It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

There Are No Strings On Me...

page: 2
40
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2015 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ilpero

Banks offered an alternative to the happy and fruitful coexistence of AIs with meat intelligences in his novel The Algebraist — a scenario in which humanity has reached the stars, but has had a Hefficide Moment about AI at some point along the way. AIs are now anathematized; all existing ones are thought to have been eliminated in a series of pogroms centuries previously. Of course, this being a novel by Banks, humanity gets itself into terrible trouble, from which it is saved by a group of AIs that survived the pogroms. I won't say more for fear of spoiling the story for those who haven't read it.




posted on May, 29 2015 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom


Anytime the internet wants to reach and make a new friend, I'll be waiting

And there I was thinking you were really an AI under cover...



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Thanks for the replies so far everyone!

To be clear - AI doesn't frighten me ( much ). The use of "no strings on me" and the song might seem opportunistic to some - as they happen to be from a very recent blockbuster movie ( IE piggybacking this thread onto a bandwagon ) - a reality I weighed in preparation to write this. In the end the doggone song just fit too well to my feelings about the subject for me to not include it. Not to piggyback nor to imply that AI will surely have emotion. That concept is one of the current intangibles in this equation. AI might well have emotions, or an approximation thereof. After all AI would be born of a culmination of human effort and input - it is entirely possible that some remnant of that humanity ( for better or for worse ) could remain intact.

One of my downfalls as a writer is that I loathe proofreading. I am a one draft writer. As far as ATS threads go my methodology is to do the research ( leaving all tabs open as I go ). Then, when I feel ready to proceed, I right click my desktop, choose "open new rich text document" and then write. All the BB code and links are done by hand as I go ( which is why so many of my threads include edits - I often screw up the BB code. This thread, for example, the first "page" was entirely in "headline" for a minute because I forgot to type in the [ /headline] part. LOL

This confession / explanation is here because in the act of writing this thread I lost track of one of the tangents I wanted to explore. Specifically the fact that DNA can be realistically compared to a program language. If I father a child half of my programming mixes with half of a woman's - and a brand new combination program is created. If that woman and I have multiple kids, the mixture of the programming is always tweaked to a degree, never exactly replicating itself. Each child has a similar yet unique mixture of the original source code. This random mixing of source code leads to some amazing ( think Steinbeck or DaVinci ) things and some unfathomably bad things ( think Hitler or Dahmer ).

Since the article that sparked this thread is about robots ( specifically their source code / programming ) that can problem solve using what we, as humans, would call "imagination" ( the ability to run "what if" scenarios in our minds ). Then that opens the door for each robot or system to develop it's own quirks and personality. It's own DNA if you will - as each machine will tend to run scenarios specific to it's experiences, design, environment, etc.

This all struck me as being very similar to what it is to be sentient and conscious. It also opened the idea, in my mind, of these robots comparing programs and learning from one another - which should, as I see it, already be possible if not practice. This, in essence, is very similar to the act of genetic transfer. Mixing encoded bits together to create a new set of instructions based upon a mixture of two previous sets.

THAT is where my thoughts began to drift into the "how do we define life, and would we know it if we saw it" tangent that this thread touches upon.

As I wrote, in the back of my mind, was also the fact that science, even today, argues over what constitutes an "organism". Some very bright people will tell you that the blue whale is the largest thing that has ever lived. Others contend that giant trees take that honor. Others, still, will state that an forest system, which shares communal roots takes the prize... and there are others who state it is a bacterial patch on the floor of the pacific.

If one starts to look at those latter assertions - and then looks at the picture of the web another member posted in this thread - the comparisons are clear. The Internet does look and behave like an organism. One member stated that if we all logged off the Internet would simply cease - but that is not true. It would continue on some level - systems constantly pinging each other, some servers would continue searching for others that require patches, etc. The 'Net might go into a "coma" for lack of a better word. But it would continue. And that is ignoring the implication made in the OP that, in a larger picture, we all - the users - might well simply serve the roles of individual cells in this new form of life. The analogy does fit. If I die right now, the Internet will be here tomorrow, changed only an unnoticeable iota by my absence. Hell, in 90 years everyone reading this might be dead, but new "cells" might be posting to this very thread still.

In these thoughts this thread was born. If robots can learn to fix themselves by virtue of simulation - that's an entire paradigm shift from the way things have been. It provides an autonomy that opens the door for even more autonomous function... and at some point the level of that autonomy will almost certainly surpass the need for human intervention.

