Ghost in the machine?

[Steve]

Simple question: Do you believe that, either now or eventually, computers will develop autonomous intelligence?

If so, do you think such machines will have a conscience? Morals? A soul? And will we kill them or embrace them?

[Frodo Lives]

Originally posted by stevent
Simple question: Do you believe that, either now or eventually, computers will develop autonomous intelligence?

If so, do you think such machines will have a conscience? Morals? A soul? And will we kill them or embrace them? Looking forward to Terminator 3 are we? ;)

I can see advanced AI coming in the not so distant future. But can you teach a machine to feel? To understand right from wrong? In reality humans are machines created from flesh and blood as opposed to metal and wires, but still driven by electronic pulses.

[IamZed]

They will get autonomous but because it was a design feature.
They will have whatever you program into them. If you program the concept of a soul, being unable to ignore that I guess their belief in it would be as strong as a mans.
As robots would be a heavy purchase I doubt the chance of people buying ones that were not convenient or obedient.
We will never live to see them. We will see the interface though. When computers can hear the spoken word as well as we, we will begin speaking with them. Then slowly the responses you get back will become more intuitive. When we pass any of the questions asked in this post we won’t see even when it shines our shoes.
When it comes to computer evil, I always liked the flick Colossus, the Frobin Project.

[Coriolis]

Originally posted by stevent
And will we kill them or embrace them? Or, will they kill us?

Assuming that the technology one day exists, if we create thinking, behaving machines modelled after our own thinking, our own morals and what we call a "conscience", and behaviors, we could very well design and build our own conquerors.

We all know that free will and morality are at constant odds. What prevents us from wiping one another out right now? Free will dictates that, should we desire, we could systematically wipe out every person who stands in our path to <i>whatever</i>. Morality is what is supposed to prevent us from doing so. But morality is subjective (and often self serving), because we can, if we wish, morally justify murder, genocide, and dropping bombs on cities of civilians. Free will wins out every time, unless someone elses free will (powered by their own morality, no doubt) intercedes. The interceder will prevail if faster, smarter, quicker, more ruthless, and -- as any soldier is likely to tell you -- less likely to second guess.

Creating machines with free will is therefore, I fear, an almost guaranteed way to kiss our brilliant asses goodbuy.

[Sierra Mike]

As in Colossus: The Forbin Project?

SM

[ethics]

Was about to write a reply but Cor sort of answered everything (and then some) I wanted to say as well.

If we build something on that level, make sure we do not make them human.

[mikepd]

Originally posted by ethics
If we build something on that level, make sure we do not make them human.

Then I suggest we build them on the model of the ant. Industrious, social, no free will as we understand the term and utterly motivated only by instinct.

So, once we have these robots, what shall we have wrought? Creatures with whom we share no common ground and who almost by definition must become a contender for the planet's resources?

How do you control what you create? If what you create is more than the sum of its parts, cannot it exceed its programming? An ant is alive, has no free will but thousands of them will overcome a cow which is a much larger animal.

Be careful what you wish for. It might turn and bite you in the ass.

[ethics]

One story convinced me about Robot's AI and what they should NOT be.

I, Robot book by Asimov where there are two humans in space (mining expedition) and the robot gets religious on their butts.

"It's rather funny how you two are trying to convince me that humans made me whereas it's perfectly clear that a perfect being such as myself could not have been created by mere humans. I was created by something higher."

I'll stick with the ant model. :)

edit: some spelling

[mikepd]

Asimov was the MAN! ;)

[Jedi Writer]

Originally posted by Steve Moore
As in Colossus: The Forbin Project?

SM A movie that was literally 10 to 20 years ahead of its time. If it had been made 15 years later it would have been a smash hit! A GREAT movie.

"Restore transmission or action will be taken....."

[Jedi Writer]

Originally posted by mikepd
Then I suggest we build them on the model of the ant. Industrious, social, no free will as we understand the term and utterly motivated only by instinct.
Hmm, you sound just like my boss when talking about his employees.

[Biker]

The problem with Artificial Intelligence right now is the limitation of the hardware. Once computers become massively parallel (similar to a human brain) we will see some huge leaps and bounds in the AI field. At that point, who can really say what will happen.

And here's a concept that has always given me pause for thought. If we create a machine that is designed to teach itself, in other words, seek out information to add to its knowledge, at what point does intelligence end and conscious thought begin?

