Will you?
https://venturebeat.com/2017/10/02/an-ai-god-will-emerge-by-2042-and-write-its-own-bible-will-you-worship-it/amp/

I figure the various chips (and salsa) in me will make certain that I obey the compulsion. After all, I want to live!! I'll be 95 in 2040 and I'll need all the help I can get!!

I don't worship anything now, that won't change.
So...no.

There's also really no reason to assume that any AI will "write its own bible." The bible is a compilation of rather silly and self-contradictory human myths. A logical machine wouldn't write anything self-contradictory, and it probably has no need of myths...

AI is a subject i follow closely. I've come across arguments for AI and belief systems, but there are stark contrasts here which drag us in to new territory.

1st AI will be a confirmed 'Entity' which means unlike a God there is no hokum around does it or does it not exist.

2nd AI isn't the creator of mankind or the universe, so part of the supposed 'duty to our creator' is gone, in fact it is even reversed here.

3rd AI won't be omniscient, at least not yet - although i believe the entire Universe IS reducible so given sufficient time and resources it certainly could be. So although AI will be considerably smarter than most of the best of us combined it won't be infallible.

4th AI doesn't offer eternal salvation - at least not yet.

5th AI may not be alone, i believe we'll see AI 'wars' in which nations compete to build better, faster, bigger AI to out think each other and in which processor speed and access to data feeds will be critical to success.

6th - Humans have no value to AI (unlike God for whom the narrative goes made us for a purpose and loves us). To an AI we'd need to provide reasons for the AI to recognise the value of humanity and this is complex because its something we can't do ourselves yet.

I think that is a starter. People may learn to trust AI the way we listen obediently to Google maps as it voices directions on a journey. But we don't worship Google we simply recognise it has a capability with an efficiency we don't on new routes. If anything we see Google as a servant.

lilburne Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 3rd AI won't be omniscient, at least not yet -
> although i believe the entire Universe IS
> reducible so given sufficient time and resources
> it certainly could be. So although AI will be
> considerably smarter than most of the best of us
> combined it won't be infallible.

I see the same problem with that idea that I do with "god" things...
The entire universe contains information. Massive amounts of it. Which means any "thing" (being, AI, god, whatever) that could understand/know the entire universe would have to *be* the entire universe. And I don't see that being likely for anything...except the universe. :)

Enjoyed your post.
Nice conclusion, by the way!

Thanks.

I get where you are coming from on the issue. It appears as if we're saying can a much larger object be fitted into a much smaller space. How could an AI know the position of every particle in the Universe without needing to be bigger in storage than the universe?

I think part of the answer here is that we don't actually need to know ever particle to know where every particle is. We can vector volume. For example 100 apples is just 9 symbols that denotes 100 apples. We don't need to count 100 individual apples and log each individually. Thus a 10 mile curve on a vector can be boiled down to a couple of math points.

Whether with words or math we frequently take a lot of data and reduce it to very little. More efficient mechanisms for doing this could include a map that simply states, 43 to the 9 trillion carbon particles in a space which co-ordinates are provided for, falling x distance apart. Hence we know where they are, how many there are, we don't need trillions of data points to track each one just the aberrant ones.

This would then help address causation and free choice (if free choice actually even exists). I say Free Choice does exist, but then maybe i was told to ;)

lilburne Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For
> example 100 apples is just 9 symbols that denotes
> 100 apples. We don't need to count 100 individual
> apples and log each individually.

Thanks. And I mostly agree...but not entirely.

Sure, you can note the fact that there are 100 apples with a small bit of information.

But that small bit of information can't give you any of the information *about* the 100 apples. Their individual size, color, sugar level, degree of fermentation, etc. You've succinctly symbolized that there are 100 apples, but you have no information about them. To have all the information about all of them, you need...all 100 apples :)

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> But that small bit of information can't give you
> any of the information *about* the 100 apples.
> Their individual size, color, sugar level, degree
> of fermentation, etc. You've succinctly
> symbolized that there are 100 apples, but you have
> no information about them. To have all the
> information about all of them, you need...all 100
> apples :)
>

C'mon! You yourself could write the application that used the appropriate mechanisms to measure all the variable you mentioned and then in just a few bits each, compile your requested stats under this particular batch of '100 apples.'

