Rabs Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 As a massive movie and sci/fi nerd (and science fact nerd :)) I am loving the current trend of films about A.I. I actually do think that the warnings in these films are a real possibility if current research and development continues the way it is at the moment .. Anyway.. REALLY looking forward to these two Anyone else in to this sort of thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabs Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share Posted February 24, 2015 And of course we have new Star Wars this year... that I am hopeful about.. but time will tell on that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L8_4thesh0w Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 "Open the pod-bay doors, Hal." I wonder how similar Chappy will be to I Robot. To me, the freakiest A.I. is the "Hive" mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Natural Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 "Open the pod-bay doors, Hal.".... "I'm sorry, Dave." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabs Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share Posted February 24, 2015 "Open the pod-bay doors, Hal." I wonder how similar Chappy will be to I Robot. To me, the freakiest A.I. is the "Hive" mind. Lol.. I think it looks way better than I Robot which was like Asimov gone a bit wrong... Not the worst film but not great either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 First thought on seeing this thread: I was talking computers and computer-aided potentials in my line of work with a PR chief at a small college in ranch country. I used the term "AI" and she broke out in very uncharacteristic laughter for her "professional persona." As a good ranch-raised girl, "AI" in 99 percent of her talk with anyone in her work and off-duty circles meant "artificial insemination," inevitably for cattle ranchers. Oddly as I thought of this instance, it became increasingly clear that, in a sense, "AI" does mean a bit of both. "Artificial intelligence" in ways is like variations of artificial insemination of cattle in that one hopes that technology in genetics will bring a desired result. In both cases it may usually - or may not with unforeseen consequences. When I was learning a bit of computer programming, the old Disney film bit about the sorcerer's apprentice was used to illustrate a program's instruction loop that had no "escape" to it short perhaps of utter destruction. If we think we're such marvelous programmers, it takes only the hackers to prove us wrong. If a hacker can figure back doors to the program or passwords or whatever, what's to suggest that such "holes" in an AI program might not result in "The Terminator" or some such thing finding such a hole in its own program - as in I Robot - and falling into it to bring those unintended consequences. That's one reason I very much dislike a lotta the "safety features" on current consumer motor vehicles because they lessen the driver's control and assume the driver's lack of competence. Then the "safety feature" may or may not save lives or injuries. Yeah, I know the statistics, but I think largely it's a combination of the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy and "spin" of wishful thinking by folks who don't really deep down support the idea of individual affordable transportation. An AI computer is no simple bit of program code. The code itself requires an exceptionally fast processing speed if even set for rather simple responses to relatively simple potential ranges of action. Even then, at best, it's an oddsmaker's dream, but not an artist. When options of active responses to a program's conclusion to input information are functionally unlimited regardless of "programmed limits," and the program is "smart" enough to determine work-arounds of programmed limits... Yeah, I think it could be pretty dangerous. Then again, though, much depends on a "robot's" communications capabilities. Build a smart one without wifi and he'll simply pick up a telephone or some sort of computer terminal like an iPad, eh? m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabs Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share Posted February 24, 2015 Then again, though, much depends on a "robot's" communications capabilities. Build a smart one without wifi and he'll simply pick up a telephone or some sort of computer terminal like an iPad, eh? m Yes... this is the thing.. To program true AI they don't try and program adult brain function, what they do is give it learning capabilities... So in many ways its programming itself and learns in the same way as a baby or a dog.. And that's the danger as we wont have control over that. Ive seen some professor on TV a short while ago who says its all nonsense and that we will program limitations into AI.. But as you say, how hard will it be to circumvent that... Its the one thing I always say about internet security.. If it can be programmed, it can be un-programmed (if you are smart enough). There was a really good film about this last year called HER.. Its about a lonely guy who gets the latest operating system (set slightly in the future) which is AI controlled and learns about what you like etc etc (voiced by Scarlett Johansson) and well I wont say exactly what happens but as she learns she becomes smarter and you watch the progress and the relationship between them and he falls for her (or it :))... Its a mad topic really since its never happened before.. We are in new territory as far as AI is concerned.. and no one, no matter how smart they are can tell you exactly whats going to happen and how long it will take. What I do know is that as humans we have very limited learning capabilities.. A true AI computer in theory could learn everything there is to know in a matter of minutes (if it were connected to the net).. what it will do with that information is what we don't know. Would it see us as its creators or would it see us as inferior beings? Then theres the whole topic about computer rights... If we make computers that can truly think and or feel, then in theory its a life form (all be it a digital one). And where will that put us? It is a huge huge topic.. but I know from reading Asimov and the like that sci/fi generally turns in to science fact on a long enough time scale. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UsKwhejoUk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I may be wrong on this, but I think the thin line is at what point one might consider an artificial intelligence to have "self awareness" as opposed to learning to play chess or fry eggs. In a sense, that's pretty mechanical. But with self-programmed rewritable proms at base... heaven knows the potential even if the thing might be "turned off" for a time. How do you spell, "Terminator?" I think a lot of variations of this stuff been covered in sci fi too. Almost inevitably for the worse. We couldn't even design increasingly complex chips without computerization so... they have it in the bag for reproduction of increasingly capable offspring. Us, I suppose in a generation or so we might do a better job of genetic engineering too, but to what avail and more, how might that itself be of danger to humanity as a whole, and even if not, what of the ethics involved? "We" think of such things as ethics. It can be driven out of us, but ditto for an AI construct. Some "scientists and engineers" are working on driverless, "thinking" cars. That scares me too. Driving is an art. Then again, I guess more of us are unskilled or untalented artists too... I recall a Star Trek 2nd generation where Data's "mother" had been programed into a cyborg. She played marvelous violin but... each piece the same marvelous way each time... a program. Not even those of us who seek "technical perfection" can do that without questioning constantly whether that's quite the goal and if there might not be a better way. I'd say that if sci fi writers can figure a perverted logic that might result in at least an attempt to drive humans into extinction, so can a computer of a level only a cupla programming generations beyond what we have now. In fact, anybody remember when Ada was supposed to be the cat's meow? Yeah, it's still used in certain circumstances but... I dunno if this is true or not but a now-retired military officer told me it didn't function well in an overload ... memory handling apparently. Thing is, to turn a large ship into even something approaching the apparent intelligence of a shark under command... there are a lot of input variables and I think Ada was slow, too slow, so regardless, plus some other factors, it could work for some things, but not others with a multiplicity of inputs. Good idea, practical for little stuff like managing air traffic control. But what's a million simultaneous inputs? We humans already are well beyond that. The pix of Chappie robot strikes me as pretty simplistic. I don't see where there's sufficient reason to "believe" he/she/it has much more than sight and sound inputs. That's relatively easy, even with more sets of binocular "eyes" and "ears." But now add "feel" and really increase the sorts of inputs exponentially toward that of a mammal. Just filing, let alone meeting a "sort" criteria for meaning and optional responses, is huge. So my bet is that some other paradigm entirely would be involved as opposed to a beautiful structured set of programs. That would require a hierarchy of inputs. It could be done, but then again, that's basically a non-conscious level in mammals, at least. So then how might one trigger a hierarchy "alarm" if you also have a million or more "input gauges" functioning as somehow relevant to decisionmaking. Sheesh. I think there are lotsza variations on the theme but... I also think that after a point it's more than we think, but perhaps depending on how it might be constructed, easier than we might think. So put me solidly in the ... no thanks column. Oh, and that's assuming an adolescent might somehow get a "personal assistant" on a "device" that he or she might actually fall in love with. That might be easier than one might think. Remember the 8-bit text game of questions and answers where the computer would give a seemingly rational response to a typed question? And that was with only an 8080 or 6502 chip and "memory" in the Ks, not Ts. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L8_4thesh0w Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 It all boils down to the next progression beyond: >if then, go to... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabs Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share Posted February 24, 2015 I may be wrong on this, but I think the thin line is at what point one might consider an artificial intelligence to have "self awareness" as opposed to learning to play chess or fry eggs. In a sense, that's pretty mechanical. But with self-programmed rewritable proms at base... heaven knows the potential even if the thing might be "turned off" for a time. How do you spell, "Terminator?" I think a lot of variations of this stuff been covered in sci fi too. Almost inevitably for the worse. We couldn't even design increasingly complex chips without computerization so... they have it in the bag for reproduction of increasingly capable offspring. m Yes, that's the point... They ARE trying to make machines that learn and think for themselves and thus kind of write their own programming as they grow... which is a bit scary.. As for sci/fi writers and these movies.. Well they are just entertainment so they have to make the characters engaging and the stories interesting.. so people die, stuff blows up.. that sells :) But its the concepts behind the stories that makes it interesting for me.. Like the first time I read Asimov.. I think it was written in something like the late 1930s or 40s.. but yet he describes machines, computers and networking which is