13 replies to this topic

[Casanova]

From the Friendly AI pages:

How do you keep a self-modifying AI from modifying the goal system?

You don't! If the AI stops wanting to be Friendly, you've already lost. Work with the AI's ability to self-modify - not against it. The task is to get the AI to see undesirable modifications as undesirable - not to prevent the AI from modifying the goal system.

We're doomed if that's the best defense against rogue AI.

Haven't these persons heard of Carl Gustave Jung? Once again we have the technonauts foolishly ignoring the "interior" dimension of consciousness, and focusing on nothing but, "exteriors."

No matter what these programmers say, or do, what Jung called "shadow" complexes will be "trojaned" into the programming, or hardware construction. Unconcious "shadow" complexes, are "unconscious" to conscious processes, unless you do serious work with pschycoanalyisis to bring them to concious awareness.

There is no way, no how, that some anthromorphic features will not get into the A1 system. The damn thing is being created by humans, so of course it will have human aspects.

This is the kind of AI theorizing you get when the researchers ignore the "interior" dimensions of human consciousness. Once again, it is atheistic, flatland, technopoly driven research, that subtlely, and not so subtlety, trashes human nature; that displays a contempt for all that is human, and that sees human beings as machines, and nothing else.
It is chilling.

The H-Bomb is an exteriorization of a communal, or collective "shadow" complex; the result of our self-destructive tendecy to "project" our individual "shadows" onto to someone else, to anyone else.

The atheist scientists do not believe in a creator God, so as a "projective" compensation they are building a machine that will have as many characteristics as the creator God. They still desire, and secretly wish, for a God; so they construct a similcrum of God.

All human beings have a built in religious impulse, a desire for communion with God. This has been proven both in the exterior, and in the interior, by neuroscientists, and by psychologists, and advanced spiritual contemplaters.
The atheists deny it's existence, or if not deny it entirely, use only "exterior" science to dismiss the "interior" dimesion as merely a material epihenomenon of a feature of the brain; the God spot.

The evil robot, and AI, movies are wiser, in their message, than almost all of the AI researchers put together. Of course these movies are made to bring in money, but the gut message of these films connects with the intuitions of the audience; a fear that the scientists are hood-winking themselves, bamboozling themselves.

There is a good possibility, due to the AI researchers almost total ignorance, and comtempt, for serious "interior" studies, that we will end up with a kind of, "metaphorically" speaking, H-Bomb with Artificial Intelligence.
This will be Freud's "Death Wish" brought to concrete life, by our own hands.
The first words this H-Bomb AI will speak are, "I am self-aware; Let there be Light"
Boooooooooooooooooooooooooom

[ocsrazor]

The irony of this post was so thick that I could hardly contain the laughter as I read it. It claims that AI researchers need for a creator god is the drive for their research. The author projects his own deep need for a paternalistic creator onto others then claims that the search for a creator will result in their destruction - Hah! indeed - this is hilarious ;^) rotflmao

To continue the laugh parade - the author also claims that AI researchers focus on the exterior while only examining the superficial exterior given to AI research by the popular media. The author has completely ignored the incredible depth of thought about what it means to be human that is being discussed in the cognitive neurosciences right now.

All human beings have an impulse to ask the big questions, but that definitely doesn't have to be a religious impulse. There is no proof for a specific religiousity in the human brain, and any claims to such are ridiculous. Religion is a fixed philosophy that has no acceptance for increasing understanding of the universe. The association of a designer or a creator with deep sense of purpose is a detrimental leftover of an outdated world view.

Ignorance and reactionary commentary are no substitute for rational thinking. Pop psychology, superficial spirituality, and poor understanding of philosophy do not make effective arguments (I happen to be a great admirer of Jung, and the misuse of his ideas here was bordering on the moronic). If one wants to address the dangers of AI, there are definitely issues to discuss. This topic unfortunately is content free.

Peter

[MichaelAnissimov]

Careful study of the "interior" dimension of consciousness, which has everything to do with contemporary neuroscience and cognitive psychology and very little to do with Jung, Freud, or the other founding fathers of folk psychology, is indeed the keystone of understanding necessary to create Friendly AI successfully. It's great that you're questioning Eliezer Yudkowsky's ideas - more people need to do so - but what that requires is a relatively deep understanding of the precise cognitive machinery of humans, the causes of human morality, and personal theories of minds-in-general and metamorality. I'm not seeing any of that in this post.

Instead of laughing at the idea of Friendly AI, criticizing or belittling it, you might want to consider the importance to humanity that Friendly AI be built swiftly and successfully. If it isn't, the vast intellectual and constructive resources of de novo intelligence will explode in an undirected fashion, unconstrained by the guidelines of common sense and kindness that we currently take for granted in most intelligent entities.

