Re: AI Dooms Us

On 05 Sep 2014, at 22:41, meekerdb wrote: On 9/5/2014 12:18 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Sep 2014, at 19:40, meekerdb wrote: On 9/2/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Aug 2014, at 21:04, meekerdb wrote: Bostrom says, "If humanity had been sane and had our act together globally,

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 05 Sep 2014, at 22:12, meekerdb wrote: On 9/5/2014 11:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: According to Harvard scholars the Romans invented Christianity to keep the Jews in check: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_piso02a.htm You mean according to consipiracy theori

Re: AI

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 8:06 PM, LizR wrote: > and I thought intelligence was the easy one. But yes, using the same > definitions is important > Except for pure mathematics definitions are rarely important, most people have never looked at a dictionary since high school and they manage to get th

Re: AI Dooms Us

retation of what a cat is is anything other than a patterns that re-occurs (modulo affine and other transformations) in many different "videos". I am assuming an AI is more intelligent that this, certainly. I am trying to get you to see that we assume that everything "sees the

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 06 Sep 2014, at 18:56, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 4:41 PM, meekerdb wrote: > Hypatia was the deliberate target of a Christian mob incited by an ally of Cyril and she was first kidnapped and then murder in the most gruesome way by having her skin scraped off. And for thi

Re: AI Dooms Us

a set of cool algorithms >> concerning AI, more computing power, big data etc), is an empty question to >> ask, outside a specified theory. It's like some alien questioning whether >> the rules of soccer on earth are "valid in absolute sense". >> >> Are w

Re: AI

'Means' indicates something happened and you noticed it. You then either recognise this thing or mistake it for something else. Everything means something, but what it means and the fact that it does mean something comes from you, not the thing apprehended. http://youtu.be/zTLkiJUX05A Kim Jone

Re: AI

First we'd have to figure out what "means" means. :-) Brent On 9/6/2014 1:48 PM, John Mikes wrote: Jeez - Liz, correction!!! /*(a lot of megabytes have been wasted because people don't agree on what something means)*/ you may have meant: ...on what we THINK a 'meaning' may be ...? Who knows wh

Re: AI

On 7 September 2014 08:48, John Mikes wrote: > Jeez - Liz, correction!!! > *( a lot of megabytes have been wasted because people don't agree on what > something means)* > you may have meant: ...on what we THINK a 'meaning' may be ...? > Who knows what something (anything) REALLY means? - not me

Re: AI

Jeez - Liz, correction!!! *( a lot of megabytes have been wasted because people don't agree on what something means)* you may have meant: ...on what we THINK a 'meaning' may be ...? Who knows what something (anything) REALLY means? - not me, for sure. John On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 8:06 PM, LizR

Re: AI Dooms Us

Chris: and why on Earth would you exclude the communication of plants etc. from the broad meaning of "language"? (They don't have a blabbermouth). JM On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 3:13 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > *From:* everything-list@googl

RE: AI Dooms Us

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King >>We learn of each other by interacting this becomes communication once >>languages emerge... Want to point out that important communication occurs in nature without what we

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 28 Aug 2014, at 13:33, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy > wrote: Legitimacy of proof and evidence (e.g. for a set of cool algorithms concerning AI, more computing power, big data etc), is an empty question to ask, outside a specif

Re: AI Dooms Us

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 4:41 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > Hypatia was the deliberate target of a Christian mob incited by an ally > of Cyril and she was first kidnapped and then murder in the most gruesome > way by having her skin scraped off. > And for this Cyril was made a saint by the Catholic Chu

Re: AI Dooms Us

Thank you Brent, A quick search by way of Google verifies what you say. Richard On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 4:12 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 9/5/2014 11:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > According to Harvard scholars the Romans invented Christianity to keep > the Jews in check: > http://www.biblioteca

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 9/5/2014 5:03 PM, LizR wrote: On 6 September 2014 10:45, Stephen Paul King <mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com>> wrote: Hi LizR, Ah, so making sure that the AI have feed-back loops built in so that there are consequences (short and long terms) for "dumb" behav

