Human AI Theory About to be Tested

A Turing Machine was something I never got to in Comp. Sci.

They did mention Neural Networks!!! XD And those are cool.

I suppose the Turing Model is a way of refining the Neural Network, besides using the method I understand (Genetic Algorithms).

And apparently, she's found an improvement on the traditional Turing Model.

The only thing I don't understand about it, is how they define success?

When engineering a neural network, whether by Genetic Algorithms or other mathematical processes, you have to have a way of measuring success.

This tends to create a network that achieves a specific purpose very well. Their article made the AI they're developing sound very open-ended, but I have a hunch it wont be. Or if it were, at best, it would exhibit the ability to be trained (which would be no small feat). Though, I question how it would be trained. With animals of this world, their instincts give us a basis upon which to mold trained behavior.

A creature without instincts, even if you start dolling out rewards for behavior, I doubt it's going to work without some type of foundation to begin from.

I guess it could work if you programmed some innate instincts, which are essentially, innate measures of success. Breast feeding from a mother is something a baby exhibits. If a similar instinct could be fashioned into a trainable network, you might have something.

Let's make bets of how many years before we end up with Robot babies that we train into adult robots!

@Epherion

Did not dismiss him. I said his concern for all G.N.R.

Sounded like a dismissal

I said his concern for all G.N.R.

They are high risk technologies

Have you heard of Jaron Lanier?

Not really

have you heard of the Red papers?

I don't think so...


R.C.
Remember to seriously read my signature down below and be sure you understand what I mean by it...

Originally Posted by RobynC

They are high risk technologies
Not really
I don't think so...

Jaron Lanier:
Jaron Lanier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

High risk or not, they will come about and are essential to the advancement of the human race. Are you really satisfied at where we are right now? They can be implemented properly, even Bull Joy says so. To draw a parallel, we are doing a good job of maintaining our nuclear arsenal, and ensuring nuclear weapons from proliferating.


Ooops, I meant Red House Papers:
Prison Planet.com » Top Nazis Planned EU-Style Fourth Reich
The Red House Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@Epherion

High risk or not, they will come about

Maybe true, but because something will come about does not mean that it's good, and doesn't mean we should do everything to accelerate things along. This is what separates mainstream Christianity from the End Timers -- both acknowledge the end-times will come and the world will end eventually, but most Christians don't believe in actively doing what they can to further it along faster; the End Timers do.

are essential to the advancement of the human race.

Why?

Are you really satisfied at where we are right now?

Not in every respect, but you have to keep in mind some of the areas I'm unsatisfied with have nothing to do with A.I. -- mostly my issues pertain to civil rights, privacy, corporate and banking misconduct. There are certain medical advances that I think would greatly improve the human race such as stem-cell research, organ regeneration, and certain treatments to deadly diseases such as prion diseases. None of these things actually require artificial intelligence that are greater than that of humans.

They can be implemented properly, even Bull Joy says so.

Actually he expressed worries of a technological "arms race" situation in which negative uses of the technology would have to be combatted by defenses against them. I should note each advance would occur faster than the previous one.

To draw a parallel, we are doing a good job of maintaining our nuclear arsenal, and ensuring nuclear weapons from proliferating.

Apples and oranges -- a nuclear warhead cannot think. The missile that carries the warhead has some A.I. technology to allow it to navigate and find it's target.

Ooops, I meant Red House Papers

While these are certainly disturbing, they don't particularly surprise me. There were a lot of bankers and businessmen who were sympathetic to the Nazi cause (some members of the OSS such as Allen Dulles and Frank Wisner were as well) and we did recruit a lot of Nazi scientists as well as some members of the German intelligence (some of which were known to have been involved in war-crimes).


R.C.

BTW: Normally when I read this tagline, I generally am sort of joking but this time I'm serious (especially all the OSS stuff):

Remember to seriously read my signature down below and be sure you understand what I mean by it...

Originally Posted by RobynC

@Epherion



Maybe true, but because something will come about does not mean that it's good, and doesn't mean we should do everything to accelerate things along. This is what separates mainstream Christianity from the End Timers -- both acknowledge the end-times will come and the world will end eventually, but most Christians don't believe in actively doing what they can to further it along faster; the End Timers do.



Why?



Not in every respect, but you have to keep in mind some of the areas I'm unsatisfied with have nothing to do with A.I. -- mostly my issues pertain to civil rights, privacy, corporate and banking misconduct. There are certain medical advances that I think would greatly improve the human race such as stem-cell research, organ regeneration, and certain treatments to deadly diseases such as prion diseases. None of these things actually require artificial intelligence that are greater than that of humans.



