The A.I. Thread

[peter12]

CHL, you are a good, right-thinking liberal bUT you haven't thought thus through beyond a trivial anti-religious position.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by peter12

Except that we wouldn't really know if we had created an artificial intelligence that was real or just a very good simulation. Anyway, it would literally be impossible to create a being in such a way. As I said before, it is all conjecture. We don't even know the slightest about our brains process information in such a way that creates consciousness. I am not closed to the possibility of such a problem being solved, but at this point, it is highly unlikely.

There are also significant philosophical differences between human free will and machine will.

Even if we could create an omnipotent artificial general intelligence that could theoretically exist on a plan of knowledge that would be god-like from our perspective, it still wouldn't solve the fundamental human questions of loneliness, wondering, and wandering that mark us from other species.

Furthermore, if such a machine existed, it would almost certainly not be able to communicate with us, and thus, would have absolutely no implications - beyond the hellish tyranny that would no doubt exist - for Christians as it would say nothing about the personal logos represented through the Christian God.

I am also surprised that you, as a very fervent liberal - don't have any deep philosophical concerns regarding the development of AI. It would certainly spell the end of any modern conceptions of liberty.

Sub title.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by peter12

You should carefully consider the meaning of these words and reflect upon your own experience or are you the same type of thing as your cat. Does your cat have an account on here? Does she demand recognition? Does she secretly feel pleased to see her posts "thanked" by multiple prestigious posters?

Come on, man, I hope you are better than this.

I'm pretty sure it speaks well of my cats that they don't do those things. I also don't think they condescend so frequently. They're nice to spend time with.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by peter12

You should carefully consider the meaning of these words and reflect upon your own experience or are you the same type of thing as your cat. Does your cat have an account on here? Does she demand recognition? Does she secretly feel pleased to see her posts "thanked" by multiple prestigious posters?

Come on, man, I hope you are better than this.

All day long....

Seriously there are hundreds of studies showing animals get lonely. Google it. It sounds like you may be surprised at the reality here... Look at their faces, especially dogs. You can see them wondering.

It may not be as sophisticated as us, but they do it. Anyway, this isn't a discussion about how animals share a lot of the traits religions believe are unique to humans. You can make a whole other thread for that.

As for how those traits relate to AI, I'm not sure it is possible to create them, though I could see emulating those traits to be indistinguishable from ours to be possible.

Has anyone read Robert Sawyer's Wake, Watch Wonder trilogy? Really an excellent starting point for this discussion. It's about emergent AI, witch I think would be one of the most likely paths to true AI.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by peter12

CHL, you are a good, right-thinking liberal bUT you haven't thought thus through beyond a trivial anti-religious position.

I don't see why you think this. Being non-religious and demanding evidence for every claim leads one to a materialist view of the cosmos, which includes human beings. Essentially, our brains are made of molecules. Molecules (and the neurons they make up) obey the laws of physics.

Any characteristics you perceive and may want to name - wondering, loneliness, whatever you like - are the manifestation of the particular molecules in our brains reacting in accordance with the laws of physics.

Those molecules can be re-produced synthetically - we have the technology to do a rudimentary version of this right now. The inability to synthetically re-create a functional human brain is a matter of insufficient technology.

Similarly, there's no reason to think that there aren't different ways to produce the same result - a "brain" that exhibits the same characteristics - through different arrangements of different molecules. In fact we know this to be true, because there's a certain spectrum of functional neurological models.

It's certainly an open question as to how many ways one could produce a functional "brain" that would operate in a way that we would consider conscious. But it's really just a matter of cause and effect, and at least some variety of causes producing similar effects. Eventually, someone is going to come up with a series of causes in the form of a synthetically created program that has the effect of approximating human consciousness. There's very little logical work to be done here, if you accept the basic premises.

I know you don't accept the basic premises, and you fail to do so for reasons relating to your non-materialist world view which is borne of religious ideology. I'm not being anti-religious, I'm pointing out the difference in our world view that results in us coming to vastly different conclusions about what is possible in this field.

[starseed]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Has anyone read Robert Sawyer's Wake, Watch Wonder trilogy? Really an excellent starting point for this discussion. It's about emergent AI, witch I think would be one of the most likely paths to true AI.

His books are a lot of fun. This trilogy especially!

[psyang]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't see why you think this. Being non-religious and demanding evidence for every claim leads one to a materialist view of the cosmos, which includes human beings. Essentially, our brains are made of molecules. Molecules (and the neurons they make up) obey the laws of physics.

