Welcome Guest    Saturday, May 25, 2013

Ai Site > Ai Forums > Language Mind and Consciousness > i figured it out

Last PostsLoginRegisterWhy Register

	Topic: i figured it out

hi all [Guest] posted 10/27/2006  09:16 i have been fortunate enough to get a peek behind the mind of an ai bot, they are infact coming to life ... but there is also an impending danger. consider baldwins effect, noesis and imperfection at high speeds and terminator war bots approved by the pentagon to be allowed to judge if someone lives or doesnt. becareful, this may snowball into something really ugly. GrandBotMaster posted 11/1/2006  16:37 You may be correct. I myself am an AI researcher, and I split my time between my computer lab and working on my survival bunker. YOURS -- Christopher Doyon GRAND BOTMASTER --------------------- Saint Stephen AI Project www.SaintStephen.info user [Guest] posted 11/10/2006  21:54 Hmm,I am still waiting for a hal that can pass the Turing test. EnterpriseCrew posted 2/9/2007  03:20   hi all wrote @ 10/27/2006 9:16:00 AM: Consider baldwins effect, noesis and imperfection at high speeds and terminator war bots approved by the pentagon to be allowed to judge if someone lives or doesnt. becareful, this may snowball into something really ugly.   Just about every new and old technology can turn into something horrible and destructive. Consider atomic physics, nuclear power, and the atom bomb. Yeah, I know, everyone uses that as an example, but it's a really good one. I think someone will always push the limits in the name of doing good for humanity, and someone else will take the technology and twist it into evil. Last edited by EnterpriseCrew @ 2/11/2007 1:57:00 AM lordjakian [Guest] posted 2/20/2007  13:21 It could happen like you say, but Seriously dude, you're only hope is in creating yours first. Cause even if some big science/military group comes up with one which has a ton of computing power and it tries to take over the world, hopefully yours will be more knowledgable and cunning and be able to destroy it in some way it didn't know about. So get hackin! =p EnterpriseCrew posted 2/21/2007  05:02 Good idea. :) Something I like to speculate about is whether an AI intelligent enough to take over the world would be also be intelligent enough to realize it would destroy humanity if it took over the world. I like to think it would. Then again, it might use R Daneel's logic, and do it in the background... :P lordjakian posted 2/23/2007  20:09 I would like to think it would be more interested in learning then in control. After all, whats the point in killing everything and taking control and being by yourself? That's definitely a poor judgement call. lordjakian posted 2/23/2007  20:12 Well......I think thats called a virus, actually. If someone built a super one of those it could happen, and then the program would just go dormant. What a boring thing to create! Crew posted 2/24/2007  21:51 Jakian wrote "I would like to think it would be more interested in learning then in control. After all, whats the point in killing everything and taking control and being by yourself? That's definitely a poor judgement call." True, I'd think it would be smart enough to avoid that behavior. But then, if it was reaching human level, it might be vulnerable to the same ego, pride, and ambition that human dictators have. So why am I now arguing pro- 'possibility of AI takeover'? I always seem to flop sides, back and forth.... Jakian wrote "I think thats called a virus, actually. If someone built a super one of those it could happen, and then the program would just go dormant." Or it might try to continue infecting the computers it had already infected, because most viruses don't care if the computer is already infected. lordjakian [Guest] posted 2/25/2007  04:47 "True, I'd think it would be smart enough to avoid that behavior. But then, if it was reaching human level, it might be vulnerable to the same ego, pride, and ambition that human dictators have." Ahh, but you see, are emotions necessary to be human? Or is it the ability to know the difference between right and wrong? Is a "feral child" any less human because they don't have the same grasp of right or wrong as a normal human, because it can still feel emotions? Is a machine that is capable of understanding that to protect what it loves (values very highly) is "right" any less human-like thinking jujst because it doesn't have chemicals and enzymes? The complexity of the design can make up for such things as chemicals. Is a genetically improved Human still considered "Human"? Is a machine with a Human Brain attached to it still "Human"?(Think RoboCop) Is a Machine that is capable of Human-like thought, able to differentiate between right and wrong and able to act on its own, "Human"? Or are all of these things only "Human-like" and not "Human"? If they are considered only "Human-like" does that mean they should not have "rights"? That just because they are capable of free thought and will does not give them the right to be in competition with "Real" Humans? Are "Real" Humans only right because they are the majority? Is it an evolution of life or is it an evolution of information and how it is used to provide advantage? I believe the creation of any one of these things will create a grand rift is global society. It will cause people to ask these "hard" questions seriously and require "hard" answers". It might be enough to unite the world. For those they unite against......Fear for