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 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
It's not like we're anything close to self-aware AI right now. Still need like 10 years or more at the very minimum.
You should pay more attention at the latest news on quantum computing and AI. Just take a look at the following links:

IBM Will Unleash Commercial "Universal" Quantum Computers This Year
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ibm-will-unleash-commercial-universal-quantum-computers-this-year/

A Hybrid of Quantum Computing and Machine Learning Is Spawning New Ventures
https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/robotics/artificial-intelligence/kickstarting-the-quantum-startup-a-hybrid-of-quantum-computing-and-machine-learning-is-spawning-new-ventures

Quantum A.I.
https://research.google.com/pubs/QuantumAI.html

That's why I am so worried about AI safety.

Confused
Post 30 Aug 2017, 13:14
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8902
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
revolution wrote:

I want an extra arm. That way when I am soldering I can hold the two work pieces and the soldering iron each in separate hands. No clamps or glues and such like to mess about with.

I want, I want, I want, I want, gimme now.

is that ok if i deliver a 3 arms robot to you? you could remote control those arms by wearing a super thin hands gloves or you could hire me to remote control those arms in case you are busy cycling but still thinking about those unfinished soldering jobs, Wink
Post 30 Aug 2017, 13:45
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8902
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
i was pondering about this question since few days ago,

- is it possible for conscious to arise from and through electricity?

- with my limited knowledge, i think it is not possible,

- i suspect there is something else that cause human become conscious, idk, i suspect,
Post 30 Aug 2017, 13:48
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
YONG wrote:
"legal restrictions on stem cell research"
And...? It's an arbitrary decision, same with abortion. Just because it is law does not mean it is logical. You're *way* too trusting of the "general acceptance" or consensus.

Remember: the Church you so despise used to be the law itself. I don't know why you find it so hard to believe that current laws, whether you like it or not, aren't perfect or logical.

People who lived back then also believed the laws were perfect, and acted the same way you did to any "heretic" who said otherwise.

YONG wrote:
Yes, you can talk about whatever you want -- because I am not going to take part in the discussions.
You didn't get the point.

If I start a thread about transhumanism, I can't talk about AI in it or compare it to AI, because AI is "off topic" (this is AI thread, that is transhumanism thread)

I simply meant, your logic doesn't make sense; according to it, there is no thread where talking about both transhumanism and AI (and comparing them) is on topic, if a topic has only one such subject.

Seeing as all my arguments are about comparisons with AI and transhumanism, then no matter what, using your logic, it's off topic. Your suggestion (of opening a new thread) simply doesn't work.
Post 30 Aug 2017, 14:01
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
sleepsleep wrote:
revolution wrote:

I want an extra arm. That way when I am soldering I can hold the two work pieces and the soldering iron each in separate hands. No clamps or glues and such like to mess about with.

I want, I want, I want, I want, gimme now.

is that ok if i deliver a 3 arms robot to you? you could remote control those arms by wearing a super thin hands gloves or you could hire me to remote control those arms in case you are busy cycling but still thinking about those unfinished soldering jobs, Wink
But I wanted to be a transhuman, and I'm not sure that remote controlling a robot will do that for me.
Post 30 Aug 2017, 14:02
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
YONG wrote:
So what?

Does the controversy imply that whatever crazy definition of life that you come up with actually makes any sense?
Define "crazy"? You know what is crazy? A definition that needs changes in 50 years. Thinking such a definition is not bad, that's batshit crazy.

Some heretics used to be crazy for using science to disprove religion hundreds of years ago. I don't know why the fuck you're so fixated on what "the masses" want, you seriously think they're special because you live in these times? EVERYONE in the past thought the same thing. All sheep always have the same mentality: the masses can't be wrong. Bullshit.

Stop appealing to bullshit emotional arguments please. I don't care about the "science community" or about "the community" or about any "community" -- if I were to live 500 years ago, you'd probably be a priest or religious person seeing as how you love to stay "with what society seems popular" and I wouldn't be ashamed at all in admitting I'm a science man by heart even if the stupid community labels me as crazy.

