Get a pile of dust and form it into a human, then I'll be impressed.

------------------
"Before Abraham was... I Am." - Jesus Christ

3rd Day Studios

My opinion on cloning humans is that it should not be done first, I think is dangerous because it involves us toying with things that in the future could very easily come back to bite us because we don't understand enough. Start toying with the genetic code and you might inadvertantly breed out immunity to a disease or something of that nature, or just generaly lower immunities etc.. this has been known to happen with simply with breeding of animals and plants to produce certain genetic traits. I think the possability of this is even greater when you start tinkering with cloning people.

Secondly, I don't think there is a good reason for cloning. Every reaon I've heard so far to clone people is either unrealistic (like replacing children who die etc) or is simply a terrible idea like cloning people for work force (esentially slave labor) or cloning people to harvest organs or genetic materiel (possibly the most in human reason I've heard). There simply is no good reason to do it, other than simply because we can.. and it carries alot of dangers and alot of possability of abuse.

------------------
-- All that is gold does not glitter,
Deep roots are not touched by the frost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Not all those who wander are lost.

How they work is usually also not good enough to be intelligent. A.L.I.C.E., for example, is just a specialized search engine (not very different from Google), and the responses are canned.

Attempting to replicate the brain with a neural network is out of the question - we have nowhere near the technology to create even a fraction of the computational power required for such a network. And even if we could, we know nothing about how to program/train it to be intelligent.

Also, tasks that are extremely simple for humans are very difficult for computers, such as recognizing a randomly placed and oriented object in a cluttered environment. I can recognize and name any item on my desk almost instantly, regardless of how it's placed on my desk. I can even recognize it it it's got other objects in front of it, or if it's distorted by being seen through a glass. A computer, even a supercomputer, has troubles with stuff like that.

Also, take the game of Chess - a computer can calculate millions of moves a second, a human about three. Yet, only recently has a computer beaten a Chess champion. And the computer has to calculate at an astromically faster rate than the human to beat him! We cannot seem to create a computer that thinks as slowly as a human, yet can beat him at Chess!

Computers are also, as far as I can tell, incapable of figuring out stuff (high-level reasoning or cognition, I think it's called). I can sit down and pull apart a piece of code or even a simple machine and answer the questions like "what does it do?" and "why create a piece of code to do that?" As far as I know, that's totally beyond what we can do with what we have currently. Not to mention I don't think we've ever created anything with an imagination.

There's also questions like self awareness, concious decisions vs unconcious decisions (reflexes, instincts, etc), etc.

Not to mention the possible role of emotions.

And on top of that, there's the debate over whether non-physical minds (ie souls) exist.

There's a lot of material to go over and think about in this field .

In conclusion: I'll believe it when I see it. Otherwise, I remain skeptical.

BTW, an interesting link:
http://www.christianity.ca/faith/weblog/2004/8.03.html

------------------
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike." -- C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963), "The Poison of Subjectivism" (from Christian Reflections; p. 108)

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - hoping to get more done over the holidays . . .

[This message has been edited by CobraA1 (edited December 29, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by CobraA1 (edited December 29, 2004).]

But since this is my favorite topic... computer performance is improving exponentially and that's all there is to it. Right now? It sucks. Later? Just don't piss them off...

Nice link btw CobraA1.

------------------
"Before Abraham was... I Am." - Jesus Christ

3rd Day Studios

quote:

---

Uhh... I kinda just wanted to know how you would treat an "artificial person"...

---

I don't know. I guess it depends on how it treats me .

quote:

---

But since this is my favorite topic... computer performance is improving exponentially and that's all there is to it. Right now? It sucks. Later? Just don't piss them off...

---

Simply shoving speed at the problem won't solve it. My PC can calculate more moves a second than Gary Kasparov can, but it can't beat him at Chess. All a computer does is whatever it's programmed to do. We have to solve the problem of how to create AI first.

