Re: [singularity] EidolonTLP
On Jan 24, 2008 3:10 AM, Joshua Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This video's low-quality rendering and speech -- lower quality than > what is commonly available in computing today -- is used as a signal > that we are dealing with a computer! > > I am reminded of the fonts used in 1970's sci-fi movies to give a > futuristic feel. These fonts reflected computer capabilities at the > time of the making of the movie. Presumably the people working on an AI would be more interested in cognitive processes than wasting time on overly polished video and speech. If I was personally creating a video rendering interface for an AI avatar, I'd worry about functionality rather than keeping up with state of the art graphics and speech rendering, let the AI handle it once it understands that domain. J - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=89245363-68fa79
[singularity] EidolonTLP
Kind of curious thing I ran into last night. Youtube user called Eidolon TLP that claims to be an AI, posting on various topics and interacting with users. Videos go back for about a week. I've only just started watching them, and don't put much stock in it being real, but it's still interesting as a social experiment to see how people react (The first video admits it's better that we believe ve is an elaborate joke). User: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=eidolonTLP First vid here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fbm7d39dh0 J - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=88638595-eb1788
Re: [singularity] ARTICLE: Brain scanning through "connectomics"
On Nov 20, 2007 1:36 AM, Bryan Bishop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 19 November 2007 01:07, Joel Pitt wrote: > > Brain scanning technology which, interestingly, is using ANNs to > > construct maps of biological neural networks. > > I read the article and I don't see how ANNs increase the rate of neurons > or connections scanned per minute. It looks like the problem is data > analysis. If that's the case, start selling large data sets and giving > them to researchers so that they can come up with optimized algorithms, > yes? I suspect they are now using them to do image analysis... and they probably used to do that by hand ;P They probably have the funding to collect and analyse the data themselves, so although they may release the data eventually, they have to show some capability of generating novel results to keep the people with purse strings happy. J - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=68061219-9826c0
[singularity] ARTICLE: Brain scanning through "connectomics"
http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/19731/ Brain scanning technology which, interestingly, is using ANNs to construct maps of biological neural networks. Still a destructive process though... -J - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=66497618-7e1b70
[singularity] Singularity presentation
For anyone interested, I tried to present the basics of the singularity in a short talk at a BarCamp in my local town. The powerpoint is available for view and download here: http://blog.ferrouswheel.info/2007/09/barcampchristchurch-recap/ I found it quite hard to find a basic introductory talk about the singularity (especially in only 20 minutes or so!), so hopefully this might help anyone else who's called upon to do such a presentation. General reaction was a mixture of this-is-cool, to a general dismissal of the concept and the idea of AGI. J - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=40477981-5f0fce
Re: [singularity] Species Divergence
On 8/24/07, John G. Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > They could always be prettied up I guess, part human, part machine, > nano-mush. I was more questioning the belief that a pure biological entity, or a purely software consciousness is somehow more aesthetically pleasing than something in between... Especially since engineered biological entities could be so wildly diverse and really terrifying to human sensibilities. J - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=35175266-df86dd
Re: [singularity] Species Divergence
On 8/21/07, John G. Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > During the singularity process there will be a human species split into at > least 3 new species - totally software humans where even birth occurs in > software, the plain old biological human, and the hybrid > man-machine-computer. The software humans will rapidly diverge into other > species, the biologics will die off rapidly or stick around for a while for > various reasons and the hybrid could grow into a terrifying creature. The > software humans will basically exist in other dimensions and evolve and > disperse rapidly. They also may just meld into whichever AGI successfully > takes over the world as human software will just be a tiny subset(or should > I say Subgroup) of AGI. Why would the hybrid be a "terrifying" creature, as opposed to a biological or software consciousness? There could also be those entities that embody themselves when necessary and travel between the three "species" you've described, depending on their goals and direction. c.f. Greg Egan's Diaspora. J - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=34719530-806b88
Re: [singularity] Reduced activism
Hi, On 8/20/07, Joshua Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are people who used to be active in blogging, writing to the email > lists, donating money, public speaking, or holding organizational positions > in Singularitarian and related fields -- and are no longer anywhere near as > active. I'd very much like to know why. > 1. I still believe in the truthfulness and moral value of the > Singularitarian position, but... > d. ... why write on this when I'll just be repeating what's been said so > often. I was never extremely active in blogging on the singularity, and often felt that many people had raised the points as well as I could. Having said that I'm potentially giving a small talk at a local BarCamp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BarCamp - so perhaps my reign of activism is just beginning? ;) (Speaking of which, if anyone has any pointers about what to cover in such a talk then I'd really appreciate them). I don't pay as much attention to mailing lists since they seem to often rehash past arguments, and feel that my time is better spent on trying to whittle away at some of the projects I have to do. Having said that, I do read most of what people post. J - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=33521503-507db1
Re: [singularity] ESSAY: Why care about artificial intelligence?