stuff way way beyond what anyone had thought of yet.. I found it really is almost like technological prediction.. Its just incredible the grasp he had over future technology and what it will turn in to and where it could lead us... But of course most of his stories arnt about things blowing up but more about human interaction with robots and how they fit in to society. As you say, like genetics... If they ever go mass scale on that who knows what effect that will have on the world.. same with A.I. if they ever manage to do it.. and don't take the right precautions, who knows where that will actually lead us? All new territory for the human race. If these things will ever happen in your or my lifetime, who knows.. but if they keep at it (and they probably will), it will happen one day you can almost be sure of that.. (assuming some virus, meteor, sun waves, ice age, aliens or something else doesn't wipe us out before that :D) (yes I watch way too many films ;)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabs Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share Posted February 24, 2015 Actually.. check this trailer out.. explains it way better than I can :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Yeah, you may watch too many films but... I think anyone who's programmed event he tiny bit that I have can see the potential for .... I think anyone who's programmed event he tiny bit that I have can see the potential for .... I think anyone who's programmed event he tiny bit that I have can see the potential for .... I think anyone who's programmed event he tiny bit that I have can see the potential for .... I think anyone who's programmed event he tiny bit that I have can see the potential for .... I think anyone who's programmed event he tiny bit that I have can see the potential for .... I think anyone who's programmed event he tiny bit that I have can see the potential for .... This is the way the world ends, .... not with a bang, but a whimper... Seriously I've a hunch that whatever might be a problem wouldn't be recognized as a problem until it's all over. Secondly, when and if "computers" become self aware, regardless of their form, I think there's a danger of even the most "ethical" self aware computer on grounds that what might be logical, might also not be without unintended consequences. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabs Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share Posted February 24, 2015 Yeah, you may watch too many films but... This is the way the world ends, .... not with a bang, but a whimper... Seriously I've a hunch that whatever might be a problem wouldn't be recognized as a problem until it's all over. Secondly, when and if "computers" become self aware, regardless of their form, I think there's a danger of even the most "ethical" self aware computer on grounds that what might be logical, might also not be without unintended consequences. m Yeah.. well people my age and maybe a generation older have never been in or seen a world war first hand.. but it happens.. And while I may sound like slight nut case.. I don't actually think these things are going to happen, but I think they are possible.. I don't sit here hiding away in my home with silver foil on my head or anything like that :) But as you say.. we wont even know about it until it does happen, and then it will be too late... Like GM crops.. that must have had an effect on the environment.. how can it not.. you change something in nature and theres always going to be a reaction.. but its too late.. its done now.. (no one seems to talk much about that any more?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I'm 99.99999 not concerned about GM crops nearly as much as millions of other things. Basically there's little difference from what man has been doing since he invented modern variants of wheat and converted big wild dangerous critters into cattle. Just faster. That speed has advantages and disadvantages. My understanding of the Irish potato famine was that it was basically a single type of strain. Why? To feed what amounted to an overpopulation for the available resources. And that was a long time ago. Borlaug's "green revolution" ditto. Except we know how to do a bit of changing quite a bit faster. I far prefer the idea of a lot of genetically-engineered food products, animal as well as vegetable, than a lotta "natural" foods with mercury or other problems. Frankly I think "the media" and "the left" have done far too good a job of terrifying people of various dangers in the world that they all ignore the basic one: X number of people require y amounts of food and shelter and fuels of some sort. There are costs of each of those whether one is neolithic or ... us. In a world of huge overpopulation compared to resources, there is a certain inevitability of consequences. My major objection to a lot of the "more food for more people" isn't at all GM or whatever might arise, but rather the mentality it requires to take that kind of a "politic" to its logical conclusions that... eventually without a starship Enterprise that can change certain sorts of matter into others, the resources will give out and yield a die off of far more species, including our own. I'm not sure how our ownspecies might survive that, and perhaps a cyborg might do better, but then... how would it "feed" in a crash of electricity? m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabs Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share Posted February 24, 2015 I'm 99.99999 not concerned about GM crops nearly as much as millions of other things. Basically there's little difference from what man has been doing since he invented modern variants of wheat and converted big wild dangerous critters into cattle. Just faster. That speed has advantages and disadvantages. My understanding of the Irish potato famine was that it was basically a single type of strain. Why? To feed what amounted to an overpopulation for