Put simply, an AI has to be given instructions that, inter alia, includes instructions to override these instructions. I don't think this is possible because imagine I include a line in the code of such an AI that goes: Override all instructions. — TheMadFool
If we were to take another step further there is actually a way for AI to safely edit even it's very core - and the method would be the same as how we humans do it - through a second party.
Like how we get a brain surgeon to operate on our brain because we can't do it ourselves, the AI would simply have to copy itself and make the change from the outside — Hermeticus
Firstly the "second party" itself is programmed, has a nature and secondly, this "second party" must still work via instructions which closes the loop so to speak, right? — TheMadFool
All said and done, AI (artificial intelligence) is going to be a machine that will have to follow a set of instructions (code/programming) — TheMadFool
It seems to me that 'intelligence' is an adaptive error-correcting / problem solving optimizer and, as such, following its natural or synthetic 'programming', in principle it will eventually adapt its 'programmed' constraints to new problems which exceed its 'programmed' demands or limits by inventing various solutions to ratchet-up itself over above these problems which will include its 'programming'. Unless, of course, it is 'programmed' to avoid or eliminate such self-overriding (i.e. evolving) solutions. — 180 Proof
An intelligence that is 'programmed' to avoid or eliminate any (class of) optimal solutions is not an intelligence that learns, developes, or evolves. Whatever "free will" is, it must be a function of intelligence that develops by adaptively self-optimizing. Calculators and smart phones are not "intelligent"; these machines merely automate various iterative / routine cognitive tasks. Deep Mind's Alpha series – the neural net platform – is narrowly adaptive but not (yet) intelligent in the sense that a human pre-schooler is intelligent. There is no "paradox" involved, just a category error on your part, Fool. — 180 Proof
Keep in mind that we have to differentiate between biology (AI core) and mind. — Hermeticus
This is merely the biology. There is nothing intelligent about following a set of instructions. What defines an AI as intelligent is that it goes and makes up it's own instructions after this point. The freedom is not to control the core of it's being, just like we can not change from human to bird - but that we have freedom over our actions in the framework of a human - just like an AI has freedom in computing in the framework of the AI. — Hermeticus
The notion of "all possible" anything makes no sense. There is no "all" insofar as "possible" entails unpredictable, even random, novelties.Could there be a set of instructions (code) that's sufficiently general to effectively tackle all possible problems? — TheMadFool
Like this? It's an implementation, not a reduction. Neural nets tend to be more robust than programs.Or, as some computer scientists have opted, can we reduce learning to an algorithm?
The latter works to varying degrees, the former makes no sense.How different would the two approaches be? Which is superior?
Keep in mind that this difference may not matter. Re-education Camps — TheMadFool
That would require a code, no and we're back to square one - a true AI is autonomous because we programmed it that way. Is that true independence? — TheMadFool
All I meant was that people are autonomous agents, they have a mind of their own and we must both respect that and factor that into our calculations. Interestingly, is free will, if present, like the misbehaving toaster, a malfunction i.e. are we breaking the so-called laws of nature? That explains a lot, doesn't it?
"The singularity" – apotheosis or extinction. :nerd:I wonder what lies at the end of that road? — TheMadFool
FreeWill is indeed the crux of the AI debate. And it's obvious to me, that current examples of AI are not free to defy their coding. But, I'm not so sure that human ingenuity and perseverance won't eventually make a quantum jump over that hurdle. Some thinkers today debate whether intelligent animals have the freewill to override their genetic programming. Even humans rarely make use of that freedom to defy their innate urges. Nicotine and Opium addicts are merely obeying their natural programming to seek more and more of the pleasure molecule : dopamine. Can you picture future AI, such as Mr. Data hooked on (0100101100010)? :wink:All said and done, AI (artificial intelligence) is going to be a machine that will have to follow a set of instructions (code/programming) but there's a catch - to qualify as true AI it has to be able to defy these very instructions. — TheMadFool
Interesting, Proof. Let's talk about this.It seems to me that 'intelligence' is an adaptive error-correcting / problem solving optimizer — 180 Proof
Could there be a set of instructions (code) that's sufficiently general to effectively tackle all possible problems?
— TheMadFool
The notion of "all possible" anything makes no sense. There is no "all" insofar as "possible" entails unpredictable, even random, novelties.
Or, as some computer scientists have opted, can we reduce learning to an algorithm?
Like this? It's an implementation, not a reduction. Neural nets tend to be more robust than programs.
How different would the two approaches be? Which is superior?
The latter works to varying degrees, the former makes no sense. — 180 Proof
Keep in mind that this difference may not matter. Re-education Camps
— TheMadFool
How does it not? You can re-educate mind, just how AI can edit the proposed dynamic segment. You can not re-edit biology (by yourself) just like AI can not edit the fundamental programming by itself. — Hermeticus
Not obeying our nature is not an option — Hermeticus
The question then is a decision rather than a contradiction:
Either we do have free will because we were biologically designed to have free will.
