5 ms·

The Cyborg Compulsion

23 points by r4um 11y ago

kanzure 11y ago
> We need to sharpen our understanding of both intelligence and mechanical behaviour: what is smart behaviour, and who says so? And also: is there a simpler or better theory that accounts for all of the evidence, that is more plausible than intelligence?
dajohnson89 11y ago
>Hand-made confectionary [sic] is still popular. Huh. >Tupperware has not replaced basket weaving Right. Handmade baskets are a staple in any modern american home. >Although music can be programmed by computer, opera and classical music are booming. Really? Have you turned on the radio in the past 30 years? I live in a major metropolitan area, and there are only two classical music channels. And they are constantly going on fundraising drives, begging listeners to donate so that they can stay on the air.
- joshuapants 11y ago
  Handmade candies are certainly popular. I have several handmade baskets, though I confess that they were handed down to me from my parents. They don't have to be a staple, however, to still have a place these days. > Really? Have you turned on the radio in the past 30 years? I live in a major metropolitan area, and there are only two classical music channels. And they are constantly going on fundraising drives, begging listeners to donate so that they can stay on the air. That means that classical music hasn't found a stable home on the radio in your area. It doesn't at all mean that classical music and opera aren't booming. The 21st century is jam-packed with classical composers and there are plenty of people recording, performing, and consuming those works.
  - dajohnson89 11y ago
    Handmade candies aren't popular, they're trending. Just like artisinal pickles. Also, there's a reason why orchestras all over the country are going on strike or shutting down.
    - joshuapants 11y ago
      > Handmade candies aren't popular, they're trending. Just like artisinal pickles. Things trend because they're... wait for it... popular. > Also, there's a reason why orchestras all over the country are going on strike or shutting down. Unless you assume that all classical music is orchestral or that you can only experience such music in a certain setting, I'm not sure where you're going with this.
falcolas 11y ago
I'll be happy to put my keyboard down, to write not a single line more of code; there's quite a bit I could do if I wasn't always mired in the realities of writing production grade code. Of course, I imagine that will happen at some point after when McDonalds has been completely automated, and self driving cars can navigate Montana winters with ease. It's an odd article to downplay the impact and capabilities of automation and AI, and then complain that programmers haven't been replaced by the same.
keithwhor 11y ago
This is a fantastic article. Perfectly encapsulates all of my issues with AI doomsayers. > Cynics might say that you have to eliminate humans because of expense and human error, etc, but now we are losing sight of purpose: what are humans here for? Humanity is the source of intent, and there is no independent evolutionary mechanism competing with that. Without humans, there is not even a process to automate. Some very intelligent people are quick to jump aboard the "AI existential crisis" train without considering the larger evolutionary picture. We are not separate from the computer systems we create, they exist in a symbiotic relationship with us and they are driven by our basic needs. Our basic needs are driven by the emergent biological properties of our bodies and our ecosystem. While it can be argued with our "intelligence" we do harm to these things, it is not in our best interest to eliminate them. Machines (and automation) are just logical necessarily biological extensions of humanity. Silicon is just life's next evolutionary step. It is not reasonable to believe, based on patterns of evolutionary development, that life (including humanity) is at serious existential risk from this progression. > For an intelligence to emerge, in an artificial system, we would have to very purposely built it and train it interactively. We are not merely databases. Even if we could do this: > Do we know what intelligence is? > Why would be make something to imitate our own? > Would an artificial system have curiosity? (perish all the Internet cats!) > Why do we think that intelligence would escape and kill us? > Why would we equip the intelligence with access to the tools for our demise? > Are we so sure that we would even be noticed or interesting to an artificial intelligence? > Would we even recognize artificial intelligence if it were different from our own, and vice versa? Fantastic questions. Brilliant author, was a pleasure to read.
- RoboTeddy 11y ago
  > Our intelligence grows from childhood over many years of training, through our physical and mental interactions with the world. We learn methods along side experiences. It is not about the speed of linear computation, or the amount of memory. There's nothing in principle that prevents machines from learning methods. For example, there's software that can learn some simple algorithms: http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5401 http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5401 > Do we know what intelligence is? It's hard to pin down exactly what anything is (unless it's something we constructed from axioms). I'd be hard pressed to tell you exactly what a car is (must it have exactly 4 wheels?) -- but I still look for them when I cross the street. You know intelligence when you see it. Bill Gates is more intelligent than a fish. That's a useful distinction to make in the world! (And that's what words are for) > Why would be make something to imitate our own? It's economically valuable! That's why Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Baidu, IBM are collectively investing billions of dollars per year. > Would an artificial system have curiosity? (perish all the Internet cats!) From the outside, curiosity looks like a drive to explore without a definite prediction about how it might help you achieve ultimate goals. Curiosity in that sense should automatically appear in some (theoretical) systems -- for example, Marcus Hutter's AIXI formalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIXI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIXI). More concretely (but less directly akin to curiosity), algorithms that make tradeoffs between exploitation and exploration, such as solutions to the Multi-armed bandit problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-armed_bandit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-armed_bandit) could display a kind of curiosity. When faced with a number of lotto levers, with independent and unknown payout schedules, the optimal solution involves switching around between exploiting known high-payout levers and becoming "curious" and trying out new levers. The Monte Carlo tree search (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_tree_search https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_tree_search) algorithm used to make Go AIs employs such a strategy (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.102.1296 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.102....). The algorithm tries out certain variations of play, and then sometimes becomes "curious" as to whether certain other lines of play might be better, and switches over to deepening its investigation of them. These are just examples of things that are somewhat functionally equivalent to curiosity from the outside -- it says nothing about the internal sensation of curiosity that humans experience. I have no idea what's necessary for that! > Why do we think that intelligence would escape and kill us? If there _were_ extremely intelligent software (a huge if!), it does seem ridiculous to claim that it'd escape or hurt people. Why would it be driven to do such a thing? The argument espoused by some very smart people e.g. Elon Musk, Stuart Russell (http://edge.org/conversation/the-myth-of-ai#26015 http://edge.org/conversation/the-myth-of-ai#26015), Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking, et al runs a bit like this: Intelligent software, without being malevolent per-se, might in the pursuit of its goals incidentally do things that people don't like. (More on this line of reasoning: https://selfawaresystems.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/ai_drives_final.pdf https://selfawaresystems.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/ai_driv...) Humans don't harbor a particular ill-will towards ants, but if we become interested in some (orthogonal) goal like building a basement for a house, we might along the way destroy some ant colonies. When human-level intelligence arrived and went about its business, it led to the extinction of quite a few species.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

