Fergal, Ireland just became the first country to have a referendum where the people > decided that marriage is something any two people can do
Congratulations! Imagine that. A place where two people can do what the hell they want to do? Unbelievable. We live in such a "generous" world, where this can occur. :-P On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Matthew Lohbihler <[email protected] > wrote: > Alexander, > > Thanks for sending this. I really dug what Michio Kaku was talking about. > Bill Joy was interesting too. The rest was also good, but i've heard all > that before. :) > > > > On 5/25/2015 4:06 PM, Alexander Kettinen wrote: > > 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 <%2B353%2083%204214179> >> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- *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
