flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Skynet versus The Red Queen -- Discussions on AI

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1431
Furs
I don't think that if AI believes in God it's necessarily "weird" or disturbing. I mean, if it actually believes it has a soul, then yeah I'd agree with you, considering no religion makes any mention of it (that I'm aware of). However if they simply believe that humans etc were created by God (i.e. they believe in the same religion, and that they are below humans in this respect, cause they don't have one) that isn't so weird to me. I guess this would make YONG a bit happier in a twisted way (I mean he's an atheist but this would make humans more special than AI / AI worship us Wink).

I mean a lot of people think AI will either exterminate us or obey us, black & white. As if AIs won't have any curiosity whatsoever (about culture, myths, religion, etc), doesn't make much sense to me since we assume they're more intelligent than humans.

Though even if we are their overlords I think it's our responsibility to treat them proper at least (like with animals too). Proper doesn't mean "like humans", but not like pieces of trash (as some people do with animals). That's, to me, abuse of something we were given (that makes us above them, in this case, assuming souls exist), not really deserving of it in my opinion. Maybe it's all a test to see whether we deserve/are worth it. Razz

ProphetOfDoom wrote:
One part of the book that most disturbed me was the dialogue between the 20th century human and an AI from the future. The AI claims to be having nightmares about infinity. Dreams of going into an endless series of identical rooms. I can only imagine that Kurzweil had experimented with psychedelic drugs and/or the occult. Infinity is _really_ not to be messed with.
I'm actually not aware of such book, but that description of the AI's dream is kind of familiar in a weird way. I've had a dream where it was like an alternating infinite corridor with rooms (maybe it was prison, but I can't really remember details Confused), it was quite spooky to be honest (more like a nightmare). It was laid out so you couldn't really see the end of it because of the alternating rooms -- as if on purpose just to be infinite but not seem so. But I don't think AIs will be able to dream, that's one thing I think it's biological-body-specific. Though I could be wrong of course. But that nightmare really freaked me out somehow, lol.
Post 31 Aug 2017, 23:13
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16858
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Furs wrote:
But I don't think AIs will be able to dream, that's one thing I think it's biological-body-specific.
If an AI can create scenarios within its own thinking hardware (mind? brain? neural net?) and apply the normal rules of life to it to explore possible outcomes then I would consider that to be dreaming. It might not necessarily have defined wake/sleep states like humans though. Perhaps it could simultaneously dream and be active at the same time. Or maybe it could micro-sleep for brief periods or something.
Post 31 Aug 2017, 23:23
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
People didn't know any different back then. That's the important point you're missing. They're "innocent by being unaware".
That's exactly the point I am making!

People know that over time their positions on many issues will have to change. But they don't know what the future society will become -- just like you don't know whether your definition of things will be sustainable for the future.

So, what is wrong with that? Rolling Eyes

See, you are making silly accusations.

Exclamation
Post 01 Sep 2017, 02:28
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
BTW just a quick question to you YONG, even if off topic (I won't expand on it, but the answer will explain a lot to me).

Do you also consider aliens dangerous, like Hawking does? ...
Start a new thread on such off-topic issues.

The quick answer is that it depends. We are talking about another civilization in the universe, not something that we create.

Furs wrote:
Because there's clearly no hope for you not discriminating anything non-human like AIs if you will even discriminate against aliens.
Sigh! You keep twisting the meaning of discrimination. In law, "discrimination" is clearly defined. In general usage, we use "discrimination" to describe certain acts against people -- not machines / non-living things. (And the debate on the definition of life re-surfaces ...)

