Thursday, September 21, 2006
Friendly AI Possible: Friendly Homosapiens Impossible
Well. i tried. To propagate the memecomplex that mebbe not all Islam is evil and that we could make alliance with the benevolent part. Most places here the War on Terror is already morphing into the War on Islam. Well underway.
So, let's deal with a more transigent problem.Sweet Mitch sends me an update--
This cheers me considerablely. If Hutter's student couldn't prove the impossibilty of friendly AI, then....maybe we can build friendly AIs!!!!
At this point in my life it seems sooooooo much easier than memetically reengineering people to be friendly.
You wouldn't think that a story about Satan and a Black Box From Hell could cheer me up-- i guess that is a measure of how low i am tonight. Really good thought experiment. You should read it and maybe discuss it with me in the comments.
This is a good place to hang if you get tired of the Kurzweil site. The singularity emails are archived, and there are a couple discussion boards.
Maybe the only hope for humanity is to build friendly AI babysitters and give them all the weapons until we can finally grow up.
So, let's deal with a more transigent problem.Sweet Mitch sends me an update--
a hubbub in the world of Friendly AI. There are two European researchers (Hutter and Schmidhuber) who have some relatively
sophisticated work on what a self-enhancing program would be like (look especially for Schmidhuber's arxiv paper on that subject; he also has some Tegmark-like reflections on the multiverse from a comp-sci, algorithmic-complexity view), and one of Hutter's students tried to prove a theorem about the impossibility of Friendly AI. It seems what he really produced was a constraint on development, using a Chaitin-type theorem. Chaitin improved on Goedel by quantifying the unprovability thing: if your axioms contain a hundred bits of information, there will be things
which are (in some sense) of >100-bit proof-complexity that you will be unable to prove. This can even be concrete things like algorithms: an algorithm may be able to accomplish a task, but you can't prove it because it's out of range axiomatically. In the same way, whatever proof system you equip your seed AI with, there will be concrete enhancements which it cannot verify as such. Unexplored is the general issue, which has existed ever since Goedel proved his theorems, about what
-knowledge- is and where it comes from. The Penrose view, of course,is that you can always jump out of the system by utilizing trans-Turing noncomputable cognitive primitives, implemented by quantum-gravity state transitions in the entangled microtubules.[ed--Yay! quantum consciousness] :-)
This cheers me considerablely. If Hutter's student couldn't prove the impossibilty of friendly AI, then....maybe we can build friendly AIs!!!!
At this point in my life it seems sooooooo much easier than memetically reengineering people to be friendly.
You wouldn't think that a story about Satan and a Black Box From Hell could cheer me up-- i guess that is a measure of how low i am tonight. Really good thought experiment. You should read it and maybe discuss it with me in the comments.
This is a good place to hang if you get tired of the Kurzweil site. The singularity emails are archived, and there are a couple discussion boards.
Maybe the only hope for humanity is to build friendly AI babysitters and give them all the weapons until we can finally grow up.
// posted by Matoko Kusanagi @ 6:42 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
I disagree with any attempt to create a purely separate super-AI.
It will inevitably lead at some point in the future, to us being their pets or their extinct museum-pieces - Unless they are purely computers with no contol over the outside world. But how long would that last before some renegade "mad scientist" tried the ultimate experiment?
No. The only alternative is to apply the same technology to ourselves that we apply to our creations.
Why should they be the only ones to benefit from our high technology and the superintelligence it implies? Why not us?
We must use biotech & nanotech to enhance our own brains & minds with AI so that, in the long run, we can keep up with it.
Thus PCs
-leads to Laptops
-leads to Pocket PCs
-leads to wearable PCs
-leads to implantable PCs
-leads to embedded neuro-AI matrix in our skulls.
We must become cyborgs or we will be lose the dominance of the Earth.
It will inevitably lead at some point in the future, to us being their pets or their extinct museum-pieces - Unless they are purely computers with no contol over the outside world. But how long would that last before some renegade "mad scientist" tried the ultimate experiment?
No. The only alternative is to apply the same technology to ourselves that we apply to our creations.