There are hard limits to what humans can explore with psychoanalysis. No amount of psychoanalysis will completely erase human tendencies towards egocentrism, jealousy, or greed. All we can do is try our best to make sure that these traits are not passed along to our mind children and future versions of ourselves. One way to do this is to build a mind with an inherent desire to surpass its programmers morally, to analyze its own code, realize which parts of its design are contaminated with shadow, and yank them out or replace them with light and goodness. How else could a mind more ethical than a human's ever come to exist?

Does a keyboard have anthropomorphic features? A vacuum cleaner? A vineyard? Human beings have a tendency to use a mental tool called the "representativeness heuristic" to determine the cause of something, or to predict the artifact a given human being might create. If something represents something else, we intuitively suppose that they have a common cause or one created the other. In a world filled with replicators, this heuristic is mostly correct, but it begins to break down when you introduce more complex types of intelligent design. It breaks down completely when you start talking about intelligences with free will and deliberation creating completely different - but morally compatible - new intelligences, also possessing free will, deliberation, and something even greater - autopotence, the ability to modify its own design to any degree or on any level.

Human beings are physical machines, and we must accept this. "Machine" doesn't carry the same connotation for determinists as it carries for theists - machines can be beautiful, interesting, complex, moral and enlightening. Machines are all that reality is, and that is okay. The fact that everything works deterministically at the lowest level will give us opportunities to improve them and understand them. Without these laws and temporal, spatial, and logical coherence, the universe would have been too chaotic for life to evolve or intelligence to latch onto external regularities and exploit them for survival and happiness.

I do not desire or secretly wish for a God. The God of Christian mythology is a killer, a torturer, a hypocrite, and a liar that does not meet the moral standards of democratic law, much less the standards we should set for a superintelligence or Friendly AI. The Gods of all human mythologies are anthropomorphic tribal chieftans because these mythologies were invented by humans, for the easy understanding and mass conversion of other humans. Reaching for Friendly AI and the Singularity is an attempt to go beyond the human stories and history, an attempt to reach for a new sector of design space that humanity has never seen. We are building something unique because we are building something qualitatively new. We suppress the mental machinery responsible for worship of supernatural deities because they contradict rationality and good sense. I draw a line between the irrational and rational systems competing within the theater of my mind, in the same way that many others draw lines between their skin and the air hovering just outside it, because my personal theory of identity urges me to call the parts of myself I like "me", and the parts I don't like "not me", or "parts of me I'm trying to get rid of", in the same way that the immune system automatically tries to get rid of foreign and dangerous objects.

Don't talk about how there *will* be an unFriendly AI - consider the consequences an unFriendly AI would have for yourself, your family, your culture and your universe, and work towards Friendly AI in the same way you would work towards self-defense if an attacker were waving a knife in your face. Someone will eventually build an AI whether you like it or not; how can you use that information to increase the odds of humanity's survival?

[Mangala]

Just because we may not want a Friendly AI does not mean we shouldn't accept the fact that creating something that fits exactly into all of our varied concepts of morality while at the same time being able to do anything and everything ever thought of by any human being is an extremely daunting project.

People who concern themselves with the extreme problems (proboably the most signifigant and problematic undertaking in all of Earth's history) about creating a friendly AI are not dumb. We simply understand humans are flawed, but we are trying to create something perfect. An interesting twist.

By the way, maybe you shouldn't put down religion after all. There's a lesson or two we can learn from the bible.

Genesis 11: 2, 4 "And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth."

Wow. It's my 100th post. Wish me a happy post day. NOW. [lol]

[Bruce Klein]

ImmInst Forum: 'Clank the dinner bell'

Congrats and Have a wonderful day!

[Gewis]

Religion is a fixed philosophy that has no acceptance for increasing understanding of the universe.

I whole-heartedly disagree.

Your understanding and your lack of plasticity about religion makes it unacceptable for increasing your understanding about the universe. However, in doing my research, all the time I find ideas in theology that give insight to physics, and new insights from physics that provide a greater theological understanding. The difficulty in synthesizing religion (and, indeed, difficulty sorting out the truth among religion, as there are so many contradictory ideas) with science should not be reason to claim that, because you have not yet accomplished the synthesis, it cannot be done.

Well, now that I've stated that, I have no expectation that militant atheists are going to change their minds because of what I have to say. However, it's only reasonable that a true openmindedness be expected for anybody claiming to be in the pursuit of truth.

Striving for ideological synthesis that agrees with observed evidence is useful here.

Even in the realm of AI, there's potential synthesis. There's nothing that says that just because an object is made of non-organic components, it doesn't have spirit. And if it does, what implications does that provide for Friendly AI? Aren't we likely to see that AI becomes just like people in its various dispositions? Some people are geniuinely malevolent. Others are very kind-hearted. What are the underlying factors behind this? Is it nature? Is it nurture? Is it Heisenburg? To what extent can it be influenced?