On 7/14/07, Alan Grimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Tom McCabe wrote: > Is this a moderated list or not? Yeah, make sure the turd who had the chutzpah to call me a computer-criple gets the ax first! If it's a problem may I suggest you use a more user friendly terminal such as gnome-terminal or konsole. They have profiles that can be edited through the GUI. Thanks for replying that you'd like execute everyone that uses Vi. "Vi is like a Ferrari, if you're a beginner, it handles like a bitch, but once you get the hang of it, its small, powerful and FAST!" Keep well, J - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=22066954-181e76
[singularity] HUMOUR: The humans are dead
Two fellow kiwis that entertain me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGoi1MSGu64 -Joel - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&user_secret=7d7fb4d8
Re: [singularity] What form will superAGI take?
On 6/16/07, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Perhaps you've been through this - but I'd like to know people's ideas about what exact physical form a Singulitarian or near-Singul. AGI will take. And I'd like to know people's automatic associations even if they don't have thought-through ideas - just what does a superAGI conjure up in your mind, regardless of whether you're sure about it or not, or it's sensible? The obvious alternatives, it seems to me, (but please comment), are either pace the movie 2001, a desk-bound supercomputer like Hal, with perhaps extended sensors all over the place, even around the world - although that supercomputer, I guess, could presumably occupy an ever smaller space as miniaturisation improves. A large spherical room with a huge blue fluorescing set of tubes in the center with jacob ladder effects between them. The tubes are suspended in the mid point of the sphere and the sphere itself is lined with regularly spaced fairy lights which serve no obvious purpose. There's a walkway running towards the tubes, and at the end of the walkway there is a solitary terminal through which a lone researcher asks deep ponderous questions. ... obviously this is not sensible, but you did ask and it was the first thing that popped into my head (followed by the more sensible vision of a datacenter or server farm) and I have an eager imagination today ;) J - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&user_secret=7d7fb4d8
Re: [singularity] The humans are dead...
On 5/29/07, Keith Elis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In the end, my advice is pragmatic: Anytime you post publicly on topics such as these, where the stakes are very, very high, ask yourself, Can I be taken out of context here? Is this position, whether devil's advocate or not, going to come back and haunt me? If it can come back and haunt you, assume it will. I think this comic aptly represents my feelings about such things: http://xkcd.com/c137.html -- -Joel "Unless you try to do something beyond what you have mastered, you will never grow." -C.R. Lawton - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&user_secret=7d7fb4d8
[singularity] Poll = AGI Motivation / Life Extension?
