collapse

* Recent Posts

Re: "Christ Is King" by SirPalomides
[Today at 04:12:49 pm]


"Christ Is King" by Altair
[Today at 01:09:34 am]


Re: Cill Shift Schedule by SunflowerP
[Yesterday at 11:04:57 pm]


Re: Stellar Bling: The Good, the Bad, the OMG! by SunflowerP
[March 21, 2024, 11:21:37 pm]


Re: Spring Has Sprung! 2024 Edition by SunflowerP
[March 21, 2024, 10:24:10 pm]

Author Topic: God as AI  (Read 5364 times)

Sarah

  • Sr. Master Member
  • *******
  • Join Date: Apr 2013
  • Posts: 827
  • Total likes: 4
    • View Profile
Re: God as AI
« Reply #15 on: January 30, 2016, 05:01:32 pm »
Quote from: Juniperberry;185919


Also, AI has already passed the Turning test for writing poetry. Don't know if that counts as language for you or not.

 
Do you have sources for this? I's something I'm really interested in
Knowing when to use a shovel is what being a witch is all about. Nanny Ogg, Witches Abroad

Juniperberry

  • Grand Master Member
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jul 2011
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 1891
  • Total likes: 4
    • View Profile
Re: God as AI
« Reply #16 on: January 31, 2016, 01:08:16 am »
Quote from: Jake_;185988
Do you have sources for this? I's something I'm really interested in

 
[My last post should have said "Turing" test. Autocorrect fail.]


Ted Talk: Oscar Schwartz

And what are the results? Well, Turing said that if a computer could fool a human 30 percent of the time that it was a human, then it passes the Turing test for intelligence. We have poems on the bot or not database that have fooled 65 percent of human readers into thinking it was written by a human. So, I think we have an answer to our question. According to the logic of the Turing test, can a computer write poetry? Well, yes, absolutely it can. But if you're feeling a little bit uncomfortable with this answer, that's OK. If you're having a bunch of gut reactions to it, that's also OK because this isn't the end of the story.


He goes on (and this is the interesting part) to discuss how most people were actually fooled into thinking Gertrude Stein was a computer. Obviously she's not, but it shows that being "human" is not a concrete thing.

What we are doing with the Turing test for poetry, rather, is collecting opinions about what constitutes humanness. So, what I've figured out, we've seen this when earlier today, we say that William Blake is more of a human than Gertrude Stein. Of course, this doesn't mean that William Blake was actually more human or that Gertrude Stein was more of a computer. It simply means that the category of the human is unstable. This has led me to understand that the human is not a cold, hard fact. Rather, it is something that's constructed with our opinions and something that changes over time.

[...]

But what we've seen just now is that the human is not a scientific fact, that it's an ever-shifting, concatenating idea and one that changes over time. So that when we begin to grapple with the ideas of artificial intelligence in the future, we shouldn't only be asking ourselves, "Can we build it?" But we should also be asking ourselves, "What idea of the human do we want to have reflected back to us?" This is an essentially philosophical idea, and it's one that can't be answered with software alone, but I think requires a moment of species-wide, existential reflection.
The pace of progress in artificial intelligence (I’m not referring to narrow AI) is incredibly fast. [...] The risk of something seriously dangerous happening is in the five year timeframe. 10 years at most.--Elon Musk

I am in the camp that is concerned about super intelligence," [Bill] Gates wrote. "First the machines will do a lot of jobs for us and not be super intelligent. That should be positive if we manage it well. A few decades after that though the intelligence is strong enough to be a concern. I agree with Elon Musk and some others on this and don\'t understand why some people are not concerned."

Juniperberry

  • Grand Master Member
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jul 2011
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 1891
  • Total likes: 4
    • View Profile
Re: God as AI
« Reply #17 on: January 31, 2016, 01:55:16 am »
Quote from: LunaStar;185981
This is a very interesting topic and a trending one as well.  AI will definitely be something that we will all be (have been?) interacting with heavily in the very near future.  The concepts and scenarios you mention can certainly be true, at least on some level. And in some ways it already exist on some level, in some universe(s), etc.  If only for the fact that at the very least it is an idea and a plan, and it exists in the future.  This is happening whether we want it to or not.  Just like a lot of people didn't think personal computers would catch on...and here we are.

