Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Artificial Intelligence Pioneer: We Can Build Robots With Morals
47 views
Skip to first unread message
Sir Frederick Martin
Mar 26, 2012, 8:05:43 PM3/26/12
to
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0312/Robots_With_Morals.php3
Artificial Intelligence Pioneer: We Can Build Robots With Morals
By Jason Koebler
Like it or not, we're moving computers closer to autonomy
JewishWorldReview.com | (USNWR) Judea Pearl, a pioneer in the field of artificial intelligence, won
the Association for Computing Machinery's A.M. Turing award earlier this month, considered the
highest honor in the computing world.
Pearl developed two branches of calculus that opened the door for modern artificial intelligence,
such as the kind found in voice recognition software and self-driving cars.
Vint Cerf, considered one of the "fathers of the Internet," said in a statement that Pearl's
development of probabilistic and causal reasoning changed the world.
"His accomplishments over the last 30 years have provided the theoretical basis for progress in
artificial intelligence and led to extraordinary achievements in machine learning," he said. "They
have redefined the term 'thinking machine.' "
The calculus Pearl invented propels probabilistic reasoning, which allows computers to establish the
best courses of action given uncertainty, such as a bank's perceived risk in loaning money when
given an applicant's credit score.
"Before Pearl, most AI systems reasoned with Boolean logic—they understood true or false, but had a
hard time with 'maybe,' " Alfred Spector, vice president of research and special initiatives at
Google, said of his work.
The other calculus he invented allows computers to determine cause-and-effect relationships.
At 75, Pearl, who is the father of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, is currently
working on a branch of calculus that he says will allow computers to consider the moral implications
of their decisions.
Artificial intelligence has improved by leaps and bounds over the past few years—what's the greatest
hurdle for scientists working on making machines more human like?
There are many hurdles. There's the complexity of being able to generalize, an array of technical
problems. But we have an embodiment of intelligence inside these tissues inside our skull. It's
proof that intelligence is possible, computer scientists just have to emulate the brain out of
silicon. The principles should be the same because we have proof intelligent behavior is possible.
I'm not futuristic, and I won't guess how many years it'll take, but this goal is a driving force
that's inspiring for young people. Other disciplines can be pessimistic, but we don't have that in
the field of artificial intelligence. Step by step we overcome one problem after the other. We have
this vision that miraculous things are feasible and can be emulated in a system that is more
understandable than our brain.
What do you think is the most impressive use of artificial intelligence that most people are
familiar with?
I think the voice recognition systems that we constantly use, as much as we hate them, are
miraculous. They're not flawless, but what we have shows it's feasible and could one day be
flawless. There's the chess-playing machine we take for granted. A computer can beat any human chess
player. Every success of AI becomes mundane and is removed from AI research. It becomes routine in
your job, like a calculator that performs arithmetic, winning in chess—it's no longer intelligence.
So what's next? What are people working on that'll be world changing?
I think there will be computers that acquire free will, that can understand and create jokes. There
will be a day when we're able to do it. There will be computers that can send jokes to the New York
Times that will be publishable.
I try to avoid watching futuristic movies about super robots, about the limitations of computers
that show when the machines will try to take over. They don't interest me.
Do you think those movies scare people off? Are they detrimental to the field?
I think they tickle the creativity and interest of young people in AI research. It's good for public
interest, they serve a purpose. For me, I don't have time. I have so many equations to work on.
What are you working on now?
I'm working on a calculus for counterfactuals—sentences that are conditioned on something that
didn't happen. If Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, then who did? Sentences like that are the building
blocks of scientific and moral behavior. We have a calculus that if you present knowledge about the
world, the computer can answer questions of the sort. Had John McCain won the presidency, what would
have happened?
Sort of like an alternative reality?
It's kind of like an alternative reality—you have to give the computer the knowledge. The ability to
process that knowledge moves the computer closer to autonomy. It allows them to communicate by
themselves, to take a responsibility for one's actions, a kind of moral sense of behavior. These are
issues that are interesting—we could build a society of robots that are able to communicate with the
notion of morals.
But we don't have to wait until we build robots. The theory of econometric prediction is changing
because we have counterfactual calculus. Should we raise taxes? Should we lower interest rates? If
the government raises taxes, will that pacify the unions? It's been a stumbling block for the past
150 years. We can assume something about reality before we take an action.
