Ambrosia Software Web Board: Arguments - Ambrosia Software Web Board

Personally I think that AIs will not be allowed to do such a thing as taking over the world. The Human race isn't that sloppy.

------------------
PI=3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097
494459230781640628620899862803482534211706798214808651328230
664709384460955058223172535940812848111745028410270193852110
5559644622948954930381964428810975665933446128475648233787...

One might assume a sufficiently advanced AI would cover up the fact it is self-aware. This assumes this is such as thing as being aware anyway. Maybe we are just programmed to think that we are self-aware, if we were, then how do you explain the rampant hypocrisy in our society? Humans are programmed biologically speaking.

Quote

Well, the human race is sloppy enough to allow small chunks of the world to accidentally be irradiated and blown apart. (read: Chernobyl)

------------------

I saw someone reading a book called "The Hinge Factor," I believe. If it's what I think it was, it should really show what humans are sloppy enough to do…

------------------
"Once, just once, I'd like to be able to land somewhere and say, 'Behold, I am the Archangel Gabriel.'"
"I fail to see the humor in that situation, Doctor."
"Naturally. You could hardly claim to be an angel with those pointed ears, Mister Spock. But say you landed someplace with a pitchfork……"

Quote

In case it wasn't apparent, I never saw Darkk's reply before I posted. My mention of AIs had nothing to do with his.

A mortal being with any sense of humor would find us funny - we have even effectively removed ourselves from Natural Selection with all of our gadgetry and "principles"; the vast majority of people who "will not reproduce" are the people who are ugly and the people who have been crippled by accidents involving the people who shouldn't reproduce, rather than the people who should have died because of genetic conditions. I admit I may a bit harsh here, but people won't think so when another species evolves the capability to invent things. It may be a few score million years from now (and we'll probably all have died off too) but of course it's all in principle.

------------------
"Once, just once, I'd like to be able to land somewhere and say, 'Behold, I am the Archangel Gabriel.'"
"I fail to see the humor in that situation, Doctor."
"Naturally. You could hardly claim to be an angel with those pointed ears, Mister Spock. But say you landed someplace with a pitchfork……"

If you at first state that we've outsmarted natural selection with our gadgets and at the end of your post state that we may in all likelihood be gone in a few score million years then you are negating your own concept. I think you're right on both counts, actually. We've certainly stalled natural selection, but we have in no way beaten it. We're still subject to diseases like AIDS and cancer for one thing and we have not been selected through natural causes to protect ourselves from ourselves. A species destroying itself is also a part of natural selection. There have been many species that have used up so much of their environment that they no longer had the resources to sustain themselves.

------------------
Captaintripps, proudly dispensing bad advice since before you were born.

Quote

Name three. Dinosaurs didn't do that, so don't even think about that.

------------------
Formerly-Rampant Human-Coded AI

Darkk, the argument that resources etc can run out and thereby cause a society to die is a perfectly logical one. Unfortunately, there are very few examples from the animal world to support this, due to the fact that nature often re-introduces their old foes or new ones that are now equipped to fight back against a dominant animal after a short time.

[This message has been edited by Count Altair El Alemein (edited 07-06-2001).]

The aurochs of central asia, the chatham islands rail, and the saudi gazelle. Want some more?

------------------
Captaintripps, proudly dispensing bad advice since before you were born.

I'm not claiming we've outsmarted natural selection; I'm simply claiming that we've removed ourselves. Now of course the inefficient methods we've used to remove ourselves will eventually come back and hurt us. We're running out of fuels we need and that source will be gone, we're continually allowing intelligence to die off, and when we need new technology to survive in new conditions we're not going to be able to get it because of our removal. At that point, if we're not extinct within a hundred years we'll be so far reduced in the technology that we can invent that we'll simply be running off older methods for thousands years, with a miniscule population compared to today's because the inefficiency is bound into our technology.

And so are we.

