Do singularity people consider this possibility?

[Elok]

Are you sure? I'm not quite convinced we humans can choose our goals.


I mean seriusly even the most ethical and rational human would have problems with not eating a baby or two now or then if that somehow produced feelings that make orgasms pale in comparison.

That's basically what heroin does. Solution: don't shoot heroin, ever, nor eat a baby.

[Heraclitus]

That's basically what heroin does. Solution: don't shoot heroin, ever, nor eat a baby.

But what if taking heroin or eating babies would be like sex? You could easily make a mind want something that it has never tried before.

[Kuciwalker]

Hera: your hypothesis relies not only on the idea that it will be hard for a general-purpose AI to design marginal improvements to its own code (implausible) but also that said AI will not scale at all with processing speed or # of processors.

[Elok]

But what if taking heroin or eating babies would be like sex? You could easily make a mind want something that it has never tried before.

I have a powerful, naturally occurring urge to have sex. Do you have a powerful, naturally occurring urge to eat babies?

[Heraclitus]

I have a powerful, naturally occurring urge to have sex. Do you have a powerful, naturally occurring urge to eat babies?

No I don't but an AI sure could be made to. I don't think it would be hard to make an AI that couldn't help itself not to help or be nice to humans. It would be an overwhelming desire.


So I don't think we need to worry about hostile AI or even slacking off AI, since it would get off on doing its job so to speak. What we really should be worried about is Japanese AI.

[Heraclitus]

Hera: your hypothesis relies not only on the idea that it will be hard for a general-purpose AI to design marginal improvements to its own code (implausible) but also that said AI will not scale at all with processing speed or # of processors.

AI is an app, it will scale with processing speed or # of proccesors in the sense that it will run faster at the very least.

Tell me if they lock you up in a room for a hundred years with a few terbytes of intormation that details how your body and mind work. Could you build draw up the schematics for a couple of better humans? I'm not saying you couldn't. I'm just saying that a man trapped in a lamp that experiences 100 yeras of time pass for every one that does in RT dosen't sound scary. Now a small societ of such people might be.

But when does a society of 1000 acheive as much in a century as does a society of 6-10 billion people in a year? What I'm saying is that the first few generations of AI will probably be designed and improved by a ant-swarm of humans rather than the first & few human or even superhuman level AI's.


The TS people seem to think or at least speak as if the first AI will result in an inteligence explosion. They don't realize that simply the rise in global population and especialy the rise in educated people is already an intelligence explosion. A small population of AI's won't speed up the process anymore than if a few talented humans are born. A genious level AI, is still just that genious level.


The only advantage it has over a human genious is that we can make it so that it enjoys its job. A lot.

[Provost Harrison]

I have a powerful, naturally occurring urge to have sex. Do you have a powerful, naturally occurring urge to eat babies?

Very soon, you'll wish you never asked that question...

[Ben Kenobi]

Rapture for nerds, indeed.

why should there be a limit?

I don't believe it's possible for humans to create by themselves something that's more intelligent.

[Elok]

I believe, and have said before, that it's silly to define "intelligence" as a simple quantity that can be increased mechanically. You can increase processing power all you want, but that's different from intelligence.

[KrazyHorse]

Not necessarily.

I think the reason you believe that is that we've not yet figured out how to write intelligence into a computer. Your picture of hardware development is of an autistic savant getting faster and faster at multiplying two numbers in his head. If a regular person was magically granted the ability to keep twice as many facts in his head, manipulate twice as many pieces of information at once, and do this all twice as fast, would you not say that he had gotten more intelligent?

[Kuciwalker]

AI is an app, it will scale with processing speed or # of proccesors in the sense that it will run faster at the very least.

Then your whole thing doesn't work.

[Lorizael]

I believe that it's perfectly possible to design artificial intelligences that are superior to humans in specific ways. We can design AIs that process information faster, store more data, beat the world's best chess players, etc. Is there some fundamental quality of human intelligence that cannot theoretically be reproduced by an artificial intelligence?

[Kuciwalker]

No.

[Blaupanzer]

If an AI achieves self-awareness and memory, self-alteration capabilities, replication capabilities, and possibly conciousness, it would be able to do the tasks we assign, a few other visible tasks -- cueing us that something off-kilter is going on, and any number of hidden tasks visible in energy consumption perhaps but otherwise unknowable. This sound like everyone you know with an IQ above 70? This program set would not do well on a human IQ test as it has never been to school, been in the military, or gone to a rock concert.

Its pattern of development related to humans: 1) Dependence; 2) Impatience; 3) Limited Independence; 4) Arrogance; 5) Ignorance, i.e., teenage development. We end up being ignored by Max Headroom-style programs which may or may not goal seek.

Somewhere in here is the "Singularity," a term invented by a science fiction writer to indicate when machines "take over" the operation of all "complex activities" for better or worse. Many believe that if machines designed and produced the software to control machines of their own design, the designs would be increasingly capable and likely "smarter" over the generations. However, would machines have egos, enter into purposeful conflict, etc? I think not, unless programmed that way.

"Increasing intelligence" as used in that context meant instant access and cross-analytical capability for billions of data items and very fast processing of programs to solve specificproblems. The machines won't write sonnets, admire the view, or make independent value judgements. They won't spontaneously invent a God or Gods and they won't fight among themselves about His, Her, or Its existance.

[Ben Kenobi]

I believe that it's perfectly possible to design artificial intelligences that are superior to humans in specific ways. We can design AIs that process information faster, store more data, beat the world's best chess players, etc. Is there some fundamental quality of human intelligence that cannot theoretically be reproduced by an artificial intelligence?

With a big enough database and sufficient processor speed you can brute force chess. As it is, it is a matter of two things.

1. Efficient pruning algorithm.
2. Perfect memory.

Both of which were designed by people in the first place.

Could a computer paint? Write best selling novels?