Artificial Intelligence Pioneer: We Can Build Robots With Morals
By Jason Koebler
Like it or not, we're moving computers closer to autonomy
JewishWorldReview.com | (USNWR) Judea Pearl, a pioneer in the field of artificial intelligence, won
the Association for Computing Machinery's A.M. Turing award earlier this month, considered the
highest honor in the computing world.
Pearl developed two branches of calculus that opened the door for modern artificial intelligence,
such as the kind found in voice recognition software and self-driving cars.
Vint Cerf, considered one of the "fathers of the Internet," said in a statement that Pearl's
development of probabilistic and causal reasoning changed the world.
"His accomplishments over the last 30 years have provided the theoretical basis for progress in
artificial intelligence and led to extraordinary achievements in machine learning," he said. "They
have redefined the term 'thinking machine.' "
The calculus Pearl invented propels probabilistic reasoning, which allows computers to establish the
best courses of action given uncertainty, such as a bank's perceived risk in loaning money when
given an applicant's credit score.
"Before Pearl, most AI systems reasoned with Boolean logic—they understood true or false, but had a
hard time with 'maybe,' " Alfred Spector, vice president of research and special initiatives at
Google, said of his work.
The other calculus he invented allows computers to determine cause-and-effect relationships.
At 75, Pearl, who is the father of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, is currently
working on a branch of calculus that he says will allow computers to consider the moral implications
of their decisions.
Artificial intelligence has improved by leaps and bounds over the past few years—what's the greatest
hurdle for scientists working on making machines more human like?
There are many hurdles. There's the complexity of being able to generalize, an array of technical
problems. But we have an embodiment of intelligence inside these tissues inside our skull. It's
proof that intelligence is possible, computer scientists just have to emulate the brain out of
silicon. The principles should be the same because we have proof intelligent behavior is possible.
I'm not futuristic, and I won't guess how many years it'll take, but this goal is a driving force
that's inspiring for young people. Other disciplines can be pessimistic, but we don't have that in
the field of artificial intelligence. Step by step we overcome one problem after the other. We have
this vision that miraculous things are feasible and can be emulated in a system that is more
understandable than our brain.
What do you think is the most impressive use of artificial intelligence that most people are
familiar with?
I think the voice recognition systems that we constantly use, as much as we hate them, are
miraculous. They're not flawless, but what we have shows it's feasible and could one day be
flawless. There's the chess-playing machine we take for granted. A computer can beat any human chess
player. Every success of AI becomes mundane and is removed from AI research. It becomes routine in
your job, like a calculator that performs arithmetic, winning in chess—it's no longer intelligence.
So what's next? What are people working on that'll be world changing?
I think there will be computers that acquire free will, that can understand and create jokes. There
will be a day when we're able to do it. There will be computers that can send jokes to the New York
Times that will be publishable.
I try to avoid watching futuristic movies about super robots, about the limitations of computers
that show when the machines will try to take over. They don't interest me.
Do you think those movies scare people off? Are they detrimental to the field?
I think they tickle the creativity and interest of young people in AI research. It's good for public
interest, they serve a purpose. For me, I don't have time. I have so many equations to work on.
What are you working on now?
I'm working on a calculus for counterfactuals—sentences that are conditioned on something that
didn't happen. If Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, then who did? Sentences like that are the building
blocks of scientific and moral behavior. We have a calculus that if you present knowledge about the
world, the computer can answer questions of the sort. Had John McCain won the presidency, what would
have happened?
Sort of like an alternative reality?
It's kind of like an alternative reality—you have to give the computer the knowledge. The ability to
process that knowledge moves the computer closer to autonomy. It allows them to communicate by
themselves, to take a responsibility for one's actions, a kind of moral sense of behavior. These are
issues that are interesting—we could build a society of robots that are able to communicate with the
notion of morals.