A big hurdle with the materialist point of view is that it removes free will. If you are a materialist, your phrase "I don't see why you think this" becomes nonsensical. peter12 has responded because that is how the confluence of stimuli and atoms have combined. He had no other choice. Rationally, it removes any possibility of argument.

While I don't fully support peter12's position, I think I understand what he is getting at. When he talks of loneliness and wondering, he is considering the existential questions we face as humans. Do animals wonder why they are here, what their purpose is? Are they bothered by the possibility that they are alone in the universe, a blip in the history of all things?

Can we ever know that animals do or do not feel these things? Is existential dread a measurable experience?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by psyang

A big hurdle with the materialist point of view is that it removes free will. If you are a materialist, your phrase "I don't see why you think this" becomes nonsensical. peter12 has responded because that is how the confluence of stimuli and atoms have combined. He had no other choice. Rationally, it removes any possibility of argument.

While I don't fully support peter12's position, I think I understand what he is getting at. When he talks of loneliness and wondering, he Basically, the argument is that neurons,, on their own, must act in a particular way. And from that, that free thought requires something more - a soul, or whatever.

This is the fundemantal problem with Christianity, and why it has gotten in the way of science.

In order for Heaven and Hell, and the Resurrection, to make any sense, there must be a 'soul', something beyond the physical chemistry of our bodies.

But everything that science and evolution teach us disputes this. The argument that animals don't feel emotions is silly - anyone who observes them for any period of time will refute the notion. However, the need for a soul, demands that we must separate humans from the other animals.

The result is arguments such as the free will issue. Why can't neurons generate free thought?

What is the difference between free thought and life itself? The chemicals in a live cell don't equate to life, yet life exists.

Either everything goes back to 'because that is Gods will', or everything does not.

Continuing to draw new lines in the sand, after science removes the prior lines, is not a valid argument.

[psyang]

Originally Posted by peter12

To me, right now, it is akin to IQ testing. We know that you can practice the heck out of IQ problems, but when you take an actual test comprised of secret answers, you fare slightly or no better than someone who didn't practice at all. We aren't creating machines that are able to spread their intelligence across multiple tasks, and this, of course, is the essence of real artificial intelligence.

The question remains, does knowledge about intelligence fall into the realm of diminishing returns? Is it like so many things where the more we know, the less we are able to know.

This is an interesting take, and I think maybe the real issue is whether AI will be able to make connections between different systems and apply techniques from one to another. Another way of looking at it is if an AI can generalize a problem - see one problem as a class of a known solved problem, then apply a solution.

I don't know what research has been done in this area, but if you think about how people have cleverly mapped one problem onto another, I think it's a doable proposition. Think about how VW Beetles used the tire pressure of the spare tire to power the windshield wiper fluid mechanism. Could an AI have deduced that this system requires a pump, that a pump is a system that produces pressure, and that a tire could be considered a pump? If anything, maybe an AI comes to that solution faster than a human because it is not restricted by the bias that a tire can only be used to roll things?

Another way to look at it is that intuition is simply one (often efficient) choice among all possible choices, and the question is whether an AI can efficiently brute force the right solution. Is it unreasonable to think that those eureka moments where you wake up in the middle of the night with a solution to a problem is really your brain subconsciously brute forcing that solution. Because it is subconscious, you don't feel that you've been actively mulling it over.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by psyang

A big hurdle with the materialist point of view is that it removes free will. If you are a materialist, your phrase "I don't see why you think this" becomes nonsensical. peter12 has responded because that is how the confluence of stimuli and atoms have combined. He had no other choice. Rationally, it removes any possibility of argument.

Your statement is partly right. There is no room for the concept of libertarian free will in a purely materialist world view; it doesn't deny the role of intention. What this means is that the deliberate, intentional choices you or I make are the result of the state of our brains at the time we make those choices - we could not have done otherwise, and if you take a time machine back and re-play the same moment over a thousand times, we'll always choose the same thing. But this is no more than saying that the choices we make are the result of who we are, and who we are is the result of our biology, combined with the external forces that have acted upon us throughout our lives and caused us to develop in a particular way. You characterize this as a problem and I know some people struggle with it intuitively, but I don't characterize it that way. I characterize it as the rational conclusion drawn from the available evidence.