------------------
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike." -- C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963), "The Poison of Subjectivism" (from Christian Reflections; p. 108)

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - hoping to get more done over the holidays . . .

While it's true that there is an AI programming problem you also have to consider the hardware. Obviously the "wetware" running in non-artifical life is very different in design. While it's possible we could emulate thought functions on typical processors they weren't designed for the task. A comparison might be a CPU trying to do graphics functions. It's not only a performance issue, the actual design of the hardware might be inherent to allowing "intelligence". But if you copy the brain's design then you lose the benefits of our computer design.

If you managed to overcome all these design difficulties it might still be possible to combine the best of both worlds by merging an intelligence processor and a generic processor. Communications translations via a bridge between the two different processing protocols would be interesting, to say the least.

This brings up the subject of computerized brain inserts... but if I start on that I could go on for pages.

------------------
* Eagles may soar, but weasels aren't sucked in jet engines.

I agree, back to how we would treat a robot with the same capabilities as us. I've only read bits and pieces of them, but "The Age of Spiritual Machines" and "Are We Spiritual Machines?" are pretty interesting. Your 'robot going to church' idea is pretty cool. Besides the different materials, wouldn't an artificial mind identical to ours have the same beliefs? HMMM... maybe we'd end up with robot internet forums where spiritual machines could argue with atheist robots... Then yeah, my job would be gone. Think how efficiently a robot could get its points across, instead of rambling on like I do! To avoid becoming obsolete, I'd have to merge with that robot, but that's another story.

So yeah, if we model their brains after our own, as long as we don't worry about what the robot is made of (that'd be like racism, wouldn't it?), wouldn't they have to be treated as other humans? Maybe they'd get mad if we banned them from the Olympics and stuff cause they'd be so fast and strong... or would they realize how unfair that'd be? Oh well I'd better cut this rant off and go eat some microwave burritos, keep the wetware humming along...

If, however, you believe humans are composite ((mind &| body) and spirit), then robots will never be able to be the same as humans, as they have no spirit, and cannot have spirit. They will always be just tools.

And that's it, really. (IMHO).

Dan "Just ignore me" MadProf

------------------
7 days without prayer makes one weak.

------------------
Soterion Studios

------------------
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike." -- C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963), "The Poison of Subjectivism" (from Christian Reflections; p. 108)

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - hoping to get more done over the holidays . . .

------------------
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike." -- C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963), "The Poison of Subjectivism" (from Christian Reflections; p. 108)

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - hoping to get more done over the holidays . . .

------------------
* Eagles may soar, but weasels aren't sucked in jet engines.

------------------
Soterion Studios

The main thing to keep in mind (if you agree that yes, hypothetically, they could someday match our intelligence) is that the machines would probably seek to become more efficient. As Vernor Vinge pointed out, an ultraintelligent machine would be the last invention mankind would ever need to make (it would improve upon itself without our help).

------------------
* Eagles may soar, but weasels aren't sucked in jet engines.

------------------
* Eagles may soar, but weasels aren't sucked in jet engines.

------------------
-- All that is gold does not glitter,
Deep roots are not touched by the frost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Not all those who wander are lost.

------------------
* Eagles may soar, but weasels aren't sucked in jet engines.

How isn't thinking a mechanistic process? Our brains are made of the same things as the rest of the universe.

To-Do List:
Improve crappy human memory.
Think together wirelessly over great distances.
Increase calculation speed.

Computers have beaten us at all of those, and since our wetware can't compete, we must keep on using and improving our computers.

quote:

---

As they get smarter, they'll probably get promoted in status, from tools and toys, to pets and servants, to equals and superiors.

---

Only if we promote them that way. We do, after all, control every step of the process. In my house, they will always remain tools and toys - and I think it will stay that way in most households.

Right now, a computer/robot capable of increasing its own technology is only hypothetical.

quote:

---

I think God will take us home before any of this comes to pass.

