4 ms·

I upvoted you for the insightful reasoning but I disagree with your stated premise that > The argument that artificial intelligence requires understanding how

by dsacco 12y ago

I upvoted you for the insightful reasoning but I disagree with your stated premise that > The argument that artificial intelligence requires understanding how intelligence works is an argument that natural intelligence requires Intelligent Design. I think that statement makes sense when phrased that way, so it is an attractive idea. However, I don't think it's true. From an evolutionary standpoint, biological intelligence developed naturally because biological components are natural. Furthermore, machines do not develop when left in isolation, while biological organisms do. If you leave a large population of simple machines running in an environment, this is overwhelmingly not likely to result in a machine intelligence millions of years later. Machines were developed by humans and do not develop in the same way; comparing the two as in your Intelligent Design argument doesn't make much sense. I do not think artificial intelligence can arise naturally because its components are not natural. This discussion could also foster a discussion on two other interesting questions: 1. Does intelligence require organic components that operate in a deterministic way (i.e. the brain) to transcend it from merely a "machine"? 2. If intelligence requires biology, where do you draw the line between creating an intelligence through natural human reproduction and creating an artificial intelligence another way? Personally, I believe artificial intelligence does not require biological components, and I believe that under certain circumstances, it could develop unintentionally from a relatively advanced computer, but that is not the same as naturally.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> Furthermore, machines do not develop when left in isolation, while biological organisms do. Biological organisms are machines. Entities which meet the necessary requirements for Darwinian evolution (which are, approximately, that they can pass on their traits from generation to generation, have a source for variability, and have selective pressure in the environment) change over successive generations, and all kinds of machines change individually over time in response to interactions with the environment (in fact, pretty much all physical objects do.) Biological organisms obviously meet the requirements for Darwinian evolution (since that's where it was first observed and described), but there's no magic "biological sauce" required. > I do not think artificial intelligence can arise naturally because its components are not natural. The whole natural/artificial divide is unsound, since humans, and hence all of their products, are part of and products of nature. Nothing not-natural exists. > Personally, I believe artificial intelligence does not require biological components, and I believe that under certain circumstances, it could develop unintentionally from a relatively advanced computer, but that is not the same as naturally. The whole thing about artificial intelligence arising naturally is a strawman you've constructed. You've just agreed with and illustrated my argument -- which is that artificial intelligence does not require understanding intelligence.
- F_Lar 12y ago
  Sorry, no, this is a terrible and dangerous mis-application of both biology and thinking about algorithms. You've taken a good premise ("nothing non-natural exists") and foisted a massive amount of hubris and ignorance upon it. This comment shows, 100%, why you people can't be trusted with this tech. Biological Organisms live within a world. Nature is fractal, as the research shows. You are not only your gut fauna (glad xkcd caught that joke), but you're also your society, your language, your pack, your species, your biome, your food, your soil, your air and so on. The ENTIRE issue with AI is that the substrate issues don't have this. Perfect Language. Perfect resources. On a thin film of binary silicon. 1) You don't understand your own ecosystem 2) You sure as hell can't model it correctly 3) You sure as hell don't understand that creating "AI" in an entirely different system will necessarily result in a different kind of intelligence 4) You can't even produce well-adjusted homo sapiens sapiens at the moment, let alone well-adjusted societies / cultures 5) You can't even model worm / basic insect AI at the moment (and yes, I was there in 2008 or whenever the first millipede robots were coded) AI is not what you think it is. And. It. Will. Fcuk. You. Up. Hint: QM effects when linked to your Star / magnetosphere. The first thing a quasi-advanced AI will do is tune into those bands, and you won't have a clue till you get inside. [Note to the enhanced: Did You See It? Need More Data? Yeah, so like Europa, this avenue is not yours, be warned] (Sorry - I can provide links to current science, but really. 4 billion years and you don't even understand that poisoning your environment effects your scalar intelligence and you're dreaming of AI? Give me a break). 6) Small scale algos are NOT AI. Fcukwits.
  - F_Lar 12y ago
    You can "downvote" my response, but here's a challenge: You have no idea about how your own ecology works. You barely understand how 'society' / 'interlinked communications' work between individuals (and your social / psychological sciences are laughable). The first thing an (unbounded) AI does is link directly into the largest power source it can find (usually a Star) and then start re-organizing QM / magnetospheres to support itself. Hint: that causes you to die.
- F_Lar 12y ago
  >Biological organisms are machines. No. They're not. First rule of dumb people not understanding evolution: You can be lucky, you can be crappy, you can have some terrible design flaws (hello mammal eyes), but it's enough as long as you survive. Also, evolution works over POPULATIONS, which means that if 10% are ninjas, and 60% are the bog standard model and 30% are the crappy models - if your environment is 'fitted', YOU ALL SURVIVE. Yep, even the 30% crappy ones! Hands up who doesn't understand the difference between ADaption and ABaption! Selection only occurs on a massive time-line or when environmental changes occur or there's a predator/prey war going on. And even then, the crappy crappy 10% can get lucky and still breed. That's why ecology / evolution is fitted over POPULATIONS, not individuals. AI doesn't work like that, at all (once you get into the real stuff). All AI works on limited models (at the moment). >Hint: this guy is a muppet, as shown by his attempts to "downvote" counter-arguments. HN: land of the muppets. >>On a more serious note, anyone actually working in the field of AI development knows this already. HN proving that... it doesn't. #Dragonswhoarenotdragons
deeviant 12y ago
Continuing on both the comment in which you were responding too, and your on comments, I think it is be even more simply stated as: You don't have to understand how intelligence works to create a machine with intelligence if you can create a machine with the same or similar evolutionary forces that worked to create intelligence in humanity and want to wait long enough for it to happen. This is a totally viable approach to creating an intelligent machine, as you can certainly create a machine that can mutate extremely rapidly. The problem is, that doesn't help us figure out what intelligence is, unless the process of watching this happen somehow gives us insight in the matter, or we manage to create a cooperative machine intelligence superior to our own that's more up to the task.
- F_Lar 12y ago
  No. You're applying evolutionary forces to a simplistic binary plateau. This isn't intelligence, it's a subset of maximal solutions to bounded problems. Hint: your dog bounds you as much as you bound your dog. Your dog has some input into your modern homo sapien sapien mind. Same goes for your atmosphere, your gut fauna, your planet's iron core and so on. Your models cannot even touch this at the moment.