As far as the question of whether or not these super advanced AI technologies already exist...I would err on the side of believing that yes they do.  Because by the time our society is introduced to new technologies, they have already been tested and reworked.  Technology is, by nature, meticulously planned and executed.

People are often intimidated by technology, and new things in general, but also don't realize how much technology we already use in a daily basis.  I hear people complain about technology, how much they dislike computers, etc and fail to realize that we are constantly interacting with technology and computers.  They are somehow oblivious to the fact that cars, refrigerators, etc all have computers within them in this day and age.

TL;DR AI has been here, ASI is almost here.  Civilians don't control the future of technology.  Our current highest-levels of technology are unknown to most.  Synchronicity is a possibility, so be kind to your robots! ;)

 

Here is avideo about AlphaGo. (Around two minutes.)

As Demis Hassabis says, chess is a logical game. Go is more of an intuitive game. Elsewhere, in another paper, one of the team members said that AlphaGo evaluated it's moves by using it's imagination.

It isn't a human's imagination. It isn't a human's mind. It never will be. But it is a computer using it's own unique type of imagination. That's just amazing to me.
The pace of progress in artificial intelligence (I’m not referring to narrow AI) is incredibly fast. [...] The risk of something seriously dangerous happening is in the five year timeframe. 10 years at most.--Elon Musk

I am in the camp that is concerned about super intelligence," [Bill] Gates wrote. "First the machines will do a lot of jobs for us and not be super intelligent. That should be positive if we manage it well. A few decades after that though the intelligence is strong enough to be a concern. I agree with Elon Musk and some others on this and don\'t understand why some people are not concerned."

Sarah

  • Sr. Master Member
  • *******
  • Join Date: Apr 2013
  • Posts: 827
  • Total likes: 4
    • View Profile
Re: God as AI
« Reply #18 on: January 31, 2016, 04:11:22 am »
Quote from: Juniperberry;186005
[My last post should have said "Turing" test. Autocorrect fail.]


Yeah I got that, I didnt even notice the typo


Quote
Ted Talk: Oscar Schwartz

And what are the results? Well, Turing said that if a computer could fool a human 30 percent of the time that it was a human, then it passes the Turing test for intelligence. We have poems on the bot or not database that have fooled 65 percent of human readers into thinking it was written by a human. So, I think we have an answer to our question. According to the logic of the Turing test, can a computer write poetry? Well, yes, absolutely it can. But if you're feeling a little bit uncomfortable with this answer, that's OK. If you're having a bunch of gut reactions to it, that's also OK because this isn't the end of the story.


He goes on (and this is the interesting part) to discuss how most people were actually fooled into thinking Gertrude Stein was a computer. Obviously she's not, but it shows that being "human" is not a concrete thing.

What we are doing with the Turing test for poetry, rather, is collecting opinions about what constitutes humanness. So, what I've figured out, we've seen this when earlier today, we say that William Blake is more of a human than Gertrude Stein. Of course, this doesn't mean that William Blake was actually more human or that Gertrude Stein was more of a computer. It simply means that the category of the human is unstable. This has led me to understand that the human is not a cold, hard fact. Rather, it is something that's constructed with our opinions and something that changes over time.

[...]

But what we've seen just now is that the human is not a scientific fact, that it's an ever-shifting, concatenating idea and one that changes over time. So that when we begin to grapple with the ideas of artificial intelligence in the future, we shouldn't only be asking ourselves, "Can we build it?" But we should also be asking ourselves, "What idea of the human do we want to have reflected back to us?" This is an essentially philosophical idea, and it's one that can't be answered with software alone, but I think requires a moment of species-wide, existential reflection.

 
I would actual have interpreted this the entire other way round, not that "the category of the human is unstable" (which it may well be, but I don't think it's something that's shown here,) but that the category of poetry is unstable and something that's constructed with our opinions and something that changes over time.