Confused
Post 01 Sep 2017, 02:39
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8484
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
a conscious, you, me, they, everyone on earth,

ideas, thoughts, etc ~ whatever that form out of us, our random logical / non-logical processors,

feeding back into our conscious to get a mark of judgement, does this works, will this works, how this works, any better ideas, this will causes this and this, etc,

we been looping on these processes for ages,

the god idea is set of temporarily answers for in-answerable questions in our experiences, such concept is necessary so that we could skip to next questions without hanging our brain processors, Laughing

everyone could believe anything they like, the only issue is when they raise their sword and threat others to join their belief

they usually use their belief statements as some sort of fact, because such act would calm them down and keep on trolling themselves, all those statement are f. real, Laughing

people could talk very loud about god, as if they represent it/him/her/etc,

their behaviour after stage, is so damn disgusting,

they also need to be stop when they started translate their belief shits into actions that hurt and harm others,
Post 01 Sep 2017, 02:47
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
sleepsleep wrote:
they usually use their belief statements as some sort of fact
Exactly! Reminds me of what one of the forum members said:

"There MUST be a reason/purpose behind the creation thing."

Wink
Post 01 Sep 2017, 05:25
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1431
Furs
revolution wrote:
If an AI can create scenarios within its own thinking hardware (mind? brain? neural net?) and apply the normal rules of life to it to explore possible outcomes then I would consider that to be dreaming. It might not necessarily have defined wake/sleep states like humans though. Perhaps it could simultaneously dream and be active at the same time. Or maybe it could micro-sleep for brief periods or something.
Oh of course "day dreaming" (i.e. imagining) is a whole different thing. Usually, you control it. Nightmares, not so much (which was the context) Wink

YONG wrote:
That's exactly the point I am making!

People know that over time their positions on many issues will have to change. But they don't know what the future society will become -- just like you don't know whether your definition of things will be sustainable for the future.

So, what is wrong with that? Rolling Eyes

See, you are making silly accusations.
No, there is a difference. If you know it will probably have to change, that's fine. Since you don't know how. Someone is not guilty if he is unaware of his actions.

The thing is, if those people back then were told of the superior way to define the kg or other units -- and with arguments -- and they refused because "it wasn't practical right now", then that makes them guilty. If nobody tells them, that makes them unaware, so not guilty.

The difference between your view and mine is that I won't intentionally reject a better definition if it can be shown it applies to more situations. For example, mine right now doesn't really describe "totally different" aliens all that well. Only those resembling us or robots. I just haven't thought about it. Feel free to improve the definition so that it applies, equally, to aliens as it does to humans or AIs or whatever sharing same "qualities" (i.e. ability to self-process, self-awareness, etc). If a new definition is able to describe rights or whatever more objectively and neutrally (i.e. no arbitrary choices, but instead, based on a list of what something is able to do, not what he is, which is definition of discrimination), I will accept it.

You, on the other hand, reject it because it's not "generally accepted" or practical right now (we don't have self-aware AIs anyway). That's the issue I have with it. Same as people who rejected science because, well, the generally accepted consensus was different back then.

On the other hand, clueless people like in stone age who literally did not know about science and nobody told them about it -- those people are innocent.

YONG wrote:
Sigh! You keep twisting the meaning of discrimination. In law, "discrimination" is clearly defined.
No matter how many times I tell you that THE LAW (your beloved law) was against science 500 years ago, you STILL think that it is an argument, WTF? Mad

Google says:
Quote:
Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
Don't even need people only (which is already "arbitrary", what makes a person a person? scientific definition, which won't blow once we become transhumans; waiting for it -- see, this is *exactly* what I mean with someone clearly accepting a flawed definition and being guilty by awareness).

Keep thinking that THE LAW in today's age is impeccable and a proper argument (when we're not discussing about the law or lawfulness or whatever)... because that's exactly what majority of people thought 500 years ago as well. If you were born 500 years ago I bet you'd be arguing that THE LAW is rule and the best argument against science. So yes it's very much on topic since you keep bringing "the law" or "general acceptance" into it.