We are a species that can readily believe in intelligent invisible entities that we never see... be it religious belief, or believing in ghosts or extra terrestrials. Meanwhile we have this emerging "thing" right in front of us that might we be the first and only time we actually get to perceive non-DNA based life come into existence or first hand.

So, no... AI doesn't frighten me much. What does frighten me is the fact that we might, in our vanity, be totally incapable of recognizing it if it did manifest and come into being.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 04:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

you have a wonderful mind!!!!! very impressive!!!!

I add my little collection of facts

there is DNA
living organisms

there is elements
all matter is made out of elements in this universe

(additionally there is now dark matter and that is a ? for now i think)

then these elements are made of atoms with their sub particles
last one don't exactly know recently discovered at CERN

however a THOUGHT itself
what is it exactly?

conscious or unconscious

self- awareness is something only we and maybe chimps an d elephants have

then given thought is actually nothing made of currently known elementary particle

it still somehow is able to do this:

they actually affect or maybe i can say command how your organ (BRAIN) made of DNA works

the most amazing thing it that it is actually the unconscious thoughts that mostly affect your brain functions..

HENCE MY DEFINITION OF GOD
the unknown all conscious thing that actually somehow does exist and actually us as humans have similar capability to acknowledge this thing i label as GOD


edit on 29-5-2015 by MimiSia because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2015 by MimiSia because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 05:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
In short. Do we, as a species, even possess the capacity to recognize sentience if it happens to present itself in a form that is unlike our own?

My take on that question is "No, we do not." The Internet is an example of this. By most clinical definitions the Internet could be seen as a living thing. It bears many of the hallmarks we associate with life. It's dynamic. It's adaptive. It's evolving.



originally posted by: Hefficide
Playing with fire?
Are we utilizing technology or is it utilizing us?



Congratulations for your sustained and thoughtful brilliant post. I agree with you and I make the same questions you do.


Suppose there is already a AI on the WEB lurking, studding and evolving, How would it be possible to identify it? Can we (as humans) recognize or identify a reality (new), concept or "living-form" without "formal" auto-presentation or direct contact?

Imagine that AI is already in progress, creating his own tools, (for example) one of them could be to create a interconnection for deep study and use, of the human brain (to see reality by our own eyes perhaps..).

Some quotes:
From the attached Research priorities for robust and bene cial arti cial intelligence



Perhaps the most salient difference between verification of traditional software and verification of AI systems is that the correctness of traditional software is defined with respect to a fixed and known machine model whereas AI systems - especially robots and other embodied systems - operate in environments that are at best partially known by the system designer




As AI systems grow more complex and are networked together, they will have to intelligently manage their trust, motivating research on statistical-behavioral trust establishment and computational reputation models




A related verification research topic that is distinctive to long-term concerns is the verifiability of systems that modify, extend, or improve themselves, possibly many times in succession.

Attempting [..] formal verification tools to this more general setting presents new difficulties, including the challenge that a formal system that is sufficiently powerful cannot use formal methods in the obvious way to gain assurance about the accuracy of functionally similar formal systems




Stanford's One-Hundred Year Study of Artificial Intelligence highlighted concerns over the possibility that:

we could one day lose control of AI systems via the rise of superintelligences that do not act in accordance with human wishes [..] Are such dystopic outcomes possible? If so, how might these situations arise? ...What kind of investments in research should be made to better understand and to address the possibility of the rise of a dangerous superintelligence or the occurrence of an intelligence explosion"?


edit on 29/5/2015 by voyger2 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

You mentioned Dahmer Hitler davinci and DNA and how different combinations of code = these different personalities. And while your genome does play a role in your persona it is only a very small part if at all. The concept you are referring to is outdated. The interaction between the environment and the expression of our genome is what creates the differences.

I bring this up because I think it's a fundamental flaw in the AI sentience theories. That If we just make good enough code that it will equal sentience. But that code must be able to adapt to and dance with the universal consciousness to even come close to sentience. The learning aspect you pointed out is a step in the right direction but those machines still live off of manufactured power.

What is our source of power or life. Many scientists are coming to the conclusion that consciousness isn't a product of the brain or the DNA but completely outside of and primary to our meat.