---

I agree - I don't really see God allowing us to create such stuff. Nevertheless, it is interesting to talk about .

quote:

---

How isn't thinking a mechanistic process? Our brains are made of the same things as the rest of the universe.

---

This comes from the idea of a soul - remember, we are Christians, we do believe in the spiritual .

quote:

---

Computers have beaten us at all of those, and since our wetware can't compete

---

Strangely enough, we compete quite well despite our limitations - remember the chess example! Pure processing power alone does not create intelligence.

quote:

---

Well that's where evolution comes in, but you don't believe in that either.

---

Evolution, regardless of whether we believe in it, is irrelevent. A computer is not made by randomly mutating silicon chips and picking the best survivors.

No, our progress is controlled, thought out, designed, and intentional. It cannot be compared to evolutionary processes.

------------------
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike." -- C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963), "The Poison of Subjectivism" (from Christian Reflections; p. 108)

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - hoping to get more done over the holidays . . .

If a man-made machine that thought exactly as we did (and therefore proved that thinking is a mechanical process) wanted to be a Christian, would you tell it that this would be impossible simply because you believe that it needs a soul?

NO - we do not compete quite well with the points I listed. You know, where it says "computers have beaten us at all of THOSE", I was referring to THOSE points. And as for chess, what difference does it make if the computer needs to make more calculations? They take less time to make up their mind, and they still beat us. And if you want a fair competition, you can turn down the difficulty level. ^_~

Does that make the chess program smarter than its human opponent? Of course not. That stupid program can't even tell the difference between a bagel and a cactus. It does what it's programmed to do, and does it well.

Evolution: "A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."

It would be fair to say that our computers are gradually (and this rate is accelerating) becoming more complex and more efficient.

------------------
Luke 9:23
1 John 2:6

quote:

---

The technological Singularity will likely occur in the next 20-30 years.

---

I seiously doubt we'll have AI comparable to humans that fast. I'd say we're looking at hundereds of years, if at all.

And you make a nice definition of evolution, but many people use it to refer to some forms is biological evolution:

quote:

---

# Biology.

1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

---

------------------
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike." -- C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963), "The Poison of Subjectivism" (from Christian Reflections; p. 108)

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - hoping to get more done over the holidays . . .

Robots are built using logic, correct? In a right or wrong choice such as many people face daily are not always logical. It might be logical to keep the wallet you found, a robot would, but a human/christian would look for its owner. Robots can only do what they are programmed to do. If you make a robot that can think, that is all they will ever do. So many daily choices require thought, and many a soul. I firmly believe that we will never create anything "better" than ourselves.

------------------
* Eagles may soar, but weasels aren't sucked in jet engines.

Evolution of computers - We try new methods of building our computers. If the method works, we keep it, and a new 'species' of computer is developed.

What use would a robot have for a wallet?

"If you make a robot that can think, that is all they will ever do."
Well we can think, and that's all we ever do... what's the problem?

What are these 'many daily choices' that require a soul?

Oh, and the brain is capable of self-modification. It's fully possible to train your brain in order to acquire an eidetic memory.

[This message has been edited by Gump (edited December 30, 2004).]

You mean you didn't type that in? Who did? Did you sit around thinking and it magically posted itself? So obviously you are breathing and typing, so you aren't always thinking.

Whether or not to steal. How to treat another person. You seem to me to be someone who would kick a dog. How many choices a day affect other people? They all require something more than a little bit of hardware.

------------------
* Eagles may soar, but weasels aren't sucked in jet engines.

I own two dogs and I do not kick them. This does not mean that I have a soul. I don't steal or treat other people badly (unless the occasion calls for it) because this would create more problems for society. There is nothing spiritual about that decision. If a soul was required to make such decisions, why is there so much crime and hate? If you're going to say "LUCIFER DID IT!", then is every bad decision the result of Satan influencing someone? Furthermore, what the hell would I gain from kicking an animal?