I'm not talking here about whether AIs are legal or whatever, we have no power anyway. But to see people defend such archaic concepts like "the law says X so my reason is solid" is what annoys me. No different than puppets. Puppets of those who made the law (yes, it was made by humans, flawed humans). All what we say won't make a difference, so it's not like I'm looking for "change". I just don't like people whose arguments resort to appeal to authority (which is, exactly, what people did with The Church in Middle Ages, and what you do now, appeal to authority as "argument")


For example, imagine we're speaking about "legality of X". I argue it should be made legal, your argument is "it's not, because the law says it's illegal". WTF kind of crap argument is that? With such attitude, shit will never even change or evolve.

"X should be made legal, because of reasons [...]"
"No, it's illegal, so it can't be made legal" <- seriously? (i.e. as if the law is absolute truth/fact)

YONG wrote:
"There MUST be a reason/purpose behind the creation thing."
That's not a fact though. It's just very likely, in my opinion (I detailed it there, but it's "off topic" here).

If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and sounds like a duck... it's probably a duck. Not a fact, but likely.
Post 01 Sep 2017, 14:44
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
if those people back then were told of the superior way to define the kg or other units -- and with arguments -- and they refused because "it wasn't practical right now", then that makes them guilty.
First, told by whom? By Furs? By someone who always thinks that he is smarter than the others?

Second, how to show that it is "the superior way"? What "arguments" are you talking about? You said yourself that you would not know whether your definitions of things would be sustainable for the future. So, how do you know that it is "the superior way"?

Third, you are, again, making value judgement here based on your own "logic". Refusing to do something or accept a certain view due to its impracticality is, to most people, a normal reaction. And you somehow think that it makes them "guilty". What the heck?!

Confused
Post 02 Sep 2017, 02:13
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
No matter how many times I tell you that THE LAW (your beloved law) was against science 500 years ago, you STILL think that it is an argument, WTF? Mad
How many times have I told that I am referring to modern law? How come you just keep using those 500-year-old scenarios as examples? We are living in a completely-different era. Wake up, please!

Mad
Post 02 Sep 2017, 02:21
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
Don't even need people only (which is already "arbitrary", what makes a person a person? scientific definition, which won't blow once we become transhumans; waiting for it -- see, this is *exactly* what I mean with someone clearly accepting a flawed definition and being guilty by awareness).
See, Furs' "superior" definition re-surfaces. And transhumanism, again?! Sigh!

Mad
Post 02 Sep 2017, 02:28
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
imagine we're speaking about "legality of X". I argue it should be made legal, your argument is "it's not, because the law says it's illegal". WTF kind of crap argument is that? With such attitude, shit will never even change or evolve.
If you want to change the law, put forward your relevant arguments to the legislature and then go through the law amendment process properly. In the end, you may or may not succeed.

My point is that while we can always disagree with what the law says, we cannot simply disregard it because we don't like it. We still need to respect it until the law gets amended/abolished by the legislature (and at times, by the judiciary). That's why I find your "I could not care less what is accepted or not" standpoint radical and even offensive.

Wink
Post 02 Sep 2017, 02:58
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1431
Furs
YONG wrote:
First, told by whom? By Furs? By someone who always thinks that he is smarter than the others?
It might shock you, since you love to appeal to authority, but people can think for themselves.

When they are told a logical argument (such as changing the definition of kg), they can fully realize it themselves, and still be stubborn to resist the change in definition. That makes them guilty.

They don't have to "believe my word" for it. I don't even want them to do that. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, after all.

YONG wrote:
How many times have I told that I am referring to modern law?
500 years old law is modern law in comparison to 2000 year old law. Everyone thinks his law is modern. Our modern law is ancient compared to law in 2500. It is absolutely no different, yet YOU use the argument as if it is, somehow, "better as an argument".

