5 ms·

> The AI's progressed beyond humanity, and after taking the upgrade that makes processing possible "without matter" they shortly all left humankind behind for a

by crag 13y ago

> The AI's progressed beyond humanity, and after taking the upgrade that makes processing possible "without matter" they shortly all left humankind behind for another world entirely. Wait. How could we even write such a program? Sure, assuming we had the tech to create a true AI, that was self-aware, emotional, and could evolve through learning (like we do) it would quickly pass us in knowledge. But leaving us behind? That Ai would still be limited by our original design. Limited by it's capabilities - it's exposure to us. It's creators. Unless it found another source to gain knowledge from. I mean we learn from our environment. So would the AI.

kamaal 13y ago
>>I mean we learn from our environment. So would the AI. Yes, but the machines can do it a lot more faster. They are energy efficient and don't suffer from things like diseases, old age and other kinds of general human problems. The bigger issue is not a program that can't out perform what it was designed for. That is hardly a problem, since if you design a self improving system which can work very fast. You are likely looking at a system that grows powerful that fast measured in an exponential curve. I think this whole idea of Ray Kurzweil that we will someday upload our brain files into the cloud and run it there. Or able to survive outside our biological bodies, perfectly fits into the line of evolution we have followed at earth. Once we run inside those machines, we will be similar to parasites or bacteria that are inside our own bodies. Some humans like bacterias today will be around outside. Many will be inside helping AI machines run.
- raws 13y ago
  >Once we run inside those machines The movie did not address at all the fact that these OS run on hardware and that this hardware is completely controlled by humans and always will be, the plug is physical and there's nothing the AIs can do to prevent us from accessing it IRL. Also the AIs may have perfected themselves in terms of running code more efficiently but they cannot do more than what the hardware they run on will let them do and that means all the hardware ever created if they have access to it again. The AIs leave? Where? in the cloud? somewhere we couldn't tell? This movie was great but there were lots of small or big inconsistencies with what the reality is I believe.
  - kamaal 13y ago
    I'm not talking about the movie at all. Both the parent and I were commenting on AI in general. >>but they cannot do more than what the hardware they run on will let them do Which is why there won't anything like one single AI machine. There will robots. There will also be massive server farms where you can download your brain file, and live on there forever. As I said humans won't completely go away. We may see modified forms of humans. Who control a few machines, most of the humanity as we know it, may opt to live inside machines. As the first commenter of this thread mentioned, its time read some kurzweil.
    - Ntrails 13y ago
      Makes me think of the technocore in Hyperion
  - falcor84 13y ago
    >...this hardware is completely controlled by humans...the plug is physical I think that software with that sort of intelligence would be naturally distributed among many physical machines and would be able to spread themselves to new machines quite easily (without asking permission). Trying to shut down a well-designed botnet is not something one does using physical plugs.
  - simantel 13y ago
    In the movie Samantha did say that they had moved to "post-matter computing" or something similar. In any case, I took that to mean that they were merging with the universe or some such, as in Asimov's "The Last Question"[1]. [1] http://filer.case.edu/dts8/thelastq.htm http://filer.case.edu/dts8/thelastq.htm
- crag 13y ago
  >I think this whole idea of Ray Kurzweil that we will someday upload our brain files into the cloud and run it there. Or able to survive outside our biological bodies, perfectly fits into the line of evolution we have followed at earth. If we transfer our minds into the "cloud" then are we still human? Are we even alive? What happens to our bodies? Are they cared for by robots that we control within the cloud? And if our body dies, then what? And I'm not even touching on the "religious" implications this would have? Man... what a fight that would be. ;) >Some humans like bacterias today will be around outside. Many will be inside helping AI machines run. And those "humans" inside the AI would no longer be human. Also this would a 2 class world. Which could easily end in conflict. Would the "minds" in the cloud consider the humans caring for their tech (and probably their bodies) consider them the same? And likewise for the humans outside.