the available resources. And that was a long time ago. Borlaug's "green revolution" ditto. Except we know how to do a bit of changing quite a bit faster. I far prefer the idea of a lot of genetically-engineered food products, animal as well as vegetable, than a lotta "natural" foods with mercury or other problems. Frankly I think "the media" and "the left" have done far too good a job of terrifying people of various dangers in the world that they all ignore the basic one: X number of people require y amounts of food and shelter and fuels of some sort. There are costs of each of those whether one is neolithic or ... us. In a world of huge overpopulation compared to resources, there is a certain inevitability of consequences. My major objection to a lot of the "more food for more people" isn't at all GM or whatever might arise, but rather the mentality it requires to take that kind of a "politic" to its logical conclusions that... eventually without a starship Enterprise that can change certain sorts of matter into others, the resources will give out and yield a die off of far more species, including our own. I'm not sure how our ownspecies might survive that, and perhaps a cyborg might do better, but then... how would it "feed" in a crash of electricity? m More efficient solar power :) But yes.... I agree with all that... as much as they may have been necessary, I still think we will somehow pay the price for it somewhere down the line. I think the first thing to come out of GM is when nature fights back, the bugs and bacteria or whatever get stronger and more immune etc etc.. (like they are finding with anti-biotic over use) But as always.. Time will tell on all of these matters :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skilsaw Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 One of the most brilliant computer minds I have ever met had a glitch in his hard drive. Poor fellow became paranoid that "they" were controling his mind and interfering in his life. Lost his wife, lost his job,lost his freedom to travel to the USA ("they" screwed with his work visa) "They" included his psychiatrist, any member of the medical establishment, police... He disappeared without a trace. Probably erased his motherboard and re-programmed him as a janitor. He was a cyborg. His daughter was conceived by AI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L8_4thesh0w Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I think I know that guy. He works a register where they keep having to yell "price check" when the scanner won't read. He says the light hurts his eyes and he's always opening the packs of aluminum foil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabs Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share Posted February 25, 2015 m And just as if to prove my point, check this article that came out today :) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31623427 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pin Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 AI is probably a human fantasy for a very long time to come. Are any of you familiar with the philosopher John Searle's "Chinese Room" argument? I did philosophy at College and when I first read it, it knocked me down flat. It is a superb philosophical argument in the finest tradition. It destroys absolutely and completely any idea of AI being produced by "syntax programming" which is, if you like, the idea that you produce AI simply by making more and more information available (a la Wikipedia) which is accessed by syntax "rules". Human intelligence just doesn't work like that. We are the product of many influences including genetic programming but it is in the inter-action between the developing organism (as programmed by its genes) and the outside world that provides us with the deep syntax / semantic links with reality and which is expressed in intelligent communication. Computers can "ape this" (read Searle) but it has NO MEANING. Consider for example how the process of human Attachment (Attachment Theory) develops. Generally, four different processes are involved which comprise an interaction with (at least) the baby / child and its care-giver. These four processes are: 1) The arousal-relaxation cycle (most important of all) of child need, child cue (cry), child satisfaction (need met) and child quiescence (sleep). 2) Pro-active cycle where the caregiver is pro-active in stimulating the child. 3) Positive claiming: the unique family (happens everywhere on earth) structure and "rules" are communicated to the child by exposure over several years. This forms the foundation of your identity as a human being. 4) Self-narrative: the stories that you begin to tell about yourself. This starts as language begins to come "on stream" (about age 2) and is life-long. What is key here is the subject is in a causative relationship with the external world and it is a highly COMPLEX causative relationship. It isn't "Bayesian learning" or anything so boringly simple. This is an intensely complex (almost beyond belief) from an algorithmic point of view. I once read that three Cray super-computers acting in parallel would give the intellectual equivalent of a slug. But this might insult slugs everywhere. No my friends, as much as I also love Asimov, AI is a very long way off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I'd like to agree, but the difficulty isn't that we may end up with a "creature" in silicon but rather that at a certain point where a computer can reprogram itself with a degree of inputs, the mentality of a slug might even become a difficulty. I may be wrong on this, but from what I've seen, read and heard, I think "AI" needn't be intelligence as we think of it in order to raise hob with the world around it... m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10K-DB Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Im still stuck on my 60's Godzilla movies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.