23 points by r4um 11y ago

> We need to sharpen our understanding of both intelligence and mechanical behaviour: what is smart behaviour, and who says so? And also: is there a simpler or better theory that accounts for all of the evidence, that is more plausible than intelligence?

dajohnson89 11y ago

>Hand-made confectionary [sic] is still popular. Huh. >Tupperware has not replaced basket weaving Right. Handmade baskets are a staple in any modern american home. >Although music can be programmed by computer, opera and classical music are booming. Really? Have you turned on the radio in the past 30 years? I live in a major metropolitan area, and there are only two classical music channels. And they are constantly going on fundraising drives, begging listeners to donate so that they can stay on the air.

joshuapants 11y ago
Handmade candies are certainly popular. I have several handmade baskets, though I confess that they were handed down to me from my parents. They don't have to be a staple, however, to still have a place these days. > Really? Have you turned on the radio in the past 30 years? I live in a major metropolitan area, and there are only two classical music channels. And they are constantly going on fundraising drives, begging listeners to donate so that they can stay on the air. That means that classical music hasn't found a stable home on the radio in your area. It doesn't at all mean that classical music and opera aren't booming. The 21st century is jam-packed with classical composers and there are plenty of people recording, performing, and consuming those works.
- dajohnson89 11y ago
  Handmade candies aren't popular, they're trending. Just like artisinal pickles. Also, there's a reason why orchestras all over the country are going on strike or shutting down.
  - joshuapants 11y ago
    > Handmade candies aren't popular, they're trending. Just like artisinal pickles. Things trend because they're... wait for it... popular. > Also, there's a reason why orchestras all over the country are going on strike or shutting down. Unless you assume that all classical music is orchestral or that you can only experience such music in a certain setting, I'm not sure where you're going with this.

falcolas 11y ago

I'll be happy to put my keyboard down, to write not a single line more of code; there's quite a bit I could do if I wasn't always mired in the realities of writing production grade code. Of course, I imagine that will happen at some point after when McDonalds has been completely automated, and self driving cars can navigate Montana winters with ease. It's an odd article to downplay the impact and capabilities of automation and AI, and then complain that programmers haven't been replaced by the same.

