4 ms·

The Singularity Summit 2007: AI and the Future of Humanity - Sept 8 & 9

8 points by jey 19y ago

rms 19y ago
Prediction: Strong AI will not exist until human consciousnesses can be copied to computers. http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.searle2.html http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.searle2.ht...
- jey 19y ago
  Searle is old hat. He's just playing word games. He assumes that "really understanding" something means something deep that he has left unspecified. The beautiful irony of his argument is that Searle's brain itself is a freakin' Chinese Room, and this is basically a Chinese Room claiming that it itself cannot be sentient! :-) What's so special about human consciousness, anyway? or at least please provide some sort of rationale for your claim. Here's a kinda long talk that explains why Strong AI is feasible, skip over all the introductions at the beginning: http://ia310111.us.archive.org/2/items/FutureSalon_02_2006/ http://ia310111.us.archive.org/2/items/FutureSalon_02_2006/ Same thing in Google Video format (lower quality): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-821191370462819511 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-821191370462819511
  - rms 19y ago
    I probably shouldn't have posted that link because it doesn't provide any evidence for my claim. It should be seen as something separate for discussion, and I agree with your refutation of Searle's claims... no one said anything when I posted that paper a week ago. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43996 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43996 My belief that consciousness uploads will come before AI doesn't have much of a basis (or any basis) in fact. My intuition tells me that reverse engineering the human brain is easier than making a recursively self-improving AI. My claim comes because I have the atheist's fear of my own mortality and I have to cling to my faith. I also like telling myself that my ancient, infinitely dimensional consciousness is choosing to live out a life in a computer simulation as a successful entrepreneur living through the peak of American civilization. So there you go. My claim is completely irrational, which means you can't refute it! :) I'm going to watch that video now.
    - jey 19y ago
      Oh ok. :) But as a thought experiment, let's warp back in time 150 years. Some random guy you're talking to at the local pub claims that within 50 years, man will build a heavier-than-air flying machine. Would you intuitively predict that this is going to happen? Or would your intuition suggest that we'd have to wait until we can build a mechanical replica of a bird? What if someone said that within 150 years you'd have a little machine you could hold in your hand that could bring up all of the world's information, and let you talk to anyone on the planet in real time? Human intuitions are great for hunting, gathering berries, navigating social situations, and other situations present in the ancestral environment, but evolution hasn't tuned us to be able to predict the future with our intuition. Just how bad are the cognitive biases employed by humans? Pretty bad: http://www.singinst.org/Biases.pdf http://www.singinst.org/Biases.pdf Anyway, not trying to pick a fight here -- I appreciate your reply above. Hope you enjoy that video.
  - yters 19y ago
    I know I'm probably just bringing up an issue that has been beaten to death somewhere in a hideously long thread, but consciousness makes me think strong AI is impossible. This is my line of thought: 1. Consciousness is essential to human intelligence, because our great mental advances come from our awareness, and objective description, of our own mind and thought processes. 2. A consciousness is by definition irreplicable, since two different consciousnesses are essentially different. 3, If strong AI is possible (and computational), and there is no essential difference between copies of the same code, then multiple identical copies of the same IA mind can be made. 4. If 1 and 2 hold, then 3 is false. Therefore, strong AI is impossible. If any of these assumption need elaboration, let me know. And please, by all means, direct me to that hideously long thread instead of answering my argument in detail. I don't like to waste people's time. Much obliged.
    - rms 19y ago
      Regarding point 2: why can't you replicate consciousness? Of course we can't today, but I don't understand why it is inherently impossible. Just because my consciousness is different from everyone else on the earth doesn't mean future technology couldn't copy my mind to a computer fifty times over. It will be very controversial when technology progresses far enough to allow consciousness copies.
