[OT] Machines become sentient?

[Zappo]

It's going to take a lot of programmming to get a computer to have desires.

while (true) printf ("I want my mummy!\n");

Am I good or what?

 

[Green Knight]

Since no human being can lift more than a few hundred pounds, no machine built by man can lift more than a few hundred pounds.

Hmmm.

I see a flaw in this logic, somewhere...

Not really, because you're asking a machine to comprehend an abstract concept which even humans can't comprehend. There's nothing abstract about lifting weights. X amount of pressure can lift Y amount of weight. But you expect a machine which can lift so-and-so amount of weight to be able to comprehend what a perfect human society can look like?

Can everyone here on this board agree on what a perfect society would be? I doubt it. And we're just a miniscule representation of humanity. One persons' idea of a perfect society is another persons' idea of hell. So what makes anyone think that AI's programmed to build a utopia would accomplish anything close to resembling a utopia? Just because the trains run on time doesn't make it a utopia. A tyranny is still a tyranny no matter how well ordered things are. IMO, it's ludicrous to think that somehow AI's can build and run a perfect human society when we ourselves have no idea how such a society should be implemented and run.

 

[Lizard]

Not really, because you're asking a machine to comprehend an abstract concept which even humans can't comprehend. There's nothing abstract about lifting weights. X amount of pressure can lift Y amount of weight. But you expect a machine which can lift so-and-so amount of weight to be able to comprehend what a perfect human society can look like?

But that's just the point. Humans routinely build machines to do the things we can't.

No human could do all the math needed to render a single frame of Quake. No human could search the Internet the way Google can.

"But those are just basic algorithms, executed trillions of times. There's no creativity!"

True. So you might want to look at some of the work being down with self-modifying evolutionary algorithms. Computers are designing circuits which work, but which the programmers of the computer *do not understand*. That is, using evolutionary processes, beginning with an effectively random circuit, the computer can design a circuit which does the desired task optimally, but do it in a way which no human being ever would.

There's no reason to believe that an 'ideal society' could not be designed by a machine, if it had a sufficiently large knowledge base to work from. The fact no one knows what the 'ideal' is does not mean it is unknowable. A computer, free from human prejudices and predilections, might well see radical solutions to problems which no human ever could. The idea that the network of neurons in the human mind is *metaphysically* different from a network of circuits may provide some emotional comfort, but it is unlikely to prove true. Until AI research has advanced much further, no definitive answer is possible.

Hell, we already require machines to run our society. Imagine banking, air travel, or traffic control run without machines.

There was never a time in human history when we were not dependant on technology. To be human is to be dependant on tools for survival. That's what we are. That's the niche we fill.

 

[Tsyr]

There's no reason to believe that an 'ideal society' could not be designed by a machine, if it had a sufficiently large knowledge base to work from.

Yes, there is.

The reason is that the concept of an "ideal society" is a myth; there is no such thing. There cannot be. Not unless you brainwash every single being into thinking exactly the same way.

 

[rampant insanity]

I really don't understand why people are pushing so far into technology. No technology has ever been created without creating more problems than benefits.

While it would be "fun" to debate, but about it and stuff, but to be honest, in the here and now, where we are, people should just take a moment and solve human problems before machines make human problems worse.

 

[Lizard]

Yes, there is.

The reason is that the concept of an "ideal society" is a myth; there is no such thing. There cannot be. Not unless you brainwash every single being into thinking exactly the same way.

It's really fascinating seeing just how knee-jerk people's reactions are.

"Everyone has to think the same way in order to get along"
"A perfect society would have to be a tyranny"
Etc...

Given the reasonable premise that human beings need to be free in order to be happy, a 'perfect society' would, BY DEFINITION, be a free society. And, furthermore, it would have to be voluntarily adopted, not imposed by force.

What it seems people are doing is taking badly-failed attempts at 'perfect societies' (Communism, fascism, etc) and assuming such concoctions are the only possible social structures. Obviously, such societies are about as *im*perfect as you can get, precisely because they run counter to human nature and needs. Therefore, a machine programmed to find the 'perfect society' would begin by *rejecting* any social order which would need to be imposed by force and which was run in a tyrannical fashion.

 

[Negative Zero]

while the isane one may have a point, it's unlikely to have much effect. science will always continue. often blidly, but continue it will. i agree with a lot of what Lizard said, and i find that the people who think that it'll never happen, are kinda amusing.

with the amazingly huge number of times that scientists have said that X can't be done, only to have someone show up and do it; you'd think that these suposedly "intelligent" people would realise that just coz they're not intelligent enough to figure out how to do something, doesn't mean that it can't be done.

hell, even just over a decade ago, people thought that cloning was impossible. and lets not forget that MIB quote: "yesterday, you KNEW aliens weren't on earth." it's only a matter of time. as long as someone is creative enough to think it up, someone will come along who's intelligent enough to make it work.

~NegZ

<edit>

just read Lizard's last post ... this guy is sharp! well put man!

 

[Lizard]

I really don't understand why people are pushing so far into technology. No technology has ever been created without creating more problems than benefits.

Try living without technology for a week. This includes fire, stone tools, and clothing.

Then get back to me.

 

[MaxKaladin]

Given the reasonable premise that human beings need to be free in order to be happy, a 'perfect society' would, BY DEFINITION, be a free society. And, furthermore, it would have to be voluntarily adopted, not imposed by force.

The problem with this is that, for many people, this would not be a perfect society and they would never voluntarily adopt it. I'll use as an example one of our favorite targets: Religious Fundimentalists. These folks have very definate ideas about how things ought to be and many of them aren't going to be happy with a system that doesn't let them force others to live the way they think they should. They're hardly the only ones, either.

That's the problem with defining a 'perfect' society. That means so many different things to so many people. That's why I think a perfect society is impossible. There is simply no way that a society can be designed to please everyone. In order to build a society everyone could live under, you would have to start compromising. Once you start making compromises, you can't have a perfect society, only a best possible set of compromises. Some people aren't going to want to go along with the best set of compromises, so what do you do about them?

 

[Storminator]

Given the appalling state of computer games AI, I have little fear of being surpassed by machinery. Even Deep Blue, IBM's chess champion, resorted to brute force computation (check every permutation of every move from here to the end of the game) for its match against Kasparov.

I think computers will never learn to really think until their survival requires. Build a program that will kill you before it lets you shut it off, and it will figure out the rest.

Naturally, only an evil genius would try to write such a program...

PS