Also, stop appealing to authority. It doesn't matter what the "science community" says or wants as long as it's not verifiable and reproducible, then it's not science. A scientific person can be religious, this doesn't mean religion is science. If a scientific person says he believes in God and exists, doesn't make it true. You won't agree with him because you have your own views. When you agree with him, you somehow think his opinions have more value and that's your fatal flaw. Cherry picking. Stop being so blind.

So it doesn't matter one bit who accepts my definition, just as 500 years ago I wouldn't give a shit if the high priest/pope/whatever accepted science or not. I wouldn't submit myself to his ideology just because society or anyone says something.
Post 30 Aug 2017, 14:06
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:
- is it possible for conscious to arise from and through electricity?
Refer to:

Supergirl vs Livewire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JLUwBhpBzY&t=51s

Livewire (DC Comics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livewire_(DC_Comics)#Powers_and_abilities

So, the answer is "yes"!

Wink
Post 31 Aug 2017, 04:09
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:
YONG wrote:
"legal restrictions on stem cell research"
And...? It's an arbitrary decision, same with abortion. Just because it is law does not mean it is logical. You're *way* too trusting of the "general acceptance" or consensus.
That's why I say that your standpoints are so radical.

You disregard the law; you disregard those generally-accepted principles developed by the science community.

Do note that I am talking about modern law and scientific principles, not some 500-year-old mumbo jumbo.

What makes you think that your ideas are any better than the law or those generally-accepted principles?

Confused
Post 31 Aug 2017, 04:22
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:
YONG wrote:
]Yes, you can talk about whatever you want -- because I am not going to take part in the discussions.
You didn't get the point.

If I start a thread about transhumanism, I can't talk about AI in it or compare it to AI, because AI is "off topic" (this is AI thread, that is transhumanism thread)

I simply meant, your logic doesn't make sense; according to it, there is no thread where talking about both transhumanism and AI (and comparing them) is on topic, if a topic has only one such subject.

Seeing as all my arguments are about comparisons with AI and transhumanism, then no matter what, using your logic, it's off topic. Your suggestion (of opening a new thread) simply doesn't work.
I don't follow your logic here.

If you start a new thread entitled "Transhumanism", you are the thread-starter and thus you get to set the scope of discussions. It is entirely up to you to decide what is relevant to the topic of interest, meaning that you can explore the similarities and differences between transhumanism and AI if you like.

You need not take into account what I said in this AI thread, as I have already stated that I would not be taking part in the discussions of transhumanism.

So, go ahead and start a new thread. Discuss what you want to discuss.

Wink
Post 31 Aug 2017, 04:37
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:
I don't care about the "science community" or about "the community" or about any "community" -- if I were to live 500 years ago, you'd probably be a priest or religious person seeing as how you love to stay "with what society seems popular" and I wouldn't be ashamed at all in admitting I'm a science man by heart even if the stupid community labels me as crazy.
How come you kept using those 500-year-old accounts in the Middle Ages as examples?

They are no longer relevant to the modern era!

The vast majority of the judiciary in the developed world are independent and reasonably-transparent. "Justice Must Not Only be Done, but Must be Seen to be Done."

The same is true for the vast majority of the science communities around the globe.

Wink
Post 31 Aug 2017, 04:54
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
Back to the topic. A relevant video:

Why Not Just: Raise AI Like Kids?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaYIU6YXr3w

Wink
Post 31 Aug 2017, 08:52
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
YONG wrote:
That's why I say that your standpoints are so radical.

You disregard the law; you disregard those generally-accepted principles developed by the science community.

Do note that I am talking about modern law and scientific principles, not some 500-year-old mumbo jumbo.
"modern law" is 500-year-old mumbo jumbo in 500 years from now. There's nothing wrong in being so radical if it's a definition sustainable for the future. In fact, that makes it objectively superior, even if it's not "the best" or "perfect".

Law is man-made. It can be changed, that's the point. It won't be changed with sheep who just "accept" it though without questioning it. What's wrong is with positions that people admit will have to change in the future. That's, by definition, holding a flawed position, willingly. Not "maybe". If there's a "maybe", you address it now, not in the future when it's too late and discrimination is already happening.

Why must such bullshit suffering exist because some people are too fucking stubborn clinging to their "beloved era", in EVERY ERA in history.

YONG wrote:
I don't follow your logic here.

