On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com>wrote:
> silky wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Brent Meeker >> <meeke...@dslextreme.com<mailto: >> meeke...@dslextreme.com>> wrote: >> >> silky wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Brent Meeker >> <meeke...@dslextreme.com <mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com>> wrote: >> >> silky wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou >> <stath...@gmail.com <mailto:stath...@gmail.com>> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> 2010/1/18 silky <michaelsli...@gmail.com >> <mailto:michaelsli...@gmail.com>>: >> >> >> >> It would be my (naive) assumption, that this >> is arguably trivial to >> do. We can design a program that has a desire >> to 'live', as desire to >> find mates, and otherwise entertain itself. In >> this way, with some >> other properties, we can easily model simply pets. >> >> >> Brent's reasons are valid, >> >> >> Where it falls down for me is that the programmer >> should ever feel >> guilt. I don't see how I could feel guilty for ending >> a program when I >> know exactly how it will operate (what paths it will >> take), even if I >> can't be completely sure of the specific decisions >> (due to some >> randomisation or whatever) >> >> It's not just randomisation, it's experience. If you >> create and AI at >> fairly high-level (cat, dog, rat, human) it will >> necessarily have the >> ability to learn and after interacting with it's >> enviroment for a while it >> will become a unique individual. That's why you would >> feel sad to "kill" it >> - all that experience and knowledge that you don't know >> how to replace. Of >> course it might learn to be "evil" or at least annoying, >> which would make >> you feel less guilty. >> >> >> Nevertheless, though, I know it's exact environment, >> >> >> Not if it interacts with the world. You must be thinking of a >> virtual cat AI in a virtual world - but even there the program, if >> at all realistic, is likely to be to complex for you to really >> comprehend. Of course *in principle* you could spend years going >> over a few terrabites of data and you could understand, "Oh >> that's why the AI cat did that on day 2118 at 10:22:35, it was >> because of the interaction of memories of day 1425 at 07:54:28 and >> ...(long string of stuff)." But you'd be in almost the same >> position as the neuroscientist who understands what a clump of >> neurons does but can't get a wholistic view of what the organism >> will do. >> >> Surely you've had the experience of trying to debug a large >> program you wrote some years ago that now seems to fail on some >> input you never tried before. Now think how much harder that >> would be if it were an AI that had been learning and modifying >> itself for all those years. >> >> >> I don't disagree with you that it would be significantly complicated, I >> suppose my argument is only that, unlike with a real cat, I - the programmer >> - know all there is to know about this computer cat. >> > > But you *don't* know all there is to know about it. You don't know what it > has learned - and there's no practical way to find out. Here we disagree. I don't see (not that I have experience in AI-programming specifically, mind you) how I can write a program and not have the results be deterministic. I wrote it; I know, in general, the type of things it will learn. I know, for example, that it won't learn how to drive a car. There are no cars in the environment, and it doesn't have the capabilities to invent a car, let alone the capabilities to drive it. If you're suggesting that it will materialise these capabilities out of the general model that I've implemented for it, then clearly I can see this path as a possible one. Is there a fundamental misunderstanding on my part; that in most sufficiently-advanced AI systems, not even the programmer has an *idea* of what the entity may learn? [...] > > Suppose we could add and emotion that put a positive value on >> running backwards. Would that add to their overall pleasure in >> life - being able to enjoy something in addition to all the other >> things they would have naturally enjoyed? I'd say yes. In which >> case it would then be wrong to later remove that emotion and deny >> them the potential pleasure - assuming of course there are no >> contrary ethical considerations. >> >> >> So the only problem you see is if we ever add emotion, and then remove it. >> The problem doesn't lie in not adding it at all? Practically, the result is >> the same. >> > > No, because if we add it and then remove it after the emotion is > experienced there will be a memory of it. Unfortunately nature already > plays this trick on us. I can remember that I felt a strong emotion the > first time a kissed girl - but I can't experience it now. I don't mean we do it to the same entity, I mean to subsequent entites. (cats or real life babies). If, before the baby experiences anything, I remove an emotion it never used, what difference does it make to the baby? The main problem is that it's not the same as other babies, but that's trivially resolved by performing the same removal on all babies. Same applies to cat-instances; if during one compilation I give it emotion, and then I later decide to delete the lines of code that allow this, and run the program again, have I infringed on it's rights? Does the program even have any rights when it's not running? > If a baby is born without the "emotion" for feeling overworked, or >> adjusted so that it enjoys this overworked state, then we take advantage of >> that, are we wrong? If the AI we create is modelled on humans anyway, isn't >> it somewhat "cheating" to not re-implement everything, and instead only >> implement the parts that we selflishly consider useful? >> >> I suppose there is no real obligation to recreate an entire human >> consciousness (after all, if we did, we'd have no more control over it than >> we do other "real" humans), but it's interesting that we're able to pick and >> choose what to create, and yet, not able to remove from real children what >> we determine is inappropriate to make *them* more "effective" workers. >> > > We do try to remove emotions that we consider damaging, even though they > may diminish the life of the subject. After all serial killers probably get > a lot of pleasure from killing people. This is the plot of the play > "Equus"; ever seen it? No, I haven't. But we don't do this type of thing via genetic modification (which is what I'm suggesting; or at least whatever type of modification it would be called if we did it before the baby experience anything; perhaps even if it was changes to the egg/sperm before they meet). > The argument against that sort of thing would be we are depriving the >> child of a different life; but would it ever know? What would it care? >> > > And who is competent to say which life is better? We wouldn't hesitate > deprive a serial killer of his pleasure in killing because of societal > concerns out weight his pleasure. But what about extreme feelings of > physical aggressiveness?...we just draft the guy into the NFL as a > linebacker. > So if society decides it's more appropriate to put "hard-working" in all children, I suppose it becomes acceptable. This seems wrong, somehow, but you're right, if not society (i.e. government) then who. > Brent > > And regardless, doesn't the program we've written deserve the same rights? >> Why not? >> >> >> >> Brent >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to >> everything-list@googlegroups.com >> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. >> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >> >> <mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >> >. >> >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> >> >> >> -- >> silky >> http://www.mirios.com.au/ >> http://island.mirios.com.au/t/rigby+random+20 >> >> RAMIE bloated double-knit hearten fleetness. >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > > > -- silky http://www.mirios.com.au/ http://island.mirios.com.au/t/rigby+random+20 cover! Laden nonfat: RELATIONAL = disinterestedness groats piazza; scion.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
