ET report just released

Cross post:

Organic computing

I see it a bit differently to you 420range

it depends how you define intelligence. To me, every distinct skill that can be performed is a facet of intelligence.

Forms of Ai already exist. A calculator is classed as narrow Ai. There are many forms of narrow AI but there's a saying that roughly says: as soon as a computer achieves a task we decide that this task isn't classed as intelligence anymore.

People used to think chess played well was the perfect demonstration of human capability until everyone got pwned by Deep blue.

What we are basically seeing is a gradual shift of narrow Ai achieving various small milestones that on their own aren't always impressive but the scope of things that we can do that they can't gets a little smaller with every milestone.

  On 5/1/2010 at 5:17 AM, Rambo said:

I see it a bit differently to you 420range

 

it depends how you define intelligence. To me, every distinct skill that can be performed is a facet of intelligence.

 

Forms of Ai already exist. A calculator is classed as narrow Ai. There are many forms of narrow AI but there's a saying that roughly says: as soon as a computer achieves a task we decide that this task isn't classed as intelligence anymore.

 

People used to think chess played well was the perfect demonstration of human capability until everyone got pwned by Deep blue.

 

What we are basically seeing is a gradual shift of narrow Ai achieving various small milestones that on their own aren't always impressive but the scope of things that we can do that they can't gets a little smaller with every milestone.

what would be an example of a small milestone?

  On 5/1/2010 at 5:07 AM, 42Orange said:

Calculators are not intelligent because they do not possess intellect:

 

  Quote

1 a : the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will : the capacity for knowledge b : the capacity for rational or intelligent thought especially when highly developed

 

If an extremely "dumb" person asks a smarter person to do an equation and the dumb person gives you the answer, that doesnt mean they're mathematically intelligent. Also intelligence is relative.

ok, all that makes sense. so is intellect intrinsic to intelligence?

A piece of software that had some sort of visual pattern recognition capability that allowed it to make some sense of the world around it. There is software that can view camera footage and pick out points of interest based on rules for example, or see an object for the first time and know that it's a table because it has seen other tables.

@zbz

  On 5/1/2010 at 4:44 AM, Rambo said:

  On 5/1/2010 at 4:15 AM, GORDO said:

 

a few years ago he warned us about technology improving faster than humans, and that we should watch out for a robot takeover.

 

Well he's not far wrong. It's not so much about robotics though, it's AI and that's a genuine concern. The people working on it don't know what would happen if we created greater-than-human level intelligence and they shouldn't know either. The ideal outcome is that we merge with AI very gradually. I actually think that is going to happen. In fact you could argue the process began when someone first wore a pair of glasses or a hearing aid or something.

sure but feeling threatened and scared about it because of a Terminator type scenario is silly.

Intelligence is fucking tangible.

intelligence is a vague human concept, almost as vague as "art".

i just cant see how computers could have the capacity to feel.. i mean, theres so much we dont know about ourselves, and now we should be worried about machines developing some nebulous form of 'humanity'? i dont mean to derail the thread but i have hard time wrapping my mind around it without the whole idea turning into some goofy science fiction film.

  On 5/1/2010 at 5:37 AM, Z_B_Z said:

i just cant see how computers could have the capacity to feel.. i mean, theres so much we dont know about ourselves, and now we should be worried about machines developing some nebulous form of 'humanity'? i dont mean to derail the thread but i have hard time wrapping my mind around it without the whole idea turning into some goofy science fiction film.

they would need to develop an internal dynamic close to what we could call sense of purpose. feeling would evolve naturally from that.

I'm confident the internet will wake up one day, it already has senses and it's structured similarly to a brain. our brains are just a network trough which some electrical impulses travel. the internet is not so much different.

@zbz

In some respects i think so. This calculator/deep blue bit is throwing my head for a loop because calculators typically cant do anything unless they recieve an input, this is kind of fundemental to intellgence: not just being able to process an input, but acquire one. I think deep blue is intelligent because it could theoretically play a game of chess with itself, but a calculator is not programmed to produce its own equations.