Alright, we do things other than think, but this doesn't mean we do them one at a time. We are always thinking, even while typing. However, evidence would suggest that your brain shuts down while typing. Oh, burn.

I agree, Gump, the arrival of superhuman intelligence doesn't have to be AI 'waking up'. A network (futuristic internet?) could wake up, or maybe we'll just improve ourselves mechanicially (merge with machines?) or biologically. This would probably be a lot safer than letting a superhuman intelligence improve itself and quickly make us obsolete (or kicking our butts for whatever reason - like when we pissed them off by nuking them in the Animatrix ^_^). I'm mostly just *borrowing* ideas from here: http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix/vinge/vinge-sing.html

However, wouldn't it help a lot if we had/were a smarter intelligence to study all those exciting fields you mentioned?

[This message has been edited by Gump (edited December 30, 2004).]

quote:

---

What use would a robot have for money?

---

Unless the robot can create an infinite supply of energy and matter, it will need a way to manage the distribution of finite resources. Economic systems are very efficient means of doing so. If we expect the robot to be able to create new technologies (which is required for your theory), it will need access to resources.

In fact, probably the best way to control what a superintelligent computer can do would be to control its access to resources.

There's also the idea of wants and desires - why would a computer superintelligence wish for the control and/or extinction of the human race? What if we controlled its wants and desires to have a mindset where it wanted to help us, instead or harm us? The idea that such a machine would wish us harm just because it's more intelligent does not seem to have a logical basis.

------------------
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike." -- C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963), "The Poison of Subjectivism" (from Christian Reflections; p. 108)

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - hoping to get more done over the holidays . . .

If the robots were identical, they would have the same desires (example - knowledge). They would cooperate without bribing each other to help with the work. If they needed to build more robots, they would share resources, because more help = more progress towards the goal.

I don't mean that the robots would kick our butts just because they could. But if we pissed them off enough (let's say we get in the way of progress by blowing up some of their labs/factories) they would probably view us as a hindrance rather than a curious ape. It's hard to make progress with distractions, like doing homework in front of the TV.

What you are thinking of is a communistic society. Everybody pulls their own weight, and helps each other out. No need for money because we all simply take what we need. I can totally understand the want to a utopian society, but if humans can't make a true communist society, what make us think that we can make robots that are truly communist?

"However, evidence would suggest that your brain shuts down while typing. Oh, burn."
Wow, good one. I think I'll go cry.

------------------
* Eagles may soar, but weasels aren't sucked in jet engines.

I suggested that the soul is not required to make decisions, and you decided that this would make me the kind of person that participates in animal abuse. I think my insult was justified and even tame in comparison.

Communism doesn't work because of our desire for personal gain - greed. Robots, as I already said, would have no need for personal gain - they would have the same goals!

------------------
proverbs 17:28
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

www.gfa.org - Gospel for Asia

www.persecution.com - Voice of the Martyrs

quote:

---

Robots, as I already said, would have no need for personal gain

---

So much for robots wanting to take over humanity. If they don't want personal gain, why take over humanity?

------------------
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike." -- C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963), "The Poison of Subjectivism" (from Christian Reflections; p. 108)

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - hoping to get more done over the holidays . . .

we could program for personal gain. a great way to have then self-advance

------------------
Soterion Studios

I don't know where this 'take over humanity' thing is coming from, if you're talking about slavery or being kept as pets. If we piss them off, they could destroy us. They wouldn't need to keep us around - but as long as we didn't get in the way, I don't think they'd decide to kill us.

quote:

---

It appears a key assumption that has been overlooked or ignored is that these robots must be self-sustaining - that is, no need to perform self-maintenance, not be affected by weather, not injured by working with something outside their strength tolerance, etc.

---

I don't get why this is an assumption?

