Re: Response to Jeff Hawkins interview.

Mon, 25 May 2015 13:00:07 -0700

Goodness. I thought we agreed that an AGI would not think like humans. And besides, "love" doesn't feel like something i want to depend on as obvious in a machine. 

On 5/25/2015 3:50 PM, David Ray wrote:

If I can take this conversation into yet a different direction.


I think we've all been dancing around The question of what belies the 
generation of morality or how will an AI derive its sense of ethics? 
Of course initially there will be those parameters that are programmed 
in -  but eventually those will be gotten around.



There has been a lot of research into this actually - though it's not 
common knowledge it is however knowledge developed over the 
observation of millions of people.



The universe and all beings along the gradient of sentience observe 
(albeit perhaps unconsciously), a sense of what I will call integrity 
or "wholeness". We'd like to think that mankind steered itself through 
the ages toward notions of gentility and societal sophistication; but 
it didn't really. The idea that a group or different groups devised a 
grand plan to have it turn out this way is totally preposterous.



What is more likely is that there is a natural order to things and 
that is motion toward what works for the whole. I can't prove any of 
this but internally we all know when it's missing or when we are not 
in alignment with it. This ineffable sense is what love is - it's 
concern for the whole.



So I say that any truly intelligent being, by virtue of existing in a 
substrate of integrity will have this built in and a super intelligent 
being will understand this - and that is ultimately the best chance 
for any single instance to survive is for the whole to survive.



Yes I know immediately people want to cite all the aberrations and of 
course yes there are aberrations just as there are mutations but those 
aberrations our reactions to how a person is shown love during their 
development.



Like I said I can't prove any of this but eventually it will bear 
itself out and we will find it to be so in the future.



You can be skeptical if you want to but ask yourself some questions. 
Why is it that we all know when it's missing 
(fairness/justice/integrity)? Why is it that we develop open source 
software and free software? Why is it that despite our greed and 
insecurity society moves toward freedom and equality for everyone?



One more question. Why is it that the most advanced philosophical 
beliefs cite that where we are located as a phenomenological event, is 
not in separate bodies?



I know this kind of talk doesn't go over well in this crowd of 
concrete thinkers but I know that there is some science somewhere that 
backs this up.


Sent from my iPhone


On May 25, 2015, at 2:12 PM, vlab <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



Small point: Even if they did decide that our diverse intelligence is 
worth keeping around (having not already mapped it into silicon) why 
would they need all of us.  Surely 10% of the population would give 
them enough 'sample size' to get their diversity ration, heck maybe 
1/10 of 1% would be enough.   They may find that we are wasting away 
the planet (oh, not maybe, we are) and the planet would be more 
efficient and they could have more energy without most of us.  
(Unless we become 'copper tops' as in the Matrix movie).


On 5/25/2015 2:40 PM, Fergal Byrne wrote:

Matthew,


You touch upon the right point. Intelligence which can self-improve 
could only come about by having an appreciation for intelligence, so 
it's not going to be interested in destroying diverse sources of 
intelligence. We represent a crap kind of intelligence to such an AI 
in a certain sense, but one which it itself would rather communicate 
with than condemn its offspring to have to live like. If these 
things appear (which looks inevitable) and then they kill us, many 
of them will look back at us as a kind of "lost civilisation" which 
they'll struggle to reconstruct.



The nice thing is that they'll always be able to rebuild us from the 
human genome. It's just a file of numbers after all.



So, we have these huge threats to humanity. The AGI future is the 
only reversible one.


Regards
Fergal Byrne

--

Fergal Byrne, Brenter IT

Author, Real Machine Intelligence with Clortex and NuPIC
https://leanpub.com/realsmartmachines


Speaking on Clortex and HTM/CLA at euroClojure Krakow, June 2014: 
http://euroclojure.com/2014/

and at LambdaJam Chicago, July 2014: http://www.lambdajam.com

http://inbits.com - Better Living through Thoughtful Technology
http://ie.linkedin.com/in/fergbyrne/ - https://github.com/fergalbyrne

e:[email protected] t:+353 83 4214179
Join the quest for Machine Intelligence at http://numenta.org
Formerly of Adnet [email protected] http://www.adnet.ie



On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Matthew Lohbihler 
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:


    I think Jeff underplays a couple of points, the main one being
    the speed at which an AGI can learn. Yes, there is a natural
    limit to how much experimentation in the real world can be done
    in a given amount of time. But we humans are already going
    beyond this with, for example, protein folding simulations,
    which speeds up the discovery of new drugs and such by many
    orders of magnitude. Any sufficiently detailed simulation could
    massively narrow down the amount of real world verification
    necessary, such that new discoveries happen more and more
    quickly, possibly at some point faster than we know the AGI is
    doing them. An intelligence explosion is not a remote
    possibility. The major risk here is what Eliezer Yudkowsky
    pointed out: not that the AGI is evil or something, but that it
    is indifferent to humanity. No one yet goes out of their way to
    make any form of AI care about us (because we don't yet know
    how). What if an AI created self-replicating nanobots just to
    prove a hypothesis?

    I think Nick Bostrom's book is what got Stephen, Elon, and Bill
    all upset. I have to say it starts out merely interesting, but
    gets to a dark place pretty quickly. But he goes too far in the
    other direction, at the same time easily accepting that
    superinteligences have all manner of cognitive skill, but at the
    same time can't fathom the how humans might not like the idea of
    having our brain's pleasure centers constantly poked, turning us
    all into smiling idiots (as i mentioned here:
    http://blog.serotoninsoftware.com/so-smart-its-stupid).



    On 5/25/2015 2:01 PM, Fergal Byrne wrote:

    Just one last idea in this. One thing that crops up every now
    and again in the Culture novels is the response of the Culture
    to Swarms, which are self-replicating viral machines or
    organisms. Once these things start consuming everything else,
    the AIs (mainly Ships and Hubs) respond by treating the swarms
    as a threat to the diversity of their Culture. They first try
    to negotiate, then they'll eradicate. If they can contain them,
    they'll do that.

    They do this even though they can themselves withdraw from real
    spacetime. They don't have to worry about their own survival.
    They do this simply because life is more interesting when it
    includes all the rest of us.

    Regards

    Fergal Byrne

    --

    Fergal Byrne, Brenter IT

    Author, Real Machine Intelligence with Clortex and NuPIC
    https://leanpub.com/realsmartmachines

    Speaking on Clortex and HTM/CLA at euroClojure Krakow, June
    2014: http://euroclojure.com/2014/
    and at LambdaJam Chicago, July 2014: http://www.lambdajam.com

    http://inbits.com - Better Living through Thoughtful Technology
    http://ie.linkedin.com/in/fergbyrne/ -
    https://github.com/fergalbyrne

    e:[email protected] t:+353 83 4214179
    Join the quest for Machine Intelligence at http://numenta.org
    Formerly of Adnet [email protected] http://www.adnet.ie


    On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 5:04 PM, cogmission (David Ray)
    <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

        This was someone's response to Jeff's interview (see here:
        https://www.facebook.com/fareedzakaria/posts/10152703985901330)


        Please read and comment if you feel the need...

        Cheers,
        David


        -- 
        /With kind regards,/

        David Ray
        Java Solutions Architect
        *Cortical.io <http://cortical.io/>*
        Sponsor of: HTM.java <https://github.com/numenta/htm.java>
        [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
        http://cortical.io <http://cortical.io/>
































					Reply via email to