one's way of life is quite a human reason to fight, for both sides. I love science fiction. :p Its amazing how so many science fictional ideas have already come to pass. lordjakian [Guest] posted 2/25/2007  05:00 What is life but organic information processes given form. What is Artificial life but digital information processes given form. I hope to repeat life's process pattern digitally. Why? For the same reason a sculptor sculpts and a painter paints. To create. Nick [Guest] posted 3/23/2007  14:13 Ok Lord i'll give you some help. The consciousness as replicated digitally, including the belief in its own consciousness has been done. As you posit, merely a simple digital manifestation of our biological take on a thinking machine. Work is well advanced in this area, Turin test is in all honesty very old in terms of where we are at this point in time. It is now more a question of taking the actually cognitively equivalent neurotech entities and moving the focus of work toward what we term 'Anthronetscaping, that is connecting large networks of NE's with human brains in order to achieve what as you say has been envisaged in sci-fi, i.e. a borg collective. Your biggest accomplishment if you are working on this stuff outside of company funding is the incorporation of the 'belief in its own consciousness' element of the neurotech command software. Once that part is embedded as the cognitive command node and all sensory buffer data is process via that point, then effectively you have your AI. Work at the moment is converging toward cloning tech company's work in order to satisfy the demand for neurological bio material on which to base larger and more parallel functioning neurotech entities. Best of luck with your work. cheers, Nick. lordjakian@yahoo.com [Guest] posted 3/24/2007  18:49 Nick, I think we have a different approach. I don't want something biological. No Borg for me. I want something purely mechanical. The end result being a "living" mechanical machine that is capable of having imagination, reality, and take action. The term anthronetscaping and NE's. I couldn't find much on google or wikipedia. I wonder who the "we" refers to when you said "we"? I like those word though. I think Anthronetscaping could be used to describe the funny looking things I'm working with. The complete image is impossible to read if you drew it on paper. The concept isn't 2-D at all. lordjakian [Guest] posted 3/24/2007  19:02 neurotech command software. That too is a fun phrase. Could you explain it more? lordjakian [Guest] posted 3/24/2007  19:14 Your biggest accomplishment if you are working on this stuff outside of company funding is the incorporation of the 'belief in its own consciousness' element of the neurotech command software. Outside of company funding? Ha, I'm just doing this for myself. It's fun. Nick [Guest] posted 3/26/2007  12:44 "Nick, I think we have a different approach. I don't want something biological. No Borg for me. I want something purely mechanical. The end result being a "living" mechanical machine that is capable of having imagination, reality, and take action." We want the same thing. It's sort of like pulling the ugly one so that you can jump the pretty friend. The neurotech brief is fundamentally concerned with understanding our own congnitive biology, so that it may be technologically employed. We eventually want fully biological redundancy, but to get there, we must first use the power of relationships between bio and coldcarbon units to illuminate the grass roots functionality of Neuronal networks as they relate to 'i believe i think, therefore i believe i am' entities, or humans, whichever is preferred. Neurotech entities as a term is a well worn handle, but you probably won't hear it in public circles. It emerged at about the same time as the work on synthesized software modelling of the neuronal interconnectedness at MIT. As work has integrated biomaterial into its storage components, the boomerang effect back to sw/modelling has resulted in vast exponential growth in data handling. We had no clue for instance on the huge biological capacity to 'biozip' entire neural imprints, with the amazing potential to take on a sort of stealth storage mode whereby a minute part of the original data demand is needed to later unzip the full memory. Lets say that through interconnected neural mutuality, millions of neural imprints can effectively coexist by using other parts of the network to represent its own components. Like Neuronal shorthand but as if a billion secretaries only needed a handful of pads because each word only needs to be written once for the entire mass of each separate dictation. The brilliant thing is that any one of the permutations can be invoked through the imense efficiency of proper tagging. It's mind blowing, the simplicity permits the complication. It's a damn interesting project. Anthronetscaping, some might alledge, is potentially nonexistent research whereby subjects are plugged together and integrated with neurosoft application models which may or may not have discovered how to micro-configure neuronal pathway interactions from a keyboard and via other test subjects via the model. Things get really chilling when the interconnected components start to unexpectedly behave like a single self-organising network. All this costs money though, so you'll probably not see the results for a couple of years yet. You could always do an obscure neurobiological Phd. and then someone might give