And, no one mentions the HAL 9000???
Sent with Proton Mail secure email. ------- Original Message ------- On Monday, April 10th, 2023 at 10:12 AM, Bob Bridges <robhbrid...@gmail.com> wrote: > Getting into philosophy, but why not? > > Shmuel> Wouldn't that depend on the programming and training? > > > Me> Sure. Has anyone programmed self-preservation into any of the current > > AIs? I suspect no one's thought of such a thing yet. (And maybe anyone who > has thought of it has thought better of it.) > > The assumption that AIs want to preserve themselves is probably inseparable > from the assumption that AIs are self-aware*, and I suppose it's that > assumption that I'm questioning. I seriously doubt we ~can~ create > self-awareness, but that's debatable because we don't really know how to > define what self-awareness is. Assuming for the sake of argument that we > can, how would we determine whether an AI has it? We call that the Turing > test, but as far as I know we don't have one. > > (Stop me if I've told this one already: Decades ago I attended a software > conference in Anaheim. My best friend from high school lives in that area, > and when he heard that the guest speaker at the wrap-up banquet was to be > Gene Rodenberry, he shelled out $50 to attend the banquet himself. Gene > Rodenberry didn't show, pleading exhaustion, but the man who came in his > place was an entertaining speaker and I remember thoroughly enjoying his > talk. > > (In that decade it was fashionable to talk knowledgeably about the Turing > test. Partway through his presentation he mentioned it, and added "...and > by the way no one should be allowed to talk about the Turing test if they > can't pass it themselves". Terry and I burst into loud laughter - and > quickly stifled ourselves as we realized the rest of the room was silent. > The speaker paused, and then said "Well, I guess now we know who knows what > the Turing test is." Of course we had to laugh again, but more respectably > this time.) > > * I do not mean that the two ~propositions~ are inseparable. I'm just > thinking that anyone who ~assumes~ that AIs feel the need to preserve > themselves are assuming that they're self-aware. > > Schmuel> Some people lack an impulse to preserve themselves. Consider > > reckless behavior and suicide attempts. > > Me> I consider it, but neither one contradicts the assertion. Even those > > folks have a strong impulse to live. > > --- > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > /* A man who has lived in many places is not likely to be deceived by the > local errors of his native village; the scholar has lived in many times and > is therefore in some degree immune from the great cataract of nonsense that > pours from the press and the microphone of his own age. -C S Lewis, "The > Weight of Glory" */ > > ________________________________________ > From: Bob Bridges [robhbrid...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, April 9, 2023 7:19 PM > > Yeah, I realize I didn't define anything. But in this case I'm really just > saying that we have no idea whether an AI can have an impulse to preserve > itself. We observe that impulse in every form of life, but it's well to > keep in mind that an AI isn't of that sort. It may have that impulse, but > so far that's just an assumption, no? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
