If anyone has 46 minutes to spare, the university of Reyjjavik presents the following: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRPpFqufyOo
2015-05-25 21:59 GMT+02:00 Matthew Lohbihler <[email protected]>: > 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]> 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]> 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]> 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] >>> http://cortical.io >>> >> >> >> > > >
