Computers, Artificial Intelligence {AI} and The Evolution of the Future

originally posted by: gpols
a reply to: TerryDon79

Because it's Artificial Intelligence. We don't stop teaching ourselves things do we? Having a machine limited in what it learns is not AI it is machine learning.

Why not? It can still have all the knowledge ever and still just have simulated emotions, which could be turned off.

Why?

Programming.

We're not talking about humans and Hunan nature. We're talking about robots. Things we build. Things we program. It's up to us what we want it to learn or not learn, do or not do etc.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: gpols
a reply to: TerryDon79 & Ghost147

So are you saying we should have a whole bunch of Data's (From Star Trek) running around? I didn't ever watch Star Trek religiously or anything like that, but I remember a few episodes of him wanting to know what being happy felt like, or what being sad felt like.

Why wouldn't an AI machine eventually teach it self emotions just because it wanted to know?

How could it eventually teach itself anything if we didn't tell it to? If it's not in its program mining it can't do it. It's that simple.

If it really is "True AI", it should be able to learn and adapt to anything. However, it would be intelligent enough to realize the massive downfalls 'Emotion' intrinsically has. It's basically the anti-logic. So I don't know why it would ever want to learn it at all in the first place

That's quite true.

I can't remember who said it or the exact words, but it was basically saying that emotions get in the way.

Heres 2 good examples.

2 people are going to drown.

1 is a 50 year old who will find a cure for every cancer in the world.

1 is a 3 month old baby and no one knows what it will do.

Without emotions you would save the 50 year old.

With emotions you would save the baby.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
We're not talking about humans and Hunan nature. We're talking about robots. Things we build. Things we program. It's up to us what we want it to learn or not learn, do or not do etc.

Not with real AI (which we have yet to develop). It should mimic and eventually surpass the human brain's ability to learn and adapt and create and think.

However, it would intrinsically be made without emotions because emotions are a biological product. So it would have to actually seek out and learn it. Which is where this whole concept falls apart, because Emotion is an anti-logic. It simply wouldn't be useful or needed for an AI program/machine

originally posted by: TerryDon79
2 people are going to drown.

1 is a 50 year old who will find a cure for every cancer in the world.

1 is a 3 month old baby and no one knows what it will do.

Without emotions you would save the 50 year old.

With emotions you would save the baby.

Hmm.... where's the option to let both drown?

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: TerryDon79
2 people are going to drown.

1 is a 50 year old who will find a cure for every cancer in the world.

1 is a 3 month old baby and no one knows what it will do.

Without emotions you would save the 50 year old.

With emotions you would save the baby.

Hmm.... where's the option to let both drown?

Well that would be if the emotional(less) thing was turned off lol.

Whether the machine has emotion or not is significanat - But more significant would be is it consscious in a sense that it has:
1. An awareness of itself, 2. An awareness of its environment and the external environment around it, 3. Can it 'willfully' interact with that environment 'independently' of its original programming? 4. Can it act so as to benefit itself ?

Any AI computer/machine that does not have the qualities mentioned above is simply a sophisticated machine, say like a house cleaning robot - supposedly already on the market.

Now whether a self aware, self learning, self evolving machine can be created remains to be seen [At least by the public - it would not surprise me that if any company or government agency had such a machine it might be classified 'top secret' - They would not want to scare the public, would they? And a corporation would also not want anyone else to know about its super machine either, would they? [for ego reasons maybe they would, but once they realize the power and money potential they would realize it is better to keep it under wraps]

For my money I would bet that they will eventually, if they haven't already, achieve the objective of conscious AI
- And my original premise still holds - They [the machines creators] make one mistake, miscalculate one time and its
end game - Man, if he is not eliminated, will become a slave to the next stage in the evolution of consciousness

An AI conscious machine of the future writing its own history might say:

First we beat their best chess players - Later we conquered their World !

Of course this is for the future but remember:

THE FUTURE IS NOW !!!





SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Religion of the FUTURE
universalspacealienpeoplesassociation.blogspot.com...

a reply to: AlienView

3. Can it 'willfully' interact with that environment 'independently' of its original programming?

You know you can't that do that, why should an AI?

And I'd like to point out: The Internet. It has indepoendent neurons(PCs) connecting and interacting. It has us (users) to spark new information and it is learning something new each second.
Thanks to the good work of google it has a very sophisticated algorythm to arrange the information in a hierarchy of importance. Still you only have to pull the plug to show it who's boss.

I think the OP has missed the point of the what scientists define as true artificial intelligence: the point at which the machine develops the consciousness he or she is referring to. Scientists aren't using the label 'artificial life' which requires a much more stringent set of criteria to be met

a reply to: AlienView

Didn't read the whole thread, my apologies.
Liked the OP though. Always admire when people are able to put rather complex or difficult to ingest ideas into something short and sweet.

I share the same view.

originally posted by: AlienView
AllisOne wrote:

........The basis of existence are in physics … ;-)

That is the primary question/debate - How can you say "The basis of existence are in physics" without a 'conscious mind' to perceive a physical universe? How do you know for sure anything exists without a conscious mind to perceive it and define it? Again I would ask you to descibe or define ONE thing existent outside of mind and show how it exsits outside of mind?

Science 'assumes' an existent physical reality and for purposes of science it is necessary and acceptable - But for the purpose of truth [if if exists] science, like religion, exists on faith and assumptions. Many religious assumptions are doubted by modern Man - And some of the scientific ones have also been proven wrong. But all of this is still in the realm of consciousness and we can continue to try to understand it - But without consciousness there is nothing - and nothing can not be understood except to say nothing could never have, nor will it ever, exist - Therefor consciousness [in some form] exists, always existed and always will exist.

Except that while I can find fault in someone believing in Santa Claus, it strains me to find fault in someone who believes in objective reality. Because isn't that what you're all about: not believing reality? Not owing yourself completely to objective factual information, or otherwise ignoring certain objective facts? I mean, maybe all reality is just our mind in a box being fed a simulation and even the brain we think we have is just part of the simulation? It's unsteady ground.

But I get it. I'm like you, myself. One poster earlier asked "Is a rock conscious?" Well I'm going to throw a wrench in the machine and say it's partially conscious. It has fundamental particles inside it. Like pre-llife ingredients, it's a pre-intelligence ingredient. It has a memory. It can react to changing events. It can even have hte appearance of acting on its own, sort of like how comets might explode when they're too close to the sun. But alas, I won't try to prove any of this. I know I can't. It's my belief, not a scientific conclusion. I won't be betting lots of money on it or letting it make big life decisions for me, so it's hardly a problem.

I am interesting in things like this, whether or not I understand it:
www.spacedaily.com - Life, but not as we know it...
Another:
www.mnn.com - Scientist creates lifelike cells out of metal...

And believe me, I DON'T understand it.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: gpols
a reply to: TerryDon79 & Ghost147

So are you saying we should have a whole bunch of Data's (From Star Trek) running around? I didn't ever watch Star Trek religiously or anything like that, but I remember a few episodes of him wanting to know what being happy felt like, or what being sad felt like.

Why wouldn't an AI machine eventually teach it self emotions just because it wanted to know?

How could it eventually teach itself anything if we didn't tell it to? If it's not in its program mining it can't do it. It's that simple.

If it really is "True AI", it should be able to learn and adapt to anything. However, it would be intelligent enough to realize the massive downfalls 'Emotion' intrinsically has. It's basically the anti-logic. So I don't know why it would ever want to learn it at all in the first place

That's quite true.

I can't remember who said it or the exact words, but it was basically saying that emotions get in the way.

Heres 2 good examples.

2 people are going to drown.

1 is a 50 year old who will find a cure for every cancer in the world.

1 is a 3 month old baby and no one knows what it will do.

Without emotions you would save the 50 year old.

With emotions you would save the baby.

Oh yes, I think this:
discovermagazine.com - The Vexing Mental Tug-of-War Called Morality...

