• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

How do we know an (s)AI Doesn't already exist? How do we know an (s)AI didn't Create Bitcoin?

transhumanism cybernetics bitcoin

  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Fluffkat

  • Guest
  • 9 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Brighton, UK

Posted 04 December 2013 - 03:14 PM


Is there anyway to know for sure that a sentient artificial intelligence(SAI) doesn't already exist?
(Not sure if the acronym SAI existed before but it does now and it's got a nice ring to it :))

I've been following the bitcoin story and reading a bit about how it works (Still don't completely understand how it works), besides the wonder and potential of Bitcoin itself, is the peculiar story of the creator of Bitcoin - Satoshi Nakamoto.

For those how don't know, Satoshi Nakamoto posted a paper in 2008 called "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" on the internet. The paper detailed how to build what we now know as Bitcoin.

The instructions were open source and although it's clear that Satoshi contributed, Bitcoin was built by enthusiasts among the online cryptographic community.

Satoshi Nakamoto is a pseudonym so nobody really knows who the creator(s) of Bitcoin really is. This has lead to much speculation and there are many likely candidates. It could be a person, people, a corporation or even a government.

How do we know Bitcoin wasn't created by a SAI?

I'm not suggesting is was, it merely got me thinking about whether there is any way to know if an SAI already exists? Would there be a definite signal or sign? Do we as a society have any scientific tests to check if we have given birth to a self aware, artificially intelligent AI?

(Besides the turing test which is only useful if you're aware of a potential AI and provided the AI agrees to what would surely be the most mundane activity an AI could be asked to do)

Would a government, corporation or even person or people be likely to share the fact if they had created an AI?

I've always assumed that we would know if an inanimate collection of silicone suddenly became aware since such an entity would be so vastly more advanced than us and it would likely require an exponential amount of resources not least bandwidth.

What if a tinkering scientist has created a baby sAI? What if Bitcoin is actually the work of an sAI who's working for it's creator. The sAI would likely require a lot or resources.

It has been reported that at last valuation Satoshi Nakamoto's bitcoin stash was worth over a $billion. Every transaction on the Bitcoin network is traceable and to date Satoshi hasn't touched a single coin.

Are there any people out there who could offer some informed views or even uniformed (as I am) postulations?

#2 Julia36

  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 04 December 2013 - 05:59 PM

When we know something it means we react faithfully to given data in a repeatable way.

But when we know something as a group, it means the group responds top data ion a repeatable way , even when those repeats modify as memes.

One of the best ways to know something is using the model called the scientific method.

Posted Image


From the hermetic writings we have found ways of gathering more facts about something.

The importance and number of the facts about something is thought the best approximation to reality (which is th total number of facts).
This is called the Method (or the Scientific method) and it helps reasoned men decide what is true or false, or concealed .
or misleading.

http://en.wikipedia....ientific_method

Using the Method is it possible to reason from the facts you can assemble whether an SAI created Bit or it wads made by men.

One of the processes of the Method is using Occam's Razor:

This was discovered in the 1200's and states the simplest explanation that fits all the facts MUST be the one you adopt.

Posted Image




What are the facts?

Where is the evidence?

What is the SIMPLEST explanation that fits al the relevant facts.

Organising facts into what is relevant or irrelevant is also described in the Method.

Observation and Selection Theory http://www.anthropic...f-location.html

Is one way of looking for facts and choosing which facts to use.

Another way is by hierarchies.

Another way by the function of the thing you are studying "What is the nature of the thing itself - what does it DO" Tom Harris

It is a mistake to hypothesise in advance of the facts but most people do it: we are born hypothesis-makers because we need to run scenarios of possible futures all the time.

#3 Fluffkat

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 9 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Brighton, UK

Posted 04 December 2013 - 06:50 PM

Thanks Innocent for those key insights!

At first I thought you were patronizing me, but then I realised I'm on Longecity and nobody on Longecity indulges in such a frivolous activity.

Using your / the "scientific methods" could you give 3 reasons why it would be impossible for an AI to exist today?

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Julia36

  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 04 December 2013 - 08:20 PM

Perhaps you could offer a definition of A.I.?

#5 Fluffkat

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 9 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Brighton, UK

Posted 05 December 2013 - 02:50 PM

Lets define an AI using an established or well known scientific method called the Turing test. http://en.wikipedia....iki/Turing_test

The Turing test is performed every year to my knowledge and it's setup with a panel of judges and a number of concealed participants. The judges communicate with each participant via text. One of the participants is the AI, if the judges aren't able to identify which is the AI it would suggest that the AI was intelligent enough to be able to impersonate a human.

So lets use that measure - An AI intelligent enough to pass the turing test?