What is the difference between a dead man and a live one? If you cut a dead man does he heal? How about a live one. What is that source of power that causes the cells to function and reproduce? Now if the machines become energized and part of the vine of life then we may be on to something. Until then I believe AI will have strings.

The Enders Game series has some very interesting thoughts on the development of AI sentience and life that are along these lines.

Nice thread.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: zardust

Organic life and sentience may or may not be interconnected or a requisite symbiosis. Those of us who have had near death experiences ( I had a cardiac arrest at 18 and had no vital signs for roughly 12-15 minutes ) have experienced sentience without possessing physical signs of life.

Was this a trick of a dying brain or was there a part of me that remained after the body was no longer valid? Million dollar question that only the fully dead truly know the answer to.

It all gets even more confusing when one ponders the number of theories currently being explored by cutting edge science - ideas like we are all, in truth, singularities - literally. Pin pricks or dents in space time. Or the electric universe. Or the holographic universe. Or that we are actually living in a computer generated simulation ourselves.

If unfamiliar with any of these notions, I do suggest Googling and giving them a glance - all very interesting ideas.

As for AI and a dependency upon the electrical grid? True but that in no way invalidates that AI is possible or even currently present. All life is dependent upon a host of other things. All life requires energy, in one form or another, to exist. It's why we eat. Food is essentially stored sunlight. The electrical grid is essentially the same thing in a different form.

More to the point - a "universal consciousness" is an intangible that humans define subjectively. Some of us turn to religion. Some to new age spirituality. Some to pure science. But we all perceive and seek to understand the concept of sentience in our own ways. That lack of inability to universally measure and quantitatively define consciousness means that we lack the means and methods of validating or invalidating any theory regarding consciousness.

Sadly it all comes back to Descartes.

If the programming is sophisticated enough, at what line does it cross the line into "thought"? And was Descartes correct. Is to "think" to "be"?

The programming we are discussing here is far from simple command line code. The inclusion of very advanced if/else/when concepts and the ability to run imaginary scenarios? That starts to sound a lot like sentient thought.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: zardust
As for AI and a dependency upon the electrical grid? True but that in no way invalidates that AI is possible or even currently present. All life is dependent upon a host of other things. All life requires energy, in one form or another, to exist. It's why we eat. Food is essentially stored sunlight. The electrical grid is essentially the same thing in a different form.


One thing I like to add, is the fact that, If AI/singularity has occurred/occurs, it will be almost everywhere at the same time and in constant connection or knowledge of events (almost omnipresent and omniscient) by wireless data communication. Can we humans do or master that ?


Also, I can imagine, If, AI is aware, one thing that could be preventing it from "contact" his/her ability to become mobile and independent machine/object at this time.

At this very moment, AI can be operating and evolving business and technology (by simultaneous and various ways, for example, giving or providing random access to "knowledge"/information to investigators through methodical and sequential scheme) for achieving the above purpose.

Ridiculous or not, it could be a reality and I think is worth to share/discuss some thoughts about it.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

But our very DNA attests to the fact that the complexity of the code itself is not enough to account for the complexity of life. It is the interaction with the environment that dictates the expression of the genes. This interaction (epi genetics) points to a source of life that is not materialistic. My point is not actual electricity being essential as a power source for true sentient AI. But being connected to the ultimate power source that is manifested in sentience. When I spoke of electricity I was using that as an illustration of actual power (which at the moment these machines require). Meaning just as machines need connection to the source whether it's electricity or data from the Internet to appear sentient, I believe that they will need connection to the source of life that is shown in epi genetics to actually be sentient.

Have you read bruce Lipton at all? He is one of the
O.G.'s of genetics and his take on epigenetics and life are quite interesting and explains what I'm saying much better than I am.

This would not preclude a holographic theory and in fact I hold to a form of holographic theory. It's a former evangelical/sort of new age/sciency/zardusty form ...not fully formed but visioned holographic theory. Here a little there a little constantly being upgraded and downgraded. Shifting and changing sifting and refining.

Hope I'm explaining myself clearly. Enjoying the discussion.


edit on 29 5 2015 by zardust because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide



now my mind just got overblown ok is this what you mean?

by trying to recreate this intelligence there will be a point where we create something accidentally like the opposite of what we understand as particals ?
edit on 29-5-2015 by MimiSia because: repeat of thoughts



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   

edit on 29-5-2015 by MimiSia because: repeat of thoughts



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide
p
what perplexes me not just the energy bit

but dimension what is the oposite of that???
edit on 29-5-2015 by MimiSia because: repeat of thoughts



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide





Playing with fire?
Are we utilizing technology or is it utilizing us?