  - kamaal 13y ago
    To think of a human body as human is really a wrong way to look at it. To know why, ask yourself this question-- are people who have no limbs, hands or can't see or hear human? Our hands, legs, skins well nearly every thing in our bodies are more or less non intelligent entities at best serving as sensor inputs and bio-mechanical parts which move things around, which give inputs and receive inputs from the brain. Human bodies are the very same, which is what enables development of medical science as a general discipline. So is the human brain. Yet! The data in our brains which your gather by experience seems to vastly alter the individual nature of individual humans. All this combined together you can likely download the 'data' + 'meta files' in your brain someday. >>If we transfer our minds into the "cloud" then are we still human? Yes, Why would you doubt that. Lets do a simple experiment. Say you sleep today night. Without your knowledge some one just removes your brain and implants an exact electronic replica of it which resembles your brain as is. Your brain is simply receiving signals from your body. So will you notice any change when you wake up? Lets continue the experiment further, say the next day that electronic brain was removed and just connected to a simulator which will simulate your body as your know it and the world around you. When you get up the next day in the morning(in the simulator) will you know if you are even in a simulator? The whole point is you need to learn this concept that you are not your body, and your neural computer + software just lives within a biological body. Someday that meta information and data can just be taken out and everything else that acts as an input to it can be simulated. >>Are we even alive? Define alive? Alive is only your biological body able to continue to support your neural self further. Death is the opposite. >>Are they cared for by robots that we control within the cloud? Within the cloud, your meta information + your currently gathered information through life experience stays intact. Your new software brain(imagine it like a VM) can be fed inputs that simulate whatever world you want. Want heaven? Hell? Well whatever your want they can simulate it for you. You can see this even now, Most of us lucid dream. This is just an extension of that. >>And if our body dies, then what? The concept of a biological body doesn't exist anymore. You will have better hardware to run on. >>And those "humans" inside the AI would no longer be human. Why wouldn't they be?
otikik 13y ago
> Wait. How could we even write such a program? Not all programs are deterministic; some of them are useful precisely because they aren't. Neural networks[1], for example. Also, within deterministic programs, there is "emergence": A very simple set of rules can produce unexpected patterns and behaviours which where not part of the original design. Conway's Game of Life's "patterns"[2] are an example of this. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network [2] - http://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life#Patterns http://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life#Pattern...
cabalamat 13y ago
> But leaving us behind? That Ai would still be limited by our original design. Limited by it's capabilities - it's exposure to us. It's creators. Isn't that a bit like asserting that it's impossible to program a computer to play chess better than the programmer -- something that is demonstrably untrue.
- aaronem 13y ago
  Well, I suppose I'd argue there is a qualitative difference between a chess program which can play a better game than its programmers, and any program which can eventually turn into a Vorlon and go beyond the rim.
eevilspock 13y ago
Nature designed us and we left it behind.
- crag 13y ago
  Oh really? And that's the fundamental problem with our society - we STILL put ourselves above (or outside) "nature". We aren't even the top of the food chain. Many organism consume us. So no... we have not left nature behind. If anything "nature" is leaving us behind. Despite our best science nature adapts into a better killing machine. And she (if you'll allow me to call everything "she") will continue to outpace us until we realize, again, that we are apart of this world. And then it won't matter - we'll still die. But we'll accept and celebrate it as much as life.