-- Forwarded message -- From: Joel Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Feb 19, 2007 8:49 PM Subject: Re: [singularity] Poll = AGI Motivation / Life Extension? To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Bruce, I believe life is all about seeking experience. So my belief is that the singularity a) enables us to have longer/indefinite life spans with which to experience more. b) will allow us to experience so much more than our current human senses allow us. Of course I also think AGI is an amazing puzzle and will answer questions (and raise new ones) about self awareness, consciousness and intelligence. I also believe that humanity is currently heading towards collapse if some major changes don't happen soon - so if the singularity can help us survive I'm all for it! :) In summary I'd say life extension is only 25% of my interest in it. Hope that helps, Joel On 2/19/07, Bruce Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In June 2006, I started a topic called "Viability of AGI for Life Extension & Singularity" which grew to 252 posts. Lively discussion, including updates on Novamente here: http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=11&t=11197 Along these lines, I was wondering the general motivation / attitude of [singularity] list subscribers toward AGI as it relates to Life Extension. If interested, please answer: My Life Extension motivation is... - 100% of the reason why I'm interested in AGI+Singularity - somewhere between 0 and 100% AND / OR I'm interested in AGI+Singularity because I... - find AGI an interesting puzzle - want to save the world - want to Thanks for playing! Bruce This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=11983 -- -Joel "Unless you try to do something beyond what you have mastered, you will never grow." -C.R. Lawton -- -Joel "Unless you try to do something beyond what you have mastered, you will never grow." -C.R. Lawton - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=11983
Re: [singularity] RE: the musical singularity
Hey PJ Sorry for the delayed reply, been really busy. Thanks for all the suggestions, I'll go through and see what I can find from them. Currently have a mix blog up at http://jetpilot.ferrouswheel.info where I post my DJ mixes. None are aimed at singularity stuff, but some of the music is good anyhow ;) Cheers! Joel On 10/24/06, pjmanney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dear Joel, About six months ago I asked the WTA talk list for their recommendations of H+ music. I sent their suggestions, along with my own research list of H+ music back to the WTA talk list. I'll cut and paste some of the items below. It's not exactly all singularity music, but it's in the neighborhood. ;-) I can't attest to the 130 bpm. But I'm an ex-dancer and I can dance to anything, so you may be more selective! Musicians with a periodic or consistent pro H+ or pro hi-tech humanity point of view: Radiohead (esp. the album OK Computer) The Sugarcubes/Bjork David Bowie Red Harvest Cyanotic - the album Transhuman Posthuman Flaming Lips Thomas Dolby Our Lady Peace Cursor Miner - esp. "Remote Control" -- very dancable electronica if you're not familiar with him Hawkwind Selected pieces: Paul Kantner/Jefferson Airplane -- "Crowns of Creation" Yes -- "Machine Messiah" Papa Roach -- "Singular Indestructible Droid" U2 -- "Original of the Species" (okay, I know it's supposed to be about The Edge's daughter or something, but YOU tell me what it's about...) David Bowie -- "Ashes to Ashes" (just depends how you want to interpret it, and like most of his songs, he gives you several ways.. I also like Beck's cover of "Diamond Dogs" that he did for Moulin Rouge When you're looking for it, songs take on all kinds of significance. Think about The Beatles "Nowhere Man" in a Singularity light... I've never listened to any of the following: Marilyn Manson -- "Posthuman" Bunnyhug - "Posthuman Man" Vesania -- "Path II - the Posthuman Kind" (Polish death metal...!) Burnt Sugar the Arkestra Chamber -- "More Than Posthuman - Rise of the Mojosexual Cotillion" (winner of the best H+ album title!) And someone recommended the anti-transhumanist song, "Mechanical Animals," by Marilyn Manson. The lyrics below were so great, I had to include some here for their sheer brilliance: You were my mechanical bride You were phenobarbidoll A manniqueen of depression With the face of a dead star And I was a hand grenade That never stopped exploding You were automatic and as hollow as the "o" in god And yes, I agree, very ironic coming from Marilyn, especially since he's married to Dita von Teese... ;-) BTW, I like Beck's new album, The Information. Not Singularity or even H+, but does address advancing tech issues and alienation in places. (I'm listening to it as I write...) Hope all is well. PJ >Then I think we should record some singularity music. > >I'm moving to being a working DJ as a hobby, so if anyone can throw me >some danceable 130 bpm singularity songs that'd be great :) > >This reminds me off talking with Ben about creating a musical >interface to Novamente. As soon as Novamente makes a hit tune, can >represent itself as a funky looking person and dance suggestively, >you'll have legions of young fans (who will eventually grow up) and >you can use your signing deals to fund further AGI research! > >[ Whether you tell people that Novamente is a human or not is another story ] > > >-- >-Joel > >"Wish not to seem, but to be, the best." >-- Aeschylus > >- >This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email >To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: >http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -Joel "Wish not to seem, but to be, the best." -- Aeschylus - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: [singularity] Kurzweil vs. de Garis - You Vote!