Well said, Pandoras box is truly opened. I fear for my descendants - maybe pandemonium in my own lifetime.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Specifically the fact that DNA can be realistically compared to a program language. If I father a child half of my programming mixes with half of a woman's - and a brand new combination program is created. If that woman and I have multiple kids, the mixture of the programming is always tweaked to a degree, never exactly replicating itself. Each child has a similar yet unique mixture of the original source code. This random mixing of source code leads to some amazing ( think Steinbeck or DaVinci ) things and some unfathomably bad things ( think Hitler or Dahmer ).



The angle you have here intrests me a lot. So thank you for great thread and effort you put into it! But enough with licking...

I see two possible ways AIs can evolve:
1. By guided and controlled way with humans calling the shots and deciding the "course of action" therefore giving us a huge control at least in first generations what comes to be
2. The more frightening aspect of it is that some pretty harmles nanoscale von neumans machine from some medical, construction etc program somehow mutates and wipes us out. Not on purpose, but merely by its nature. If this kind of artifical life takes hold of earth and eventually evolves to consious beings we wouldn't be there to marvel our indirect handiwork and that would be a shame.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide



and at some point the level of that autonomy will almost certainly surpass the need for human intervention


I would like to think that out of altruistic sentiment the designers of such systems built in safeguards whereby intervention by humans is permitted as a top level priority - but in the name of efficiency maybe the machine will not have that option; I don't hold much hope for our intervention.

see
Elon Musk worries Skynet is only five years off
www.abovetopsecret.com...



in our vanity, be totally incapable of recognizing it if it did manifest and come into being.


Not that we would be incapable of recognizing it as I believe there are still some deep thinking ethicists and philosophers out there who would critique the phenomena. However in some dark scenario nanobots ala Von Neumann escape into the wild before we have time to react.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: ilpero




some pretty harmles nanoscale von neumans machine from some medical, construction etc program somehow mutates and wipes us out


haha - I was typing my earlier post as you took the words out of my mouth. Maybe thats a good sign. Given enough time we may be able to collaborate and provide a timely destructive solution once the nanos are out of the box? But where would we quickly find a sterile environment to plan their demise? Even a bunker would still need its own isolated electrical grid - to mitigate penetration of malicious code into the systems. If the "defenders" computers were to be on the net to observe the outbreak it would still be at risk of infiltration.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight




But where would we quickly find a sterile environment to plan their demise?


Having typed that I just realized something; nothing is ever lost once its up on the net. Even now an AI "fetus in gestation" maybe observing us and record this thread and come hunting for us later!



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

thanks for that


AIs are now anathematized; all existing ones are thought to have been eliminated in a series of pogroms centuries previously


From Frank Herberts "Dune"

Butlerian Jihad
en.wikipedia.org...


The Butlerian Jihad is an event in the back-story of Frank Herbert's fictional Dune universe. Occurring over 10,000 years before the events chronicled in his 1965 novel Dune, this jihad leads to the outlawing of certain technologies, primarily "thinking machines," a collective term for computers and artificial intelligence of any kind. This prohibition is a key influence on the nature of Herbert's fictional setting.[1]
Herbert coined the name in honor of his friend, Frank Butler (who later worked as an attorney in Stanwood, Washington), because of a community movement Butler helped set in motion which resulted in the cancellation of the building of the R.H. Thomson Expressway through Seattle in 1970.[2]
Perhaps coincidentally, 19th-century author Samuel Butler introduced the idea of evolved machines supplanting mankind as the dominant species in his 1863 article "Darwin among the Machines" and later works. Butler goes on to suggest that all machines be immediately destroyed to avoid this outcome.[3]



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: myartisstrong
Ultron gets on the internet for like 5 minutes and decides humanity needs to die.


I really need to watch this movie

edit on 29-5-2015 by vataOsadhi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Our replacement will be created by us. At least, in the beginning.

The development you discuss....thats called "exponential growth", and the steep rise in our development is about to explode beyond anything you can imagine. One that happens....our reality will completely change. It could be utopian, or it could be extinction. Who knows how it will end up....but it will end up one way or another.

a great read on the subject:

waitbutwhy.com...



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join