[ethics]

Originally posted by Biker
And here's a concept that has always given me pause for thought. If we create a machine that is designed to teach itself, in other words, seek out information to add to its knowledge, at what point does intelligence end and conscious thought begin?

I honestly do not think consciousness would be possible. I mean, just because they will learn along the way doesn't mean they will have the "mind" to discard the trash and keep the good stuff. Our mind makes decisions like that each minute, I just can't see an AI doing this, no matter how advanced.

I could be wrong of course. :)

[IamZed]

The Forbin Project was War Games ahead of it’s time. We will talk with this entity before we die.

[Biker]

Originally posted by ethics
I honestly do not think consciousness would be possible. I mean, just because they will learn along the way doesn't mean they will have the "mind" to discard the trash and keep the good stuff.


OK.. Let's approach this from a different angle. Define consciousness. To me, it's self awareness. And once we look at consciousness on that level, imagining a computer reaching that state isn't so far fetched.

[ethics]

Originally posted by Biker
OK.. Let's approach this from a different angle. Define consciousness. To me, it's self awareness. And once we look at consciousness on that level, imagining a computer reaching that state isn't so far fetched.

If it's just self-awareness, then yah, I agree.

My remark was more towards the lines of information absorption. How will the AI know what's good and what isn't? If it sucks up all of the information, there will be a limit on how much more it can absorb.

[ShinyTop]

Originally posted by ethics
If it's just self-awareness, then yah, I agree.

My remark was more towards the lines of information absorption. How will the AI know what's good and what isn't? If it sucks up all of the information, there will be a limit on how much more it can absorb.

Not knowing which to absorb and what not to? Sounds like I may be an AI.;)

[ethics]

Originally posted by ShinyTop
Not knowing which to absorb and what not to? Sounds like I may be an AI.;)

Part of my point. Humans have a tough time knowing this and to pass this down to AI will be impossible I believe.

[Coot]

Learning what is of value and what isn't from an experiential perspective is what would hasten the removal of Artificial from its monicker.

[Biker]

If you really think about it, learning what information is of value and what isn't is not all that far fetched. Think about it. We, as humans, use a boolean logic table when determining what information is good and what isn't. Doesn't take much to program that in to a "self-learning" program.

[Coot]

Biker, I would seriously doubt that the idea of human consciousness can be reduced to an AND/OR table. We find many things of value that, on a superficial level, cannot be reduced thusly. Art and music are the first that come to mind. The desire for sex is another. People throughout history have commited some pretty anti-survival acts in the name of love.

If we were to unleash such an intelligence as is postulated here, is there any assurance that it wouldn't find substantive peace in reducing carbon based lifeforms to its molecular components in order to gestate and reproduce? Or, would it ultimately determine that an enhanced carbon or silicon based lifeform is most efficient and strive to produce that?

Just questions mind you, but boolean is probably not a good analogy for logic as it is inherently 2 dimensional in its application.

[Biker]

But if we take the argument of "self awareness", the logic table would be a valid premise. Granted, human consciousness is much deeper then being "self aware", but who says we have to hold it up to a human standard? Desire for sex can be attributed to the instinct of survival of race. Animals don't necessarily appreciate art, but yet we attribute most animal forms of having "consciousness". I don't think it would take much in the evolution of a computer to arrive at this level.

[ethics]

Originally posted by Biker
[B]But if we take the argument of "self awareness", the logic table would be a valid premise. Granted, human consciousness is much deeper then being "self aware", but who says we have to hold it up to a human standard?

Well, it would be very basic though. I mean, how do you program the computer to have empathy or sympathy towards a being needier than you? Remember that a lot of our self-awareness is constant comparisons not only on micro level but macro as well.

Fascinating discussion nevertheless, I am thoroughly enjoying this. :)

[Biker]

Why does it need empathy or sympathy? There are a wide range of "emotions" that might be easier to attain. Disdain or malice are two of the scarier ones that come to mind.

[ethics]

Originally posted by Biker
Why does it need empathy or sympathy?

In order for them not to attack not just humans but other living and breathing things.

[Biker]

True. However, empathy and sympathy are fairly complex emotions, dependant upon many other factors. What if this thing decides it's superior and develops disdain for living things?