      - yters 19y ago
        At least in terms of thought experiments, it makes no sense to me. Think about it like this. If I can copy my consciousness and place it in a different environment, then I should be aware of that other environement at the same time I'm aware of this one. But for this to happen, information has to be transported from both locations to eachother in no time. While pretty awesome if true, the laws of physics don't allow for this, as far as I know.
        rms 19y ago
        A copy of your consciousness is just that, a copy. Imagine that the entire body is copied while we're at it. So then there are two separate copies of you, interacting with the world. There could be 100 copies. They have the same set of initial conditions they are operating under but they won't all see or do the same thing, the different consciousnesses are still products of their environment.
  - jimbokun 19y ago
    The best summation of Searle's argument I've heard went something like "When you run a simulation of a rain storm, nothing gets wet. So if you run a simulation of a brain, does any 'thinking' happen?" Of course it's just word games. But it is equally word games to say that a machine 'thinks'. We use thinking to describe certain processes that happen in human brains, so to say that machines 'think' is really just a sort of metaphor. And if you think this is overly pedantic when discussing the possibility of the Singularity, consider this question. If someone told you that your brain could be 'uploaded' into a computer and run as a program that for all intents and purposes would be 'you' except much smarter and immortal, would you be willing to go through with this process if it were irreversible and your current brain were destroyed as part of the process? Just what is 'you' anyway?
    - jey 19y ago
      This is a good, but flawed argument. Intelligence is fundamentally an information processing function. [Simplistically,] your brain receives bits of information from its sensory inputs, crunches on them, and outputs some bits of information. It also stores some bits, to create what we call memory. The bits don't care if they're processed in a silicon-based computer or a meat-based computer. The computations and transformations are what matter. Again, this "simulations aren't wet" is relying on a hidden assumption of a false distinction created by Searle. He distinguishes between the "real thinking" and "fake thinking", then with that assumption in hand, creates an example in which the "real" vs "fake" distinction is clear. Here's the real question: When you run a simulation of a Turing machine, does any computation happen? The answer is obviously "yes". NOTE: I mean "information" here in the sense of Claude Shannon's Information Theory. I'm not saying that literal 1 and 0 bits like in a computer are used by the human brain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory And I'm really curious: what, in general terms, is so special about brains? Do they contain souls? Do they tap into some mystical forces of Consciousness as in Cartesian dualism? As far as I'm aware, brains are intelligent systems built out of matter. So let's figure out how to build intelligent systems out of matter, and build one.
      - jimbokun 19y ago
  - michaelneale 19y ago
    The technology to simulate a human brain, and scan the "state" of a brain into that simulation looks like it is more likely to happen sooner then a general AI. So it maybe pragmatism that causes it to happen that way.
jey 19y ago
http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=146209889&size=l&context=set-72057594134491541 http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=146209889&size=l&#38...
ivankirigin 19y ago
I went last year. Lots of fun. Cory Doctorow was probably the best speaker. I hadn't read BoingBoing much before that, and now I'm a rapid fan. I think the discussion with Luddites was fairly useless. It shows a fair amount of due diligence, where dissenting voices are given a podium far larger than the they "deserve" given the popularity of their opinions. I did enjoy that the Luddite gave a talk through teleconference. The format last year was pretty bad at times. The Open-Mic questions wasted lots of time. Written questions were submitted but not used. There were no break-off sessions. Also, the moderator, Peter Thiel, is as boring as watching paint dry, and didn't actually do any reasonable moderation of the discussion.