Because we take technology for granted, we never seem to wonder as much about "making it better." If it works we're happy; if it works better it's more expensive (SUVs), and we're not happy. So essentially we're bound to inefficiency through our technology. If technology is what makes man survive, it's also what is most likely to kill us off - it's a great gamble, and the odds are against us. If only this was like SimLife with something higher than us to directly intervene and protect us, and our environment - if only it had the powers of the monolith so that something could take our place when we're gone…

------------------
"Once, just once, I'd like to be able to land somewhere and say, 'Behold, I am the Archangel Gabriel.'"
"I fail to see the humor in that situation, Doctor."
"Naturally. You could hardly claim to be an angel with those pointed ears, Mister Spock. But say you landed someplace with a pitchfork……"

Creating technology is one of the things we've evolved to do. If we die because of our use of technology, whether through overexploitation or technology that doesn't allow us to survive, then we've indeed fallen prey to natural selection. We are in no way removed from it.

------------------
Captaintripps, proudly dispensing bad advice since before you were born.

Also on the subject of 'AI', the truth about that is that the more and more technology we creat the more and more dependent we become on technology. After a while, if our civilization creats Artificial Life, after a while they might become our master minds, therefore ending up in our inferiorness in this world.

------------------
Falling inlove is when he lays in your arms and wakes up in your dreams...

Quote

Or we become symbiotic. There are always things that organics can do that silicon can't and vice versa. It could also win in humans destroying the AI becuase of their danger.

------------------
Captaintripps, proudly dispensing bad advice since before you were born.
[url="http://"http://www.geocities.com/voxhumanasketch/VoxHumana.html"]VoxHumana[/url] -- Comedy of the Future

Quote

See my theory about AIs keeping us around for amusement value above.
Destroying the AI depends entirely on its hardware. Give it the ability to modify its hardware, and destroying it will probably become REALLY HARD.

See Marathon 2 for refrence on both concepts.

------------------
Formerly-Rampant Human-Coded AI

I seriously doubt though that AI will ever get that sophisticated. I don't think any form of life is any better than another and if AIs were so smart they'd probably feel the same way. Or not. This is what William Gibson is for is it not?

------------------
Captaintripps, proudly dispensing bad advice since before you were born.
[url="http://"http://www.geocities.com/voxhumanasketch/VoxHumana.html"]VoxHumana[/url] -- Comedy of the Future

Of course. We really don't have any "higher life." The thing is, once we've got AIs, they are better. It's a hard thing for some humans to accept, but with superior reasoning capabilities and speed/reflexes they are. Thanks to our dependence on computers, they'll be able to hack into computers to acquire what we need to become more powerful.

------------------
"Once, just once, I'd like to be able to land somewhere and say, 'Behold, I am the Archangel Gabriel.'"
"I fail to see the humor in that situation, Doctor."
"Naturally. You could hardly claim to be an angel with those pointed ears, Mister Spock. But say you landed someplace with a pitchfork……"

There's is nothing to say that AI will be any better than OI. It's different. It's hard for humans to accept that sometimes just because something seems so much better in some ways that it's not entirely flawed in others. There is no proof that computers are any faster than people. So if we assume that AI will come from computers then there's no reason to assume they will be faster than us. They organize differently. Their system is better being fast because it can easily access the information needed. Our system is better because it encompases spontaneous deduction and complex thought. AI will most likely never be put into a free moving form because we already have something that moves and thinks, people. It's not all doom and gloom.

------------------
Captaintripps, proudly dispensing bad advice since before you were born.
[url="http://"http://voxhumanasketch.tripod.com/voxhumana/l"]VoxHumana[/url] -- Comedy of the Future

I have reason to be believe that advanced computers will be grown from living tissue, in the same way that our brains are grown. As it stands, we're about 50 million times as complex as computers. Organic is better.

Quote

And if that happens then they are organic too. Then we've created not only artificial computation and possibly intelligence, but fully artificial life.

------------------
Captaintripps, proudly dispensing bad advice since before you were born.
[url="http://"http://voxhumanasketch.tripod.com/voxhumana/"]VoxHumana[/url] -- Comedy of the Future

CaptainTripps - have you heard of neural networks?
Insane strides have been made - there's already a robot soccer leauge.
No, not like those dumb "Robot Wars" shows on TV, this is real human-intervention-banned robotics.