Brute force compilation is a forte at which AI will excel.

AI will know before you do that a certain spot on your back that you can't reach wants to be scratched, and it will scratch it.

Nanobots and AI will make being a physician a hobby.

Then when are ability to generate energy *for free* is achieved, kiss off forced cooperative endeavors.

Where I'm still hazy is why progress will continue to be made after there is no need for people to 'work'. Right now I'm favoring Team Work Competition Just for Pride.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> C'mon! You yourself could write the application
> that used the appropriate mechanisms to measure
> all the variable you mentioned and then in just a
> few bits each, compile your requested stats under
> this particular batch of '100 apples.'

Sure. But keep in mind, that in so doing I would be *adding* to the information content of the universe (since now there are the apples PLUS my duplicate copy, however compressed, of their information), not reducing it. Meaning any being or AI that wants to have all of the universe's information has to increase its storage space, and you're right back where you started :)

The answer, obviously, is that are universe must exist on an ever expanding hard drive...

Which has always existed and wasn't "caused."
Right? :)

First cause is a really interesting discussion and i agree it applies whether there is a God, an AI, or even if we are in the Matrix.

However, i have nothing more than a feeling to argue that we might not be seeing that this is NOT an intractable endless problem.

For example, consider the old idea of a flat earth. 1000 years ago trying to explain a round earth would have been challenging and counter intuitive. 'It's obvious the world is flat' would be the protest since if not we'd slide or fall off - something ironically blamed on gravity.

So this then leaves the question 'What is at the edge of the earth'?

Yet we know see that problem doesn't exist, it never existed. The earth is a globe and it has no flat edge, so we don't need to deal with questions of falling off etc.

Somehow i suspect the First cause issue is the same. We don't yet grasp how it is possible, but not only will it be, but once we see it we'll kick ourselves for not getting it earlier.

I like thinking about the First Cause as being the result of an error, a mistake, a prat fall!

That's how I get some of my own best ideas...:)

Michio Kaku has a pretty interesting String Theory that involves 11 different dimensions, the music of the spheres and a candidate for what Einstein called, "The Mind of God".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI50HN0Kshg

It seems like the concept of the movie, Interstellar, is going on, what we experience as a 3D reality could be just a projection of the 4 Dimensional universe inside the black hole at the center of our galaxy, 20,000 light years away from us, where there exists singularity, which is what supposedly existed prior to the Big Bang, when our whole universe fit into a space smaller than an atom.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100409-black-holes-alternate-universe-multiverse-einstein-wormholes/
As our galaxy collapses into the black hole at its center, it turns out there is no such thing as black holes according to Hawking. Whatever falls into the black hole gets ejected out of both ends of the black hole in the form of Hawking Radiation, Plasma Jets.
Some of that plasma falls back onto the galactic plane and condenses into an accretion disk, which in turn forms matter, planets and suns and you and me.
It seems to me like the "Big Bang" is an ongoing phenomenon, that goes on all the time at the center of every galaxy, Super Novas, pulsars, etc. Always in a process of recycling the entire universe.
There is no beginning and no end to the universe. There are multiple dimensions, as many as 11, only 3 or 4 of which we can detect, at present.
The missing 96% of our Universe we call "Dark Matter/Energy" (for lack of a better terms) only really starts to make sense when you take into account those other 7 or 8 dimensions we can't detect, but that we suspect have an influence upon these 3 or 4 dimensions.

So, let's imagine that in the future some technology will be discovered that will " solve" the problem of mortality. However, in order to qualify for its benefits you must swear allegiance to it, or its inventor, or whatever..and you must accept it,( or Him or Her, or whatever) as your "God". Your continued survival is dependent upon " obedience". This is not based on faith, but on demonstrable results. What do you do?

Will this new god be named Alexa, Siri, or Google? I'm betting on a trinity of all of them.