Given all of that, you're right to say that "peter12 has responded because that is how the confluence of stimuli and atoms have combined." However, my non-understanding of his response is no less valid for that, so you're wrong to say that my question is meaningless: that process of stimuli and responses is every bit as inscrutable to me as it is to him.

When he talks of loneliness and wondering, he is considering the existential questions we face as humans. Do animals wonder why they are here, what their purpose is? Are they bothered by the possibility that they are alone in the universe, a blip in the history of all things?

To the extent that they don't, in my view in light of what we know about the universe, it's just a matter of difference in the construction of their brains. We're all animals, we just happen to be built in such a way that our cognitive function is capable of more. We've got better hardware.

[psyang]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

But everything that science and evolution teach us disputes this.

However, science has to define the system it operates in, and the scientific method, by definition, relies solely on empirical evidence. If there is anything beyond the physical, the scientific method will by definition exclude it.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The argument that animals don't feel emotions is silly - anyone who observes them for any period of time will refute the notion.

I don't disagree, but the question wasn't whether animals feel emotions, it's whether they consider existential questions like we do, and can we ever know?

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The result is arguments such as the free will issue. Why can't neurons generate free thought?

I guess the question is what you consider free thought. If a neuron can generate free thought, and so Bob at 1:53 today chose chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla, could a parallel universe that mimics ours in every way allow Bob to choose vanilla instead? If so, why? What is the difference? If there is no difference, then the scientific method can't hold.

To be fair, I think religions that believe in an omniscient God have to wrestle with the same question. If God knows everything that will happen, are not all of our lives already mapped out and so we do not really have free will?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by psyang

However, science has to define the system it operates in, and the scientific method, by definition, relies solely on empirical evidence. If there is anything beyond the physical, the scientific method will by definition exclude it.

I'm not sure this is quite right. Science would not exclude something beyond the physical if there was evidence that something beyond the physical exists. I'm not sure if this is a contradiction in terms... I think I'd have to consult a cosmologist. But I'm pretty sure it isn't. Empirical evidence can obviously suggest the presence of other things that can't presently (or in some cases ever) be empirically measured by us, which is how black holes were posited. There are more extreme examples.

I guess the question is what you consider free thought. If a neuron can generate free thought, and so Bob at 1:53 today chose chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla, could a parallel universe that mimics ours in every way allow Bob to choose vanilla instead? If so, why? What is the difference? If there is no difference, then the scientific method can't hold.

I'm not sure this is true either. All evidence to date is that the answer to your question is now: in a parallel universe that mimics ours in every way, Bob will choose chocolate every time. However, this doesn't preclude the possibility of some as-yet undetermined factor that would change that conclusion. Maybe that's the same as what you're saying and I'm just misunderstanding.

[psyang]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Given all of that, you're right to say that "peter12 has responded because that is how the confluence of stimuli and atoms have combined." However, my non-understanding of his response is no less valid for that, so you're wrong to say that my question is meaningless: that process of stimuli and responses is every bit as inscrutable to me as it is to him.

I agree, and I thank you for bringing up the point. However, as reasoning creatures, we are put in an interesting situation. Rationally, we can see the implications - everything we will do has already been determined. Concepts of morality and justice cannot have the same weight (or maybe, same definition?) as in a non-deterministic universe. Does not the materialist have to then live slightly irrationally, shut off that part of their reasoning, in order to function in society? I'm not trying to argue against a materialist worldview, but not prescribing to that worldview myself, I'm genuinely interested.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

To the extent that they don't, in my view in light of what we know about the universe, it's just a matter of difference in the construction of their brains. We're all animals, we just happen to be built in such a way that our cognitive function is capable of more. We've got better hardware.

The whole point of this line of reasoning was to consider peter12's assertion that existential questions were a human problem. From this, it sounds like you agree. CHL and peter12 agreeing in this thread - that has to count for something!

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Haha, I don't know that I agree because I'm not a dingo or an elephant - maybe they DO consider existential questions in some way. No way for us to know. I'm just saying that if they don't, it's a matter of hardware.

Originally Posted by psyang

I agree, and I thank you for bringing up the point. However, as reasoning creatures, we are put in an interesting situation. Rationally, we can see the implications - everything we will do has already been determined. Concepts of morality and justice cannot have the same weight (or maybe, same definition?) as in a non-deterministic universe.

