human v2.0

[Hagakure]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2160815834239891699

transhumanism, singularity etc

[ENtiTY]

Wow! There are some amazing discoveries being made.

The possibilities are exciting and also very terrifying. Our learning as a species exceeds our maturity. Dangerous in-balance there.

[XipeTotec]

have you got a link to "human 1.0", as jono is still trying to get to that point!! ahhh, golden.

[mu!]

Hmmm, a few interesting things there, too bad they cloak it in some "revolutionise humanity" sci-fi pipe dream bullshit, but thats BBC for ya I guess.

Hardware may be getting faster & more advanced, but ultimately it comes down to the human interface - software - to be capable of harnessing that power. (PS2 games could've been a whole lot better!)

Couldnt help but notice that i was bein shown all these "new ideas" but that all of it was pretty much old hat anyway (re, taking drugs to reprogram yourself).

edit: oh yeah, WTF was the singularity? i didnt get that point, sounded cool though

Edited December 18, 2007 by mu.

[cycle]

In short the technological singularity is the point at which technology has accelerated to such a point that we can no longer predict what is likely to happen. There are generally theorised indicators of it coming such as artificial intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html

Ray Kurzweil has written some interesting books on the subject whether you subscribe to them or not.

The technological singularity has been referred to as the rapture for geeks.

There is an inference that humans don't need to worry about environmental or sustainability concerns etc, because technology will fix everything just in the nick of time.

It is a very interesting idea though.

[mu!]

There is an inference that humans don't need to worry about environmental or sustainability concerns etc, because technology will fix everything just in the nick of time.

I havent looked into this singularity business much, but what you just described then seems very, very baaaaad

[cycle]

Well my comments are somewhat of a simplification.

If the singularitarians are right it's not bad at all because everything WILL work out. But if they are wrong... yep it's a doozy.

Edited December 18, 2007 by cycle

[ENtiTY]

Well I'm leaning, and by leaning I mean fallen arse over tit, toward the "they are wrong" side of the argument. IMO technology is amazing and a positive thing. Its a by product of what makes us top of the food chain on this planet, our ability to learn, reason and be creative. Technology isn't inherently bad while the reason it comes into existence generally is. Most of the technology we take for granted today came about through military development with a view to military application. Fear seems to be the catalyst that initiates phenominal advancements in technology. Fear of an invading nation, fear of a floundering economy. I have no doubt that at some point in humanities journey fear will once again spur us on to discover and develop tech on an un-precidented level, this time it won't be from an invasion or anything else. It'll be from extinction. At some point were going to take one to many giant turds in our own back yard and that giant pile is going to come down on top of us.

Sad thing is it doesn't have to come to that. Even sader still is to think how many forms of flora and fauna that will be gone for good when that situation does arrive. If the singularitarians are right then technology could well save us, but on the other hand if it did come to that we probably shouldn't be saved.

[Hagakure]

expecting positive things from the singularity doesn't necessitate disrespect for nature.

[cycle]

expecting positive things from the singularity doesn't necessitate disrespect for nature.

I agree with you. It is a generalisation but I do think there is an inference within the notion of a technological singularity that technology will be there to "resolve all issues". It also comes down to a definition of disrespect. And the whole topic is fraught with logical loopholes because a singularity is an inconceivable unknown.

I am not trying to be difficult and obtuse here. It's just where my head gets stuck.

[komodo]

hm im a bit rusty on this stuff but i did spend a few cold months in sheffield winter typing late nights on forums arguing at length with some hard nosed libertarians who were hooked on singularity. adherents like to map it out; when the exponential curve of technological progress approaches a vertical rate of acceleration (agglomerated from things like CPU flops and communication bandwidth) techno nirvana arrives - verticality. hardon.

my thinking is that technological progress is not the same as evolution, for a number of reasons, some of which i've gone into in the old AI threads here. with regards to singularity, an illusion is being perpetrated that artificial, cobbled together machine systems can form a total, integrated, creative and sustainable system, when the opposite seems to hold to me- that the progress spike is a critical failure point (spikes have a down curve equal to the up curve...) a suicidal holocaust being enacted by humans on both ourselves and all the living systems of our earth, not a cosmic apotheosis, some holy grail of linear accomplishment.

i know this is contrary to what you suggest hagakure, and maybe you can explain if you see it differently, but as i understand it, there is no ecosystem in the singularity, nature has no part to play in this metaphysics - organic life forms are like dinosaurs, outdated. i think this is a dangerous meme, and thinking analytically i suspect it arises out of a need to find a superior deity to mother nature as post rationale for otherwise indefensible resistance to deep ecological philosophy... 'father techne' as the dominant and ultimately triumphant force of progress... singularity as a male orgasm without the downspike... hm.