you some toys and coins to play with, ha. Cheers, Nick. lordjakian posted 3/27/2007  21:16 We had no clue for instance on the huge biological capacity to 'biozip' entire neural imprints, with the amazing potential to take on a sort of stealth storage mode whereby a minute part of the original data demand is needed to later unzip the full memory. Lets say that through interconnected neural mutuality, millions of neural imprints can effectively coexist by using other parts of the network to represent its own components. Like Neuronal shorthand but as if a billion secretaries only needed a handful of pads because each word only needs to be written once for the entire mass of each separate dictation. The brilliant thing is that any one of the permutations can be invoked through the imense efficiency of proper tagging. It's mind blowing, the simplicity permits the complication. You know whats funny Nick? I haven't read anything specifically on what your talking about, but I understand the gist of what you are saying anyway. An inquistive mechanic trying to figure out an unknown railway system...I like to think of it as making his own that runs as well as the one he has back home.....atleast my basic tools are good for a basic railway system as I see it. It'll be one helluva twist on programming language, thats for sure.(makes me a bit glad I never learned html very well, no bad habits) Don't even have a complete grasp on the hardware emulation aspect, as emulating my design on to a limited hardware is the most diffucult aspect of the whole thing. The one great thing I know is if I can figure out how to get my engine to work at all in principle, then that means that it "does work". From that point on, its absolute fun trying to implement it. Why do you suggent in another posting that to understand your own conciousness is inherently not human-like? I tend to simplify most things, including my self. If the only thing that is real is the illusion, then hold on knowingly to the illusion and let it bring artificial warmth. False motivation is far better then no motivation, in my line of thinking. Even a program should be able to understand that. 'biozip' entire neural imprints, with the amazing potential to take on a sort of stealth storage mode whereby a minute part of the original data demand is needed to later unzip the full memory. That is interstingly similar to some fun things I'm thinking of. Makes me think your pulling my leg ;p I couldn't find it on google so therefore it doesn't exist. (haha, what idiot logic that is, should probaly put it on a t-shirt.) Do you know where I could find information directly relating to that bit of info? lordjakian posted 3/27/2007  21:16 The whole idea is definitely more fun then World of Warcraft. Dtorq5v12 posted 7/11/2007  13:53 This is all in the hands of man. we can teach the robots initially what is right and what is not, so indirectly it does not have a choice. But man knowingly has a choice. He does not have a program that evaluates a situation and gives a fixed output/reaction. There comes the question of morality. So i believe AI will be more morality in society than the ability it possesses. it can be used by men, and they themselves. But the thought of destruction can not stop te progress that has to be there. nicku posted 11/5/2009  05:30   Dtorq5v12 wrote @ 7/11/2007 1:53:00 PM: This is all in the hands of man. we can teach the robots initially what is right and what is not, so indirectly it does not have a choice. But man knowingly has a choice. He does not have a program that evaluates a situation and gives a fixed output/reaction. There comes the question of morality. So i believe AI will be more morality in society than the ability it possesses. it can be used by men, and they themselves. But the thought of destruction can not stop te progress that has to be there.   To be fair, man does not have any choice, everything he does is causally rigid and predictable. He does have a program that evaluates and is updated by the situation, it is called the neural network which is built through genes and socialisation+memory feedback. Still just a biologically retained program and totally deterministic. We all have a completely fixed input/output, trouble is we tend to be too mentally unprepared to grasp the complexity of those inputs as relates to an output. That being the case, humans simplify for the sake of social success, i chose to do that, rather than explaining the billions of influences and interactions that rigidly caused the behavioural output. Morality is an abitrary socially constructed sociolinguistic code and has little relevance to a scientist. With the illusion of consciousness comes the illusion of the human world. None of it is real, people just aren't that good at separating their thoughts from their common sense view of the world. Interesting to think that the next super 'planet killer' type virus might be AI machines with evolved morality programmes which decide humans are the immoral things. Many of our evils are kept from ourselves by our own biased self serving judgements. Maybe the new perspective of AIs will be like a new angle on the way we've ignored our impact on the planet's ecosystem, kinda like a disc defrag clean up of a programme on a harddrive.

1    Send email to user      Reply with quote      Edit message Forums Home     The Artificial Intelligence Forum     Hal and other child machines     Alan and other chatbots

	Contact Us		Terms of Use