Also chew on this. This is one of my favorite pet thoughts. It is impossible for sentience to emerge in a vacuum - it always has to come in at least pairs. When I make that jump and cross over the bounds (such as when I was an infant) toward knowing that I exist it is in reaction to and in a dance with another sentient entity - and can only be that way.
Who I am - and in order for me to be - depends on the existence of another! One thing in the universe disappears. Sent from my iPhone > On May 25, 2015, at 3:14 PM, David Ray <[email protected]> wrote: > > Matthew L., > > It isn't a thought. It is there before observation or thoughts or thinking. > It actually is the space for thinking to occur - it is the context that > allows for thought. We bring it to the table - it is there before we are > (ontologically speaking). (It being this sense of integrity/wholeness) > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On May 25, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Matthew Lohbihler <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> 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 >>>>>>>> Sponsor of: HTM.java >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> http://cortical.io >>