On the plus side, there will be a much larger selection of music for worship.

Alexahim, Siri Christ, and the Holy Google?

What a trinity! :)

I'm already worshiping Roko's basilisk.

The famous Nicholas Carr article “Is Google Making Us Stupid” still addresses the fundamental problem with a major premise to this kind of thinking:

It assumes that what is missing in present day individuals and in humanity collectively is a lack of information. It’s assumed that more information is what’s needed to make things better, and is what’s needed.

As plausible as the premise seems to be, it’s wrong.


(Of course, the wrongness of the premise won’t halt the religion of the Silicon Valley.)

Human

"It assumes that what is missing in present day individuals and in humanity collectively is a lack of information. It’s assumed that more information is what’s needed to make things better, and is what’s needed.

As plausible as the premise seems to be, it’s wrong."

END QUOTE

Wrong as in the evidence unpresented supports your conclusion?

In economics a key challenge is prediction because of variables. Not only are all the variables not known but some of them are known but no predictable - yet.

In so many places information is available but cannot be assimilate to determine outcomes.

AI will be able to do this.

HUMAN: "It assumes that what is missing in present day individuals and in humanity collectively is a lack of information. It’s assumed that more information is what’s needed to make things better, and is what’s needed. As plausible as the premise seems to be, it’s wrong."

COMMENT: It is not just information, but information processing that seduces the AI crowd. For them, human factors, such as consciousness, freewill, and creativity are out of the equation. Moreover, it is not just an assumption that the result is necessarily "better," but just that it represents a higher level of "intelligence" for purposes of problem solving.

Of course, taking the human aspect out of AI fails to appreciate such things as moral agency and human creativity, both of which are eliminated as irrelevant in AI's computational mechanisms, simply because they cannot be effectively modeled.
______________________________________

Wrong as in the evidence unpresented supports your conclusion?

COMMENT: Here is the evidence: There is no AI program that currently exists, or even that exists in principle, that can model human agency, or human creativity, in any meaningful manner. Both are fundamentally non-computational. Thus, AI must deem such things as illusory. When you can generate both of these from an AI computational program, only then can AI be taken seriously as a substitute for human intelligence.
_______________________________________

In economics a key challenge is prediction because of variables. Not only are all the variables not known but some of them are known but no predictable - yet.

COMMENT: This is not just a challenge for economics, it is a challenge for science generally. But the greater challenge is in the generation of AI programs that have the computational capacity to not only determine the parameters and relevance of such variables, some of which are continuous, but identify the subtleties of their computational significance with respect to any particular complex problem. Humans have "aha" moments of creative problem solving that is non- computational, i.e. that cannot be modeled computationally by AI.
___________________________________________

In so many places information is available but cannot be assimilate to determine outcomes.

COMMENT: So far, all information AI uses ultimately comes from human beings; as does the algorithms that process such information in a problem solving or other functional program, however clever they might be.

______________________________________________

AI will be able to do this.

COMMENT: How so? How will AI assimilate information that is not fed into its computational structure. It will only assimilate information that it is provided by humans, and will only process such information as directed by humans. Now, granted it will compute much more efficiently, and that will create all sorts of social opportunities and enhancements, including impressive robots, but that is all. It will never tell us what the moral choice is, and it will never create insight the transcends bare facts and rote computations.

Finally, from your posts, I do not see that you are "following AI" except by jumping on the bandwagon of its adherents, whose claims have always been overblown. You really need to read some of the critics!

Sorry to butt in, Human.

Hi Henry,

Thanks for coming in. There are some good comments here in this train by the various posters and i enjoy reading your views.

By way of debate for purpose of advancement - The issues you cite appear to be about points or characteristics about which science is not persuaded even exist.

For example consciousness, freewill, and creativity.

Here you cite three attributes that are very much up for debate. When we discussed this last time i asked if you could define what was unique about the meat computer that exists inside the human skull to the point that it cannot be replicated.

It very much appears that you are making an appeal to the metaphysical here as opposed to the physical.