Why should they be the only ones to benefit from our high technology and the superintelligence it implies? Why not us?
We must use biotech & nanotech to enhance our own brains & minds with AI so that, in the long run, we can keep up with it.
Thus PCs
-leads to Laptops
-leads to Pocket PCs
-leads to wearable PCs
-leads to implantable PCs
-leads to embedded neuro-AI matrix in our skulls.
We must become cyborgs or we will be lose the dominance of the Earth.
To propagate the memecomplex that mebbe not all Islam is evil and that we could make alliance with the benevolent part.
Uhm, no you didn't. You shilled for radical-apologists in the ummah (CAIR), for Islam in general, all the while demeaning other religions and serious scholars of Islam (Robert Spencer not Subensar). You're arguments were as about as effective as someone in the 1930s calling a critic of Germany, which was becoming increasing Nazi, a "racist".
try again
Uhm, no you didn't. You shilled for radical-apologists in the ummah (CAIR), for Islam in general, all the while demeaning other religions and serious scholars of Islam (Robert Spencer not Subensar). You're arguments were as about as effective as someone in the 1930s calling a critic of Germany, which was becoming increasing Nazi, a "racist".
try again
We've tried creating artificial persons and giving them a monopoly on weapons. That's what governments are. Cf. Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes.
I've always been knocked out by Steve Mann's projects with wearables. I want a really advanced version of one of those things so bad it hurts.
Link
Then I can wear it every day, everywhere I go. And I can finally complete my metamorphosis into pure übergeek. A man and his computer. What could be closer to pure Nirvana?
Link
Then I can wear it every day, everywhere I go. And I can finally complete my metamorphosis into pure übergeek. A man and his computer. What could be closer to pure Nirvana?
scorpy, its an inside joke.
when spencer spells his name in arabic script, it comes out Roobart Sbunsar.
Granted, there is no p in arabic, but he didnt even get the vowels right.
when spencer spells his name in arabic script, it comes out Roobart Sbunsar.
Granted, there is no p in arabic, but he didnt even get the vowels right.
The extremists present signs to the media bearing the words 'Behead those who insult Islam'. These same people want to be listened to by the west, so I am listening.
OK, I get it. I really get it.
The punishment for criticism of Islam is capital, completely justified by the holy texts.
This is blatant intimidation of all critics, without and within Islam. A resulting paralysis of reform of any kind ensures that the extremist's hijacking of Islam is complete, and probably permanent.
I don't think there is very much time left for moderate Islam to take back its religion. But it must.
OK, I get it. I really get it.
The punishment for criticism of Islam is capital, completely justified by the holy texts.
This is blatant intimidation of all critics, without and within Islam. A resulting paralysis of reform of any kind ensures that the extremist's hijacking of Islam is complete, and probably permanent.
I don't think there is very much time left for moderate Islam to take back its religion. But it must.
Why do I get the feeling I'm the only one on this thread actually interested in the problem of Friendly AI?
OK I'll talk to myself:
Yes, Dan Dare I know what could be better than a wearable computer. It would be better if you had an actual implanted computer feeding into your visual cortex. Then you could sit anywhere and watch porno movies with your eyes closed.
OK I'll talk to myself:
Yes, Dan Dare I know what could be better than a wearable computer. It would be better if you had an actual implanted computer feeding into your visual cortex. Then you could sit anywhere and watch porno movies with your eyes closed.
That's fascinating Dan Dare, but where would you have space for an implanted computer in your head?
Well the computer would not actually need to be in your head. You would need a chip implanted in your skull, with nanowires leading to multiple biocontacts implanted in your visual cortex. Similar to technologies being developed to facilitate artificial cybervision for blind people.
The actual computer could be external to your body and carried on a beltclip. The linkage could be by something similar to Bluetooth.
The power supply for the chip could be either induction-coupled current wirelessly fed through the skin from the beltclip computer; or alternatively a nanotech fuel cell powered by glucose and oxygen in the blood plasma.
The advantage of having the actual computer external to the body is that it could be easily upgraded and recharged. The brain chip would merely function as an internal visual display peripheral.