[chilli]

expecting positive things from the singularity doesn't necessitate disrespect for nature.

Hagakure, have you read Stephen Baxter's "Destiny's Children" trilogy, or watched/read the Ghost In The Shell movies/series/manga? Both these works explore singularity and its concomitant ideas in different ways, and I found some of the ideas in the Baxter books particularly fascinating... in fact, I occasionally had the impression I was reading some kind of religious text, not because it was preachy but because I kept having mini-epiphanies!

[Hagakure]

cool illegal brain ill check out stephen baxter

seen the first ghost in the shell and read the manga (preferred the manga) and yeah deals with the topic nicely.

the japs have dealt with stuff like this in their pop culture for years.

komodo

im pretty certain intelligence greater than humans will form on machines. why? because our intelligence developed through the process of evolution over a long period of time. our universe is made up of a powerful set of rules governing the behaviour of molecules. as the potential interactions of different molecules is huge and the number of planets is this universe is so massive its conceivable that the odds are that life could spontaneously form through one method or another. (if you hold up a grain of sand to the sky you are covering 10,000 galaxies. the odds of life forming are slim but the number of potential locations for it is massive)

evolution is an incredibly powerful force and has produced animals that are aware of themselves and the universe that they are in. i cant think of anything preventing evolution from occurring on a computer, in fact it has been done over and over again with virtual agents.

all it takes is a system that has the right level of rigidness and flexibility (too rigid, its dead, too flexible, its pure chaos) that can create random combinations of variables and select for them to develop intelligence that is as powerful as hardware will allow it to be. of course there are some labs that are breaking down brains into single neural events and programming simulations that behave like brains. this is also cool but at the end of the day if we are going to get above the brain capacity currently on this planet we are going to have to let it evolve.

and are dinosaurs really outdated? is a crocodile "outdated"? sure there are animals that have evolved further in terms of brain function but thats one way of looking at it. if you dump us all in a jungle with a bunch of raptors i think you will find that our human physical abilities are rather poor in comparison. everything fitting the pattern of life is equal, but lifeforms with power tend to push others out of the way to better their own situation.

its our instinct.

and it has resulted in a pretty weak environment right now cause humans are so damn good at it.

so what about AI? will it push everylife form off the planet? i hope not and also dont think it will. technology is getting smaller and smaller and energy is getting cleaner. was reading an article about some solar cells that are so sensitive they pick up energy at night. the future is hopefully going to involve some powerfull green technology and AI can develop in the virtual world. it doesnt need robots mating with other robots and using resources in the way we humans use them.

also, seeing we are the ones creating this AI why would we allow it to impose conditions that fuck us over. pulling the plug should be an option always open.

we will be outdated and useless for one key role and that is the colonisation of space. human lives are too short and the distances are too great. AIs, however, could potentially not only reach other planets but through nanotechnology develop new ecosystems and spread life across the universe. if we wanted to do that. is it egotistical to want life to go on?

ah i love this topic, so many questions get thrown up writing the smallest sentences. if we have some ultimate intelligence could it get us as close to utopia as possible? and what would utopia be? surely its not us all lying around in luxury as humans need drama. perhaps we would still need wars and the possibilty of death. i guess the matrix dealt with that question a bit.

but yeah someone else take the topic for a while and have some fun with it.

[chilli]

also, seeing we are the ones creating this AI why would we allow it to impose conditions that fuck us over. pulling the plug should be an option always open.

It didn't work on Terminator, or the Matrix, I don't see why it would work here.