But we don't have to wait until we build robots. The theory of econometric prediction is changing
because we have counterfactual calculus. Should we raise taxes? Should we lower interest rates? If
the government raises taxes, will that pacify the unions? It's been a stumbling block for the past
150 years. We can assume something about reality before we take an action.
tooly
Mar 27, 2012, 8:29:40 AM3/27/12
to
On Mar 26, 8:05 pm, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com>
wrote:
Having dealt with econometrics on a limited level myself, I think it
is misleading to equate any manmade calculus to be some sort of
intelligence in the making. Sure, the predictive nature of such
calculus is quite interesting, and useful. But we way oversimplify to
suggest we can ever decipher ALL VARIABLES that go into the processes
of what our brains must do as an 'aggregative' sense. I always like
to offer the simple example of a cat, leaping 4 feet into the air from
a standstill, to perch itself on a two inch wide fence ledge. That
would perhaps be a more straight forward problem for a computer
programmer to resolve, but a major undertaking nonetheless. From
there, the complexity swells geometrically I would surmise, quickly
becoming 'out of the scope' of real possiblity. Still, we shoot for
the moon just get out of our backyard sometimes. Sometimes I get out
my old VHS copies of '2001: A Space Oddysey', just to remember how so
HOPEFUL, and skewed our perceptions of REAL possibility are. We are
at 2012 now, not even to Jupiter yet, LOL. And can't go again even by
probe for another few hundred years.
We are far more pond scum than ANYONE, even the elites of science,
really admit...to THEMSELVES. Still, we've gotten to experience some
nice computer games and realistic movie fare from our computer
sciences. HEHE...destroy my God will you...ha; ok, what's good for
the goose...etc...'infantile arrogance' is found in all realms, say
what.
Story time; and DECIETFUL hubris in the writer notwithstanding....
wrote:
is misleading to equate any manmade calculus to be some sort of
intelligence in the making. Sure, the predictive nature of such
calculus is quite interesting, and useful. But we way oversimplify to
suggest we can ever decipher ALL VARIABLES that go into the processes
of what our brains must do as an 'aggregative' sense. I always like
to offer the simple example of a cat, leaping 4 feet into the air from
a standstill, to perch itself on a two inch wide fence ledge. That
would perhaps be a more straight forward problem for a computer
programmer to resolve, but a major undertaking nonetheless. From
there, the complexity swells geometrically I would surmise, quickly
becoming 'out of the scope' of real possiblity. Still, we shoot for
the moon just get out of our backyard sometimes. Sometimes I get out
my old VHS copies of '2001: A Space Oddysey', just to remember how so
HOPEFUL, and skewed our perceptions of REAL possibility are. We are
at 2012 now, not even to Jupiter yet, LOL. And can't go again even by
probe for another few hundred years.
We are far more pond scum than ANYONE, even the elites of science,
really admit...to THEMSELVES. Still, we've gotten to experience some
nice computer games and realistic movie fare from our computer
sciences. HEHE...destroy my God will you...ha; ok, what's good for
the goose...etc...'infantile arrogance' is found in all realms, say
what.
Story time; and DECIETFUL hubris in the writer notwithstanding....
Dare
Mar 27, 2012, 10:06:41 AM3/27/12
to
"Sir Frederick Martin" <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message news:cr02n7lak55ok8p5n...@4ax.com...
and what action advised about this current economic crisis...
most importantly, what is the best action now.
Humans could have ...some did....see it coming,
so accurate knowledge doesn't always result in intelligent action.
Unless the AI has control over actions, even "perfect" information,
"reasoning" and "moral sense" may not necessarily mean better results?
Will "moral" AIs force humans to take responsibility
for their(humans) "immoral" behaviors?
>
> But we don't have to wait until we build robots. The theory of econometric prediction is changing
> because we have counterfactual calculus. Should we raise taxes? Should we lower interest rates? If
> the government raises taxes, will that pacify the unions? It's been a stumbling block for the past
> 150 years. We can assume something about reality before we take an action.
It would(will?) be interesting to see what these AIs would have predicted
> But we don't have to wait until we build robots. The theory of econometric prediction is changing
> because we have counterfactual calculus. Should we raise taxes? Should we lower interest rates? If
> the government raises taxes, will that pacify the unions? It's been a stumbling block for the past
> 150 years. We can assume something about reality before we take an action.
and what action advised about this current economic crisis...
most importantly, what is the best action now.