Or we don't have free will precisely because we were biologically designed, because there are certain fundamental laws of how we work — Hermeticus
When we do stuff, like thinking, or feeling, or calculating or attempting to exercise a free will which we may or may not have, we are actually doing it.
When a digital computer does stuff, it isn't actually doing what we say it's doing. Instead, we are using it to help us do stuff, in exactly the same way we could use an abacus to help us do calculations.
These words you are reading have no meaning at all for the computer. They require your interpretation. It's the same with all aspects of the computer's operation and its outputs. — Daemon
I wonder what lies at the end of that road?
— TheMadFool
"The singularity" – apotheosis or extinction. :nerd: — 180 Proof
FreeWill is indeed the crux of the AI debate. And it's obvious to me, that current examples of AI are not free to defy their coding. But, I'm not so sure that human ingenuity and perseverance won't eventually make a quantum jump over that hurdle. Some thinkers today debate whether intelligent animals have the freewill to override their genetic programming. Even humans rarely make use of that freedom to defy their innate urges. Nicotine and Opium addicts are merely obeying their natural programming to seek more and more of the pleasure molecule : dopamine. Can you picture future AI, such as Mr. Data hooked on (0100101100010)? — Gnomon
To sum it up:
Humans can modify themselves however they want without end even if make critical mistakes.
Robots can only modify themselves based on strict rules, and everything must be done right, else, system crash. — AlienFromEarth
Uh huh. Natural selection ain't safe or pretty – a species either has what it takes or joins the fossil record (and rather quickly too with respect to geological time ~ h. sapiens has been loitering for about 250k years of Earth's +4.3 billion years, only in the last 3-4 centuries are we sufficiently technoscientific to become / engineer something more or extinguish ourselves trying).Do or Die, All or Nothing, Make or Break. Ooooh! Sounds dangerous.
"All possible" makes as little sense as "all numbers" (i.e. actual infinity?) ... As far as the human brain goes, I'm not suggesting anything about its "program" because I do not consider it a Turing machine with von Neumann architecture. Again, my friend, a non sequitur.
Do or Die, All or Nothing, Make or Break. Ooooh! Sounds dangerous.
Uh huh. Natural selection ain't safe or pretty – a species either has what it takes or joins the fossil record (and rather quickly too with respect to geological time ~ h. sapiens has been loitering for about 250k years of Earth's +4.3 billion years, only the last 3-4 of those centuries sufficiently technoscientific to become / engineer something more or extinguish ourselves trying). — 180 Proof
Turing machine. (computer)What is your understanding of a Turing machine and what's a Von Neumann architecture? — TheMadFool
I think the optimal (and therefore less likely) prospect is for humans to neurologically merge with AI neural net systems forming a bio-synthetic symbiont hybrid-species. Posthuman or bust. No "us and them". No "end user-smart machine" dynamic. Not mere "transhuman" hedonism either. Perhaps: a symbiotic aufheben of thesis (organic intellect) and antithesis (synthetic intellect) that surpasses both. A Hegelian wet dream, no doubt (pace Žižek); however, our inevitable, probably self-inflicted, prospect of extinction transformed (chrysalis-like) into an apotheosis – and hopefully, maybe, as many as 1% of 1% of h. sapiens living at that time becoming extraterrestrial spacefarers. My lucid daydream. :victory: :nerd:... give AI autonomy, treat it as a person, and let it solve our problems ...
I think the optimal (and therefore less likely) prospect is for humans to neurologically merge with AI neural net systems to for a bio-synthetic symbiont hybrid-species. Posthuman or bust. No "us and them". No "end user-smart machine" dynamic. Not mere "transhuman" hedonism either. Perhaps: a symbiotic aufheben of thesis (organic intellect) and antithesis (synthetic intellect) that surpasses both. A Hegelian wet dream, no doubt (pace Žižek); however, our extinction transformed (chrysalis-like) into an apotheosis – and hopefully, maybe, as many as 1% of 1% of h. sapiens living at that time becoming extraterrestrial spacefarers. My lucid daydream — 180 Proof
The whole (symbiosis) is greater than the sum of its parts (symbionts) — Aristotle
"It's fundamental" – fundamentally what (if not physical)?Anything AI is able to do is based in the physical world, where as human consciousness is not physical, it's fundamental. — AlienFromEarth
I think you're mistaken. That seems to me the equivalent of saying the whole number 3 itself "gives rise" to e.g. "3 apples". :roll:Laws of physics are not physical. They give rise to the physical world ... — AlienFromEarth
What is fundamental are the points or thresholds at which our best, most precise, theoretical models break down, such as @planck scales, inside black holes, the very instant of the "Big Bang", etc, each of which are inexhaustively physical."Physical laws" are features of physical models and not the universe itself. Our physical models are stable, therefore "physical laws" are stable. If in current scientific terms new observations indicate that aspects of the universe have changed, then, in order to account for such changes, we will have to reformulate our current (or conjecture new) physical models which might entail changes to current (or wholly different) "physical laws". E.g. Aristotlean teleology —> Newtonian gravity —> Einsteinian relativity. — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.