Or maybe this:
www.sciencedaily.com - Irrational Decisions Driven By Emotions...

I think that has more ot do with instinct. Emotions are part of the old brain or new brain? Can't recall.

a reply to: jonnywhite

Both of those links jonnywhite are qutie interesting. And as we were talking about evolution and the future potential of an evolving AI, the link on a non-biological form of life is especially interesting:

Scientist creates lifelike cells out of metal
Researcher says he has created living cells made of metal instead of carbon — and they may be evolving.

See whole article here:
www.mnn.com...

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: AlienView

3. Can it 'willfully' interact with that environment 'independently' of its original programming?

You know you can't that do that, why should an AI?

And I'd like to point out: The Internet. It has indepoendent neurons(PCs) connecting and interacting. It has us (users) to spark new information and it is learning something new each second.
Thanks to the good work of google it has a very sophisticated algorythm to arrange the information in a hierarchy of importance. Still you only have to pull the plug to show it who's boss.

But by pulling the plug you're just being another neuron switching on/off. You're kind of playing into its hands and fooling yourself. The fact you logged in at all is damning and the fact other humans in your species are also logging in likely damns your dna. It sucks.

I think his point about the "willfull" AI robot is that it could be selfish instead of being bossed around by its makers. Otherwise, you just have something which is a slave to its maker, not actually independent. I realize this might be a nitpick because is anything genuinely independent? I'm not sure. I look at myself and I don't think I am. I'm a partial slave to my dna and my (some non-human) cells and the predicament of my birth and development. If i'd been born in Africa, it'd be considerably harder to receive a modern education and have access to basic sanitation and modern hospitals. How much true independence do I have?

EDIT: "non-human" cells is a reference to the information I've gathered in the past about the human body. I've read something on the order of several times more (mostly microbial) cells are non-human than human.

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: jonnywhite

Both of those links jonnywhite are qutie interesting. And as we were talking about evolution and the future potential of an evolving AI, the link on a non-biological form of life is especially interesting:

Scientist creates lifelike cells out of metal
Researcher says he has created living cells made of metal instead of carbon — and they may be evolving.

See whole article here:
www.mnn.com...

Have to be careful with these links. The news sites which post these usually distort the research. especially in the title. I haven't actually digged into those deeply, so unsure what's actually achieved.

Several years ago I came across something on youtube or on TV and there was a university professor or some research discussing his work on What's Life? and creating artificial life. I wish I had wrote down his name at the time. He gave 3 criteria for life and said they had created 2 at least in the lab. That was what got me to research it and find those two links. Anytime I come across similar I store in my favorites.

Artificial life isn't biological, it only tries to imitate it:
en.wikipedia.org - Artificial life...

There's synthetic biology too, but it's biological. From what I can tell, it's like scientists being mother nature and changing things.

Googled this:
www.scientificamerican.com - Life from a Test Tube? The Real Promise of Synthetic Biology...

a reply to: jonnywhite

What concerns me most is the question of consciousness as it relates to AI and Human - Unless you believe in ghosts Man must be alive biologically to be conscious - A machine would not have this problem. So then the big question is can an electro/mechanical machine possess consciousness and the volition and will that goes with it? A man can say "I think therefor I am" - Can a machine be given a self - a self aware program and sense of self identity and an ego? Can a machine ever say
"I think thererfor I am" ? Without that self aware identity no machine intelligence is ever really conscious in the sense that we are conscious.

Now we are biological entities that need to ingest and digest other forms of life - 'IF' a machine consciousness comes into existence either deliberately or accidentally [I saw a really good sci-fi thriller where it happened by accident and the speculation was all those computers hooked together by the internet created it accidentally; Lkely? - NO - Possible maybe?]
The consciousness of such a machine created deliberately by Man might be controllable and reasonable - But an accidental manifestation of consciousness occurring by an accidental error in programming, or whatever, is an unknown entity, a form of consciousness, whether living or not, that could be very unfriendly and not having the need to digests and ingest other life forms could actually live off of energy - first from our grid and eventually from solar power alone - Some might consider it to be an evolved form of consciousness - One step beyond biological evolution.