I think the idea is that this AI "thing" will by its nature want to improve itself. Something along the lines of "lines 920 to 1029 are being executed very slowly, i wonder if i can make it faster..." which then develops into
"these chips are working very slowly, i wonder if i can design faster ones" which it then proceeds to do. Then it finds that humans are the limiting factor on it's calculations, so it asks the humans for what it needs to be self supporting, or, it reads books on (psycology,hypnotism,etc) and uses this to make the humans make it self-supporting. Or it works out ways to hack around the humans firewalls, and then orders itself whatever it wants on ebay.

Anyway.

Happy new year, I guess.

Dan "Who? Me?" MadProf

------------------
7 days without prayer makes one weak.

Very good story. I shall have to go look it up...

Dan

------------------
7 days without prayer makes one weak.

But yeah - Happy New Year

There's still too many questions IMHO that are unanswered as to decide what kind of behavior a superintelligent robot might exhibit. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll ever find out, as it probably won't happen within our own lifetimes, and God might even come back for the end times first.

------------------
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike." -- C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963), "The Poison of Subjectivism" (from Christian Reflections; p. 108)

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - hoping to get more done over the holidays . . .

------------------
proverbs 17:28
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

www.gfa.org - Gospel for Asia

www.persecution.com - Voice of the Martyrs

------------------
* Eagles may soar, but weasels aren't sucked in jet engines.

quote:

---

Originally posted by max:
How would the robots be able to distinguish between who was threatening their master and an old friend who playfully hits him on the shoulder? I don't know, so if someone does, or if it's possible lemme know please
Can discernment be programmed other than selecting choices like chess?

---

Certainly.

/* (simplified version, cross-translated from positron meta-programming circuit-dump to m++, in human-readable form. pmpcddump version 0.0.8.79-ALPHA - GNU/GPL 9.7) */ /* * * WARNING, THIS CODE IS NOT GUARANTEED FOR * ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER, AND IS NOT CERTIFIED * BY ANYTHING, AND IS NOT DESIGNED TO BE RUN * ON ANY STANDARD ELECTRONIC DEVICE. * * FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. * */ /* 490021:11:008 */ if ( master.get_emotion() & ( EMO_FEAR | EMO_WORRY | EMO_HATRED ) ) { /* ... */ /* 490021:11:330 */ for (i = 0; i < master.local.others->count; i++) { /* ... */ /* 490021:11:391 */ if ( ( master.local.others.get_other(i) ).get_emotion () & ( EMO_FEAR | EMO_WORRY | EMO_HATRED ) ) { /* ... */ /* 490021:11:402 */ master.local.others.get_other(i).set_concern(master, 9); master.set_defense( DEF_RED ); /* ... */ /* 490021:11:459 */ } /* ... */ /* 490021:11:699 */ } /* ... */ /* 490021:11:811 */ }

I need to polish my c...

Dan "What?! waddya mean 'syntax error?'" MadProf

PS - It's a lot more complex than that, but thats the main idea. We're not talking about chess here, we're talking about highly complex machines capable of reading human emotion, faces, body-language, to a high and compertant level, with great understanding and knowledge of human humor, jokes, customs, etc, etc.)

Hope this helps :-)

[This message has been edited by madprof (edited January 01, 2005).]

------------------
* Eagles may soar, but weasels aren't sucked in jet engines.

"take in data, process it, and make conclusions from it."

yep. robots will have to be able to do that.

Dan "Who? Me?" MadProf

------------------
7 days without prayer makes one weak.

------------------
* Eagles may soar, but weasels aren't sucked in jet engines.

how do you know the difference between an old friend of someone punching them in fun, and someone being attacked? it's not "just a feeling", or "an aura of hate" or anything like that, there are many little signs. And a machine could be trained to understand those, and interperate them.

Anyway. I'm tired.

Goodnight.

Dan

max, buddy, don't worry about insulting me. it's almost impossible, certainly online. :-)

------------------
7 days without prayer makes one weak.

------------------
* Eagles may soar, but weasels aren't sucked in jet engines.