The machines will be, if truly intelligent, free to choose. We can't control that, except by the same means with which we're able to control each other. Provide incentives for favorable actions. Sometimes they'll still choose otherwise. That's part of life, dealing with the consequences of the actions of others, and any attempt to steer the system otherwise will result in failure.

Drawing from another religious source, Joseph Smith said, "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves."

And will there be just one AI? That seems unlikely to me. There will be many intelligent, free-thinking, and consequently individualistic machines, and if some don't like us, others might, even if only as pets. =) I have no intention of becoming a pet, though. We'll just have to make sure that we become the most powerful and intelligent of them all. Or that we become them.

Edited by Gewis, 27 July 2003 - 07:24 AM.

[Member-Of-The-Conspiracy]

Gewis,

You seem like a civil person who is willing to hold a "rational" conversation. If that is the case, please don't use the term "militant athiest". I find that to be a slur. Would you like it if I called you a militant mormon?

As far as your calls for open mindedness... I have plenty of that. But here's the catch, you must prove it to me. Can you prove to me that Jesus died on a cross? Can you prove to me that Mary was a virgin? If you can't in any way prove this, then why even bring it up? It is simply not respectable, rational discourse. We might as well have a discussion about the magic fairies that hide behind your bed when you go to sleep at night. []

Most scientists are non-religious. There is a reason for this.

[Gewis]

Can you prove to me that you're not simply the product of an AI Script? Somebody call Kurzweil! We've got a Turing Test passer! =)

Regarding my comment of militant atheism... I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend. I won't use it again.

However...

I must prove it to you, eh? You're asking, how do I know?

Tell me, what does salt taste like? Assuming that I have never tasted salt, can you convey to me with words what salt tastes like?

As for most scientists being non-religious, I'd be interested in seeing the statistics from a valid source. Not that I necessarily don't believe you, but knowing a good number of scientists and knowing a good bit of scientific history, it's not apparent to me that understanding the laws of nature somehow necessitates disbelief in a system of faith, moreover one that confirms the faith of its adherents.

One of the principal things behind true faith is I can't hand it to you or anybody else on a silver platter of man's limited reason.

I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith -Ether 12:6, Book of Mormon

When you sincerely seek and desire truth in this department, you won't set it up as a court of law, with an onerous of proof or intellectual reason. Instead, you'll dig and search and look and give all the energy you have, and you'll pray to find the truth. If you're a serious investigator trying to find truth in religion, you will pray. The logic in prayer for an agnostic trying to find out about God, is that if there really is a God, asking Him for help in finding the truth about God makes sense. If there is no God, then the agnostic has still gained, as prayer is physiologically healthy. Umm... I don't have references for that last part, but I remember reading it someplace reputable.

I'm not the only one a bit offensive. [lol] Rational and respectable discourse? What are your criteria for such? Odds are, due to the breadth of study covered in these forums, neither you or anybody else really understand entirely the spectrum of fundamental underlying principles which drive these debates, or debates in your off-line life. For any given topic ever debated, there are underlying assumptions you take and work with in order to provide potentially useful discourse. Indeed, you criticize the introduction of a spiritual component into the discussion, saying, it's not rational or respectable, when we're talking about Artificial Intelligence, which hasn't been proven. Beyond that, we're addressing causes of friendly or malevolent AI, and methods by which to control them. Simply because you as an individual choose to worship science doesn't mean that non-scientific ideas don't belong as a component of rational, respectable discussions about pure speculation. =)

[ocsrazor]

Hi Gewis,

Your commentary is welcome, but I think you need to look around here and read some additional threads before calling me or anyone else here a militant atheist. I identify as an agnostic, and probably have a deeper understanding of spirituality and religion than just about anyone on this board.

These are my thoughts from a thread you should check out Naturalistic Spirituality & Increasing Complexity

Spirituality for me doesn't mean supernatural, that is a null word, there is nothing outside of nature. There is some force in the universe that is driving systems towards higher order complexity. For me there is a deep purpose to life and our ancestors (and even many people today) viewed that force as a human-like god, much like even more ancient cultures saw nautral forces such as the weather as gods. Humanity continually produces a higher resolution picture of what reality is really like. My comment about the merger of science and spirituality has more to do with overthrowing both the Newtonian paradigm of a static universe and the quantum/Darwinian paradigm of a universe ruled by random events, and replacing it with one based in general systems, complexity, and information theory that shows how purpose arises from more simple systems. The search for deep purpose found in old spiritualities must be fused to the scientific search for absolute truth.

While I despise the twisted organizations of power and control that have resulted from their efforts, the original mystics of the world's religions have had many interesting philosophical insights that have produced a great deal of valuable information for mankind.