Going further with your argument rambo: is a teeter-totter intelligent? if i set it up a bucket on one end and jump on the other the teeter totter performs a physical task for me, it takes an input of me jumping and turns it into an output of kinetic motion of the bucket.

  On 5/1/2010 at 5:40 AM, GORDO said:

  On 5/1/2010 at 5:37 AM, Z_B_Z said:

i just cant see how computers could have the capacity to feel.. i mean, theres so much we dont know about ourselves, and now we should be worried about machines developing some nebulous form of 'humanity'? i dont mean to derail the thread but i have hard time wrapping my mind around it without the whole idea turning into some goofy science fiction film.

 

 

they would need to develop an internal dynamic close to what we could call sense of purpose. feeling would evolve naturally from that.

 

I'm confident the internet will wake up one day, it already has senses and it's structured similarly to a brain. our brains are just a network trough which some electrical impulses travel. the internet is not so much different.

but there would be no internet without us. i mean, the internet isnt ultimately about technology, its about people.. once you take humanity out of the picture, its all just a bunch of metal and wires.

I think we'll merge with the tech personally so there won't even be any man vs machine because there will be no clear line to draw. I'm sure plenty of people aren't going to like it but there you go. We already said yes to this a long time ago in my view, as soon as someone grabbed a walking stick and certainly when someone wore a pacemaker. I think the most likely war in all of this is one with a small number of Luddites and everyone else.

sorry dude, what's a teeter totter?

  On 5/1/2010 at 5:43 AM, Z_B_Z said:

  On 5/1/2010 at 5:40 AM, GORDO said:

  On 5/1/2010 at 5:37 AM, Z_B_Z said:

i just cant see how computers could have the capacity to feel.. i mean, theres so much we dont know about ourselves, and now we should be worried about machines developing some nebulous form of 'humanity'? i dont mean to derail the thread but i have hard time wrapping my mind around it without the whole idea turning into some goofy science fiction film.

 

 

they would need to develop an internal dynamic close to what we could call sense of purpose. feeling would evolve naturally from that.

 

I'm confident the internet will wake up one day, it already has senses and it's structured similarly to a brain. our brains are just a network trough which some electrical impulses travel. the internet is not so much different.

 

but there would be no internet without us. i mean, the internet isnt ultimately about technology, its about people.. once you take humanity out of the picture, its all just a bunch of metal and wires.

yeah well... just zoom out a lil bit.

what makes you think we can't be part of a system in the same way our neurons are part of us?

  On 5/1/2010 at 5:47 AM, Rambo said:

sorry dude, what's a teeter totter?

lol sorry... a see saw?

  On 5/1/2010 at 5:48 AM, GORDO said:

 

yeah well... just zoom out a lil bit.

 

what makes you think we can't be part of a system in the same way our neurons are part of us?

A good little post i read the other day

  Quote

Collective intelligence is definitely one strategy to create an intelligence greater than what one single intelligent person can accomplish. In fact, all of society is one large intelligence that has accomplished a great deal - much more than one person. In fact, one could argue that the most intelligent thing that we are aware of is human society. Each of us is just a small subset of all the neurons at work, our brains networked via the low bandwidth connections of speech, writing, publication, the Internet, and so on.

 

One could argue that synapses are where the intelligence is. The synapses are the connections. Therefore, it stands to reason that building new synapses increases intelligence or increases specialized functionality of the intelligence. The Internet effectively increased human society's intelligence by adding a new class of synapses that operate fast and allow the growth of new specialized synapses.

 

Augmenting collective intelligence with new mechanisms which channel the flow of information in a productive manner are where real productivity can occur.

  On 5/1/2010 at 5:48 AM, GORDO said:

  On 5/1/2010 at 5:43 AM, Z_B_Z said:

  On 5/1/2010 at 5:40 AM, GORDO said:

  On 5/1/2010 at 5:37 AM, Z_B_Z said:

i just cant see how computers could have the capacity to feel.. i mean, theres so much we dont know about ourselves, and now we should be worried about machines developing some nebulous form of 'humanity'? i dont mean to derail the thread but i have hard time wrapping my mind around it without the whole idea turning into some goofy science fiction film.