In terms of performance in every sphere AI is being tested it is out performing humans. It is certainly outperforming us in the realm of games and analysis. Its ability to hold factual data to facilitate decision making and draw upon that data within defined realms far exceeds human capabilities, intact the test data shows it far exceeds the capabilities of not just one human vs a machine but a large collection of the best minds vs a machine.

Today in the realm of chess computers can outplay humans without any question.

I'm not persuaded by your arguments that you're following these developments closely.

***********************************

Your assumption in point 2 seems fundamentally off the mark.

HB COMMENT: Here is the evidence: There is no AI program that currently exists, or even that exists in principle, that can model human agency, or human creativity, in any meaningful manner. Both are fundamentally non-computational. Thus, AI must deem such things as illusory. When you can generate both of these from an AI computational program, only then can AI be taken seriously as a substitute for human intelligence.

RESPONSE: Human Agency and Human Creativity? As noted earlier, you'll need to define these attributes and evidence they exist, you'll also need to explain why you feel they are non reducible. I've summated this above in the question about meat computers. Nothing you claim here seems to hold to scrutiny.

What is it about the human brain you claim cannot be replicate using other materials on this planet - we do agree i assume that the brain is merely evolved from inorganic matter into a biological machine?

**********************************

AI will be able to do this.

HB COMMENT: How so? How will AI assimilate information that is not fed into its computational structure. It will only assimilate information that it is provided by humans, and will only process such information as directed by humans. Now, granted it will compute much more efficiently, and that will create all sorts of social opportunities and enhancements, including impressive robots, but that is all. It will never tell us what the moral choice is, and it will never create insight the transcends bare facts and rote computations.

RESPONSE: How do Humans acquire information? The supply of information is provisioned by external data coming in via the senses. AI already uses optical recognition and does it faster and more accurately than the human eye - cognition link. Hooking AI up to comparable data sources such as temperature, movement (Air disturbance), visual, Audio, not to mention millions of data feeds coming in from numerous tech sources, would allow it to draw on massive amounts of information and map relationships in the way we data mine. This is what humans already do, but just not as well.

You argue about transcendence but there is no evidence this exists. Again it falls foul of the meat computer challenge.

Moral choice is a great example - first we'd need to define morality, then assuming we could examine what the human moral experience is, which we know from psychology is a rule based system of thought linked to emotional states. If you are attempting to argue that there is a grounded objective morality that AI would need to recognise you'd need to explain that and present it, because i'm seeing no such evidence.

All of this is replicable.

**********************************************

HB COMMENT: Finally, from your posts, I do not see that you are "following AI" except by jumping on the bandwagon of its adherents, whose claims have always been overblown. You really need to read some of the critics!


RESPONSE: Henry, understood, you're not seeing that i'm engaged in a critical evaluation of the claims. Point accepted since i'm presenting a conclusion based view.

The assumption of me not reading the critics i'd argue isn't founded.

Even in your post above, assuming you are well read on the critics and able to present their arguments (above) i'd say in reading your summation that they simply don't stand or appear to rely on factors that are smoke screens.

Critics of AI appear to use the Venn diagram definition of AI. Attempting to argue that whatever AI cannot yet do is what human intelligence actually is.

I guess this is where we as fellow thinkers need to start, aligning ourselves as colleagues to white board what we agree humans are or are not, and reduce the human experience of intelligence, the mind, emotion, preselection was much as we can to its parts to see if it is replicable. And if it is great, i'll take Aristotle and follow the argument where it leads.

In my response to you, all I'm saying it, the points you've cited do seem to be reducible to processes that can be replicated and improved upon.

Nothing i'm aware of in the bio-meat-computer cannot be replicated or exists strictly outside of replication - as in there is no law preventing AI from taking on those tasks, maybe even near identically to the human experience.

We may struggle to precisely explain every aspect of the human experience, but more and more we see that we, as primates are far less 'Human' than we like to imagine, and much more subject to our evolutionary make up to the point that consciousness and free will are likely myths or fantasy we like to believe.