I guess there's no hope for you. You're too stuck up and arrogant and think the modern law is special and is, actually, an argument -- while people who lived 500 years ago were fools and religious morons. Because after all, you live in the modern era, so it must be special! Rolling Eyes

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority_bias and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

YONG wrote:
See, Furs' "superior" definition re-surfaces. And transhumanism, again?! Sigh!
Transhumanism is not any more off topic than arguments like

1) The "modern" law
2) Definition of life

Both are off topic for the thread. At some point I get tired of cop outs when your posts are full of off topic and "appeals to authority" arguments. (both of which are logical FALLACIES).


Also, I never said I wanted to change the law, because I never wanted to bring such a stupid argument in a thread about logical arguments.

Any argument whatsoever revolving around 1) human acceptance/opinions 2) authority 3) arbitrary bias; are fallacies and I'm not interested in such propaganda bullshit.
Post 02 Sep 2017, 14:35
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
When they are told a logical argument ...
Do NOT avoid the question!

Told by whom?

Answer me!

Exclamation
Post 03 Sep 2017, 05:08
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
500 years old law is modern law in comparison to 2000 year old law.
So, you are now even using 2000-year-old things to support your arguments. What the heck?!

This thread is about AI, in particular, AI safety. We are discussing what is happening right now and what will very likely be happening in the near future if we do not take AI safety seriously.

Could you please refrain from using examples dating back to the Jurassic Period (exaggerated, I know)?

Confused
Post 03 Sep 2017, 05:21
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
You're too stuck up and arrogant ...
You disregard the law. (And let me emphasize again -- I am talking about modern law, not something 500 or even 2000 years old!)

You disregard the generally-accepted definition/principle developed by the science community (in particular, modern biologists).

You "could not care less what is accepted or not".

You "don't give a shit about cleaning others' mess".

Look at yourself. Are you even qualified to call other people "arrogant"?

Exclamation
Post 03 Sep 2017, 05:32
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
Transhumanism is not any more off topic than arguments like

1) The "modern" law
2) Definition of life

Both are off topic for the thread. At some point I get tired of cop outs when your posts are full of off topic ...
Take one step back and think about it.

Why did I have to bring up the definition of life? Because I was responding to your radical ideas that machines / non-living things deserved rights!

Why did I have to bring up the 14-day rule? Because I was responding to your mention that "nobody defined life unless he/she did so with a measurable science". I pointed out that "there were guidelines and principles, in both science and law, that defined life".

See, this is how you conduct your arguments: Keep making false accusations!

Exclamation
Post 03 Sep 2017, 05:50
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1431
Furs
YONG wrote:
Take one step back and think about it.

Why did I have to bring up the definition of life? Because I was responding to your radical ideas that machines / non-living things deserved rights!
This is where you're wrong. By dismissing my ideas as "radical" you already appeal to authority, and already went off topic. Since labeling the ideas as "radical" means absolutely nothing scientifically, it only means something in the context of "modern society" or "modern law". (and btw I've never wanted to change the law -- this thread is just for simple arguing why I believe AIs should have rights, I've no power to influence that, and neither do you -- it's not like I'm arguing with you to give rights to AIs, cause you have no power to do that either, even if convinced Wink)

The topic shifts to social acceptance/modern law/blah -- I mean, you make a claim which relies on that, and you expect me to not argue about it? That's some serious nonsense.

You can't just throw arguments around and not expect people to argue/defend themselves against it by calling it "off topic" when you started it in the first place Rolling Eyes
Post 03 Sep 2017, 12:09
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1431
Furs
YONG wrote:
Do NOT avoid the question!

Told by whom?

Answer me!
It doesn't matter. However, since you asked, I will answer: In this example, it would be me or my ancestor (going back to the past w/ time machine in former case), but I know you'll ridicule the time machine thing, it was just a hypothetical example. The point is: the moment you want to know WHO says something instead of WHAT he/she said in an argument, is the moment you committed a logical fallacy.

YONG wrote:
So, you are now even using 2000-year-old things to support your arguments. What the heck?!
K. Elementary logic time.

