On 17 Sep 2016, at 23:32, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:
> it is not so clear to me that it has no intelligence.
It leads to better and better designs,
If Evolution has intelligence it sure doesn't have much, despite
the resources of the entire planet at its disposal Evolution was
incredibly slow and sloppy in getting its work done; but it was the
only way complex things could get made until it finally invented
brains after 3 billion years of screwing around.
> my point is that what makes this a "bad idea" is our
own evolutionary context. Why is it a bad idea exactly? It
becomes tautological. It is a bad idea because it hurts your
ability to pursue goals dictated by evolution.
The only goal dictated by Evolution is a vague command to figure
out a way to get your genes into the next generation, and just like
the vague laws that humans make that leaves plenty of room for
interpretation, unintended consequences, and loopholes.
> Outside of evolution, why would an entity not choose
the easy way out?
Any intelligence regardless of if was produced by Evolution or by
human engineers or even by God would have a constantly shifting goal
structure depending on environmental circumstances. Even your iPhone
has, in a sense, a goal to continue working, so personal survival
would certainly be a goal for any brain even if it isn't guaranteed
the permanent #1 position.
What about suicide?
Just like with people I expect that with a AI survival would
usually, although not always, take the #1 slot. But for some some
AIs just like with some people, the mindless pursuit pleasure could
be #1 , but I don't see why that would be more common in a AI than
it is in a person unless the electronic version is far more powerful
and addictive than the chemical we call crack. But could the
electronic version really be that much more powerful and additive? I
don't know, maybe it's possible. If it is then that explains the
Fermi Paradox.
Although we're using different language I think we may agree more
than we disagree,
A machine which has enough cognitive abilities to bet on its own local
digital mechanisticness (computationalism) has enough cognitive
abilities to understand she survives anyway in that case, for the
worst and/or the best, with some partial control on this.
With computationalism, we face the intrinsic unknown, but it makes
sense to say that all experiences are realized (in arithmetic). The 1p
tip is then to try to avoid the dark/nightmares and to pursue the
search of the light.
The goal is not much survival, as to live with some degree of
satisfaction, like to drink when we are thirsty (from the literal
sense to the metaphorical senses).
Bruno
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.