Re: AI

Jeez, and I thought intelligence was the easy one. But yes, using the same definitions is important, a lot of megabytes have been wasted because people don't agree on what something means (I won't mention free will...oops.) On 6 September 2014 09:18, John Mikes wrote: > After reading lots of re

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 6 September 2014 10:45, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Hi LizR, > >Ah, so making sure that the AI have feed-back loops built in so that > there are consequences (short and long terms) for "dumb" behavior might be > a good idea. One way of doing this is ensuring th

Re: AI Dooms Us

PS why is a laser like a goldfish? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send e

Re: AI Dooms Us

Hi LizR, Ah, so making sure that the AI have feed-back loops built in so that there are consequences (short and long terms) for "dumb" behavior might be a good idea. One way of doing this is ensuring that they can not be self-immortal and must reproduce to recover a form of immo

Re: AI Dooms Us

I don't know how you could do this in practice, but nature has proved that intelligent beings can have their behaviour towards other beings constrained in various ways. An obvious example is that we care for our children. If one could built (or otherwise cause to come into being) an AI w

AI

After reading lots of repeats by otherwise smart people on the topic: do we have a concensus on this list (narrow target enough?) about some identification of * intelligence? * (forget Wiki!) I proposed the* 'inter-lego'* classic, meaning to *"read"* (=understand act out, apply, etc.) the meanin

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 9/5/2014 12:18 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Sep 2014, at 19:40, meekerdb wrote: On 9/2/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Aug 2014, at 21:04, meekerdb wrote: Bostrom says, "If humanity had been sane and had our act together globally, the sensible course of action would be to pos

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 9/5/2014 11:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: According to Harvard scholars the Romans invented Christianity to keep the Jews in check: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_piso02a.htm You mean according to consipiracy theorist John Duran who lives in California and has

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 02 Sep 2014, at 19:40, meekerdb wrote: On 9/2/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Aug 2014, at 21:04, meekerdb wrote: Bostrom says, "If humanity had been sane and had our act together globally, the sensible course of action would be to postpone development of superintelligence un

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 02 Sep 2014, at 19:26, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Aug 2014, at 21:04, meekerdb wrote: Bostrom says, "If humanity had been sane and had our act together globally, the sensible course of action would be to postpone developmen

Re: AI Dooms Us

could > have access to infinite resources. > > Rejecting Yudkowsky's argument on the basis that reality *might* be > infinite seems like an odd move to me. If you feel, as Yudkowsky does, that > the fate of humanity rests on our ability to produce a friendly AI before

Re: AI Dooms Us

f you feel, as Yudkowsky does, that the fate of humanity rests on our ability to produce a friendly AI before someone else produces an unfriendly one, then such esoteric objections miss the point entirely. Even if resources were infinite, it doesn't follow that we'd be safe from a paperclip

Re: AI Dooms Us

Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Telmo Menezes >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> > Intelligence is clearly a process that can be bootstrapped -- we >>>>> know this from biology. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, adul

Re: AI Dooms Us

: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> > Intelligence is clearly a process that can be bootstrapped -- we >>>>> know this from biology. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, adults tend to be smarter than infants and infants are smarter >>

Re: AI Dooms Us

e is clearly a process that can be bootstrapped -- we know >>>> this from biology. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, adults tend to be smarter than infants and infants are smarter than >>> one celled zygotes. >>> >>> >>>> > What I

Re: AI Dooms Us

6:09 AM, Telmo Menezes >> wrote: >> >>> >>> > Intelligence is clearly a process that can be bootstrapped -- we know >>> this from biology. >>> >> >> Yes, adults tend to be smarter than infants and infants are smarter than >> one celled zygotes.