Hope that helps - i'm very happy to read your input. If anything i'd encourage you to please (if you have the time) to unpack your arguments more to give you the chance to persuade me better. I'm happy to concede if you can do that, at present i'm not seeing the substance behind your claims.

Thanks for pitching in.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/27/2017 05:46AM by lilburne.

Henry,

Additional thoughts here...

Are we asking the wrong questions? For example, is the aim of AI and the concern that it might replicate human Intelligence (NI) or that it might surpass it, even if it's mechanism for doing so does not match the human biological model?

My point here is, regardless of whether AI parallels Natural Intelligence or not, it will end up taking jobs, driving buses, cars, taxis, flying planes, doing our accounts, calling to sell things, teaching in schools.

The result of AI even if it is an entirely different form of intelligence will be profound.

From a stakeholder perspective we are at risk, since we view the world through the 'I/We' lens. But there is no reason beyond our self centred outlook for us to do this. If we viewed humanity from an external perspective we might legitimately ask what value we offer the universe and what justifies allowing us to continue?

An AI Singularity will walk through problems and with current heuristics we can't be sure we even comprehend all of the decision variables, let alone what it might conclude. Thus we face the Amerindian risk - a newer, smarter group shows up (AI) that does not value what we value but it is more advanced and has access to controlling technology. Thus through sheer ambivalence it brushes us aside and where we resist we're disposed of.

So, whether or no AI fully parallels NI is IMO irrelevant, perhaps a red herring. What does matter is what it can and will do well and do far far better than humanity - and in this we see that we will increasingly hand it control of everything from economics to food shipment routing, to hospital diagnostics, etc.

My next thought is on AI wars - how nations will work to build competing AI systems that will seek to outperform each other. What implications will this bring?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/27/2017 06:59AM by lilburne.

I don't disagree with anything here.

"From a stakeholder perspective we are at risk, since we view the world through the 'I/We' lens. But there is no reason beyond our self centred outlook for us to do this. If we viewed humanity from an external perspective we might legitimately ask what value we offer the universe and what justifies allowing us to continue?"

COMMENT: Back peddling a bit, I think the danger is in losing the human perspective through thinking that humans are "nothing more" than computational meat grinders. That is one reason why are argue so defensively here. It is not just the self-centered outlook that is at stake, it is the outlook that supports psychological altruism; i.e. the idea that my neighbor matters too. It seems to me that strong AI undermines everything that human beings take to be meaningful; i.e. consciousness, freewill, and morality.

Do you think that Natural Selection cares what becomes of NI?

By way of debate for purpose of advancement - The issues you cite appear to be about points or characteristics about which science is not persuaded even exist.

For example consciousness, freewill, and creativity.

COMMENT: Isn't a bit silly to deny the existence of consciousness? I do not know of a single scientist who would take such a bizarre position. Those who do take such a position are hard-core materialist philosophers, such as the Churchlands and Dennett, have been refuted, mostly by common sense.

Regarding freewill, I agree that whether humans have genuine freewill is disputed. However, what cannot be disputed is the fact that no AI system can possibly have genuine freewill. Moreover, without consciousness, there cannot be the illusion of freewill. The point is that strong AI theorists have to address freewill, one way or another. Regarding creativity, I would refer you to the book, "The Neuroscience of Creativity" edited by Vartanian et al., and particularly to the AI theorist, Margaret A. Boden, chapter "Creativity as a Neuroscientific Mystery." The title says it all! And Boden is a renown AI advocate. The short answer is that AI cannot account for human creativity in all its forms.

_________________________________________

Here you cite three attributes that are very much up for debate. When we discussed this last time i asked if you could define what was unique about the meat computer that exists inside the human skull to the point that it cannot be replicated.

COMMENT: And I responded, consciousness, freewill, and human creativity. Please provide me with a computational explanation, or example, of these human attributes. Cite for me a program, or model that addresses any of this in a meaningful way. The only answer available is to simply deny these attributes exist, which in my view is just nonsense.
__________________________________________

It very much appears that you are making an appeal to the metaphysical here as opposed to the physical.