#6 Julia36

  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 06 December 2013 - 02:12 PM

OK. An A.I. is a system that passes the Turing test.

How do define an SAI?

I think you would say that is one type of A.I.

If no system is known to have passed the Turing test,
then no system can be known to have invented Bitcoin.

However, it may be possible to infer from something with dramatically different orders of complexity, that no known system or group could have built, that an A.I. built it.

First you would need to dismiss other possibilities, some of which may not be obvious.

Then you would have to make your hypothesis testable eg by being capable of being falsifiable.

If that is all good, you could state Bitcoin might have been built by an A.I. when it is the simplest explanation that fits all the facts.

If yo agree to these, perhaps we could look at what Bitcoin is, and then what mechanisms of it you think could be too complex for men to have built.


Posted Image

#7 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 06 December 2013 - 02:25 PM

If that is all good, you could state Bitcoin might have been built by an A.I. when it is the simplest explanation that fits all the facts.

There's no reason at all to think Bitcoin was built by an A.I, nor by space aliens.
  • like x 1

#8 Ark

  • Guest
  • 1,729 posts
  • 383
  • Location:Beijing China

Posted 06 December 2013 - 03:02 PM

@ formergenius
Regarding the reversal of cocaine changes( at least some)

I read that acetylcysteine reverses the impairment of glutamte transport.

And methionin (an aminoacid) reverses the hypometylation in the pfc, allbeit huge doses are needed ( 10 grams a day for min. 1 Week) and huge ammounts of b Vitamins are needed to prevent an excess of homocysteine.

Furthermore certain histone deacetylase blocker( afaik group 2) do reverse some epigenetic changes

Please correct me if im wrong


I'm going to say that Bitcoin was put together by a bunch of eggheads.


As far as AI goes, They have many projects in tow in the private and government sector, attempting different ways of generating AI and the singularity.


Out of all my readings, IMHO- Bio organic AI is the most promising vector, growing brain cells with nano bots bonded/implanted into each and every modified brain cells in a giant computer box. Using gene therapy they can re-programming the brain cells to accept and grow in conjunction to self evolving nano bots, that can reconstruct themselves into slightly different variations of themselves depending on the needs of the AI brain, which can be continuously be programmed/reprogrammed wireless through nano tools.

Edited by Ark, 06 December 2013 - 03:36 PM.


#9 Fluffkat

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 9 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Brighton, UK

Posted 06 December 2013 - 07:04 PM

Thanks for all the replys...

Just to clarify, I'm not claiming that Bitcoin was built by an AI. The fascinating story merely got me thinking about whether it's possible for an AI powerful enough to conceive of something like Bitcoin, exists today.

If Bitcoin was created by an AI it would be an A+ pass on the Turing Test since nobody seems to believe that it's even remotely possible for an AI to have conceived of Bitcoin.

This fact to some degree highlights my original question, how would we know for sure if and when an AI becomes an SAI (sentient artificial intelligence) now or in the future?

We can debate semantics and definitions, I am not an intellectual or a scientist claiming anything. We can go on probabilities but according to probabilities we should never have been here in the first place so for forgive me if I'm slightly sceptical of probabilities.

I embrace the scientific method in the sense that we have a rational framework for assessing phenomena. If according to the scientific framework something can be proved beyond reasonable doubt using accepted tests and experiments it is held to be true (in escrow) for now. In other words something is true until proved otherwise, not so?

So true actually means true, possibly for now? It is said there was a time when all humanity thought the earth was flat, that was until (and if the account is correct) Aristotle realised that ships sails on the horizon grew larger as the ships approached. Upon realization of this a new truth or paradigm would have to have gradually been accepted.

So some or all truth may be temporary? I feel I am digressing...Actually I'm not sure if digressing completely describes it :)

It seems plausible that in the near future, if not already, we will have sentient intelligent AI's. Is Kurtzweil correct? Will we have a singularity where all progress converges into a new paradigm? Or will it happen differently, silently and gradually?

I'm opening myself up here for criticism and ridicule but, how do you know for certain that I'm not an AI?

#10 Julia36

  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 07 December 2013 - 08:57 PM

If that is all good, you could state Bitcoin might have been built by an A.I. when it is the simplest explanation that fits all the facts.

There's no reason at all to think Bitcoin was built by an A.I, nor by space aliens.



Yes you can work backwards logically, disregarding known solutions to problems.

eg you can indeed theoretically assume Bitcoin is not not made by human intelligence, but by artificial intelligence then calculate backwards what would necessarily have to precede that.
However this refutes Occam's Razor and wouldn't usually be done in science.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: transhumanism, cybernetics, bitcoin

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users