Personally, I find the idea of a technological utopia of human/machine singularity fascinating but also quite discomfiting... I don't really tend to see humans as machines, or even machines with a soul... don't ask me how I do see it, as it is pretty nebulous in my own mind, but it is more along the lines of layers and depths of archetypal stories and time and meanings that are interconnected to each other in many ways that are usually invisible to our common waking experience. Anyway, the point is because I don't see humans as merely meat machines, I don't see how they can ever be replaced or surpassed by a machine... possibly in intelligence, but only in the sense of analytical processing power, but I think that the human mind is more than just this kind of intelligence, and that there is something unique to human consciousness that I see as intrinsically interwoven with our organic nature, because for instance even in a purely materialistic worldview, our emotions are basically mechanisms that seem related to corporeal life. Having said all that, if technology advances to the point where it actually becomes cellular and organic, things could get a lot more interesting... might be a while off yet though lol.

[Hagakure]

im not sure how much you can bring in stuff like the matrix, terminator or asimov. if the rules and conditions did work in those stories we wouldnt have much of a plot.

as for seeing humans as "merely meat machines" thats some pretty loaded terms you are using. i dont think anyone would want to refer to themselves as that.

we, like all lifeforms, are patterns.

we have inputs, we process this information and then have certain outputs.

the reason humans are more interesting to watch than an amoeba (well most of them) is that we receive more information, process it in more complex ways and then output a huge range of actions.

none of us doubt that computers can receive shitloads of information, the outputs are also infinite.

the processing is just too simple for us to find it sexy in any way.

give a computer a task and it will do it. give a human a task to do and they are considering how much they like you, the social pressure if they do or dont do it, whether they can use it as a bargaining chip in the future, how hungry they are and if the task can wait till after lunch and so on and so on.

the pattern of behaviour is indeed interwoven with our organic nature.

i guess the question is would AIs have some kind of equivalent and/or could we introduce something in the mix to give us something comparable.

i think there would be and that we could induce it. will write more later. feel like a break from the computer.

[chilli]

im not sure how much you can bring in stuff like the matrix, terminator or asimov. if the rules and conditions did work in those stories we wouldnt have much of a plot.

as for seeing humans as "merely meat machines" thats some pretty loaded terms you are using. i dont think anyone would want to refer to themselves as that.

we, like all lifeforms, are patterns.

we have inputs, we process this information and then have certain outputs.

the reason humans are more interesting to watch than an amoeba (well most of them) is that we receive more information, process it in more complex ways and then output a huge range of actions.

none of us doubt that computers can receive shitloads of information, the outputs are also infinite.

the processing is just too simple for us to find it sexy in any way.

give a computer a task and it will do it. give a human a task to do and they are considering how much they like you, the social pressure if they do or dont do it, whether they can use it as a bargaining chip in the future, how hungry they are and if the task can wait till after lunch and so on and so on.

the pattern of behaviour is indeed interwoven with our organic nature.

i guess the question is would AIs have some kind of equivalent and/or could we introduce something in the mix to give us something comparable.

i think there would be and that we could induce it. will write more later. feel like a break from the computer.

The Matrix etc were mentioned as a joke, but hopefully you know that!

Well I am at the computer when I'm supposed to be working, but just quickly wanted to clarify... any connotations that may be read into my chosen terms were unintended by me, I used the merely meat machines statement cooly and impersonally and yes... humorously (funny to me, anyway).

[XipeTotec]

im not sure how much you can bring in stuff like the matrix, terminator or asimov. if the rules and conditions did work in those stories we wouldnt have much of a plot.

science fiction has always been on the frontier of science.

[Hagakure]

well to be fair the matrix and terminator 2 do present certain situations where machines could wipe out humans etc.

while they are entertaining stories they are thought experiments as well. heres hoping fiction writers will have covered all the dangerous possibilities by the time we need to start implementing controls. simplistic rules like asimov's for example can backfire.

at the end of the day i fear greedy humans combined with AI more than i fear AI by itself, thats for certain.

[Hagakure]

quick article relating to this discussion

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jan/robot...earn-how-to-lie

[chilli]

It's an interesting experiment, but I thought this was a very weak point:

"Their neural circuitry was programmed with just 30 “genes,†elements of software code that determined how much they sensed light and how they responded when they did. The robots were initially programmed both to light up randomly and to move randomly when they sensed light."

Just 30 genes? That's a pretty big headstart, and from their description it sounds like each "gene" may in fact be a relatively complex program (relative to something with no program that is, not compared to say a rat's brain).

What I'm trying to say is, we'd need to know exactly what the content of that software is in order to know to what degree an outcome such as the robots "learning" to communicate may have been predetermined.