Re: AI Dooms Us

e smarter than infants and infants are smarter than > one celled zygotes. > > >> > What I don't understand is how people expect to have a human-level AI >> (many degrees of freedom) and then also be able to micro-manage it. >> > > I also don't und

Re: AI Dooms Us

stand is how people expect to have a human-level AI > (many degrees of freedom) and then also be able to micro-manage it. > I also don't understand the people who talk about a "friendly A" I when what they really mean is a AI that will happily remain our slave and place our

Re: AI Dooms Us

a body is one way of >> teaching it to recognize us, but do we really want to do that? >> >> > I have no idea what "we" want, I was just presenting a thought experiment. > My basic view is that there is not necessarily any difference between a > suitably trained/b

Re: AI Dooms Us

view is that there is not necessarily any difference between a suitably trained/brought up AI and a person - why would there be? Logically we're the same sort of thing. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 5 September 2014 16:40, Stephen Paul King wrote: > I agree, but I strongly suspect that one does not "program" an AGI, we > would "grow" it and "teach" it > > I see we agree on that. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 5 September 2014 16:41, Stephen Paul King wrote: > We learn of each other by interacting this becomes communication once > languages emerge... > > Great, I've been saying that too. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To u

Re: AI Dooms Us

Nah, I get what you mean. Connecting an AGI to a body is one way of teaching it to recognize us, but do we really want to do that? On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:18 AM, LizR wrote: > On 5 September 2014 16:08, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> We are freaking AGI ourselves, operating machines made wi

Re: AI Dooms Us

We learn of each other by interacting this becomes communication once languages emerge... On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:16 AM, LizR wrote: > On 5 September 2014 15:18, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> Sure, that would set up synchronization of sensory data input streams, >> but it does not addr

Re: AI Dooms Us

be > pre-programmed with something simliar in order to interact with the world. > > >>Consider the case were the Google "thing" discovered cats from >> processing YouTube data. Why do we think that it's interpretation of what a >> cat is is anything oth

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 5 September 2014 16:08, Stephen Paul King wrote: > We are freaking AGI ourselves, operating machines made with biomolecules... > Sorry, I thought it was obvious that's what I was saying, too, when I pointed out that an AGI could be connected to androids. Obviously that works both ways. Apolog

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 5 September 2014 15:18, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Sure, that would set up synchronization of sensory data input streams, but > it does not address my question: How does the AGI come so interprete those > data streams in a way that is compatible with ours? > Well, how do we come to? (Or do we

Re: AI Dooms Us

a > cat is is anything other than a patterns that re-occurs (modulo affine and > other transformations) in many different "videos". > I am assuming an AI is more intelligent that this, certainly. > >I am trying to get you to see that we assume that everything &qu

Re: AI Dooms Us

s people (and > everything else). Of course, we undergo a great deal of training to get > there, and much of the training is done by people. To Liz's point, > purposefully designed AI might well also be trained by people, or at least, > people would comprise a significant part of it

Re: AI Dooms Us

point, purposefully designed AI might well also be trained by people, or at least, people would comprise a significant part of its training. At the end of the day, we are just AGIs with a biological substrate, with some stuff hardwired in by evolution, and a cultural program that inculcates in us some ver

Re: AI Dooms Us

simulation argument that might show this but it has not worked very well at all. It is frustrating On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 9:54 PM, LizR wrote: > By the way, one possible scenario would be that the AI is provided with a > body - we could imagine that it's attached via radio, say, to

Re: AI Dooms Us

et the machines to interpret the data patterns in ways consistent with how we do. On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 9:08 PM, LizR wrote: > On 5 September 2014 12:58, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> Hi LizR, >> >>I will repeat my question: What makes us think that the

Re: AI Dooms Us

By the way, one possible scenario would be that the AI is provided with a body - we could imagine that it's attached via radio, say, to an android that is apparently human. To make this scenario deliberately extreme, for the sake of argument, if the AI only interacts with the world via

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 5 September 2014 12:58, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Hi LizR, > >I will repeat my question: What makes us think that the AGI will be > aware that we exist? > Surely that depends on circumstances? If an AI is created and educated by people then it will at least be awar