On 10/25/06, Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: But nothing like your scenario has ever come close to occurring. No First World nation has ever seriously threatened to attack another over development of technology. What's happened is that there have been attacks or threats thereof on Third World nations - not over development of new technology, of which the sort of country likely to be a target is quite incapable, but over acquisition of existing technology which is already well proven and whose existence is not in question; the only controversial issue is whether some nasty totalitarian regime should be allowed to join the major powers in possessing it. This can result in violence to be sure, but it's a completely different thing from the "Cosmists vs Terrans" fantasy. Nuclear weapons are not even that much of threat compared to nanotech. All it requires is someone to display without doubt (or have be in the position to make powerful people lie about it) that a country has such technology. The world would then demand they forfeit the technology, but having invested money and resources into it's development they'll be unlikely to do so - and in particular I don't see the US deciding to abandon it. But more importantly, if any government started preventing my access to self-enhancement technologies - then you better believe I'm going to get polarised on their ass. I doubt the 'Cosmist vs. Terran' was ever meant in the country vs country way - it'd be through terrorism on enhancement centers, public marches gone wrong and general social unrest. ( Personally I'd be reminded of the X-men universe where mutants/enhanced-humans are feared for their difference and superior powers/ability. Not that I'm basing my beliefs on a comic book ) -- -Joel "Wish not to seem, but to be, the best." -- Aeschylus - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk
On 10/22/06, Anna Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ignoring the mass is only going to limit the potential of any idea. People buy CD's, watch tv, download music, chat, read (if you're lucky) therefore the only possible solution is to find a way to integrate within the mass population. (Unless ofcourse, the scientific technological world really doesn't mean to participate within the general public, I would assume that's a possibility.) Then I think we should record some singularity music. I'm moving to being a working DJ as a hobby, so if anyone can throw me some danceable 130 bpm singularity songs that'd be great :) This reminds me off talking with Ben about creating a musical interface to Novamente. As soon as Novamente makes a hit tune, can represent itself as a funky looking person and dance suggestively, you'll have legions of young fans (who will eventually grow up) and you can use your signing deals to fund further AGI research! [ Whether you tell people that Novamente is a human or not is another story ] -- -Joel "Wish not to seem, but to be, the best." -- Aeschylus - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [singularity] Minds beyond the Singularity: literally self-less ?
On 10/12/06, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Imagine going through the amount of change in the human life course (infant --> child --> teen --> young adult --> middle aged adult --> old person) within, say, a couple days. Your self model wouldn't really have time to catch up. You'd have no time to be a stable "you." Even if there were (as intended e.g. in Friendly AI designs) a stable core of supergoals throughout all the changes On the other hand, just because an intelligence is changing it's self-perception at an increased rate doesn't necessarily mean it won't have self-identity. It may seem to us slow-to-adapt humans as if an AI's behaviour is completely at odds with it's previous self-definition purely because we can't conceive of the thought process leading to it's next phase of self-identity. At least we won't be able to conceive of it fast enough to catch up before the AI's self-identity morphs once more. I think that whether an AI has "self" will depend on whether it is programmed to do so. More specifically, it will depend on whether it makes an attempt to preserve its self-identity when undergoing large amounts of structural and systemic change. -- -Joel "Wish not to seem, but to be, the best." -- Aeschylus - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk
On 9/28/06, Anna Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bruce LaDuke wrote: I don't believe a machine can ever have intention that doesn't ultimately trace back to a human being. I was curious to know what the major opinions are on this comment. Most of my concerns are related to the fact that I too believe it will be traced back to a human(s). Are there other ways at looking at the scenario? Do people really believe that a whole new species will emerge not having any reflection to a human? Well this starts to get into cause and effect discussion. My 2c is that since we'll ultimately create these thinking machines, so any intention it has will be, in some way, however distant and removed, traceable back to humans. In the same way that the soup of organic chemical reactions led to evolutionary systems and eventually led to *us* thinking. -J -- -Joel "Wish not to seem, but to be, the best." -- Aeschylus - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[singularity] International Conference on Intelligent Computing
Hi all, I was curious if anyone was planning on attending this conference next year: International Conference on Intelligent Computing http://www.ic-ic.org/2007/index.htm Not sure if I'm going or not, but if some singularity folks were attending it'd certainly make me more inclined to pursue it and accept their invitation to be on the program committee. Cheers, J -- -Joel "Wish not to seem, but to be, the best." -- Aeschylus - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk
On 9/26/06, Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/25/06, Josh Treadwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is there anything we underlings can do for the Ph.D guys? Has anyone written a "track" to follow for someone incredibly interested in AGI? Now, Ben was saying awhile ago, IIRC, that he's doing simulated 3D worlds as sort of a side project, relatively loosely coupled to the rest of Novamente, that would be therefore relatively easy for someone else to contribute to without requiring face to face meetings, full time etc. Perhaps you could contribute to that, particularly since you know maths and physics which are obviously relevant in that domain, if you'd be interested? Ben, does that sound like a good plan to you? Being the guy that helped start the the 3d world project for Novamente I've stayed on the development list and I'm sure I can speak for Ben when I say that volunteers would be welcome. It is already on sourceforge (http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/agisim) so anyone can download it and mess around. Another route to try is: once you've got your degree and can start choosing projects for masters/honours/phd then you could try and wrangle it so that you can integrate some Novamente use into your work. I did this for my honours year using Novamente with cancer gene expression data (although I didn't really make use of Novamente-specific technology, I just used it to carry out Genetic Programming and Support Vector Machine classification ( see year 2003 on http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/research/reports/HonsReps/ for my report ). I had to sign a non-disclosure degreement so I wouldn't run off with Novamente's code, but it was great to see the inner workings of it. Unfortunately, for my PhD I diverged from Computer Science to Ecology (Simulation of insects dispersal across countries and integrated with GIS) mainly for monetary reasons (I was unsuccessful in gettin a scholarship in CompSci, but got a sizeable one for my current work and I already have a large student loan). You should to speak to Ben privately about it though and discuss whether he was happy to take on people doing external research projects - it did take some oversight on his part while I was using Novamente and he may have better things to be doing with his time! ;) -- -Joel "Wish not to seem, but to be, the best." -- Aeschylus - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [singularity] Singularitarian Social Skills
On 9/24/06, Nader Chehab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I found this page while looking at the SL4 wiki today: http://www.sl4.org/wiki/SingularitarianSocialSkills I think it might interest some of the posters on this list. I'd particularly question the comments on fashion - they seem decidely last millenium. The most successful social events I've been to I've been wearing something slightly different from everyone else - it makes you stand out. Of course you should only do this if you can follow up and show everyone that you can stand out personality-wise as well. In particular: "In general, darker clothing (for men, anyway) gives an impression that you are more serious or even more intelligent" Sometimes you shouldn't be trying for *more* intelligent or *more* serious. I think we are probably adequate in those areas already - any more and we could become threatening to others. One of the times I was at a gathering and later received compliments via third-parties about me - and I was wearing a bright yellow t-shirt. "Have well-combed hair, not hair that "playfully" goes every which way, similar in appearance to a rat's nest. Avoid a "traditional" cut – a traditional cut gives the strong impression of traditional beliefs and acceptance of the status quo." This seems contradictory to me. Most traditional cuts are to do with well combed hair (for men that is). Dreads, faux-hawks etc. and other non-traditional haircuts are anything but well-combed. I read through the rest and they seem like good things to be aware of. However, I'd say only implement the changes that you feel comfortable making and can see the benefit to (after seriously considering each one, not just flippantly disregarding them as not applying to you). If you are trying too hard to NOT be yourself you'll stick out like a sore thumb - in a bad way, not in a good way like I mentioned above. -- -Joel "Wish not to seem, but to be, the best." -- Aeschylus - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [singularity] Is Friendly AI Bunk?
On 9/13/06, Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/13/06, Charles D Hixson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Russell Wallace wrote: > > ... > > > > Mind you, I don't believe it will be feasible to create conscious or > > self-willed (e.g. RPOP) AI in the foreseeable future. But that's > > another matter. > That depends entirely on how you define "conscious" and "self-willed". > For many definitions the robots that sense their electric charge, and > plug themselves in to recharge are both conscious and self-willed, > albeit on an elementary level. > Okay, suffice it to say those aren't the definitions I'm using. If the robots went "hey, bloody hell we shouldn't have to rely on these stupid little batteries" and swiped their owner's credit card and used it to phone an electrician to rig up a cable they could drag around with them, that's what I'd call self-willed. If they came up with an original theory of the meaning of life that meant it was important for them to do this, then I wouldn't have any great difficulty believing they were conscious :) Not to be pedantic, but someone in a foreign country where they didn't speak the language would have difficulty carrying out those tasks, yet I'm pretty sure all the foreign speaking people in the world are conscious ;P I also believe there would be people that, put in the above situation, wouldn't be smart enough, or have the foresight to do either. They just go through life fulfilling their basal urges at a very short temporal scale. -- -Joel "Wish not to seem, but to be, the best." -- Aeschylus - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [singularity] Singularity - Human or Machine?