If you start a new thread entitled "Transhumanism", you are the thread-starter and thus you get to set the scope of discussions. It is entirely up to you to decide what is relevant to the topic of interest, meaning that you can explore the similarities and differences between transhumanism and AI if you like.
Unfortunately, you went off topic with the definition of life in the first place. Transhumanism is simply the topic for that.

YONG wrote:
How come you kept using those 500-year-old accounts in the Middle Ages as examples?

They are no longer relevant to the modern era!
Sigh.

That's exactly what they said about the ancient 2000-year-old accounts. They thought their era was "modern era" (whatever, you know what I mean) or "best era". Everyone thinks that. Stop being so blind. The era you live in is not any different and it's definitely not "more right" to take a similar stance than before. (i.e. general acceptance, which is *always* a bad argument, no matter the era).

You think you're special because you live in this era? They thought the exact same thing. You call Churches in Middle Ages as barbaric or w/e, they called their ancestor religions the same thing. 500 years from now, people will call YOUR views as barbaric.

And yet, you think you're different than those 500 years ago. That's the problem.

I am though. I'm the only one who seems completely disinterested in "General acceptance" as an argument, I think as an absolute objective definition -- it can be improved, but if it's proven to be flawed, then it's flawed. I cannot willingly accept something that is -- obviously -- broken.

There's always been people like me, though. In every era. They were radical and considered wackos. So no, I'm not special at all. But I don't consider general acceptance special in this era. Not one bit.
Post 31 Aug 2017, 12:06
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:
There's nothing wrong in being so radical if it's a definition sustainable for the future.
How do you know that your radical definition will be sustainable for the future? Do you have a time machine? Did you travel back in time from the future?

You just sound like you know -- for sure -- what is going to happen in the future.

At the end of the day, it is just your GUESS. And you somehow think that your guess must be correct.

Sigh!

Confused
Post 31 Aug 2017, 12:41
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
No, I don't "know" if it will be sustainable. However, it is more sustainable for this hypothetical scenario we're discussing (with AIs). Of course, if you find another scenario where it is an inadequate definition, then it can also be improved. Thing is, I won't hold on to it. I'm just "unaware" right now (literally, not because I close my eyes) so it's not my fault, technically.

(note: the hypothetical scenario we're discussing is a future where AIs and humans are identical, except for their origin of their brain, since they "act" the same -- both able to upload their brain to the Cloud or use Robot Bodies, etc). After all AIs have nothing to do with "robot bodies", we have those already for a long time. It's all about the "brain", not the bodies.

Yeah you call it "mimic" but humans can also "mimic" and even lie so I don't see what the issue is. Terrorists mimic normal citizens and lie until the day they are found. Do you remove random people's rights because some might be mimicking/lying or what?

So using such logic (of restraining them because they could be "mimicking" normal humans) we'd stop giving rights to e.g. people from Middle East. Yeah, discrimination.

It's not surprising that real life teaches us a lot too. Some of those terrorists are probably terrorist to begin with because they were discriminated and grown up to hate us. Indoctrinated with propaganda, obviously, but it's still a thing. AI wouldn't be any different (if we discriminate against it).

Treat them long like objects and they'll start acting like objects and so treating us with no consideration (with no care for human life at all). You have to admit, even aliens would be interested in human life -- for experimentation at the very least. Just like we are in them.


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? I mean, do you also think that if we, for example, find life on Mars, advanced civilization underground or w/e, we should go and wipe them out for being potentially dangerous to us? Imagine if they're more advanced than us and could have wiped us many times before but didn't (yet, we could wipe them with nukes, for example), I wonder if you'll even feel "bad" at all if people dropped nukes on them. (i.e. a "they trusted us and let us evolve, we bite their finger and acted like pieces of shit to them in return" scenario) I'm fully aware we'll have no power over the outcome, but still, "feeling bad" or not is very important.

Because there's clearly no hope for you not discriminating anything non-human like AIs if you will even discriminate against aliens.


Last edited by Furs on 31 Aug 2017, 13:32; edited 1 time in total
Post 31 Aug 2017, 13:24
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:
What's wrong is with positions that people admit will have to change in the future.
Really?

Let's use the definition of kg as an example.