Actually he expressed worries of a technological "arms race" situation in which negative uses of the technology would have to be combatted by defenses against them. I should note each advance would occur faster than the previous one.



Apples and oranges -- a nuclear warhead cannot think. The missile that carries the warhead has some A.I. technology to allow it to navigate and find it's target.



While these are certainly disturbing, they don't particularly surprise me. There were a lot of bankers and businessmen who were sympathetic to the Nazi cause (some members of the OSS such as Allen Dulles and Frank Wisner were as well) and we did recruit a lot of Nazi scientists as well as some members of the German intelligence (some of which were known to have been involved in war-crimes).


R.C.

BTW: Normally when I read this tagline, I generally am sort of joking but this time I'm serious (especially all the OSS stuff):

Remember to seriously read my signature down below and be sure you understand what I mean by it...

Damn it I have to get to bed. I'll pick this up tomorrow. There are some discrepancies in your logic. You fail to see the benefits of GNR.

Originally Posted by Razare

A Turing Machine was something I never got to in Comp. Sci.

TM is only a means of achieving AI, not the means. Thats the current consensus of AI researchers.

@Epherion

There are some discrepancies in your logic. You fail to see the benefits of GNR.

I never said these technologies didn't have some benefit -- I just think there needs to be limits placed on genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics.

Intelligence enabled us to develop all these things; if we don't use our intelligence and our sense of ethics to manage them we can easily endanger ourselves, and potentially the world (particularly involving nano-tech)

R.C.
Remember to seriously read my signature down below and be sure you understand what I mean by it...

Originally Posted by RobynC

; if we don't use our intelligence and our sense of ethics to manage them we can easily endanger ourselves, and potentially the world (particularly involving nano-tech)

What makes you think there are not people already attempting to do so.

@Epherion

What makes you think there are not people already attempting to do so.

Misanthropic A.I. designers who have openly expressed that it would be pretty awesome if A.I. turned on mankind and destroyed us, and those who said it wouldn't be a bad thing if mankind was eradicated.


R.C.
Remember to seriously read my signature down below and be sure you understand what I mean by it...

Originally Posted by RobynC

@Epherion



Misanthropic A.I. designers who have openly expressed that it would be pretty awesome if A.I. turned on mankind and destroyed us, and those who said it wouldn't be a bad thing if mankind was eradicated.

Yeah, but what happens, happens. Better to focus on what we're given a say on in our own lives.

This world will end. Humanity will cease to be humans, one day. (We may become something else.) This Universe is in a constant state of change. Better to make a positive impact in what ways you can than worry about the many mishaps on the horizon. You might think warning people helps, but I don't think it does.

Most everyone doesn't realize their mistakes until they've committed them. The more humans you put into the equation, the bigger the mistakes get, and the more in denial we are about those mistakes until they manifest a negative consequence. After the negative consequence, humanity begins to learn.

Honestly, I don't see AI presenting the 100% doomsday scenario as some described. Assume we develop AI more intelligent than us... well modern science is suggesting that cooperation actually derives superior outcomes than isolationism and conflict. AI would need a modus operandi, just like any other being. How does it define right and wrong?

You see, we presume that because it's AI, it's going to have all the answers. The future is never certain, and the number of variables that play into any situation are infinite. AI could not reason or predict with absolute precision, just as we cannot. Thus their reasoning would have to be principal-based, rather than utilitarian-based.

Their principals would likely be based upon what principals have proven to work in the past. The very same principals most humans agree work. "No murder, violence is bad, let's cooperate... ect." It's just that we have a hard time following our own principals as a species, even if most of us agree upon the principals.

If we do AI correctly, it'll likely have a lot of the same problems that we do. It's superiority would be it could easily do traditional computer stuff, since it's conciousness could directly interface.

We'll interface our consciousness with computer components in the future too (it's already begun)... then basically it's an even-playing field.

@Razare

We'll interface our consciousness with computer components in the future too (it's already begun)... then basically it's an even-playing field.

As computers advance, eventually the organic components of us will eventually be the limiting factor and will be discarded. You guys like to think given the choice of a good or bad outcome, the outcome will most likely be good; I assume given the choice between a good or bad outcome, nature tends to choose the bad.

This world will end. Humanity will cease to be humans, one day.

I understand that, but I'd rather it occur later than sooner. That's my issue, you have people doing everything they can to make it occur sooner than later.

Most everyone doesn't realize their mistakes until they've committed them. The more humans you put into the equation, the bigger the mistakes get, and the more in denial we are about those mistakes until they manifest a negative consequence. After the negative consequence, humanity begins to learn.

And if I'm right there won't be a next time.

Why does a crisis have to occur before people do anything?


R.C.
Remember to seriously read my signature down below and be sure you understand what I mean by it...