 

 

they would need to develop an internal dynamic close to what we could call sense of purpose. feeling would evolve naturally from that.

 

I'm confident the internet will wake up one day, it already has senses and it's structured similarly to a brain. our brains are just a network trough which some electrical impulses travel. the internet is not so much different.

 

but there would be no internet without us. i mean, the internet isnt ultimately about technology, its about people.. once you take humanity out of the picture, its all just a bunch of metal and wires.

 

yeah well... just zoom out a lil bit.

 

what makes you think we can't be part of a system in the same way our neurons are part of us?

what exactly are you trying to say? im a little confused. describe this system.

i'm saying yes, the system depends on us but in the same way our brain depends on neurons.

and every day we depend more and more on it too, so it wouldn't be so easy to detach.

  On 5/1/2010 at 5:51 AM, Rambo said:

  On 5/1/2010 at 5:48 AM, GORDO said:

 

yeah well... just zoom out a lil bit.

 

what makes you think we can't be part of a system in the same way our neurons are part of us?

 

A good little post i read the other day

 

  Quote

Collective intelligence is definitely one strategy to create an intelligence greater than what one single intelligent person can accomplish. In fact, all of society is one large intelligence that has accomplished a great deal - much more than one person. In fact, one could argue that the most intelligent thing that we are aware of is human society. Each of us is just a small subset of all the neurons at work, our brains networked via the low bandwidth connections of speech, writing, publication, the Internet, and so on.

 

One could argue that synapses are where the intelligence is. The synapses are the connections. Therefore, it stands to reason that building new synapses increases intelligence or increases specialized functionality of the intelligence. The Internet effectively increased human society's intelligence by adding a new class of synapses that operate fast and allow the growth of new specialized synapses.

 

Augmenting collective intelligence with new mechanisms which channel the flow of information in a productive manner are where real productivity can occur.

take this idea also in the context of human vs. artificial intelligence, the perceived superiority of human intelligence only comes when we consider our collective intelligence, some people are genius at some tasks but not so great at others, some people are creative some aren't. one single computer could incorporate all the advances in AI up to the moment. couldn't this machine be considered more intelligent than the average human guy? i mean, individually, we're not so bright, are we?

  On 5/1/2010 at 5:57 AM, GORDO said:

i'm saying yes, the system depends on us but in the same way our brain depends on neurons.

 

and every day we depend more and more on it too, so it wouldn't be so easy to detach.

ok i see. but what would it mean for this system (the internet) to be 'awake'? what do you envision that being like?

I have no idea. Maybe it will start manipulating information contained in itself.

  On 5/1/2010 at 5:49 AM, 42Orange said:

  On 5/1/2010 at 5:47 AM, Rambo said:

sorry dude, what's a teeter totter?

 

lol sorry... a see saw?

Yeah i know what you mean. They aren't intelligent as such and nor is a calculator but it performs a task and it's the same with a brain in many ways, our intelligence seems to be a vast army of see saws doing a large amount of tasks. If you took any section you cared to choose it wouldn't be intelligent in that general sense.

edit. section of the brain, that is

  On 5/1/2010 at 6:03 AM, GORDO said:

I have no idea. Maybe it will start manipulating information contained in itself.

to what ends? you say purpose would be the start of emotion, but humanity itself seems to struggle with the issue of purpose, and machines are the product of humanity.. the whole line of thought seems flawed

this might seem like an archaic or naive point of view, but i think, at the end of the day, machines run to our will, and if they fuck up we unplug them

maybe it will just become aware of itself, put 2+2 together and realize how the world works and what it need to do to ensure survival, I imagine this could manifest itself as giving exposure to some information and obscuring other.

i dunno really, i just find the idea fascinating. i mean why not? it has eyes, ears, systems for ranking relevance of information, software designed to achieve tasks, people feeding it information every second, and its structure is similar to a brain. how could it not happen?