Initially, people wanted to use something very common -- something that everyone knew about -- to define the unit of mass.

So, water was chosen. 1 kg was defined as the mass of 1 liter of pure water at 4 degrees Celsius and 1 atmospheric pressure.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with such a definition.

Then, people realized that the requirements of purity, temperature, and pressure were troublesome.

Thus, they decided to change the definition. 1 kg was redefined as the mass of a lump of an alloy. Numerous replicas of the lump were accurately made and sent to various parts of the world as standards.

Again, there was absolutely nothing wrong with such a definition.

Years later, the replicas were gathered and accurately measured. Minute differences in their masses were spotted.

And people, once again, realized that they needed a better definition of the unit of mass.

That's why kg is currently being redefined.

What is wrong with that?

The values of a society change over time; the same applies to value judgement. We know -- for sure -- that technological advancement will bring radical changes to our society and thus our positions on many issues will have to change accordingly.

Again, what is wrong with that?

Rolling Eyes Confused
Post 31 Aug 2017, 13:32
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
People didn't know any different back then. That's the important point you're missing. They're "innocent by being unaware".

You do know, though, I just told you about it! That's the whole point. Dismissing someone as "radical" doesn't change the fact he makes you aware of it.

As for the Church analogy, they were fully aware about science and decided to shut it down. That makes them guilty. Cavemen were not, so they're innnocent.
Post 31 Aug 2017, 13:33
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ProphetOfDoom



Joined: 08 Aug 2008
Posts: 120
Location: UK
ProphetOfDoom
The Holy Roman Catholic Church has a history of persecuting people who later turned out to be right. One of the best examples is St. John of the Cross. He was imprisoned in a tiny dark cell by his fellow Carmelites apparently because they were jealous of his zeal, learning and wisdom. He was later declared a Saint and a Doctor of the Church (just about the highest title a Catholic can be given). My point is, just because individuals within the Church can get things utterly wrong, it doesn't mean the Church herself is bad. The Church is the "Noah's Ark" of the Christian era. Just as Noah's Ark saved Noah and his family from the Flood, the Church saves us from the "flood" of evil and sin.
Post 31 Aug 2017, 14:32
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
Well, for what it's worth to you, I don't believe the hatred people some atheists have for the Church either -- I know that YONG does, though, that's why I'm telling him what he believes Wink (I'm not saying they didn't prosecute, but it was purely political, not religious)

I don't hate believers either, especially since they admit it's religion. Only have issue when they shove it down my throat as "arguments" (note: if they explain how religion works, then it's proper argument, like say God did X and Y, that's a fact of what the religion entails). I don't mind even arguing about religion itself if the person is civil instead of preaching. Smile

I'm actually very open minded and hate discrimination, to me some atheists are also discriminating people based on their religion (regardless of their other arguments). After all, Christianity could turn out to be true even for agnostics (though it's still a belief).

Furthermore, I think it would be very interesting to see how AIs deal with religion. A very fresh viewpoint without human bias. I mean, maybe they even find it logical (somehow! don't yell at me YONG Wink), still interesting observation.
Post 31 Aug 2017, 15:56
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ProphetOfDoom



Joined: 08 Aug 2008
Posts: 120
Location: UK
ProphetOfDoom
Hi Furs,
You mentioned Ray Kurzweil earlier. I remember reading his book, The Age of Spiritual Machines, when I was about 16. I found it deeply disturbing in places. He argued that AIs will one day believe in God. I wouldn't be surprised if they claimed they believed in God but I doubt they will ever really believe. I certainly wouldn't baptise an AI. A transhuman though? Maybe. I hear Kurzweil is Chief Loon in Google's Loon Department now.
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.
Post 31 Aug 2017, 21:50
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ProphetOfDoom



Joined: 08 Aug 2008
Posts: 120
Location: UK
ProphetOfDoom
And thanks, Furs for being open minded about this stuff instead of having a rant at me as my brother would lol. You're right, some atheists do persecute... In fact my whole family apart from one sister have turned against me since I became a Catholic. I suppose there's a huge difference between an absence of belief and a hostility towards believers.
Post 31 Aug 2017, 22:55
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 ... 7, 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 © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.