Author Topic: Episode #612  (Read 2622 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 2397

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 831
Re: Episode #612
« Reply #45 on: April 05, 2017, 12:13:59 PM »

I'd disagree that we won't have a drive to create sentient machines. The sexbot market alone has a lot of potential for it.


The current technology doesn't require sentience.

"You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think."
- Dorothy Parker

It's not about what's required, it's about the size and the complexity of the web of different interests.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2017, 12:20:50 PM by 2397 »

Offline gebobs

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 188
  • Me like hockey!
Re: Episode #612
« Reply #46 on: April 05, 2017, 12:18:47 PM »
It's not about what's required, it's about the size the complexity of the web of different interests.



Offline bligh

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 5
Re: Episode #612
« Reply #47 on: April 05, 2017, 02:40:45 PM »
Cara's claim that intelligence is more than the sum of its parts is not
something I really understand: it sounds like mysticism to me. What is the
extra stuff that's not in the parts?
This made me stop and go "wait, what?" as well.

I think she was talking about emergence as in consciousness beeing an emergent property of the brain.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-science-consciousness/201702/is-the-brain-more-the-sum-its-parts
« Last Edit: April 05, 2017, 02:46:17 PM by bligh »

Offline Crash

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Dogspeed John Glenn.
    • What I do for fun
Re: Episode #612
« Reply #48 on: April 05, 2017, 03:59:15 PM »
  I can never understand why it is always the engineers like Elon Musk who seem so threatened by AI but you hardly ever hear of any prominent biologists worried the least bit.  Why is it so easy to imagine it's just the next killer app only a few years away.  I think it's more of a cultural trope from science fiction and the movies.  It was born with "Collosus, The Forbin Project" and sealed by HAL9000.  "Terminator" was the coup de grace that beat the trope deep into the collective unconscious. 
  In reality, the idea of consciousness is not just an algorithm.  Consciousness is the result of 4 billion or so years of evolution.  Think of an original algorithm with a few trillion patches that actually works.  Consciousness is more than just nuanced, it's nano-nuanced.  When half or more of consciousness is driven by sex,  a computer would never have to learn any of that.  It's those sort of  sex driven motivations that often lead to maliciousness and diabolical plots. 
  I think AI hysteria is just that.  It ain't gonna happen.  Get over it. 

Offline arthwollipot

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4875
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Episode #612
« Reply #49 on: April 05, 2017, 10:07:57 PM »
Cara's claim that intelligence is more than the sum of its parts is not
something I really understand: it sounds like mysticism to me. What is the
extra stuff that's not in the parts?
This made me stop and go "wait, what?" as well.

I think she was talking about emergence as in consciousness beeing an emergent property of the brain.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-science-consciousness/201702/is-the-brain-more-the-sum-its-parts

I'm still not at all sure that this emergence represents something that is not the sum of its parts. It's and interesting and unusual sum, sure, but there is still nothing there that is not derivative of the underlying components.

Offline bligh

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 5
Re: Episode #612
« Reply #50 on: April 06, 2017, 12:17:19 PM »
Cara's claim that intelligence is more than the sum of its parts is not
something I really understand: it sounds like mysticism to me. What is the
extra stuff that's not in the parts?
This made me stop and go "wait, what?" as well.

I think she was talking about emergence as in consciousness beeing an emergent property of the brain.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-science-consciousness/201702/is-the-brain-more-the-sum-its-parts

I'm still not at all sure that this emergence represents something that is not the sum of its parts. It's and interesting and unusual sum, sure, but there is still nothing there that is not derivative of the underlying components.

I think you are taking the "sum of its parts" idiom way too literal.

Anyways, an example (please excuse the metric units ;)):

1) :jay: has to push a 200 kg box 10 meters, but Jay can only push a 150 kg box by himself.
2) :bob: has to push a 200 kg box 10 meters, but Bob can only push a 130 kg box by himself (sorry Bob :laugh:)
3) :jay: and :bob: has to push a 200 kg box 10 meters together.

Work done:

1) No
2) No
3) Yes

Work done by 2 people together is greater than the sum of work done by them individually.

Now scale this example up to an ant colony for example... 8)

...or consider  :jay: and  :bob: to be small robot as in the video in this Wired-article (experiments by my former collegue Markus Waibel):

https://www.wired.com/2011/05/robot-altruism/

« Last Edit: April 06, 2017, 12:44:01 PM by bligh »

Offline lunaOU

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 3
Re: Episode #612
« Reply #51 on: April 06, 2017, 03:16:06 PM »
Nobody seems to care too much about the pee shivers, but I am very curious about this.  When my daughter was a baby, an in-law said "pee shivers." and I asked "what?"  they said, you know, when babies pee they do that shiver thing (as if it was fact).  I had never heard of this.  It came up at an in-law gathering, and was concluded (from those present) that boys have the pee shivers throughout their youth.  My husband said he had them (not once he got older).  I tried to look it up, couldn't find much, but do remember Wikipedia having something about it.  Anyway, at the time I think I may have even written in to the SGU because I was so curious (and skeptical).  Now it comes up and I don't know what to think.  So, please, go over the pee shivers.  Are they real?  Who gets them?  What's the reason?  I had not heard Cara's reasoning that it's when you need to go.  I had heard (like I said, from male in-laws and my husband) that boys get them as/after they pee.  Anyone else have something to add?