Humans could have ...some did....see it coming,
so accurate knowledge doesn't always result in intelligent action.
Unless the AI has control over actions, even "perfect" information,
"reasoning" and "moral sense" may not necessarily mean better results?
Will "moral" AIs force humans to take responsibility
for their(humans) "immoral" behaviors?
n.keele
Mar 27, 2012, 1:54:10 PM3/27/12
to
On Mar 27, 3:06 pm, "Dare" <clydad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Sir Frederick Martin" <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in messagenews:cr02n7lak55ok8p5n...@4ax.com...
Who's morals will they be!?
I remember as a student writing an essay (in our team or group) about
humour in art, which all sounds very likely an easy to achieve, by
deliberate construction of jokes and graphics to amuse. It was fairly
difficult to figure out how much of what was engineered as 'amusing'
was likely engineered via literacy than luck alone. Lots of phrases
everyone seems to know seem to work well when they're drawn in a
cartoon or picture, but the humour was culturally determined as well,
so pictures and design are effective by the use and abuse of stuff you
would never think about but take for granted in your own culture...but
take a few away and the whole scene and settings can change promptly.
So behaviour and body languages are inherent in culture and
communication and learned, but because they are culturally determined,
small nuances that can be read can often be over interpreted or
dismissed almost completely.
Heres a graph of reaction and response to images that illustrate one
well known phrase in English..The blue wiggling line shows how many
people interpreted the phrase looking at the picture. The red line
shows how many people translated the phrase in Holland, and the third
green line shows how many people interpreted the phrase, the first
language of the painter, and the translation into their own native
dialect in Biafra.
> "Sir Frederick Martin" <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in messagenews:cr02n7lak55ok8p5n...@4ax.com...
I remember as a student writing an essay (in our team or group) about
humour in art, which all sounds very likely an easy to achieve, by
deliberate construction of jokes and graphics to amuse. It was fairly
difficult to figure out how much of what was engineered as 'amusing'
was likely engineered via literacy than luck alone. Lots of phrases
everyone seems to know seem to work well when they're drawn in a
cartoon or picture, but the humour was culturally determined as well,
so pictures and design are effective by the use and abuse of stuff you
would never think about but take for granted in your own culture...but
take a few away and the whole scene and settings can change promptly.
So behaviour and body languages are inherent in culture and
communication and learned, but because they are culturally determined,
small nuances that can be read can often be over interpreted or
dismissed almost completely.
Heres a graph of reaction and response to images that illustrate one
well known phrase in English..The blue wiggling line shows how many
people interpreted the phrase looking at the picture. The red line
shows how many people translated the phrase in Holland, and the third
green line shows how many people interpreted the phrase, the first
language of the painter, and the translation into their own native
dialect in Biafra.
Zurab57
Mar 27, 2012, 4:58:31 PM3/27/12
to
Can puter fill horror?
Jonathan
Mar 27, 2012, 7:01:38 PM3/27/12
to
"Dare" <clyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jkshhi$ltq$1...@dont-email.me...
> "Sir Frederick Martin" <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
> news:cr02n7lak55ok8p5n...@4ax.com...
>>
>> But we don't have to wait until we build robots. The theory of
>> econometric prediction is changing
>> because we have counterfactual calculus. Should we raise taxes? Should we
>> lower interest rates? If
>> the government raises taxes, will that pacify the unions? It's been a
>> stumbling block for the past
>> 150 years. We can assume something about reality before we take an
>> action.
>
> It would(will?) be interesting to see what these AIs would have predicted
> and what action advised about this current economic crisis...
> most importantly, what is the best action now. Humans could have ...some
> did....see it coming, so accurate knowledge doesn't always result in
> intelligent action.
I feel the same way too, for instance, if some machine predicted
> news:cr02n7lak55ok8p5n...@4ax.com...
>>
>> But we don't have to wait until we build robots. The theory of
>> econometric prediction is changing
>> because we have counterfactual calculus. Should we raise taxes? Should we
>> lower interest rates? If
>> the government raises taxes, will that pacify the unions? It's been a
>> stumbling block for the past
>> 150 years. We can assume something about reality before we take an
>> action.
>
> It would(will?) be interesting to see what these AIs would have predicted
> and what action advised about this current economic crisis...
