Re: Response to Jeff Hawkins interview.

Mon, 25 May 2015 13:56:32 -0700

Forgive me David, but these are very loose definitions, and i've lost track of how they relate back to what an AGI will think about humanity. But to use your terms - hopefully accurately - what if the AGI satisfies its sentient need for "others" by creating other AGIs, ones that it can love and appreciate? I doubt humans would ever be up such a task, unless 1) as pets, or 2) with cybernetic improvements. 

On 5/25/2015 4:37 PM, David Ray wrote:
Observation is the phenomenon of distinction, in the domain of language. The universe consists of two things, content and context. Content depends on its boundaries in order to exist. It depends on what it is not for it's being. Context is the space for things to be, though it is not quite space because space is yet another thing. It has no boundaries and it cannot be arrived at by assembling all of its content. 


Ideas; love, hate, our sense of who we are, our histories what we know 
to be true all of those are content. Context is what allows for that 
stuff to be. And all of it lives in language without which there would 
be nothing. There maybe would be a "drift" but we wouldn't know about 
it and we wouldn't be able to observe it.


Sent from my iPhone


On May 25, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Matthew Lohbihler 
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



You lost me. You seem to be working with definitions of "observation" 
and "space for thinking" that i'm unaware of.


On 5/25/2015 4:14 PM, David Ray 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] <mailto:[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] 
<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