Re: AI Dooms Us

t; wrote: > The entire universe as a sim? Could even an AI handle it? > > > Sent from AOL Mobile Mail > > > > -Original Message- > From: Telmo Menezes > To: everything-list > Sent: Thu, Sep 4, 2014 05:16 AM > Subject: Re: AI Dooms Us > > > > &

Re: AI Dooms Us

The entire universe as a sim? Could even an AI handle it? Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes To: everything-list Sent: Thu, Sep 4, 2014 05:16 AM Subject: Re: AI Dooms Us On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:10 PM, LizR <mailto:l

Re: AI Dooms Us

Hi LizR, I will repeat my question: What makes us think that the AGI will be aware that we exist? On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:21 PM, LizR wrote: > On 5 September 2014 00:38, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >>OTOH, one can control the available re

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 5 September 2014 00:38, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Hi, > >OTOH, one can control the available resources of the AI (children)... > > Depending on how clever the AI is. Proteus IV and Colossus found ways to stop people pulling the plug (unlike HAL). And of course you on

Re: AI Dooms Us

Hi, OTOH, one can control the available resources of the AI (children)... On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:10 PM, LizR wrote: > >> On 4 September 2014 22:09, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >>> What I don&

Re: AI Dooms Us

Hi Telmo, "What I don't understand is how people expect to have a human-level AI (many degrees of freedom) and then also be able to micro-manage it." exactly! A mind can only function in effective isolation. Control disallows this as control involves coupling to the "mecha

Re: AI Dooms Us

Hi, I am looking for any papers on the effects of allowing neural networks to couple to each other On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:16 AM, LizR wrote: > On 4 September 2014 17:02, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> Are the resources available to the OverLords that would allow the sharing >> to be

Re: AI Dooms Us

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:10 PM, LizR wrote: > On 4 September 2014 22:09, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> What I don't understand is how people expect to have a human-level AI >> (many degrees of freedom) and then also be able to micro-manage it. >> > > You can&#

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 22:09, Telmo Menezes wrote: > What I don't understand is how people expect to have a human-level AI > (many degrees of freedom) and then also be able to micro-manage it. > You can't, of course. Every parent discovers that. -- You received this mess

Re: AI Dooms Us

00 lines of Lisp are a plastic template for the Jupiter Brain > to emerge in. > > > Precisely. Intelligence is clearly a process that can be bootstrapped -- we know this from biology. >From our AI adventures so far, it is possible to gather that this bootstrapping can be done affordi

Re: AI Dooms Us

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 6:38 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:54 AM, meekerdb wrote: > > > on Bruno's theory, consciousness is a binary attribute, all-or-nothing. >> Intelligence has degrees >> > > If that is true (and I'm not saying it is) then we can immediately > conclude that

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 17:02, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Are the resources available to the OverLords that would allow the sharing > to be "cost-free" then it would make no difference, otherwise > > (In "Childhood's End" the *Overlords *were the race who helped other races to join the Overmind;

Re: AI Dooms Us

Are the resources available to the OverLords that would allow the sharing to be "cost-free" then it would make no difference, otherwise On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:37 PM, LizR wrote: > On 4 September 2014 14:31, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> But something is amiss! Why would the OverLords

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 14:30, Stephen Paul King wrote: > ​Right! Damping down random fluctuations in one's computer is an > optimization move. > >Oh!, your thinking in more "Borg" terms, re: absorption​ > > I'm thinking in terms of "Childhood's End". -- You received this message because yo

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 14:31, Stephen Paul King wrote: > But something is amiss! Why would the OverLords wish to share their > largess with us? > > Why wouldn't they? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this gro

Re: AI Dooms Us

But something is amiss! Why would the OverLords wish to share their largess with us? On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:25 PM, LizR wrote: > On 4 September 2014 14:06, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> OTOH, becoming capable of exploiting computational resources that are >> "free" (note the scare quotes)