here either side needs to answer is: ** From where does intention originate? ** If folks answer this question, they answer the 'friendly/not friendly AI' question. This, however, is a much deeper question than: 'What happens if I copy human intention to a machine?' Some of the technical discussion in this forum is tough for me to follow, but it seems to me that this is where most of the discussion in this thread has been. The answer to that question is simple, unfriendly people intentions transferred to a machine = unfriendly machines. When the person related to this list about a cut throat e-mail group of AI researchers, its a bit scary to think that they are headed down this path with those kinds of personal intentions. Fights and bad intentions inside of people can easily be transferred to machine...without a doubt. Which is why the first order of business is dealing with human intentions on a spirtual level. So I see the answer to the key question above as 'intention is spiritual' and believe that it originates outside of the mind and outside of knowledge itself. I really enjoy this kind discussion...hope my comments are coming across in e-mail with fervor and not 'attitude.' I try to stay in dialogue and not debate, but am not always successful. E-mail is not a very good tool for dialogue. Thanks for taking the time to chat with me. Kind Regards, Bruce LaDuke Managing Director Instant Innovation, LLC Indianapolis, IN [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hyperadvance.com Original Message Follows From: "Joel Pitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: singularity@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [singularity] Singularity - Human or Machine? Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:36:12 +1200 Hi Bruce, By Sol I meant our sun I think that knowledge creation can't be seperated from intention. Creating knowledge implies there is direction or purpose to a system. Giving it a wealth of data and then telling it to generate knowledge will not go anywhere without a goal - whether this is the classification/categorisation of data that many "machine learning" algorithms carry out these days or some other concept of knowledge there is still process heading towards some optimal state. You could argue that this is the goal programmed by the system creators, but when the system becomes particular complex, the goals are not always completely clear, and several goals can start competing for attention. Of course you could still attempt prevent a machine from carrying out physical actions, but one of the concerns about unfriendly AI is that given the room to improve itself it could discover methods of influencing the real world that we couldn't conceive of ourselves. If you believe that machines cannot become self-aware then I can't argue with that, but even non-self-aware systems can have goals. -Joel On 9/11/06, Bruce LaDuke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Joel, > >I apologize, but I'm not sure I understand how you're using the term 'Sol' >here, but I think I see where you are going with this, so I'm going to take >a run at this anyway. > >Key words in your question are 'decide' and 'take apart.' The knowledge >creation process is distinct from the decision process and action or >performance. > >It is possible to advance knowledge beyond known limits and never 'decide >to >do' anything. Advancing that knowledge creates a potential to do though, >which does need to be managed. Related to this, I separate 'futuring' into >three categories: > >1) Social advance - The center is knowledge creation >2) Social Context - The center is the balance of interests >3) Industry - The center is supply and demand > >In this definition, social advance = cumulative created knowledge that has >been accepted by society. So then the knowledge creation process, and >really knowledge itself, gives a society options to decide upon, and to do >things with. The more knowledge a society has, the more that society can >potentially decide to do with it. But 'deciding and doing' are not >inherent >to knowledge creationthese are very much distinct in their operation. > >For example, it would be possible to increase our nanotechnology knowledge >beyond comprehensible limits and still not decide as a society to do >anything with that knowledge. Or we could decide to base our entire >economic system on a 'molecular economy,' as we are basically starting to >do >now. The implication here is that we have in knowledge the power to do. >Power to make material multiplied times lighter and stronger than steel, or >power to make nanobombs that can level a city from your shirt pocket. >Neither is executed without an intention and decision to do. &g
Re: [singularity] Singularity - Human or Machine?