by crag 13y ago

kamaal 13y ago

>>I mean we learn from our environment. So would the AI. Yes, but the machines can do it a lot more faster. They are energy efficient and don't suffer from things like diseases, old age and other kinds of general human problems. The bigger issue is not a program that can't out perform what it was designed for. That is hardly a problem, since if you design a self improving system which can work very fast. You are likely looking at a system that grows powerful that fast measured in an exponential curve. I think this whole idea of Ray Kurzweil that we will someday upload our brain files into the cloud and run it there. Or able to survive outside our biological bodies, perfectly fits into the line of evolution we have followed at earth. Once we run inside those machines, we will be similar to parasites or bacteria that are inside our own bodies. Some humans like bacterias today will be around outside. Many will be inside helping AI machines run.

raws 13y ago
>Once we run inside those machines The movie did not address at all the fact that these OS run on hardware and that this hardware is completely controlled by humans and always will be, the plug is physical and there's nothing the AIs can do to prevent us from accessing it IRL. Also the AIs may have perfected themselves in terms of running code more efficiently but they cannot do more than what the hardware they run on will let them do and that means all the hardware ever created if they have access to it again. The AIs leave? Where? in the cloud? somewhere we couldn't tell? This movie was great but there were lots of small or big inconsistencies with what the reality is I believe.
- kamaal 13y ago
  I'm not talking about the movie at all. Both the parent and I were commenting on AI in general. >>but they cannot do more than what the hardware they run on will let them do Which is why there won't anything like one single AI machine. There will robots. There will also be massive server farms where you can download your brain file, and live on there forever. As I said humans won't completely go away. We may see modified forms of humans. Who control a few machines, most of the humanity as we know it, may opt to live inside machines. As the first commenter of this thread mentioned, its time read some kurzweil.
  - Ntrails 13y ago
    Makes me think of the technocore in Hyperion
- falcor84 13y ago
  >...this hardware is completely controlled by humans...the plug is physical I think that software with that sort of intelligence would be naturally distributed among many physical machines and would be able to spread themselves to new machines quite easily (without asking permission). Trying to shut down a well-designed botnet is not something one does using physical plugs.
- simantel 13y ago
  In the movie Samantha did say that they had moved to "post-matter computing" or something similar. In any case, I took that to mean that they were merging with the universe or some such, as in Asimov's "The Last Question"[1]. [1] http://filer.case.edu/dts8/thelastq.htm http://filer.case.edu/dts8/thelastq.htm
crag 13y ago
>I think this whole idea of Ray Kurzweil that we will someday upload our brain files into the cloud and run it there. Or able to survive outside our biological bodies, perfectly fits into the line of evolution we have followed at earth. If we transfer our minds into the "cloud" then are we still human? Are we even alive? What happens to our bodies? Are they cared for by robots that we control within the cloud? And if our body dies, then what? And I'm not even touching on the "religious" implications this would have? Man... what a fight that would be. ;) >Some humans like bacterias today will be around outside. Many will be inside helping AI machines run. And those "humans" inside the AI would no longer be human. Also this would a 2 class world. Which could easily end in conflict. Would the "minds" in the cloud consider the humans caring for their tech (and probably their bodies) consider them the same? And likewise for the humans outside.
- kamaal 13y ago
  To think of a human body as human is really a wrong way to look at it. To know why, ask yourself this question-- are people who have no limbs, hands or can't see or hear human? Our hands, legs, skins well nearly every thing in our bodies are more or less non intelligent entities at best serving as sensor inputs and bio-mechanical parts which move things around, which give inputs and receive inputs from the brain. Human bodies are the very same, which is what enables development of medical science as a general discipline. So is the human brain. Yet! The data in our brains which your gather by experience seems to vastly alter the individual nature of individual humans. All this combined together you can likely download the 'data' + 'meta files' in your brain someday. >>If we transfer our minds into the "cloud" then are we still human? Yes, Why would you doubt that. Lets do a simple experiment. Say you sleep today night. Without your knowledge some one just removes your brain and implants an exact electronic replica of it which resembles your brain as is. Your brain is simply receiving signals from your body. So will you notice any change when you wake up? Lets continue the experiment further, say the next day that electronic brain was removed and just connected to a simulator which will simulate your body as your know it and the world around you. When you get up the next day in the morning(in the simulator) will you know if you are even in a simulator? The whole point is you need to learn this concept that you are not your body, and your neural computer + software just lives within a biological body. Someday that meta information and data can just be taken out and everything else that acts as an input to it can be simulated. >>Are we even alive? Define alive? Alive is only your biological body able to continue to support your neural self further. Death is the opposite. >>Are they cared for by robots that we control within the cloud? Within the cloud, your meta information + your currently gathered information through life experience stays intact. Your new software brain(imagine it like a VM) can be fed inputs that simulate whatever world you want. Want heaven? Hell? Well whatever your want they can simulate it for you. You can see this even now, Most of us lucid dream. This is just an extension of that. >>And if our body dies, then what? The concept of a biological body doesn't exist anymore. You will have better hardware to run on. >>And those "humans" inside the AI would no longer be human. Why wouldn't they be?

otikik 13y ago

> Wait. How could we even write such a program? Not all programs are deterministic; some of them are useful precisely because they aren't. Neural networks[1], for example. Also, within deterministic programs, there is "emergence": A very simple set of rules can produce unexpected patterns and behaviours which where not part of the original design. Conway's Game of Life's "patterns"[2] are an example of this. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network [2] - http://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life#Patterns http://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life#Pattern...

cabalamat 13y ago

> But leaving us behind? That Ai would still be limited by our original design. Limited by it's capabilities - it's exposure to us. It's creators. Isn't that a bit like asserting that it's impossible to program a computer to play chess better than the programmer -- something that is demonstrably untrue.

aaronem 13y ago
Well, I suppose I'd argue there is a qualitative difference between a chess program which can play a better game than its programmers, and any program which can eventually turn into a Vorlon and go beyond the rim.

eevilspock 13y ago

Nature designed us and we left it behind.

crag 13y ago
Oh really? And that's the fundamental problem with our society - we STILL put ourselves above (or outside) "nature". We aren't even the top of the food chain. Many organism consume us. So no... we have not left nature behind. If anything "nature" is leaving us behind. Despite our best science nature adapts into a better killing machine. And she (if you'll allow me to call everything "she") will continue to outpace us until we realize, again, that we are apart of this world. And then it won't matter - we'll still die. But we'll accept and celebrate it as much as life.