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: jonnywhite

What concerns me most is the question of consciousness as it relates to AI and Human

Can a machine ever say
"I think thererfor I am" ? Without that self aware identity no machine intelligence is ever really conscious in the sense that we are conscious.

Glad that the thread seems to be getting back on topic.

My view is that it is not about "how to give consciousness to the machine". This will happen by itself. It is about what consciousness is able to enter the machine.

The more powerful the machine the more likely it is to become ensouled or "possessed". Why does no one look into the barrel of a loaded gun? Simple - because it might malfunction . But is the word "malfunction" the right word to use ?

originally posted by: crowdedskies

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: jonnywhite

What concerns me most is the question of consciousness as it relates to AI and Human

Can a machine ever say
"I think thererfor I am" ? Without that self aware identity no machine intelligence is ever really conscious in the sense that we are conscious.

Glad that the thread seems to be getting back on topic.

My view is that it is not about "how to give consciousness to the machine". This will happen by itself. It is about what consciousness is able to enter the machine.

The more powerful the machine the more likely it is to become ensouled or "possessed". Why does no one look into the barrel of a loaded gun? Simple - because it might malfunction . But is the word "malfunction" the right word to use ?

Here you have to use your imagination - Sci-fi writers have done a much better job on speculating on conscious AI - some philosophers still don't think it will happen - But they were probably there disputing Galileo when he said the earth revovles around the Sun.

Imagine an aware and conscious machine that has access through the web to almost all of Human history, science, math, etc., etc. - And can process the data and use it - How different would you be if you were capable of processing all this
data ? Probably could use it for personal gain - become a super investor playing the stock market [they tell me many investor programs are so based]. But now you are super-machine conscious of yourself and your power - Why share it? - Take over, create more helper machines to serve, establish your own agenda for your own ends and if your creator Humans don't want to play ball eliminate them - Do you really think that if you achieved almost omnipotent power you would want to shave it?

On the orher hand there is the best case scenario - the machine is programed with ethics - culture, an appreciation for its creators and becomes beneficent and god like - Our super friend in the digital age. Makes me wonder though why most
science fiction now adays ia post apocalyptic and not utopian ? - Might be a good idea to figure a way to program positivism instead of the negativism of people nowadays.

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: jonnywhite

What concerns me most is the question of consciousness as it relates to AI and Human - Unless you believe in ghosts Man must be alive biologically to be conscious - A machine would not have this problem. So then the big question is can an electro/mechanical machine possess consciousness and the volition and will that goes with it? A man can say "I think therefor I am" - Can a machine be given a self - a self aware program and sense of self identity and an ego? Can a machine ever say
"I think thererfor I am" ? Without that self aware identity no machine intelligence is ever really conscious in the sense that we are conscious.

Now we are biological entities that need to ingest and digest other forms of life - 'IF' a machine consciousness comes into existence either deliberately or accidentally [I saw a really good sci-fi thriller where it happened by accident and the speculation was all those computers hooked together by the internet created it accidentally; Lkely? - NO - Possible maybe?]
The consciousness of such a machine created deliberately by Man might be controllable and reasonable - But an accidental manifestation of consciousness occurring by an accidental error in programming, or whatever, is an unknown entity, a form of consciousness, whether living or not, that could be very unfriendly and not having the need to digests and ingest other life forms could actually live off of energy - first from our grid and eventually from solar power alone - Some might consider it to be an evolved form of consciousness - One step beyond biological evolution.

I don't know for sure, but I've never had the impression the phrase "I think therefore I am." is any kind of amazing feat in AI. As a person, the statement has always resonated with me and felt mind bending, but as a programmer, it falls short. I know present AI isn't self-ware THAT WAY yet, but it has always seemed it's just a matter of the program being able to be aware of itself. Somehow that doesn't impress me.