> most importantly, what is the best action now. Humans could have ...some
> did....see it coming, so accurate knowledge doesn't always result in
> intelligent action.
a downturn, then everyone would act on that knowledge as soon
as the prediction was made, and only make it worse.
Or a panic buy if the prediction was good. The knowledge
of the future feeds back into the present.
What drives volatility and innovation is ...uncertainty.
"Maybe" this or that will make a million dollars?
Or save the world? Or die?
Uncertainty is like the rabbit in front of the greyhounds.
Take that away and all purpose and hope are lost.
s
Sir Frederick Martin
Mar 28, 2012, 1:40:51 PM3/28/12
to
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:58:31 -0700 (PDT), Zurab57 <zur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Can puter fill horror?
Deceit works, even 'self' deceit.
>Can puter fill horror?
Deceit works, even 'self' deceit.
Dare
Mar 28, 2012, 1:44:44 PM3/28/12
to
"Sir Frederick Martin" <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message news:07j6n713mte7pokr2...@4ax.com...
How could one tell if a computer "felt"(emotion) anything?
Does a behavior or reaction necessarily indicate a "feeling"?
Would a "feeling" computer mean it(he?) had a form of consciousness?
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:58:31 -0700 (PDT), Zurab57 <zur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Can puter fill horror?
>
> Deceit works, even 'self' deceit.
(If the poster meant "feel" horror)
>
>>Can puter fill horror?
>
> Deceit works, even 'self' deceit.
How could one tell if a computer "felt"(emotion) anything?
Does a behavior or reaction necessarily indicate a "feeling"?
Would a "feeling" computer mean it(he?) had a form of consciousness?
n.keele
Mar 28, 2012, 1:51:39 PM3/28/12
to
On Mar 28, 6:44 pm, "Dare" <clydad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Sir Frederick Martin" <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in messagenews:07j6n713mte7pokr2...@4ax.com...
independently and in a lifelike manner ... with nice table manners, I
was wondering how they would get across the difference between 'a
robot should not harm a living human being' and telling it to eat
meat...or explaining how to cook food. Most people could 'train' a
chat bot to act out table manners and excuses at dinner, but how would
a robot, if it had morals get around telling the difference between a
live lettuce head and a human organ?
> "Sir Frederick Martin" <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in messagenews:07j6n713mte7pokr2...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:58:31 -0700 (PDT), Zurab57 <zur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>Can puter fill horror?
>
> > Deceit works, even 'self' deceit.
>
> (If the poster meant "feel" horror)
> How could one tell if a computer "felt"(emotion) anything?
> Does a behavior or reaction necessarily indicate a "feeling"?
> Would a "feeling" computer mean it(he?) had a form of consciousness?
I suppose anyone programming an artificial intelligence to act
> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:58:31 -0700 (PDT), Zurab57 <zur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>Can puter fill horror?
>
> > Deceit works, even 'self' deceit.
>
> (If the poster meant "feel" horror)
> How could one tell if a computer "felt"(emotion) anything?
> Does a behavior or reaction necessarily indicate a "feeling"?
> Would a "feeling" computer mean it(he?) had a form of consciousness?
independently and in a lifelike manner ... with nice table manners, I
was wondering how they would get across the difference between 'a
robot should not harm a living human being' and telling it to eat
meat...or explaining how to cook food. Most people could 'train' a
chat bot to act out table manners and excuses at dinner, but how would
a robot, if it had morals get around telling the difference between a
live lettuce head and a human organ?
TruthSlave
Mar 29, 2012, 3:24:42 PM3/29/12
to
Compared to human thought, Ai isn't much more advance than the
search engine, yet already i suspect Ai has been handed this role
of moral guardian.
see
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_frm/thread/fd5e67c831c1449e/25b0d68382115b27?hl=en&q=#25b0d68382115b27
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7908856/Minority-Report-technology-used-by-police-to-predict-crimes.html
Worst yet, those acting on the say so of these machines are none
the wiser for the limits of these machines, and so can only accept
the instructions they receive via these machines, to add legitimacy
to the its claims.