It might also be possible to allow subjective control of the computer by linking to motor control regions of the brain for pointing, or possibly even speech processing regions in the brain to allow you to talk to your computer with verbal thoughts.
The potential for direct interfacing of brain and machine is astonishing.
Well the computer would not actually need to be in your head. You would need a chip implanted in your skull, with nanowires leading to multiple biocontacts implanted in your visual cortex. Similar to technologies being developed to facilitate artificial cybervision for blind people.
The actual computer could be external to your body and carried on a beltclip. The linkage could be by something similar to Bluetooth.
The power supply for the chip could be either induction-coupled current wirelessly fed through the skin from the beltclip computer; or alternatively a nanotech fuel cell powered by glucose and oxygen in the blood plasma.
The advantage of having the actual computer external to the body is that it could be easily upgraded and recharged. The brain chip would merely function as an internal visual display peripheral.
It might also be possible to allow subjective control of the computer by linking to motor control regions of the brain for pointing, or possibly even speech processing regions in the brain to allow you to talk to your computer with verbal thoughts.
The potential for direct interfacing of brain and machine is astonishing.
Thank you Dan Dare for a fascinating conversation. We must do this again sometime. Remember you are never alone when you have Multiple Personality Disorder. ;)
One last point. The integration of the two systems would be so intimate via the implanted chip and nanowires, that you would probably end up thinking of the external processor as a second, digital brain. Given the speed of progress of computer tech, It could be a micro-supercomputer with teraflops of processing power and multi-terabytes of information storage. The whole Library of Congress available every time you closed your eyes. Maybe mobile access to the Net too.
Hate to say it, but Scorp is right... you shilled for radical Islam and did nothing but propagate their own propaganda against the West in a blatantly anti-Western context.
Not only that, you tried to lecture people on subjects you knew nothing about.
You might as well have not tried in the first place, because all you did was make an ass of yourself.
Not only that, you tried to lecture people on subjects you knew nothing about.
You might as well have not tried in the first place, because all you did was make an ass of yourself.
I pretty much agree with Arcane and Scorpius on this one. You're hatred of the catrholic church may have clouded your judgement
I also question your premise that the times are deeply depressing. I find them hopeful.
The outpouring in Indonesia of support for the churches there by Muslims in the face of the jihadists is one of the most heartening things in a long time. Unlike the hollow platitudes of CAIR, or the other apolologists, this was real, grass roots rejection of the Jihadis message.
If the Popes provocation was deliberate then he has wrought a wonderful thing.
Of course giving the Pope credit for this huge moral, and tactical victory for civilization at the expense of the individuals muslims who put themselves on the line is about as silly as blaming the Pope and not the jihadsists for the murder of the nun.
Except perhaps for the (no doubt silly) notion that the Pope brought out the best in people with subtlety unrecognizeable by some who pride themselves in mastery of the great game.
There are dark days ahead to be sure, but Islamic moderates are coming out and standing up to the evil that has defamed them and held them hostage for so long. This is the most heartening thing I've seen in a long time.
Smile major, you are wrong on this one.
And for that rare occurance the world may have cause to rejoice.... ;)
Post a Comment
I also question your premise that the times are deeply depressing. I find them hopeful.
The outpouring in Indonesia of support for the churches there by Muslims in the face of the jihadists is one of the most heartening things in a long time. Unlike the hollow platitudes of CAIR, or the other apolologists, this was real, grass roots rejection of the Jihadis message.
If the Popes provocation was deliberate then he has wrought a wonderful thing.
Of course giving the Pope credit for this huge moral, and tactical victory for civilization at the expense of the individuals muslims who put themselves on the line is about as silly as blaming the Pope and not the jihadsists for the murder of the nun.
Except perhaps for the (no doubt silly) notion that the Pope brought out the best in people with subtlety unrecognizeable by some who pride themselves in mastery of the great game.
There are dark days ahead to be sure, but Islamic moderates are coming out and standing up to the evil that has defamed them and held them hostage for so long. This is the most heartening thing I've seen in a long time.
Smile major, you are wrong on this one.
And for that rare occurance the world may have cause to rejoice.... ;)
<< Home