Furthermore I think comparing Blake and Stein a bad choice. Unless people are sufficiently interested in poetry they are much more likely to be familiar with Blake's work and Romanticism in general than Steins work and Modernism in general. So Blake's work is much more likely to ping as "this is real poetry" to them
Knowing when to use a shovel is what being a witch is all about. Nanny Ogg, Witches Abroad

LunaStar

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2015
  • Posts: 100
  • Total likes: 3
    • View Profile
Re: God as AI
« Reply #19 on: January 31, 2016, 04:43:38 pm »
Quote from: Juniperberry;186007


It isn't a human's imagination. It isn't a human's mind. It never will be. But it is a computer using it's own unique type of imagination. That's just amazing to me.

 
That link didn’t work for me, but I think I found the video.



I wonder how the computer is programmed to make game move choices.  My very limited understanding of AI coding involves mapping predetermined responses to queries.  Does the AlphaGo computer choose at random?  I would love to learn more about the AI’s choosing process and how it intuition could be implemented in that environment.  One way I can think this would work is a function in the AI’s program that would allow it to edit it’s own code.  There would obviously have to be restrictions in place.  But what could/would happen if the AI was programmed and allowed to edit it’s own software?  It would be interesting to see what the AI would do, how they would understand code from a different perspective than that of a human, etc.

LunaStar

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2015
  • Posts: 100
  • Total likes: 3
    • View Profile
Re: God as AI
« Reply #20 on: January 31, 2016, 04:50:25 pm »
Quote from: RandallS;185828
That's very unlikely as it assumes that the computer is set up to allow it to improve itself hardware wise. Even if the AI software was allowed to rewrite itself to improve itself, to achieve that type of improvement the AI would likely need to improve its hardware to match its own designs.

This also assumes that super-intelligent somehow means always right the first time: no chance that what the AI comes up with self-improvement is wrong and does not work as it thought it would.


What if the AI could connect wirelessly to a 3D printer?  Or wirelessly create a network to accomplish the task?  The AI could potentially code a bot to assist with the hardware upgrade, then 3D print the bot.  Just an idea of a possibility :)

Tags:
 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
32 Replies
29361 Views
Last post December 06, 2012, 08:34:25 pm
by Dot
5 Replies
1767 Views
Last post October 16, 2012, 10:05:11 am
by Raven Rose
39 Replies
8349 Views
Last post June 01, 2014, 02:59:27 pm
by Rhaethe
21 Replies
4546 Views
Last post October 12, 2014, 07:34:07 pm
by SunflowerP
15 Replies
4277 Views
Last post June 13, 2015, 12:34:31 am
by sionnachdearg

* Who's Online

  • Dot Guests: 179
  • Dot Hidden: 0
  • Dot Users: 1
  • Dot Users Online:

* Please Donate!

The Cauldron's server is expensive and requires monthly payments. Please become a Bronze, Silver or Gold Donor if you can. Donations are needed every month. Without member support, we can't afford the server.

* Shop & Support TC

The links below are affiliate links. When you click on one of these links you will go to the listed shopping site with The Cauldron's affiliate code. Any purchases you make during your visit will earn TC a tiny percentage of your purchase price at no extra cost to you.

* In Memoriam

Chavi (2006)
Elspeth (2010)
Marilyn (2013)

* Cauldron Staff

Host:
Sunflower

Message Board Staff
Board Coordinator:
Darkhawk

Assistant Board Coordinator:
Aster Breo

Senior Staff:
Aisling, Allaya, Jenett, Sefiru

Staff:
Ashmire, EclecticWheel, HarpingHawke, Kylara, PerditaPickle, rocquelaire

Discord Chat Staff
Chat Coordinator:
Morag

'Up All Night' Coordinator:
Altair

Cauldron Council:
Bob, Catja, Chatelaine, Emma-Eldritch, Fausta, Jubes, Kelly, LyricFox, Phouka, Sperran, Star, Steve, Tana

Site Administrator:
Randall

SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal