sci-fi is today’s reality.

With that pace of development in just fifty years, I’d have thought Hawking has a point. Eventually.

Well said, as usual. It is impossible to predict what the future will bring, as Alvin Toffler said in “Future Shock”.

There is a possible outcome of having super smart and obedient machines which can make humans “obsolete”. If these machines will supply the needs of humanity, then humans could become complacent and eventually die out of boredom. But there is another “problem”… much more likely. (Of course I do not consider this a problem ))

If is rather funny to see the ill-conceived superiority complex of some humans. To say that “biological” life must be superior to “machines” is just wishful thinking. The best definition of “life” is: “complex responses to complex stimuli” or “maintaining its homeostasis in a changing environment”, which says nothing about the building blocks of the entity which exhibits complex behavior. Actually the biological life is extremely fragile. We are on the right track of replacing dysfunctional body parts with artificial prostheses, and our life became much better for this. The trend toward cyborgization is clearly visible. And when the final frontier of having a biological brain supported by an artificial body will prove not to be so “final” any longer, and even the biological brain will be replaced, then humanity will be extinct at least biologically extinct, though intellectually still vibrant and living.

While the “machines” are not biologically “alive”, they can be intellectually “alive”. And that is what counts. For those who lament about replacing malfunctioning parts of the machines, they do not think deep enough. Just like we have specialized humans (doctors) who “fix” our biologically malfunctioning bodies, there can be specialized machines who perform the same task. Running out of power can easily be solved by switching to solar (name removed by moderator)ut.

I can suggest for everyone to read Stanislaw Lem’s great books. He deals with such problems in a playful manner (science fiction) and also seriously, in his book “Summa Technologiae”. To my best knowledge this last one has not been fully translated into English, which is a great shame.

 

[schaeffer]

So far nothing has truly been able to control the sex drive, and I doubt computers will be able to conquer it either.

We will keep reproducing, it’s the strongest urge, not only the sex, but the desire for children.

 

[inocente]

But the question was, " …why is Hawking wrong…? " I’m sure you don’t agree with him, but why is he wrong? No one doubts that computers and computer driven machines can be super efficient and can indeed challenge humans in many ways. But is it even theoretically possible that machines will displace human beings? I do not pretend to have the correct answer myself.

I don’t believe he is wrong. Some obviously find him threatening. One person on this thread goes so far as to delude himself that he’s a psychiatrist with special powers, by diagnosing Hawking as mentally ill. As if.

The field moves so fast that most people are probably far behind what it now being achieved, let alone what is on the horizon, so they might also comfort themselves that Hawking is OTT, whereas maybe he’s just more up to date.

If you look at how information technology has transformed the world in just 50 years, and then try to imagine 50, 500, or 5000 years into the future, I don’t see any logical reason to rule Hawking out of court. I’m not saying it has to happen, it might not, but I can’t see any logical reason why it shouldn’t.

 

[BrassAnkles]

Hawking has ALS which is a specific form of dementia and is not uncommon to cause the classic dementia as well.

Given Hawking’s increasingly statements that have basis in science but more more in fantasy, such as the belief in aliens, the unprovable string theory and now this - that robots could take over the world given all of the very obvious impossibilities that could never happen, none the least of which is AI, and it is only logical for someone who works in the science to question Hawking’s judgment.

livescience.com/39583-als-lou-gehrigs-disease.html

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Hawking has ALS which is a specific form of dementia and is not uncommon to cause the classic dementia as well.

Given Hawking’s increasingly statements that have basis in science but more more in fantasy, such as the belief in aliens, the unprovable string theory and now this - that robots could take over the world given all of the very obvious impossibilities that could never happen, none the least of which is AI, and it is only logical for someone who works in the science to question Hawking’s judgment.

livescience.com/39583-als-lou-gehrigs-disease.html

This is a very astute observation.

Hawking has been for so many years so dependent on his own computer driven technology for communication with others that it’s easy to see him imagining the same dependency on computers for everyone else. And how far removed from dependency is the eventual succumbing to the mastery of the computers.

Think federal master of the population as it increasingly makes the population dependent on its largesse. The people create a monster who then devours the people.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t believe he is wrong. Some obviously find him threatening. One person on this thread goes so far as to delude himself that he’s a psychiatrist with special powers, by diagnosing Hawking as mentally ill. As if.

The field moves so fast that most people are probably far behind what it now being achieved, let alone what is on the horizon, so they might also comfort themselves that Hawking is OTT, whereas maybe he’s just more up to date.

If you look at how information technology has transformed the world in just 50 years, and then try to imagine 50, 500, or 5000 years into the future, I don’t see any logical reason to rule Hawking out of court. I’m not saying it has to happen, it might not, but I can’t see any logical reason why it shouldn’t.

I agree that technology is wonderful and will continue to advance but there is no certainty that it will advance indefinitely, in fact there are many factors which may mitigate against that - wars, scarcity of rare earth metals and other factors.

Even so, the idea seems opposed to Divine Revelation. God created the world for man not machines. It is unlikely that God would create a world where it would be possible for machines to replace man in the way Hawking imagines.

I’m sure that it is also philosophically flawed but I don’t know just how I would approach it philosophically. Where are Thomas and Augustine when we need them?

Linus2nd

Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I agree that technology is wonderful and will continue to advance but there is no certainty that it will advance indefinitely, in fact there are many factors which may mitigate against that - wars, scarcity of rare earth metals and other factors.

Linus2nd

Machines can only do what they are programmed to do. If we do not program them to take over the human race, and build into them the impossibility of such an event, they will never be able to acquire a will of their own and take over their creator.

 

[BrassAnkles]

Machines can only do what they are programmed to do. If we do not program them to take over the human race, and build into them the impossibility of such an event, they will never be able to acquire a will of their own and take over their creator.

Even if we tried to program computers to take over the human race it could not happen for many reasons. First of all, computers can’t react to any scenario that it is not programmed to react to. In other words if a scenario happens that is not in it’s software the computer will not act and thus if the scenario threatens the existence of the computer the computer will become defunct.

This is very different from living beings, that will make decisions based on the information at hand. There are many simple beings, such as house flies, that are more intelligent than all the super computers in the world simply because they can learn and react to stimuli.

If anyone questions computers inherent dependence on humans to keep them running just look at any highly computerized industry or business and you will see leagues of humans keeping them running, from mechanics to software programmers etc. They are in fact very finicky machines that when left alone will fail on their own in a relatively short time. They are completely dependent on humans for their existence.

Finally, anyone in the sciences would know these facts and scientists who promote AI as possible are either taking advantage of people’s lack of experience in computer programming or are delusional. I personally believe Hawking’s is delusional given his ever increasing fantastic statements.

 

[inocente]

Hawking has ALS which is a specific form of dementia and is not uncommon to cause the classic dementia as well.

Given Hawking’s increasingly statements that have basis in science but more more in fantasy, such as the belief in aliens, the unprovable string theory and now this - that robots could take over the world given all of the very obvious impossibilities that could never happen, none the least of which is AI, and it is only logical for someone who works in the science to question Hawking’s judgment.

livescience.com/39583-als-lou-gehrigs-disease.html

If mental illness was diagnosed on the basis of such beliefs then everyone who believes in angels or saints or holy water would have to be classed as suffering from dementia. Congratulations, you just manged to argue that all Catholics are mentally ill. This is possibly not your finest hour.

That aside, the thread asks for philosophers, and philosophers would instantly class your claim as an ad hominem fallacy. You can’t invalidate an argument by insulting the character of the person who makes it. Not outside the playground anyway.

You also seem to be a long way behind current technology. I know it’s hard to stay current but all the things you think are impossible have already been done or are being developed.

 

[inocente]

I agree that technology is wonderful and will continue to advance but there is no certainty that it will advance indefinitely, in fact there are many factors which may mitigate against that - wars, scarcity of rare earth metals and other factors.

You seem to concede here that while physical factors may prevent it, there’s no reason in principle why it couldn’t logically happen.

Even so, the idea seems opposed to Divine Revelation. God created the world for man not machines. It is unlikely that God would create a world where it would be possible for machines to replace man in the way Hawking imagines.

That’s a particular theological view though, while you asked for philosophers.

We know there are billions of galaxies, each containing billions of stars, so our neck of the woods is infinitesimal. We believe on the basis of evidence that the universe has been around for 13.7 billion years and Homo sapiens for only 200 000 years, so the universe has spent all but the last 0.0015% of its time without us, and there’s no physical reason why it won’t be here long after we’ve gone extinct.

So philosophically, in terms of cold logic, I’d say your theology that the universe is designed for us, could be skating on thin ice.

I’m sure that it is also philosophically flawed but I don’t know just how I would approach it philosophically. Where are Thomas and Augustine when we need them?

I work in information technology, and if you look at its history in popular culture, there has always been an unease right from when mainframes first appeared. We can see that modern society would collapse instantly without computers and networks, and most industries would collapse without robots, even flying a plane relies on them now, as do many things in the military, medicine, spacecraft, etc.

I think the underlying issue behind the unease is whether this headlong rush into high technology is ultimately good or bad. It could trip us up long before machines could take over, but the dangers don’t often get debated, we just gratefully accept the latest gismos. So if Hawking helps fire up that debate then it would be no bad thing, imho.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Machines can only do what they are programmed to do.

It might be a good idea to learn more about computers. The time when computers simply followed a static built-in algorithm is long gone. The evolving programs today can surpass the original version created by the human programmer - just like the children who were originally “programmed” by their parents and their schools can easily surpass the level of those “programmers”. The “original” programming counts for nothing when evolution occurs.

John von Neumann first proposed the concept of “self-reproducing automata”, where he proved (mathematically, of course) that computers can reproduce themselves. So computers can evolve, reproduce and “emulate” human thinking. Beware, naysayers!

 

[BrassAnkles]

If mental illness was diagnosed on the basis of such beliefs then everyone who believes in angels or saints or holy water would have to be classed as suffering from dementia. Congratulations, you just manged to argue that all Catholics are mentally ill. This is possibly not your finest hour.

Not exactly, angles and saints and holy water exist while multiple universes and aliens don’t.

You also seem to be a long way behind current technology. I know it’s hard to stay current but all the things you think are impossible have already been done or are being developed.

No, I am a graduate engineer and have done computer programming.

Nonetheless, if you don’t believe me there is always Dr. Alan Winfield who is a robotics programmer, professor and AI researcher. He states:
There is a huge gulf between present day narrow-AI systems and the kind of artificial general intelligence I have outlined. Opinions vary, but I think it’s as wide a gulf as that between current space flight and practical faster than light spaceflight; wider perhaps, because we don’t yet have a theory of general intelligence, whereas there are several candidate FTL drives consistent with general relativity, like the Alcubierre drive.*

theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/10/artificial-intelligence-will-not-become-a-frankensteins-monster-ian-winfield

 

[BrassAnkles]

It might be a good idea to learn more about computers. The time when computers simply followed a static built-in algorithm is long gone. The evolving programs today can surpass the original version created by the human programmer - just like the children who were originally “programmed” by their parents and their schools can easily surpass the level of those “programmers”. The “original” programming counts for nothing when evolution occurs.

John von Neumann first proposed the concept of “self-reproducing automata”, where he proved (mathematically, of course) that computers can reproduce themselves. So computers can evolve, reproduce and “emulate” human thinking. Beware, naysayers!

It might be a good idea to distinguish between science fiction fantasy, such as the “self-reproducing automata” theory created in the 1940 's but never proven of course, and real science.

 

[Hee_Zen]

It might be a good idea to distinguish between science fiction fantasy, such as the “self-reproducing automata” theory created in the 1940 's but never proven of course, and real science.

John von Neuman and E. F. Codd (the inventor of relational databases - maybe you heard of those) are far from being “science fiction” writers. If you wish to learn about self-reproducing (cellular) automata, the literature is out there. Due to the limitations of the current architecture they have not been built yet, but that is irrelevant. The proof is mathematical and as such not subject to arguments. Better learn the subject, buddy, before you open your mouth about things you know nothing. Here is just one reference: plato.stanford.edu/entries/cellular-automata/, though I have to warn you, it is heavy stuff.

 

[BrassAnkles]

John von Neuman and E. F. Codd (the inventor of relational databases - maybe you heard of those) are far from being “science fiction” writers. If you wish to learn about self-reproducing (cellular) automata, the literature is out there. Due to the limitations of the current architecture they have not been built yet, but that is irrelevant. The proof is mathematical and as such not subject to arguments. Better learn the subject, buddy, before you open your mouth about things you know nothing. Here is just one reference: plato.stanford.edu/entries/cellular-automata/, though I have to warn you, it is heavy stuff.

With all due respect string theory has mathematical proofs as well. However, having mathematical proofs and duplicating that in reality are completely different topics altogether. Therefore stating that there is a mathematical proof to support the idea that we are closer to a universal constructor machine is false logic. In fact there has never been completed even one completely self sufficient “Self-replicating machine” for the reasons I have posted earlier.

 

[inocente]

It might be a good idea to distinguish between science fiction fantasy, such as the “self-reproducing automata” theory created in the 1940 's but never proven of course, and real science.

When I said you might be a bit out-of-date, who knew.

Not sure why you think a self-replicating machine is necessary rather than machines which make other machines but here’s proof in the form of the first self-replicating cellular automaton in Conway’s Game of Life:

youtube.com/watch?v=A8B5MbHPlH0
newscientist.com/article/mg20627653.800-first-replicating-creature-spawned-in-life-simulator.html?full=true#.VIMdM8nwqi8

Here’s some cute self-sculpting sand:

newsoffice.mit.edu/2012/smart-robotic-sand-0402

Machine learning and evolutionary computing:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_learning
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation

You can call it science or engineering, either way it works.

 

[BrassAnkles]

When I said you might be a bit out-of-date, who knew.

Not sure why you think a self-replicating machine is necessary rather than machines which make other machines but here’s proof in the form of the first self-replicating cellular automaton in Conway’s Game of Life:

youtube.com/watch?v=A8B5MbHPlH0
newscientist.com/article/mg20627653.800-first-replicating-creature-spawned-in-life-simulator.html?full=true#.VIMdM8nwqi8

Are here’s some cute self-sculpting sand:

newsoffice.mit.edu/2012/smart-robotic-sand-0402

Machine learning and evolutionary computing:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_learning
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation

You can call it science or engineering, either way it works.

These still aren’t self-replicating machines.