This is definitely a tough question. If you listen to the Very Bad Wizards podcast, in the first couple of episodes Tamler Sommers explains his view that in fact even despite this, moral blameworthiness has meaning. I'm not sure if I agree with him or not. Additionally, there's still plenty of room for consequentialist morality - notwithstanding the lack of libertarian free will, we still ought to punish and reward people for behaviour to produce desirable results. But yeah, very thick molasses to wade through, as ethical philosophy always is.

[psyang]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm not sure this is quite right. Science would not exclude something beyond the physical if there was evidence that something beyond the physical exists. I'm not sure if this is a contradiction in terms... I think I'd have to consult a cosmologist. But I'm pretty sure it isn't. Empirical evidence can obviously suggest the presence of other things that can't presently (or in some cases ever) be empirically measured by us, which is how black holes were posited. There are more extreme examples.

Yes, the confusion is my fault. All I wanted to say was that, ultimately, if there is evidence that contradicts a theory, then either the theory is wrong, or the system in which the theory is developed is too closed (does not account for something). I guess my point is that science cannot include God in its systems - how can it? If God were to exist, what would God in a system accomplish? Is God testable with repeatable results?

Likewise, is the soul something that can be empirically tested?

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm not sure this is true either. All evidence to date is that the answer to your question is now: in a parallel universe that mimics ours in every way, Bob will choose chocolate every time. However, this doesn't preclude the possibility of some as-yet undetermined factor that would change that conclusion. Maybe that's the same as what you're saying and I'm just misunderstanding.

I was just trying to clarify EnochRoot's idea that neurons can create free thought. I wanted to see what he actually meant by that. My guess is that he would agree with you, but that still makes me wonder what free thought means to him.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

God or a soul could conceivably be empirically tested. Those are just words to label things that might or might not exist, but for which there is presently no evidence.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by psyang

However, science has to define the system it operates in, and the scientific method, by definition, relies solely on empirical evidence. If there is anything beyond the physical, the scientific method will by definition exclude it.

that conclusion doesn't follow - the definition of physical (and/or the definition of what is being excluded) should be challenged in that case.

I don't disagree, but the question wasn't whether animals feel emotions, it's whether they consider existential questions like we do, and can we ever know?

no one disputes that humans have greater cognitive capacity. That doesn't necessarily make us fundamentally different (in the sense being argued)

I guess the question is what you consider free thought. If a neuron can generate free thought, and so Bob at 1:53 today chose chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla, could a parallel universe that mimics ours in every way allow Bob to choose vanilla instead? If so, why? What is the difference? If there is no difference, then the scientific method can't hold.

This hypothetical argument is non-sensical because it can't exist. If the possibility existed for a parallel universe to differ in that way, then it would have already differed in countless ways, and therefore wouldn't pose identical conditions (at which point there is no argument to be made).

Proving your assertion that the scientific method didn't hold would require the demonstration of a parallel universe, where everything were in fact identical, then experiencing a single different decision. Obviously, this can't happen (which favours the scientific method).

To be fair, I think religions that believe in an omniscient God have to wrestle with the same question. If God knows everything that will happen, are not all of our lives already mapped out and so we do not really have free will?

Agreed. It seems a ridiculous notion to me.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Since we're apparently feeling like blowing minds anyway, shall we shift the discussion to the likely existence of parallel universes now?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by psyang

Yes, the confusion is my fault. All I wanted to say was that, ultimately, if there is evidence that contradicts a theory, then either the theory is wrong, or the system in which the theory is developed is too closed (does not account for something). I guess my point is that science cannot include God in its systems - how can it? If God were to exist, what would God in a system accomplish? Is God testable with repeatable results?

Likewise, is the soul something that can be empirically tested?



I was just trying to clarify EnochRoot's idea that neurons can create free thought. I wanted to see what he actually meant by that. My guess is that he would agree with you, but that still makes me wonder what free thought means to him.

I do agree with him (based on his answer above).

I don't know what it means. Unpredictability appears to exist (at least within the limits of our understanding to this point).

However, unpredictability exists within other things, such as random mutations in evolution. They don't negate the scientific method.

[Enoch Root]

Trying to pull some of this back to, you know, AI...

Kurzwell, in 'The Singularity Is Near' does a good job of describing how, despite the fact that neurons are constantly dying and being replaced, memories remain. And it doesn't take long until none of the neurons that contain a memory were around at the time that the memory actually occurred.

The interesting thing about that is that it poses the question: can memories be transferred (specifically to an AI)?

And of course, if at some point they are, it would be a rather large blow to the 'free thought and free will are outside the chemical makeup of our brains' argument.