The machine is only as clever as its programmers, who are only
human. There is no magic to its simple associations between data
and profiles. The statistics underpinning the machine's programs
would still be subject to human bias. If the machine has the
ability to learn, then it would also require feedback in order
to improve its understandings the real world. I have to wonder
if such feedback can exist.
Ai can't know what its not told, yet how would you inform the
machine, or its programmers, of their failings? Whose going to
say we messed up.
In order to accommodate this idea of a moral machine intelligence,
i have the feeling the culture would have to be curtailed, or
limited to what the machine knew to act on. Without knowing it,
one might find a situation where the mass of humanity was
presented with a pre-selection of ideas which the machine then
waited to act upon. In other words rather than wait for chance,
one might find a situation where the population where introduced
on mass to ideas and situations where a choice had to be made,
just so that these machines judges could tick a box or flag a
warning.
One wouldn't know as one choose, or sought to understand, that
your choice feed a machine, with a mechanical idea of normal or
abnormal human responces.
The machine, being only a machine, would have no knowledge of
human error, where you inadvertently made the wrong choice,
nor would it have any idea of human habit, where you made no
effort to avoid its worst conclusions for you. Those serving
our machines would simple enact its judgments.
Right now we are in the position of justifying the machine's
presence. This technology seems to be the answer, it promises
so much, yet at the heart of this system would be transferance
of moral responsibility to the machine, a machine we can't
inspect for its flaws.
How we as human relate to Ai and its mechanistic judgments is
key to this future we set for ourselves.
There again, falling crime levels needs to be attributed to
a cause so why not say its the results of our perfect
prediction machines. There's an ironic convergence here which
I'll stay no future into, other than to say this new industry
would need its criminals to justify its organization and
rising expenditure. Its servants would need the very thing
they sought rid of.
Neon
Mar 29, 2012, 4:11:11 PM3/29/12
to
stories. I read once that they were older than Aesop. Some of those
ancient native & preChristian stories have morals, but not all of
them. A story does not have to have a moral because lots of stories
were told generation after generation to educate, and now if you are
really 'in the know' and know something about dialect and words, some
of them refr to things like how to smelt copper and refine certain
chemistries. Definitely during iron age. Pigments, chemisty and
natural minerals, colours and the names. Anthropomorphism is easy
enough, but people would describe some formula as if each property
had a personality, and the stories, I would suppose, stayed around
longer than the antiquated technology and techniques for refinement.
that is interesting to me, for more to do with how we describe our
world and value. I think the Good Book has to be a starter for anyone
with the Holy ten there,
Moral gestures,it seems to be a reference to manner and gesture these
days, not exactly the good or the bad, just the fashion or
demonstration of good habits or bad ones, rather than the education or
enlightenment by a second or third persons. We are told not to do
things because if we do them there will be big trouble, that is great
for community and society, but a law passed down through many
generations becomes more like property without examples or
demonstration or where a person who has actually experienced the ill
or good ffects of conduct usig the laws has been there to describe why
people should or should not.
> The machine, being only a machine, would have no knowledge of
> human error, where you inadvertently made the wrong choice,
> nor would it have any idea of human habit, where you made no
> effort to avoid its worst conclusions for you. Those serving
> our machines would simple enact its judgments.
to say
> How we as human relate to Ai and its mechanistic judgments is
> key to this future we set for ourselves.
>
> There again, falling crime levels needs to be attributed to
> a cause so why not say its the results of our perfect
> prediction machines. There's an ironic convergence here which
> I'll stay no future into, other than to say this new industry
> would need its criminals to justify its organization and
> rising expenditure. Its servants would need the very thing
> they sought rid of.
education or work!
Immortalist
Mar 29, 2012, 6:14:47 PM3/29/12
to
>
> Another I-Robot dreamer...
>
> Compared to human thought, Ai isn't much more advance than the
> search engine, yet already i suspect Ai has been handed this role
> of moral guardian.
>
human AI will probably become over 1000s of years.
TruthSlave
Mar 30, 2012, 12:25:27 PM3/30/12
to
Immortalist
> TruthSlave wrote:
>> Sir Frederick Martin wrote:
>>> http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0312/Robots_With_Morals.php3
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'll stray no further into, other than to say this new industry
[copy and pasted reply]
>>
>> Another I-Robot dreamer...