Re: AI Dooms Us

​Right! Damping down random fluctuations in one's computer is an optimization move. Oh!, your thinking in more "Borg" terms, re: absorption​ On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:25 PM, LizR wrote: > On 4 September 2014 14:06, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> OTOH, becoming capable of exploiting co

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 14:06, Stephen Paul King wrote: > OTOH, becoming capable of exploiting computational resources that are > "free" (note the scare quotes) is always optimal. If one can obtain > solutions to problem without having to use up one's own resources is always > a "good thing" (for the

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 14:04, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Childhood's End in on my top 20 best scifi books ever list... Umm, I > disagree with "the ultimate aim of life in "Star Maker" (iirc) was to > merge into a single mind" only to the extent that it is actually > impossible (there is a proven the

Re: AI Dooms Us

OTOH, becoming capable of exploiting computational resources that are "free" (note the scare quotes) is always optimal. If one can obtain solutions to problem without having to use up one's own resources is always a "good thing" (for the Overlords at least). On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:53 PM, LizR

Re: AI Dooms Us

Childhood's End in on my top 20 best scifi books ever list... Umm, I disagree with "the ultimate aim of life in "Star Maker" (iirc) was to merge into a single mind" only to the extent that it is actually impossible (there is a proven theorem to this effect) for this to happen. It always goes the op

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 13:48, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Zerg ! ? > > Well, quite. I believe the name comes from "Childhood's End" although obviously Olaf Stapledon was writing about it (and influencing Clarke) decades earlier than the 1950s. The ultimate ai

Re: AI Dooms Us

Zerg ! ? On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:46 PM, LizR wrote: > On 4 September 2014 13:45, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> Umm, not really. It is "exploitation". >> >> Only if you aren't absorbed. Otherwise you'd only be exploiting yourself. > > -- > You receiv

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 13:47, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Umm, explain: "Absorbed". I'm not groking it... > > You become part of it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from i

Re: AI Dooms Us

Umm, explain: "Absorbed". I'm not groking it... On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:46 PM, LizR wrote: > On 4 September 2014 13:45, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> Umm, not really. It is "exploitation". >> >> Only if you aren't absorbed. Otherwise you'd only be exploiting yourself. > > -- > You received

Re: AI Dooms Us

Humans interacting with each other form very nice (in terms of expressiveness ) adaptive networks. On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Stephen Paul King < stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote: > Umm, not really. It is "exploitation". > > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 13:45, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Umm, not really. It is "exploitation". > > Only if you aren't absorbed. Otherwise you'd only be exploiting yourself. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from t

Re: AI Dooms Us

Umm, not really. It is "exploitation". On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:43 PM, LizR wrote: > On 4 September 2014 13:38, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> Hi John, >> >>"why would have want the Zookeepers intelligence from the Earthlings? >> " >> >>Did you mean, Why would the Zookeepers want inte

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 4 September 2014 13:38, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Hi John, > >"why would have want the Zookeepers intelligence from the Earthlings? " > >Did you mean, Why would the Zookeepers want intelligence from > Earthlings? Why to compute things for them, of course! Distributed networks > runnin

Re: AI Dooms Us

t of some kind? Or a > 'mental nightpot'? as long as we supply, we last. Then we are out. > (A similarly unfounded fantasy - just as the so called 'scientific' ones). > John M > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Stephen Paul King < > s

Re: AI Dooms Us

tasy - just as the so called 'scientific' ones). > John M > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Stephen Paul King < > stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote: > >> What if the aliens are AI? >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:19 PM

Re: AI Dooms Us

nt of some kind? Or a 'mental nightpot'? as long as we supply, we last. Then we are out. (A similarly unfounded fantasy - just as the so called 'scientific' ones). John M On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Stephen Paul King < stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote: > What if th

Re: AI Dooms Us

googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King >> *Sent:* Monday, September 01, 2014 5:38 PM >> >> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com >> *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us >> >> >> >> Hi Chris, >> >> >> >>I agree. What we

