4 ms·

I think from my understanding they do have this same kind of computational framework but in a biological context. For example, multiple RNA strands can be proc

by tomlock 12y ago

I think from my understanding they do have this same kind of computational framework but in a biological context. For example, multiple RNA strands can be processed by ribosomes at once - they are essentially reading code to produce outputs (multi-threading/processing?). Bacterial populations will transmit information via chemical secretions, and coordinate in similar ways (slime molds). I feel like that complexity already exists in nature.

obituary_latte 12y ago
Ok, fair. I shouldn't have led off with the multiprocessing bit since it's clear organisms can coordinate and multiprocess. Of course, this relegated the more important point about language. I'm horrible at communicating, ironically. So, a virus doesn't say to his fellow virii: "you attack the liver, I got the kidneys". Same reason bonobos haven't learne to build a house. Complex language allows a much much more rapid growth of knowledge from generation to generation. Theoretically, AI would have this capability. Language allows to reason and comprehend not only the world around us, but the world we generate -- and will generate. Think about the damage (and beauty) we've imagined, and throw that into infinite threads.
- tomlock 12y ago
  I feel like AI will probably be better at communicating than us, but then again I feel like one of the reasons we have few threads to do so is that a lot of our other threads are for instance regulating our breathing and heartbeat, controlling the contractions in our stomach, making sure our blood is the right pressure, constantly scanning our vision for snakes and spiders, ready to pull our hand away from the hot fire, and so on and so on. These are all calculations we aren't conscious of, but when we create a database that can accept a million connections a second, and route them all, we're thinking "wow, we did great." What I think is that the brain processed all those signals from literally millons of sensors, in a smaller chunk of chemicals, while having a layer on top of those autonomic functions that allows for complex communication. While AI may be better at communicating, it may be at the expense of replication or self-repair or danger avoidance or the like. I guess in summary I see the complexity of creating an entity as a resource constraint on intelligence. And I feel like I communicated poorly since I didn't feel like you had communicated poorly, haha! :)
  - obituary_latte 12y ago
    No, I'm still not being clear. We can build buildings, bacteria cannot. We can build buildings because we can go to the library and read about structural integrity and wood and steel. Today, we can get that information on our watches. Language allows us to amass information. More information means more power. Autonomous information collection is only limited by physical constraints (storage, power, etc). Autonomous information gatherers can then parse the information they amass--as efficiently as is possible--to work beyond these constraints and build new solutions; they can focus all time and energy to these ends as it would be all they do. AI doesn't need to sleep. Bacteria has no notion of being in control; of being powerful. Power in this sense is only possible with the context that language provides. Their motivation is simple binary. Eat, survive, reproduce then or die. AI, on the other hand, quite possibly will.
    - nazgul17 12y ago
      By arguing that AI does not need to sleep, you are already making assumptions about how such AI is structured. I do not agree with such assumption. Whether we talk about a structure more similar to us (i.e. neural networks) or whether we talk about some n-th order logic, the AI needs to "sleep". I think in some way you could interpret caching mechanisms as sleeping. Also, many data-centers perform some operations daily at nighttime: I argue that that is a form of sleeping as well. AI will have a lot of limitations like these, so I think that "as efficiently as possible" is not going to be so efficient in the end.
      - obituary_latte 12y ago
        Another one lost to the wrong detail... God I suck at mouth. >AI will have a lot of limitations like these, so I think that "as efficiently as possible" is not going to be so efficient in the end. You think. AI won't care what you think. Efficiency equals greater chance for survival. As with bacteria, we can break this down to a binary sequence: try to live/die. The difference between bacteria and AI is that AI has language -- a way to describe what to avoid that jeopardizes survivability. In addition, this advantage is exponential. I play with code in my day to day. Some might call it "software". Really what it is is a decision tree. Any piece of software you have ever come into contact with -- ever -- is just that: do this? Yes or no. Is it that? Yes or no. To suggest that a machine couldn't decide "yes or no" a million to one faster than we can is insane. So, given our previous hypothesis that more information means more power, how can we possibly win?

by tomlock 12y ago

obituary_latte 12y ago

Ok, fair. I shouldn't have led off with the multiprocessing bit since it's clear organisms can coordinate and multiprocess. Of course, this relegated the more important point about language. I'm horrible at communicating, ironically. So, a virus doesn't say to his fellow virii: "you attack the liver, I got the kidneys". Same reason bonobos haven't learne to build a house. Complex language allows a much much more rapid growth of knowledge from generation to generation. Theoretically, AI would have this capability. Language allows to reason and comprehend not only the world around us, but the world we generate -- and will generate. Think about the damage (and beauty) we've imagined, and throw that into infinite threads.

tomlock 12y ago
I feel like AI will probably be better at communicating than us, but then again I feel like one of the reasons we have few threads to do so is that a lot of our other threads are for instance regulating our breathing and heartbeat, controlling the contractions in our stomach, making sure our blood is the right pressure, constantly scanning our vision for snakes and spiders, ready to pull our hand away from the hot fire, and so on and so on. These are all calculations we aren't conscious of, but when we create a database that can accept a million connections a second, and route them all, we're thinking "wow, we did great." What I think is that the brain processed all those signals from literally millons of sensors, in a smaller chunk of chemicals, while having a layer on top of those autonomic functions that allows for complex communication. While AI may be better at communicating, it may be at the expense of replication or self-repair or danger avoidance or the like. I guess in summary I see the complexity of creating an entity as a resource constraint on intelligence. And I feel like I communicated poorly since I didn't feel like you had communicated poorly, haha! :)
- obituary_latte 12y ago
  No, I'm still not being clear. We can build buildings, bacteria cannot. We can build buildings because we can go to the library and read about structural integrity and wood and steel. Today, we can get that information on our watches. Language allows us to amass information. More information means more power. Autonomous information collection is only limited by physical constraints (storage, power, etc). Autonomous information gatherers can then parse the information they amass--as efficiently as is possible--to work beyond these constraints and build new solutions; they can focus all time and energy to these ends as it would be all they do. AI doesn't need to sleep. Bacteria has no notion of being in control; of being powerful. Power in this sense is only possible with the context that language provides. Their motivation is simple binary. Eat, survive, reproduce then or die. AI, on the other hand, quite possibly will.
  - nazgul17 12y ago
    By arguing that AI does not need to sleep, you are already making assumptions about how such AI is structured. I do not agree with such assumption. Whether we talk about a structure more similar to us (i.e. neural networks) or whether we talk about some n-th order logic, the AI needs to "sleep". I think in some way you could interpret caching mechanisms as sleeping. Also, many data-centers perform some operations daily at nighttime: I argue that that is a form of sleeping as well. AI will have a lot of limitations like these, so I think that "as efficiently as possible" is not going to be so efficient in the end.
    - obituary_latte 12y ago
      Another one lost to the wrong detail... God I suck at mouth. >AI will have a lot of limitations like these, so I think that "as efficiently as possible" is not going to be so efficient in the end. You think. AI won't care what you think. Efficiency equals greater chance for survival. As with bacteria, we can break this down to a binary sequence: try to live/die. The difference between bacteria and AI is that AI has language -- a way to describe what to avoid that jeopardizes survivability. In addition, this advantage is exponential. I play with code in my day to day. Some might call it "software". Really what it is is a decision tree. Any piece of software you have ever come into contact with -- ever -- is just that: do this? Yes or no. Is it that? Yes or no. To suggest that a machine couldn't decide "yes or no" a million to one faster than we can is insane. So, given our previous hypothesis that more information means more power, how can we possibly win?