Speaking of which, as everyone probably realizes, computers cannot actually produce true randomness as they are built and programmed logically...

it just seems to me that the sheer amount of intelligent code and constant control and direction by humans required for the entire AI venture to succeed sort of lets down the idea that it has anything to do with evolution.

The article didn't really cover the details though, so if you know more I'd be interested to read it.

*edit* There is a link to purchase what looks like a more thorough description HERE... did you buy the article?

Heh.

Edited January 17, 2008 by IllegalBrain

[Hagakure]

hell no i didnt buy the article. this the internet, i shouldnt have to pay for anything :D

i heard about this on a podcast a while ago. it has been featured in many articles so there is bound to be more info out there for free.

yeah i agree there is a headstart there but still think its an interesting and good result.

after all these robots havent evolved up from a single cell like we did, they are functioning bodies and the code is providing the interface with those bodies. it would be interesting to have code evolve up from something even more limited and let it find the light sensors etc and learn how to use em. not sure how easy it would be to select for from that point though.

all the robots arent gonna eat for a very long time so their initial fitness is gonna be zero across the board. hard to select for any progress.

Speaking of which, as everyone probably realizes, computers cannot actually produce true randomness as they are built and programmed logically...

its true you cant get true randomness but you can get outputs from certain types of code that are essentially as good as random. enough randomness for experiments that depend on a bit to generate a mixed population to select for, thats for sure.

if ever it reaches a point where this isnt random enough, hoever, you can hook a computer up to a geiger counter or some other random input and use that. but yeah, pseudo-randomness would be enough for this kind of experiment.

it just seems to me that the sheer amount of intelligent code and constant control and direction by humans required for the entire AI venture to succeed sort of lets down the idea that it has anything to do with evolution.

i disagree completely. we humans are still evolving yet we already have our however many genes etc. evolution is a bit of randomness and selection. its not getting something from nothing, its generally building upon already existing frameworks. with these robots some had their genes selected for because the behavior they developed was sneaky and tricked others into dying while letting their own genes continue on. others behaved honestly and worked together with a group and passed on their behaviour that way. these behaviours were still emergent even though a framework was provided. if the code was setup to bias these outcomes, however, then it would be a unexciting result. hmmm mnow i really want to find out more about that code as well. will have a search for some more info.

the development of hard AI could be similar to this example. if we had computers generate code completely randomly, there is going to be a lot of bullshit and messing around before we can even get something that will display something on the screen.

by setting up a basic intelligence, however, then allowing for a certain amount of randomness in every aspect of it, testing all of em, selecting for the ability to meet some requirement, and repeat, then you are going to get more and more complex thoughts and behaviours in ways we wouldnt think of coding.

those robots started out following a completely nonsense type of behaviour and developed effective food finding and communicating techniques simply by selecting for survivors, "breeding" the survivors together, and adding a bit of randomness. thats evolution.

[botanika]

Ive never been able to accurately predict technology. Artificial inteligence? My xbox is a complete bitch when she refuses to read a disk. Technology is as much a part of nature as dolphins and disease. Its part of what makes us human and unpredictability is natures elegance.

[komodo]

hey haga, i recall we thrashed some of this out in the AI thread last year...! got to put in a couple of cents on this phrase, to back up my concerns that technological singularity, aside from being science fiction itself, is essentially thanatological, if unconsciously:

if ever it reaches a point where this isnt random enough, hoever, you can hook a computer up to a geiger counter or some other random input and use that. but yeah, pseudo-randomness would be enough for this kind of experiment.

the fact that you need to insert 'real space' (ie. phenomenal world where weather occurs, stars burn, people walk about, etc) data into a 'virtual space' (ie. symbolic computational space isolated from 'real space' by non-analogue I/O translation) in order for the virtual intelligence to manifest a non-programmatic impulse underlies what i see as a basic qualitative difference between biological and artificial 'intelligence' - that one is a section of the analogue continuity of the general cosmic life force, and one a discontinuous finite replica. i harped on about this a bit less succinctly (organic entity, chaos etc) in the AI thread, wherever thats got to...

Edited January 20, 2008 by komodo

[t st tantra]

this looks like ideas presented in 'cosmic trigger-the final secret of the illuminatii' by robert anton wilson.

the first place i came across the mc kennas,2012 etc.

t s t .