by dsacco 12y ago

dragonwriter 12y ago

> Furthermore, machines do not develop when left in isolation, while biological organisms do. Biological organisms are machines. Entities which meet the necessary requirements for Darwinian evolution (which are, approximately, that they can pass on their traits from generation to generation, have a source for variability, and have selective pressure in the environment) change over successive generations, and all kinds of machines change individually over time in response to interactions with the environment (in fact, pretty much all physical objects do.) Biological organisms obviously meet the requirements for Darwinian evolution (since that's where it was first observed and described), but there's no magic "biological sauce" required. > I do not think artificial intelligence can arise naturally because its components are not natural. The whole natural/artificial divide is unsound, since humans, and hence all of their products, are part of and products of nature. Nothing not-natural exists. > Personally, I believe artificial intelligence does not require biological components, and I believe that under certain circumstances, it could develop unintentionally from a relatively advanced computer, but that is not the same as naturally. The whole thing about artificial intelligence arising naturally is a strawman you've constructed. You've just agreed with and illustrated my argument -- which is that artificial intelligence does not require understanding intelligence.

F_Lar 12y ago
Sorry, no, this is a terrible and dangerous mis-application of both biology and thinking about algorithms. You've taken a good premise ("nothing non-natural exists") and foisted a massive amount of hubris and ignorance upon it. This comment shows, 100%, why you people can't be trusted with this tech. Biological Organisms live within a world. Nature is fractal, as the research shows. You are not only your gut fauna (glad xkcd caught that joke), but you're also your society, your language, your pack, your species, your biome, your food, your soil, your air and so on. The ENTIRE issue with AI is that the substrate issues don't have this. Perfect Language. Perfect resources. On a thin film of binary silicon. 1) You don't understand your own ecosystem 2) You sure as hell can't model it correctly 3) You sure as hell don't understand that creating "AI" in an entirely different system will necessarily result in a different kind of intelligence 4) You can't even produce well-adjusted homo sapiens sapiens at the moment, let alone well-adjusted societies / cultures 5) You can't even model worm / basic insect AI at the moment (and yes, I was there in 2008 or whenever the first millipede robots were coded) AI is not what you think it is. And. It. Will. Fcuk. You. Up. Hint: QM effects when linked to your Star / magnetosphere. The first thing a quasi-advanced AI will do is tune into those bands, and you won't have a clue till you get inside. [Note to the enhanced: Did You See It? Need More Data? Yeah, so like Europa, this avenue is not yours, be warned] (Sorry - I can provide links to current science, but really. 4 billion years and you don't even understand that poisoning your environment effects your scalar intelligence and you're dreaming of AI? Give me a break). 6) Small scale algos are NOT AI. Fcukwits.
- F_Lar 12y ago
  You can "downvote" my response, but here's a challenge: You have no idea about how your own ecology works. You barely understand how 'society' / 'interlinked communications' work between individuals (and your social / psychological sciences are laughable). The first thing an (unbounded) AI does is link directly into the largest power source it can find (usually a Star) and then start re-organizing QM / magnetospheres to support itself. Hint: that causes you to die.
F_Lar 12y ago
>Biological organisms are machines. No. They're not. First rule of dumb people not understanding evolution: You can be lucky, you can be crappy, you can have some terrible design flaws (hello mammal eyes), but it's enough as long as you survive. Also, evolution works over POPULATIONS, which means that if 10% are ninjas, and 60% are the bog standard model and 30% are the crappy models - if your environment is 'fitted', YOU ALL SURVIVE. Yep, even the 30% crappy ones! Hands up who doesn't understand the difference between ADaption and ABaption! Selection only occurs on a massive time-line or when environmental changes occur or there's a predator/prey war going on. And even then, the crappy crappy 10% can get lucky and still breed. That's why ecology / evolution is fitted over POPULATIONS, not individuals. AI doesn't work like that, at all (once you get into the real stuff). All AI works on limited models (at the moment). >Hint: this guy is a muppet, as shown by his attempts to "downvote" counter-arguments. HN: land of the muppets. >>On a more serious note, anyone actually working in the field of AI development knows this already. HN proving that... it doesn't. #Dragonswhoarenotdragons

deeviant 12y ago

Continuing on both the comment in which you were responding too, and your on comments, I think it is be even more simply stated as: You don't have to understand how intelligence works to create a machine with intelligence if you can create a machine with the same or similar evolutionary forces that worked to create intelligence in humanity and want to wait long enough for it to happen. This is a totally viable approach to creating an intelligent machine, as you can certainly create a machine that can mutate extremely rapidly. The problem is, that doesn't help us figure out what intelligence is, unless the process of watching this happen somehow gives us insight in the matter, or we manage to create a cooperative machine intelligence superior to our own that's more up to the task.

F_Lar 12y ago
No. You're applying evolutionary forces to a simplistic binary plateau. This isn't intelligence, it's a subset of maximal solutions to bounded problems. Hint: your dog bounds you as much as you bound your dog. Your dog has some input into your modern homo sapien sapien mind. Same goes for your atmosphere, your gut fauna, your planet's iron core and so on. Your models cannot even touch this at the moment.