8 points by jey 19y ago

rms 19y ago

Prediction: Strong AI will not exist until human consciousnesses can be copied to computers. http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.searle2.html http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.searle2.ht...

jey 19y ago
Searle is old hat. He's just playing word games. He assumes that "really understanding" something means something deep that he has left unspecified. The beautiful irony of his argument is that Searle's brain itself is a freakin' Chinese Room, and this is basically a Chinese Room claiming that it itself cannot be sentient! :-) What's so special about human consciousness, anyway? or at least please provide some sort of rationale for your claim. Here's a kinda long talk that explains why Strong AI is feasible, skip over all the introductions at the beginning: http://ia310111.us.archive.org/2/items/FutureSalon_02_2006/ http://ia310111.us.archive.org/2/items/FutureSalon_02_2006/ Same thing in Google Video format (lower quality): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-821191370462819511 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-821191370462819511
- rms 19y ago
  I probably shouldn't have posted that link because it doesn't provide any evidence for my claim. It should be seen as something separate for discussion, and I agree with your refutation of Searle's claims... no one said anything when I posted that paper a week ago. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43996 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43996 My belief that consciousness uploads will come before AI doesn't have much of a basis (or any basis) in fact. My intuition tells me that reverse engineering the human brain is easier than making a recursively self-improving AI. My claim comes because I have the atheist's fear of my own mortality and I have to cling to my faith. I also like telling myself that my ancient, infinitely dimensional consciousness is choosing to live out a life in a computer simulation as a successful entrepreneur living through the peak of American civilization. So there you go. My claim is completely irrational, which means you can't refute it! :) I'm going to watch that video now.
  - jey 19y ago
    Oh ok. :) But as a thought experiment, let's warp back in time 150 years. Some random guy you're talking to at the local pub claims that within 50 years, man will build a heavier-than-air flying machine. Would you intuitively predict that this is going to happen? Or would your intuition suggest that we'd have to wait until we can build a mechanical replica of a bird? What if someone said that within 150 years you'd have a little machine you could hold in your hand that could bring up all of the world's information, and let you talk to anyone on the planet in real time? Human intuitions are great for hunting, gathering berries, navigating social situations, and other situations present in the ancestral environment, but evolution hasn't tuned us to be able to predict the future with our intuition. Just how bad are the cognitive biases employed by humans? Pretty bad: http://www.singinst.org/Biases.pdf http://www.singinst.org/Biases.pdf Anyway, not trying to pick a fight here -- I appreciate your reply above. Hope you enjoy that video.
- yters 19y ago
  I know I'm probably just bringing up an issue that has been beaten to death somewhere in a hideously long thread, but consciousness makes me think strong AI is impossible. This is my line of thought: 1. Consciousness is essential to human intelligence, because our great mental advances come from our awareness, and objective description, of our own mind and thought processes. 2. A consciousness is by definition irreplicable, since two different consciousnesses are essentially different. 3, If strong AI is possible (and computational), and there is no essential difference between copies of the same code, then multiple identical copies of the same IA mind can be made. 4. If 1 and 2 hold, then 3 is false. Therefore, strong AI is impossible. If any of these assumption need elaboration, let me know. And please, by all means, direct me to that hideously long thread instead of answering my argument in detail. I don't like to waste people's time. Much obliged.
  - rms 19y ago
    Regarding point 2: why can't you replicate consciousness? Of course we can't today, but I don't understand why it is inherently impossible. Just because my consciousness is different from everyone else on the earth doesn't mean future technology couldn't copy my mind to a computer fifty times over. It will be very controversial when technology progresses far enough to allow consciousness copies.
    - yters 19y ago
      At least in terms of thought experiments, it makes no sense to me. Think about it like this. If I can copy my consciousness and place it in a different environment, then I should be aware of that other environement at the same time I'm aware of this one. But for this to happen, information has to be transported from both locations to eachother in no time. While pretty awesome if true, the laws of physics don't allow for this, as far as I know.
      - rms 19y ago
        A copy of your consciousness is just that, a copy. Imagine that the entire body is copied while we're at it. So then there are two separate copies of you, interacting with the world. There could be 100 copies. They have the same set of initial conditions they are operating under but they won't all see or do the same thing, the different consciousnesses are still products of their environment.
- jimbokun 19y ago
  The best summation of Searle's argument I've heard went something like "When you run a simulation of a rain storm, nothing gets wet. So if you run a simulation of a brain, does any 'thinking' happen?" Of course it's just word games. But it is equally word games to say that a machine 'thinks'. We use thinking to describe certain processes that happen in human brains, so to say that machines 'think' is really just a sort of metaphor. And if you think this is overly pedantic when discussing the possibility of the Singularity, consider this question. If someone told you that your brain could be 'uploaded' into a computer and run as a program that for all intents and purposes would be 'you' except much smarter and immortal, would you be willing to go through with this process if it were irreversible and your current brain were destroyed as part of the process? Just what is 'you' anyway?
  - jey 19y ago
    This is a good, but flawed argument. Intelligence is fundamentally an information processing function. [Simplistically,] your brain receives bits of information from its sensory inputs, crunches on them, and outputs some bits of information. It also stores some bits, to create what we call memory. The bits don't care if they're processed in a silicon-based computer or a meat-based computer. The computations and transformations are what matter. Again, this "simulations aren't wet" is relying on a hidden assumption of a false distinction created by Searle. He distinguishes between the "real thinking" and "fake thinking", then with that assumption in hand, creates an example in which the "real" vs "fake" distinction is clear. Here's the real question: When you run a simulation of a Turing machine, does any computation happen? The answer is obviously "yes". NOTE: I mean "information" here in the sense of Claude Shannon's Information Theory. I'm not saying that literal 1 and 0 bits like in a computer are used by the human brain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory And I'm really curious: what, in general terms, is so special about brains? Do they contain souls? Do they tap into some mystical forces of Consciousness as in Cartesian dualism? As far as I'm aware, brains are intelligent systems built out of matter. So let's figure out how to build intelligent systems out of matter, and build one.
    - jimbokun 19y ago
- michaelneale 19y ago
  The technology to simulate a human brain, and scan the "state" of a brain into that simulation looks like it is more likely to happen sooner then a general AI. So it maybe pragmatism that causes it to happen that way.

jey 19y ago

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=146209889&size=l&context=set-72057594134491541 http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=146209889&size=l&#38...

ivankirigin 19y ago

I went last year. Lots of fun. Cory Doctorow was probably the best speaker. I hadn't read BoingBoing much before that, and now I'm a rapid fan. I think the discussion with Luddites was fairly useless. It shows a fair amount of due diligence, where dissenting voices are given a podium far larger than the they "deserve" given the popularity of their opinions. I did enjoy that the Luddite gave a talk through teleconference. The format last year was pretty bad at times. The Open-Mic questions wasted lots of time. Written questions were submitted but not used. There were no break-off sessions. Also, the moderator, Peter Thiel, is as boring as watching paint dry, and didn't actually do any reasonable moderation of the discussion.