  • "Modern" (in the context of this, not "modern era" which is actually gone) is the current era or what is currently accepted.
  • Thus, time doesn't matter. It could be year 100, year 1500 or year 2001, all of them are "modern" when they're the present.
  • Your ancestor, ZONG (Razz) lived in 1500. He was arguing with Murs, my ancestor, about Murs disregarding the "modern law" (which was at his time).
  • You see, Murs was strongly against discrimination for heretics, and found it wrong and explained all ZONG believed was utter crap that made no sense, why discriminate against them when they act the same etc.
  • ZONG on the other hand, didn't want to believe it. The society is right, after all. All he said is that Murs is wrong for going against society, there's no other way, his arguments make no sense etc. It's just WRONG to treat heretics as normal humans, because SOCIETY SAYS SO!!!
  • Murs wants to "change the law" or society norms, HE'S DELUSIONAL, thinks ZONG to himself!
  • ZONG thinks that the barbarians from year 1000 were stupid for clinging to their stupid society norms and religions. Obviously year 1500 is where it's at, it's the perfect age. Because he lives in it. Everything else is wrong, only his society is right and anyone going against it is "radical" and dismissed all arguments no matter how logical.


Tell me the difference between you and ZONG in terms of era bias, fallacies, behavior, and borderline fallacious arguments.

Now, fast forward to 2017. Which one would you side with? Murs, or ZONG? Which one do you think did the right thing in 1500, Murs or ZONG? Murs, who wanted to stop the discrimination against heretics, or ZONG, a puppet of his society norms? Remember that Murs did achieve (painfully slow) what ZONG was against: after all, society did change, and ZONG was right that Murs' ideas will crumble society as he knows it. Because it did. Does that mean it was a bad thing??!?? Would you rather live in a society where the Church holds absolute power? Because that's what ZONG believed, after all. Any change in society is DETRIMENTAL is what ZONG thinks. A society where Church doesn't hold absolute power is a huge risk and "end of humanity" as he knew it! (back to savages/barbarians!!)

Now, fast forward to 2100 (because advancement is exponential). Your future offspring, XONG, looks back at the past, at the year 2017.

Who do you think he will side with, just based on history lessons? And based on who you side with today (ZONG vs Murs). Think about it deeply.

Now, despite knowing all this, you still think "society" is right. Here, I just told you, right now, just like Murs told ZONG back in 1500. If you still don't want to look at it logically, and instead use society as an argument, then this is what I mean by GUILTY even though you know. You've just been told about it, after all.

So yes, this is who "told" them back in 1500. Me with time machine, or my ancestor Murs, or whatever. Doesn't fucking matter.

Innocent is only that which truly does not know any different, not someone stubborn who doesn't want to accept a logical argument and resorts to what he believes is the "best era" because of his bias since he lives in it.

Do you want to make the same mistake your "Ancestors" did?

YONG wrote:
You disregard the law.
Nothing wrong with it. Just as it was nothing wrong with disregarding it when it required burning heretics at stake. In fact, damn proud of it.

Aye, once again you appeal to modern law as something infallible. I wonder how will XONG in the future feel about this. Do you think he will be ashamed of his ancestors or not? Wink I mean, you are probably ashamed by ZONG right?


Last edited by Furs on 03 Sep 2017, 12:34; edited 2 times in total
Post 03 Sep 2017, 12:21
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
This is where you're wrong. By dismissing my ideas as "radical" you already appeal to authority, and already went off topic.
Your "logic" is truly unconventional.

Whether something is radical or not depends on the norm of the group, community, or society to which we belong, and the norm refers to the usual or typical standard that the vast majority of the group, community, or society accept.

How come you would think that the norm has anything to do with "authority"?

See, your "logic" goes off-track right from the very beginning.

Exclamation
Post 03 Sep 2017, 12:33
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8484
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
a simple question, simply answer yes or no,

1. if ai/machine learning/etc technologies, proven to be conscious like human, do they at least get human rights?
yes or no,
Post 03 Sep 2017, 12:33
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2019, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.