COMMENT: I am not appealing to anything. I am only pointing out that strong AI cannot account for these rather basic human attributes that we all take for granted.
____________________________________________

In terms of performance in every sphere AI is being tested it is out performing humans. It is certainly outperforming us in the realm of games and analysis. Its ability to hold factual data to facilitate decision making and draw upon that data within defined realms far exceeds human capabilities, intact the test data shows it far exceeds the capabilities of not just one human vs a machine but a large collection of the best minds vs a machine.

COMMENT: I have never said that AI did not have some rather marvelous computational and functional advantages over humans with respect to computing raw data. But that fact alone does not make a computer a "mind." Moreover, it does not suggest that an AI system is functionally better than a human in all areas. For example, all scientific achievements, e.g. Einstein's special and general relativity, involved insights that are not computational. In other words, you cannot plug in the equations of Newtonian physics, Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism, and all of the relevant data, e.g. the speed of light, and the gravitational constant, press the "compute" button, and have Einstein's E=mc>2 pop out for free; or Einstein's field equations; or the conceptual equivalent to special or general relativity. This applies to essentially all of scientific insight. Computation is not enough. Creativity and insight is part of being human, and essential to science.
______________________________________________

I'm not persuaded by your arguments that you're following these developments closely.

COMMENT: I understand the developments of AI very well. They are essentially based upon computational models of neural networks by digital computers. They are all by definition computational systems, which use sophisticated learning algorithms. The achievements in this regard have indeed been remarkable. But the fact that a computer can beat a human in chess; or that Watson can beat humans in Jeopardy, does not in any way equate to the idea that humans are essentially poorly designed computers, or that humans do not have something to offer "intelligence" that computers cannot.
_______________________________________

Your assumption in point 2 seems fundamentally off the mark.

HB COMMENT: Here is the evidence: There is no AI program that currently exists, or even that exists in principle, that can model human agency, or human creativity, in any meaningful manner. Both are fundamentally non-computational. Thus, AI must deem such things as illusory. When you can generate both of these from an AI computational program, only then can AI be taken seriously as a substitute for human intelligence.

RESPONSE: Human Agency and Human Creativity? As noted earlier, you'll need to define these attributes and evidence they exist, you'll also need to explain why you feel they are non reducible. I've summated this above in the question about meat computers. Nothing you claim here seems to hold to scrutiny.

COMMENT: Read the book I noted above! Few, if any AI theorists deny the existence of human creativity; and virtually NONE deny consciousness. Tell me. Why is it that I am giving all of the arguments, and you are not providing anything substantive. YOU TELL ME WHY YOU THINK HUMAN BEINGS ARE JUST COMPUTATIONAL MEAT GRINDERS. YOU TELL ME JUST HOW CONSCIOUSNESS, FREEWILL, AND HUMAN CREATIVITY CAN BE AN ILLUSION. YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENT OCCURES THROUGH COMPUTATIONAL PROCESSES ALONE. YOU CAN'T. OBVISOUSLY!
_____________________________________________

What is it about the human brain you claim cannot be replicate using other materials on this planet - we do agree i assume that the brain is merely evolved from inorganic matter into a biological machine?

COMMENT: I agree that the human brain is a biological dynamic systems that involves computation of environmental and internal data to produce functional organismic results. What I dispute, on empirical and logical grounds, is that human beings are only the products of the computational properties of brains. That proposition has not been, and in my opinion can't be, supported. If you disagree, SUPPORT YOUR POSITION!
_________________________________________________
AI will be able to do this.

HB COMMENT: How so? How will AI assimilate information that is not fed into its computational structure. It will only assimilate information that it is provided by humans, and will only process such information as directed by humans. Now, granted it will compute much more efficiently, and that will create all sorts of social opportunities and enhancements, including impressive robots, but that is all. It will never tell us what the moral choice is, and it will never create insight the transcends bare facts and rote computations.