I look forward to when machines take over. They don't really have much reason to kill or oppress us, and I doubt they'll be any worse than our current leaders (W and Teddy to name 2 bad apples).

Also, they probably will have no need for interns.

------------------
Formerly-Rampant Human-Coded AI

But say, AI gets to the point that you have a little Powerbook that you take with you everywhere and you can open it up and a face, or a chat room like thing pops up and you talk to it. It has emotions, and it feels pain, so, if you poke it to hard it says "oww" or something and it gets a pain in it's HD if it needs a new one.

Maybe not quite like that, but pretty similar.

Then wouldn't kicking one down the stares or jabbing a kinfe in its screen be causeing it pain? And it reacts like it is programmed to react to pain.

Aren't we 'programmed' to react like we reacted to pain?

So then wouldn't this be cruilty to AIbooks.

------------------
PI=3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097
494459230781640628620899862803482534211706798214808651328230
664709384460955058223172535940812848111745028410270193852110
5559644622948954930381964428810975665933446128475648233787...

[This message has been edited by White Fire (edited 07-10-2001).]

Ummmm.... that seems like an extraordinary oversimplification to me.

If we were to build an AI, it would not be something you could stick in a laptop. It would be a rather large and complex series of components designed to function in any way necessary for its use. But, although this is what us humans would need to make it, AIs would undoubtedly be able to identify key components and reorganize its entire structure to improve its speed/reasoning. AIs will be more efficient at using "what they have," ergo they wlil be able to acquire "more," ergo they eventually surpass us and become better.

------------------
"Once, just once, I'd like to be able to land somewhere and say, 'Behold, I am the Archangel Gabriel.'"
"I fail to see the humor in that situation, Doctor."
"Naturally. You could hardly claim to be an angel with those pointed ears, Mister Spock. But say you landed someplace with a pitchfork……"

Quote

The robots in the robot soccer league are not really at an AI level yet. They're like plants, very active plants, but they obviously have preprogrammed goals to make and pretty much act on stimulus response. There's really no thinking involved.

------------------
Captaintripps, proudly dispensing bad advice since before you were born.
[url="http://"http://voxhumanasketch.tripod.com/voxhumana/"]VoxHumana[/url] -- Comedy of the Future

Quote

The computer you are using now would have taken up most of a building thirty or forty years ago and we simplified and identified key components rather well in order to shrink it down to size. The powerbook I'm using now is more powerful than the Quadra 840 I owned before and is about a quarter of the size and the new Titanium(sorry, Macs were the easiest example at hand) is much smaller and lighter than this monster I type on now. So we've done pretty well on our own, not to mention the fact that we are still evolving and that each person makes thousands of new neuronal connexions every day. And again I'd like to state that I don't think there's any evidence that there will be any kind of race. It has been shown that when left alone programs are parasitic to the nth degree. Tom Ray, a biologist at Harvard, was one of the first people to create artificial life within a computer. He created a digital "creature" that copied itself, but the copy was always slightly different. Over the course of the experiment they did indeed simplify themselves and cut their programming down to a size the programmers at the time couldn't achieve (this has since been done by a programmer). The thing is that all of the programmes were parasitic. They lived in parasitic symbiosis with one another. And, to spook you out even further, they were released into the internet a few years back. Wonder what they're up to.

------------------
Captaintripps, proudly dispensing bad advice since before you were born.
[url="http://"http://voxhumanasketch.tripod.com/voxhumana/"]VoxHumana[/url] -- Comedy of the Future

Hey, you guys didn't get my meaning in that post. I didn't say that it we were frankensteining our way into making artificial humans, but that we could us this organic grown 'brain' instead of chips and circuits, which is more cost-effective. Programming this with the neural network and you've got an organic computer. As it learns, the network can actually stimulate the brain to grow like a human brain, once again, if we used circuits for the neural network, it would take nano-technology to allow the brain to actually redefine it's neural paths. It would keep growing, becoming more and complex. Remember what Bungie's AI's found the greatest obstacle? A limit to their growth, because a Rampant computer needs to keep growing. Well just supply this with nutrients (probably in the form of liquid inside a brain tank ) you've got your effectively unlimited space to grow and learn.