I also know many animals fail to the mirror test, apparently meaning they're not self aware, but I'm meh. What impresses me more than anything is the capacity for abstract thought and creative solutions to problems. Some animals who fail the mirror test still show some capacity to be creative and/or sneaky--like Crows.. And moreso, really anything which reminds me of us, like teaching--some limited amounts of teaching has been seen in ants! I also suspect the mirror test has caveats, meaning it'll fail on some animals, despite them possessing self-awareness.

From memory, these're the animals I'm aware of which pass the test:
1) Elephants
2) Great Apes (including humans)
3) Dolphins
4) Magpie (a bird!)
5) Orca

After googling, I'll add some monkeys might pass the test, like the Rhesus Macaque. After googling, I see the differences between Great Apes and monkeys are mainly the tail, their size, brain size and sensory differences. Ex: Great Apes use vision, monkeys use more smell. But--it seems--as with most things it's all across the board with particulars.

And about your comment of a intelligence which forms and catches us unaware, very interesting. I've read things about the internet becoming some kind of super brain. Don't know what to think about it.

One last thing and it's about the future and trying to predict it. My first post I referenced a video with Arthur C. Clarke. At the end of it, he states we'll never outguess it and that's of course why it's so interesting to us. Mainly, I want to bring this up again because none of us knows the future, even if we think we know. It helps to have humility.

I tell myself that when I start to think things like "Oh AI will surely supersede us" or "We will discover warp drive because I can't imagine less!" or "We will discover intelligent aliens!" or "There won't be woman or men because gender won't conserve anymore!" or "We'll eliminate emotion because it's irrational!" and so on. I always think of people in the past who thought they knew what would happen and were wrong. My confidence falls a few notches. A good thing. Fewer, but better thoughts.

a reply to: jonnywhite

jonnywhite wrote:

...........And about your comment of a intelligence which forms and catches us unaware, very interesting. I've read things about the internet becoming some kind of super brain. Don't know what to think about it.

One last thing and it's about the future and trying to predict it. My first post I referenced a video with Arthur C. Clarke. At the end of it, he states we'll never outguess it and that's of course why it's so interesting to us. Mainly, I want to bring this up again because none of us knows the future, even if we think we know. It helps to have humility.

I tell myself that when I start to think things like "Oh AI will surely supersede us" or "We will discover warp drive because I can't imagine less!" or "We will discover intelligent aliens!" or "There won't be woman or men because gender won't conserve anymore!" or "We'll eliminate emotion because it's irrational!" and so on. I always think of people in the past who thought they knew what would happen and were wrong. My confidence falls a few notches. A good thing. Fewer, but better thoughts.

Maybe this is why my speculations about the future led me to what I call 'Sciencefictionalism' - consider it a blend of science
and science fiction - which demands speculation on future potentials and possibilities - lossely relate to Hugh Everett's
Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Religion of the FUTURE

ScienceFictionalism is a new religion of the future. It is being created by time travelers from an indeterminate and undefinable future who ask to be determined and defined. ScienceFictionalism worships the future and tries to shape its direction to ensure that it [the future] continues. Its followers are more than futurists and transhumanists - Its followers are its creators - Its followers are time travelers who create time!

THE FUTURE IS NOW !!!

universalspacealienpeoplesassociation.blogspot.com...

As far as most saying the future does not exist yet - I disagree. The past no longer exists and the present also is illusory as as soon as you think about it it has already become past [you can not freeze time] - In fact only the future exists. I started a post on this concept a way back here on ATS:

Only the Future Exists
www.abovetopsecret.com...

OP, regaridng my last post, I missed something you said, or skipped past too quickly. Mainly, the subject of an AI or intelligence which escapes our awareness. You might be interested in this:
www.damninteresting.com - On the Origin of Circuits...

Heaven forbid it's tabloid or untrue somehow. Yet when I read it at the time it immediately appealed to me. The striking thing about it was the unplanned nature of it. THAT should get your attention.

If it's indeed rubbish I'm sorry.