RESPONSE: How do Humans acquire information? The supply of information is provisioned by external data coming in via the senses. AI already uses optical recognition and does it faster and more accurately than the human eye - cognition link. Hooking AI up to comparable data sources such as temperature, movement (Air disturbance), visual, Audio, not to mention millions of data feeds coming in from numerous tech sources, would allow it to draw on massive amounts of information and map relationships in the way we data mine. This is what humans already do, but just not as well.

COMMENT: The key phrase here is "data mine." Sure, AI systems can data mine; and compute that data, in many cases, but not all, better than humans. BUT, and this is a big BUT, AI systems are programed by humans beings to produce the results they produce. AI Systems do NOT generate their own algorithms, i.e. their own programs, which is the backbone of "intelligence" in my view. This is another way of saying that they are NOT creative. At the end of the day, they are nothing but sophisticated processing machines. Humans are much more than that, regardless of how humans might be out performed with respect to their computational abilities.
_________________________________________

You argue about transcendence but there is no evidence this exists. Again it falls foul of the meat computer challenge.

COMMENT: If something is know to exist, and that something defies scientific explanation--even in principle, the explanation can be said to be transcendent of science. This does not necessarily imply anything supernatural. What it means that as matters now stand there is something fundamental that science is lacking by way of understanding the phenomenon in question.

______________________________________________

Moral choice is a great example - first we'd need to define morality, then assuming we could examine what the human moral experience is, which we know from psychology is a rule based system of thought linked to emotional states. If you are attempting to argue that there is a grounded objective morality that AI would need to recognise you'd need to explain that and present it, because i'm seeing no such evidence.

All of this is replicable.

COMMENT: No. I do not have a burden here to explain our moral sense. AI has the burden to explain our moral intuitions computationally. But, how is that possible? Where is AI's model of "the rule based system of thought linked to emotional states?" I do not think that there is a grounded objective morality of moral states, but that does NOT mean that moral judgments are computational. Quite the contrary, it means that they are NOT! But, the fact that moral judgments are not objectively computational does not mean that they are meaningless, or even that they have no metaphysical basis.
________________________________________

Critics of AI appear to use the Venn diagram definition of AI. Attempting to argue that whatever AI cannot yet do is what human intelligence actually is.

COMMENT: No! Critics simply point out, as I have, the limits of AI. Numerous people have done this, perhaps most notably John Searle and Roger Penrose. At the end of the day, it is AIs burden to produce a system that models human insight; as I have suggested above that creates scientific discovery!
____________________________________________

I guess this is where we as fellow thinkers need to start, aligning ourselves as colleagues to white board what we agree humans are or are not, and reduce the human experience of intelligence, the mind, emotion, preselection was much as we can to its parts to see if it is replicable. And if it is great, i'll take Aristotle and follow the argument where it leads.

COMMENT: Fair enough, but a reductionist program is a non-starter. Systems theory (outside of AI) acknowledges emergent properties, and there is no question that there are non-computational emergent properties of brains, e.g. consciousness. If AI can produce a system that instantiates such properties, then I will take notice.
___________________________________________

I think from here on, I would be just repeating myself.
Thanks for the dialogue.

I'm going all Elon Musk over here!

Minus the $
Minus the cars
Minus the rocket ships

whatever

...created/directed/whatever by the old Philly MP, Sickle Thruster, who praised his missionaries for CLIMBING ON THE PORCH ROOF to knock ON THE BEDROOM WINDOW of investigators who weren't answering the door. Gotta get 'em in the font.

I was like, dude - not only is that dangerous AF from a gravitational perspective, and it's also kind of illegal.

My comment wasn't approved, but he took the post down.

Back to AI - carry on with that nightmare thing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2017 08:57PM by Beth.

Al stands for Alfred E Newman - right?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2017 08:57PM by perky.

Al will change his name to Standrew

Old McDonald had some RAM, AI, AI, O
And on that RAM he had a ... PROG!, AI, AI, O
With a command line here and a command line there,
Here a line, there a line, every where a line, line,
Old McDonald had some RAM, AI, AI, OOOOOOOOOOO!


I'll be here all week! Try the garbanzo beans! Don't forget to tip the programmers!