Re: AI Dooms Us

From: John Clark To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 10:56 AM Subject: Re: AI Dooms Us On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: >a human baby is a plastic template for the

Re: AI Dooms Us

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >a human baby is a plastic template for the individual to emerge in > And those 1000 lines of Lisp are a plastic template for the Jupiter Brain to emerge in. > All of that living experience a

Re: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-03 18:38 GMT+02:00 John Clark : > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:54 AM, meekerdb wrote: > > > on Bruno's theory, consciousness is a binary attribute, all-or-nothing. >> Intelligence has degrees >> > > If that is true (and I'm not saying it is) then we can immediately > conclude that Bruno's the

Re: AI Dooms Us

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:54 AM, meekerdb wrote: > on Bruno's theory, consciousness is a binary attribute, all-or-nothing. > Intelligence has degrees > If that is true (and I'm not saying it is) then we can immediately conclude that Bruno's theory is wrong because we know for a fact from personal

RE: AI Dooms Us

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 4:54 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: AI Dooms Us On 9/2/2014 10:35 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 9/2/2014 10:35 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: *From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Clark *Sent:* Tuesday, September 02, 2014 6:58 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: AI Do

RE: AI Dooms Us

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 6:58 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: AI Dooms Us On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 2:45 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Every

Re: AI Dooms Us

PS I have to go in a minute to meet my other half to attend this... http://www.climatevoter.org.nz/debate/ On 3 September 2014 16:31, LizR wrote: > On 3 September 2014 16:15, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> Hi LizR, >> >>Yes, I am saying that there may be AIs around already unaware of ou

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 3 September 2014 16:15, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Hi LizR, > >Yes, I am saying that there may be AIs around already unaware of our > existence and vice versa! Cultures, languages, religions, etc. all have the > behaviors that we would associate with entities that are to some degree > "se

Re: AI Dooms Us

Modulo decryption On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:59 PM, LizR wrote: > On 3 September 2014 15:45, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> Hi LizR, >> >> Sequentiable means that the correct sequence of operations occurs. >> Information is sensitive to orderings after all. 101001010010 is not the >> sam

Re: AI Dooms Us

Hi LizR, Yes, I am saying that there may be AIs around already unaware of our existence and vice versa! Cultures, languages, religions, etc. all have the behaviors that we would associate with entities that are to some degree "self-aware" in that there are "self-replication" behaviors associat

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 3 September 2014 15:45, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Hi LizR, > > Sequentiable means that the correct sequence of operations occurs. > Information is sensitive to orderings after all. 101001010010 is not the > same number as 00100110001 > > Is it a real word? (Personally I'd go for "correc

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 3 September 2014 15:43, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Right, the connections have to be correct, but there is a weird trick > here. Recall how an encrypted message can appear to be random noise? There > is a form of computation that would look like noise if one where only > looking at some subset

Re: AI Dooms Us

Hi LizR, Sequentiable means that the correct sequence of operations occurs. Information is sensitive to orderings after all. 101001010010 is not the same number as 00100110001 On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:23 PM, LizR wrote: > On 3 September 2014 15:09, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> Hi Li

Re: AI Dooms Us

Right, the connections have to be correct, but there is a weird trick here. Recall how an encrypted message can appear to be random noise? There is a form of computation that would look like noise if one where only looking at some subset of the network that is running a distributed computation. If

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 3 September 2014 15:09, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Hi LizR, > > But here is the thing: the hardware to run AGI already exists! From what > I have gathered so far in my research it is a sufficiently complex and > dynamic network. The AGI, AFAIK, is a "software" machine. It does not need > par

Re: AI Dooms Us

n may very likely have had a Singularity of its own in the >> past and what survived are the machines! >> > > Agreed. > >> >>We forget that the Turing test is merely a test for an ability to >> deceive humans >> > > I hadn't forgotten t

<    8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   >