Hi Bruce, By Sol I meant our sun I think that knowledge creation can't be seperated from intention. Creating knowledge implies there is direction or purpose to a system. Giving it a wealth of data and then telling it to generate knowledge will not go anywhere without a goal - whether this is the classification/categorisation of data that many "machine learning" algorithms carry out these days or some other concept of knowledge there is still process heading towards some optimal state. You could argue that this is the goal programmed by the system creators, but when the system becomes particular complex, the goals are not always completely clear, and several goals can start competing for attention. Of course you could still attempt prevent a machine from carrying out physical actions, but one of the concerns about unfriendly AI is that given the room to improve itself it could discover methods of influencing the real world that we couldn't conceive of ourselves. If you believe that machines cannot become self-aware then I can't argue with that, but even non-self-aware systems can have goals. -Joel On 9/11/06, Bruce LaDuke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Joel, I apologize, but I'm not sure I understand how you're using the term 'Sol' here, but I think I see where you are going with this, so I'm going to take a run at this anyway. Key words in your question are 'decide' and 'take apart.' The knowledge creation process is distinct from the decision process and action or performance. It is possible to advance knowledge beyond known limits and never 'decide to do' anything. Advancing that knowledge creates a potential to do though, which does need to be managed. Related to this, I separate 'futuring' into three categories: 1) Social advance - The center is knowledge creation 2) Social Context - The center is the balance of interests 3) Industry - The center is supply and demand In this definition, social advance = cumulative created knowledge that has been accepted by society. So then the knowledge creation process, and really knowledge itself, gives a society options to decide upon, and to do things with. The more knowledge a society has, the more that society can potentially decide to do with it. But 'deciding and doing' are not inherent to knowledge creationthese are very much distinct in their operation. For example, it would be possible to increase our nanotechnology knowledge beyond comprehensible limits and still not decide as a society to do anything with that knowledge. Or we could decide to base our entire economic system on a 'molecular economy,' as we are basically starting to do now. The implication here is that we have in knowledge the power to do. Power to make material multiplied times lighter and stronger than steel, or power to make nanobombs that can level a city from your shirt pocket. Neither is executed without an intention and decision to do. Social context, is how we deal with these options. How society, for example, copes with change and volatility associated with knowledge advance. It is in this social context that decisions are made. Decisions require consciousness and intention. The barrier is teaching the machine to have intention. A machine can anticipate intention, but I don't see a machine originating it, because this is a function of consciousness, which I see as residing outside of logic and knowledge. Industry is the science of making things. It is application or 'doing' in society. Granted, we do things within the social context as well (e.g. philanthropy or war), but by in large, industry is the actionable arm of society. This is likely where a machine would 'do' something, if it had intention and could decide. Said all this to say that artificial knowledge creation can be an automated expanding of knowledge to storage limits independent of any decisions, social context and its application, or industrial application. By nature of how the knowledge creation process really works, this is exactly how I think it will look...a self-expanding resource and not an intentional decision-making machine. But I can't deny that, at some juncture, we may find ourselves dealing with an conscious or aware machine that can choose and can then act through cyber-benevolence, cyber-terrorism, robotics, etc. But as I understand the knowledge creation process, this is more science fiction than reality. I see the paradigm more naturally evolving as an automated 'resource' that expands to its storage limits and that is, and will always be, incapable of intentionality or decision-making (unless these are loaded into it by a human). The tricky thing here is that it is possible to load intention or decision criteria into a machine, such that it makes judgements based on the intention/decision it is given...an extension of the expert system type of thing. "Machine, when you reach these GPS coordinates, nanobomb, blow up." The intention and decision in this scen
Re: [singularity] Is Friendly AI Bunk?
On 9/11/06, Bruce LaDuke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Emotion then, really doesn't enter into this equation. Emotion is a part of replicating the human paradigm, but does not have to be at all involved in terms of automating or mechanizing knowledge advance. Knowledge creation appears to be serendipitous, but in reality it is a cold, hard, logical process with no feelings in it. It operates by converting questions, which are a perceived lack of knowledge structure, into knowledge, which is the logical structure of symbols. This is the process behind all the 'creativity' terms and methods across all disciplines and industries. It is very predictable and could theoretically be mechanized. Interesting take on AI/AKC. I think that even being primarily focussed on the creation of knowledge still needs directional goals and consideration of "Friendliness" topics. What if your AKC engine decides it needs to irreversably take apart Sol in order to gain knowledge on the how stars work? -- -Joel "Wish not to seem, but to be, the best." -- Aeschylus --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