Online Sawyer

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 755
Re: Episode #612
« Reply #52 on: April 06, 2017, 10:31:51 PM »
Nobody seems to care too much about the pee shivers, but I am very curious about this.  When my daughter was a baby, an in-law said "pee shivers." and I asked "what?"  they said, you know, when babies pee they do that shiver thing (as if it was fact).  I had never heard of this.  It came up at an in-law gathering, and was concluded (from those present) that boys have the pee shivers throughout their youth.  My husband said he had them (not once he got older).  I tried to look it up, couldn't find much, but do remember Wikipedia having something about it.  Anyway, at the time I think I may have even written in to the SGU because I was so curious (and skeptical).  Now it comes up and I don't know what to think.  So, please, go over the pee shivers.  Are they real?  Who gets them?  What's the reason?  I had not heard Cara's reasoning that it's when you need to go.  I had heard (like I said, from male in-laws and my husband) that boys get them as/after they pee.  Anyone else have something to add?

Take a gander at some other sections of the forum:

http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,48473.0.html

Offline RMoore

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: Episode #612
« Reply #53 on: April 08, 2017, 01:57:55 AM »
Of course there are exceptions, and I expect everyone to start listing them now. Here's one to get you going: ty-RAN-no-SAU-rus not TY-ran-no-SAU-rus.

Wait, isn't that an example instead of an exception?

It's an exception to the two-unemphasised-syllables rule of thumb that I was describing, so no.

Okay, I thought you were referring to the double-consonant rule. You never actually called the two unemphasized syllable thing a "rule". Just something that was common.

Offline PabloHoney

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Episode #612
« Reply #54 on: April 08, 2017, 08:21:41 PM »
Came here to blab about AI, but everybody's already said what I had to say, so instead I'll post this video which I don't think anyone has posted yet.

"Elon Musk, Stuart Russell, Ray Kurzweil, Demis Hassabis, Sam Harris, Nick Bostrom, David Chalmers, Bart Selman, and Jaan Tallinn discuss with Max Tegmark (moderator) what likely outcomes might be if we succeed in building human-level AGI, and also what we would like to happen."


Offline lunaOU

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 3
Re: Episode #612
« Reply #55 on: April 10, 2017, 02:54:11 PM »
Take a gander at some other sections of the forum:

http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,48473.0.html

Thanks!  It does seem more a male thing.  Maybe when my infant daughter did it, she had to go pee like Cara said.  Interesting.

Offline Mattguyver

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 1
Re: Episode #612
« Reply #56 on: April 13, 2017, 04:37:59 PM »
 We will most likeley never talk to highly inteligent aliens due to the immense distance between the stars and we have yet to find an animal than can comunicate in ways that are deep and meaningful, but what if we could create a self aware AI. The way I see it this will most likely be my only chance to have a discussion with something that isn't human and has different needs than humans. Is that not an amazing reason to create AI! To make a new friends! Come on people! We could reveal things about the human condition that we never thought to ask about! There is definitely someone out there working on AI while hoping that there efforts will lead to a self aware being, i would (unfortunately I'm a plumber). Denying this is silly.

Online Friendly Angel

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2858
  • Post count reset to zero in both forum apocalypses
Re: Episode #612
« Reply #57 on: April 13, 2017, 04:59:04 PM »
but what if we could create a self aware AI. The way I see it this will most likely be my only chance to have a discussion with something that isn't human and has different needs than humans.

Would it be cruel to send a sentient AI creation into space on a journey of 1000 years or more?  Wouldn't help the humans any, but maybe somebody out there would find out about us.
Amend and resubmit.

Offline 2397

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 831
Re: Episode #612
« Reply #58 on: April 13, 2017, 05:03:44 PM »
Would it be cruel to send a sentient AI creation into space on a journey of 1000 years or more?  Wouldn't help the humans any, but maybe somebody out there would find out about us.

It could be turned off until it meets someone to attempt to communicate with.

Offline AtheistApotheosis

  • Doesn't Panic
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: Episode #612
« Reply #59 on: April 14, 2017, 11:28:43 AM »
Cara's claim that intelligence is more than the sum of its parts is not
something I really understand: it sounds like mysticism to me. What is the
extra stuff that's not in the parts?
This made me stop and go "wait, what?" as well.

I think she was talking about emergence as in consciousness beeing an emergent property of the brain.


https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-science-consciousness/201702/is-the-brain-more-the-sum-its-parts

What's with this emergent property business? consciousness is a function not a property of the brain like walking is a function of legs. You wouldn't say flying is an emergent property of wings, you could, but it would sound silly. Consciousness is a term to mean awareness of ones environment,  it identifies the processes of spatial, temporal cognition, interpretation and response. And we seem to holding on to the mysticism of some kind of spontaneous emergence of consciousness when the brain crossed some magical threshold, rather then a slow progression starting with single celled organisms developing a very simple chemical process to communicate with other. That's how every biological process seams to have developed, with numerous small incremental steps. Just as it is with AI, though following a different and shorter path. And Steve reminded me of that old adage "If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong." and Steve is getting more distinguished every day. You can't predict when or if something is going to be possible unless you know how it will be achieved. Self aware AI could be a decade away, or ten decades or a thousand. It's too soon to say.

http://list25.com/25-famous-predictions-that-were-proven-to-be-horribly-wrong/