keithwhor 11y ago

This is a fantastic article. Perfectly encapsulates all of my issues with AI doomsayers. > Cynics might say that you have to eliminate humans because of expense and human error, etc, but now we are losing sight of purpose: what are humans here for? Humanity is the source of intent, and there is no independent evolutionary mechanism competing with that. Without humans, there is not even a process to automate. Some very intelligent people are quick to jump aboard the "AI existential crisis" train without considering the larger evolutionary picture. We are not separate from the computer systems we create, they exist in a symbiotic relationship with us and they are driven by our basic needs. Our basic needs are driven by the emergent biological properties of our bodies and our ecosystem. While it can be argued with our "intelligence" we do harm to these things, it is not in our best interest to eliminate them. Machines (and automation) are just logical necessarily biological extensions of humanity. Silicon is just life's next evolutionary step. It is not reasonable to believe, based on patterns of evolutionary development, that life (including humanity) is at serious existential risk from this progression. > For an intelligence to emerge, in an artificial system, we would have to very purposely built it and train it interactively. We are not merely databases. Even if we could do this: > Do we know what intelligence is? > Why would be make something to imitate our own? > Would an artificial system have curiosity? (perish all the Internet cats!) > Why do we think that intelligence would escape and kill us? > Why would we equip the intelligence with access to the tools for our demise? > Are we so sure that we would even be noticed or interesting to an artificial intelligence? > Would we even recognize artificial intelligence if it were different from our own, and vice versa? Fantastic questions. Brilliant author, was a pleasure to read.

RoboTeddy 11y ago
> Our intelligence grows from childhood over many years of training, through our physical and mental interactions with the world. We learn methods along side experiences. It is not about the speed of linear computation, or the amount of memory. There's nothing in principle that prevents machines from learning methods. For example, there's software that can learn some simple algorithms: http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5401 http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5401 > Do we know what intelligence is? It's hard to pin down exactly what anything is (unless it's something we constructed from axioms). I'd be hard pressed to tell you exactly what a car is (must it have exactly 4 wheels?) -- but I still look for them when I cross the street. You know intelligence when you see it. Bill Gates is more intelligent than a fish. That's a useful distinction to make in the world! (And that's what words are for) > Why would be make something to imitate our own? It's economically valuable! That's why Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Baidu, IBM are collectively investing billions of dollars per year. > Would an artificial system have curiosity? (perish all the Internet cats!) From the outside, curiosity looks like a drive to explore without a definite prediction about how it might help you achieve ultimate goals. Curiosity in that sense should automatically appear in some (theoretical) systems -- for example, Marcus Hutter's AIXI formalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIXI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIXI). More concretely (but less directly akin to curiosity), algorithms that make tradeoffs between exploitation and exploration, such as solutions to the Multi-armed bandit problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-armed_bandit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-armed_bandit) could display a kind of curiosity. When faced with a number of lotto levers, with independent and unknown payout schedules, the optimal solution involves switching around between exploiting known high-payout levers and becoming "curious" and trying out new levers. The Monte Carlo tree search (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_tree_search https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_tree_search) algorithm used to make Go AIs employs such a strategy (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.102.1296 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.102....). The algorithm tries out certain variations of play, and then sometimes becomes "curious" as to whether certain other lines of play might be better, and switches over to deepening its investigation of them. These are just examples of things that are somewhat functionally equivalent to curiosity from the outside -- it says nothing about the internal sensation of curiosity that humans experience. I have no idea what's necessary for that! > Why do we think that intelligence would escape and kill us? If there _were_ extremely intelligent software (a huge if!), it does seem ridiculous to claim that it'd escape or hurt people. Why would it be driven to do such a thing? The argument espoused by some very smart people e.g. Elon Musk, Stuart Russell (http://edge.org/conversation/the-myth-of-ai#26015 http://edge.org/conversation/the-myth-of-ai#26015), Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking, et al runs a bit like this: Intelligent software, without being malevolent per-se, might in the pursuit of its goals incidentally do things that people don't like. (More on this line of reasoning: https://selfawaresystems.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/ai_drives_final.pdf https://selfawaresystems.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/ai_driv...) Humans don't harbor a particular ill-will towards ants, but if we become interested in some (orthogonal) goal like building a basement for a house, we might along the way destroy some ant colonies. When human-level intelligence arrived and went about its business, it led to the extinction of quite a few species.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]