>>
>> Compared to human thought, Ai isn't much more advance than the
>> search engine, yet already i suspect Ai has been handed this role
>> of moral guardian.
>>
>
jumping the gun with this technology and the self-serving excuses
made for its presence.
Worst, i see humanity being dumbed down even further, just so that
this technology can appear intelligent. Its a back-to-front logic
which appears to make sense on paper, but the reality beggars belief.
Its a 'blind function' which assumes the ideal blue print, before it
concerns itself with the less than ideal beings used to enact this
mechanical idea of control.
All this before the shifting mores of 'supply and demand', which would
be conjured from these machines. Just reprogram our machine with the
latest definitions, for it to always appear truthful. In all this one
is left to simply assumes the truth. We daren't see the reality of a
future with machines as pseudo moral guardians. Machines are assumed
to be incorruptible, totally impartial. No one will see to question
their programmers.
But yes Immortalist, the future starts here with what we accept. As
for what humanity, in the hands of its technology becomes, well
that chapter has yet to be written. See H L Mencken's final thoughts
on the Justice system of his time, [before his title was commandeered
by recent culture]. Its as though this high concept technology was
invented back then.
> TruthSlave wrote:
>> Sir Frederick Martin wrote:
>>> http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0312/Robots_With_Morals.php3
>>>
>>
>>
>> would need its criminals to justify its organization and
>> rising expenditure. Its servants would need the very thing
>> they sought rid of.
[Immortal's post not showing on local servers just on Google]
>> rising expenditure. Its servants would need the very thing
>> they sought rid of.
[copy and pasted reply]
>>
>> Another I-Robot dreamer...
>>
>> Compared to human thought, Ai isn't much more advance than the
>> search engine, yet already i suspect Ai has been handed this role
>> of moral guardian.
>>
>
> This conclusion omits any indication of just how much more human than
> human AI will probably become over 1000s of years.
Well i guess applied Ai has to start somewhere, but i think we are
> human AI will probably become over 1000s of years.
jumping the gun with this technology and the self-serving excuses
made for its presence.
Worst, i see humanity being dumbed down even further, just so that
this technology can appear intelligent. Its a back-to-front logic
which appears to make sense on paper, but the reality beggars belief.
Its a 'blind function' which assumes the ideal blue print, before it
concerns itself with the less than ideal beings used to enact this
mechanical idea of control.
All this before the shifting mores of 'supply and demand', which would
be conjured from these machines. Just reprogram our machine with the
latest definitions, for it to always appear truthful. In all this one
is left to simply assumes the truth. We daren't see the reality of a
future with machines as pseudo moral guardians. Machines are assumed
to be incorruptible, totally impartial. No one will see to question
their programmers.
But yes Immortalist, the future starts here with what we accept. As
for what humanity, in the hands of its technology becomes, well
that chapter has yet to be written. See H L Mencken's final thoughts
on the Justice system of his time, [before his title was commandeered
by recent culture]. Its as though this high concept technology was
invented back then.
n.keele
Mar 30, 2012, 1:35:31 PM3/30/12
to
On Mar 30, 4:25 pm, TruthSlave <T...@home.com> wrote:
> Immortalist
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > TruthSlave wrote:
> >> Sir Frederick Martin wrote:
> >>>http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0312/Robots_With_Morals.php3
>
> >> Another I-Robot dreamer...
>
> >> Compared to human thought, Ai isn't much more advance than the
> >> search engine, yet already i suspect Ai has been handed this role
> >> of moral guardian.
>
> >> see
>
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_frm/thread/fd5e6...
> Immortalist
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > TruthSlave wrote:
> >> Sir Frederick Martin wrote:
> >>>http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0312/Robots_With_Morals.php3
>
> >> Another I-Robot dreamer...
>
> >> Compared to human thought, Ai isn't much more advance than the
> >> search engine, yet already i suspect Ai has been handed this role
> >> of moral guardian.
>
> >> see
>
>
> >>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7908856/Minority-Report-...
author looks to be full of witty banter! I could do with a giggle !
I've just been signed off for up to six months...stress and anxiety.
Heh! who would have thought an old hobby like writing caused such
anxieties-and not a book in print (a part from 'those' drawings)
0 new messages