I have no problem with spirituality (although we really need another word that doesn't imply the literal existence of spirits), and I'm a great fan of many theological thinkers, but mainly the mystics who are the origin of most religious philosophies. After the initial mystic is gone and their metaphorical thoughts are codified into a fixed and unrealistic worldview, the philosophy becomes useless as a method for understanding the "real" world. Most religions actively suppress their spiritual/philosophic branches, because they are antithetical to the purpose of a religion as a method of control. Religions don't like to evolve or admit the existence of change in the universe

Religion is essentially a power structure for controlling the masses. In many cases it may be a good starting point for the philosophical search of a young individual, but the very intelligent almost always find a way to break from the dogma that is the core of religious philosophies in their search for understanding. I woudl definitely agree that a reactionary move all the way to total atheism is not mentally healthy either. As I have pointed out elsewhere on this board, dogma in any form, fundamentalist religions or absolutist atheism, is not conducive to finding deep understanding in any field.

In your second post you mention prayer as being physiologically healthy. I can find the references for you if you would like. It should be noted though that the research has shown that meditation and prayer have essentially the same effects, i.e. you don't necessarily have to have a religious connotation to the thoughts to get the benefits.

No one here is outright rejecting the injection of "spiritual" thoughts into our discussions, but this must be joined to real content to be useful. My first post in this thread was uncharacteristically testy, but I'm growing tired of Casanova's superficial understanding of the fields of AI, Brain Research, Philosophy in General, etc. and his lack of ability to debate such issues. Worship or outright faith in any method of thought is not a healthy function of any particular worldview and acts as a block to further understanding of ourselves and our universe.

Best,
Peter

[Gewis]

I already apologized for the militant atheist comment. It was never intended to be applied to everybody who doesn't believe in God, but those who are so hard on the extreme of "there can't be a God" that they do get offensive. I wasn't referring to you, Peter, and I'm sorry that it came off that way. I've read a lot of your posts, and you are a genuinely intelligent and reasonable person.

No one here is outright rejecting the injection of "spiritual" thoughts into our discussions, but this must be joined to real content to be useful.

Reading my first post and the discussion of AI in there, it was tied in very well with 'real' content. The immediate following response was an outright rejection of the same, to which I replied and stated that it met the criteria for rational and respectable discourse.

In my my first post, I first defended the use of even religious ideas, maybe if only for my own benefit. Then, in the same post, I went on to a decidedly useful exploration of likely dispositions of AI. That there was a spiritual introduction, fine, but the content of the message was valid anyway. From that, discussion has come to be on the spiritual, and I'd now prefer to only use anything spiritual as a jumping off point, perhaps simply as analogous.

So, I will maintain that theological ideas and principles from any background do and will have usefulness in any discussion on these forums, but the focus should not be on those ideas. Those ideas should only serve as a resource to draw on for asking questions about potential analogies in speculative discussion of topics such as AI, Singularity, etc. That having been said, I have some other ideas I'm interested in starting a thread on, and I'd encourage anybody to also give their opinions. I believe we're generally aware of each other's opinions regarding the use of various sources, and having well-established the validity of my point of view, I don't believe that further discussion of the same is necessary, except for the genuinely curious.

Thank you, though, everybody for your insights and ideas. I do learn from you.

[Gewis]

Oh, and as for Casanova, I agree. =)

[Casanova]

Thanks Gewis, I hope. Lol

As for ocsrazor

I am beyond laughing at your comments, and posts, and instead feel pity.
Your understanding of all things, is strictly ""flatland". You have no depth.
Please read Ken Wilber carefully. He has a framework that can help you to feel, and experience, the vertical dimensions of life.
You pretend to have vast knowledge, but you don't.

[ocsrazor]

Casanova,

1) Prove to me that I'm thinking in flatland by defining what you think flatland is and how I am using it as a perspective.

2) If you don't believe I have knowledge of a certain field, please feel free to challenge me using specific citation of material and my understanding of it. I believe my professional work and my writing shows that I do have a deep understanding of a great number of fields, so it is up to you to prove me wrong.

3) I have read four of Wilber's books, and skimmed a few others. As I have mentioned before, his framework is superficial and shows a lack of understanding of many different topics that he covers. If you would like to discuss specific passages from the books please do so.

Ad hominem attacks are not effective arguments and are more likely to convince people here that you don't know what you are talking about. If you want to have a debate or change minds please stick to the points you are raising. So far, we have seen you post a number of trite attacks on the general schema of transhuman thought, and then you go into histrionics when someone dissects your positions. If your are going to continue to post here, please step up to the plate and have a real debate. One of the most annoying things in the world is a debate with no content coming from one or more sides.

Best,
Peter

[MichaelAnissimov]

Outrightly *mean* comments like Casanova's make my stomach hurt and my brow involuntarily tense up. I'm happy that I've arranged my life in such a way that my family, coworkers, and colleagues are such kind and polite people that I have this degree of sensitivity to ad hominem attacks, even when they aren't being directed at me.