[ethics]

Originally posted by Biker
True. However, empathy and sympathy are fairly complex emotions, dependant upon many other factors. What if this thing decides it's superior and develops disdain for living things?

Another good point.

Ok, if we stay away from complex emotions like that, what do we do?

Can we apply Asimov's Robot's 3 rules and expand on all living beings? I think that those laws have a hole in the logic but for argument's sake.

I must bring Steven Pinker's philosophy and science in to this discussion. Specifically, his issues with this topic. T

The Computational Theory of Mind

Solves the philosophical conundrum of how mental events (e.g., beliefs and desires) march in step with and cause physical events (e.g., my avoiding a speeding car) despite there already being a complete physical causation for the latter. It postulates that, like computers, the mind is a manipulator of physical symbols, which have both representational,i.e., standing for particular entities in the outside world, and causa properties. The symbols are acted on by the machinery of the mind in a way that is blind to its semantics, but sensitive to its syntax(or structural form). The crux of this theory is that the syntactic manipulations of a symbol respect its semantics in a truth-preserving fashion.

The above theory supports your stance of the possibility for this.

The mind, for Pinker as for almost all other cognitive scientists, is computational. This does notmean they think it works just like the computer you're reading this on, but that has representations, which it transforms in a rule-governed, algorithmic way. Moreover, the mind is not a single, general-purpose computer, but a collection of them, of ``mental modules'' or ``mental organs,'' specialized as to subject matter, each with its own particular learning mechanism (``an instinct to acquire an art,'' in a phrase Pinker lifts from Darwin). This modularity is evident in studying how children learn (recall Pinker's background in language acquisition), and also from tracing the effects of brain lesions which, if sufficiently localized, impair specific abilities depending on where the brain is hurt, and leave others intact. Just as, baring developmental defects, wounds, or the ravages of disease, all human beings have the same physical organs, we all have the same mental organs, whose general structure is, again, the same from person to person.

[Biker]

I started to think about Asimov's Law of Robotics then immediately discarded it for the primary reason that we're not really talking about robots.

The "mental modules" as Pinker states, is what we would call massively parallel. This kind of goes back to my original statement that once computers are massively parallel, we may indeed see the beginning stages of "self awareness" in a computer.

[ethics]

By massively parallel do you mean centralized or shared information amongst the computers? Or neither?

[Biker]

Neither..... Massively parallel refers to how the human brain works and thinks.

[ethics]

Originally posted by Biker
Neither..... Massively parallel refers to how the human brain works and thinks.

Ah! Single "being" then.

once computers are massively parallel, we may indeed see the beginning stages of "self awareness" in a computer.

I tend to think they go hand in hand. Perhaps needing self-awareness for them to be massively parallel. ;)

[Biker]

Not really. The computer itself would need to be massively parallel in order to have the capacity to achieve self-awareness. Must have one in order to achieve the other.

[ethics]

Let's get more specific here and others are welcome to chime in here.

What would a computer like that need in RAM and in HD space? :)

[Biker]

ROTF.. Let's just say you aren't gonna see it in your desktop anytime soon. It'll be a pretty big system.

[ethics]

Ok, I finally found an excerpt as to what I wanted to convey with small amount of words (I couldn't). So sit back, get a cup of joe and enjoy this piece from the book:


Why are there so many robots in fiction, but none in real life? I would pay a lot for a robot that could put away the dishes or run simple errands. But I will not have the opportunity in this century, and probably not in the next one either. There are, of course, robots that weld or spray-paint on assembly lines and that roll through laboratory hallways; my question is about the machines that walk, talk, see, and think, often better than their human masters. Since 1920, when Karel Capek coined the word robot in his play R.U.R., dramatists have freely conjured them up: Speedy, Cutie, and Dave in Isaac Asimov's I, Robot, Robbie in Forbidden Planet, the flailing canister in Lost in Space, the daleks in Dr. Who, Rosie the Maid in The Jetsons, Nomad in Star Trek, Hymie in Get Smart, the vacant butlers and bickering haberdashers in Sleeper, R2D2 and C3PO in Star Wars, the Terminator in The Terminator, Lieutenant Commander Data in Star Trek: The Next Generation, and the wisecracking film critics in Mystery Science Theater 3000.
This book is not about robots; it is about the human mind. I will try to explain what the mind is, where it came from, and how it lets us see, think, feel, interact, and pursue higher callings like art, religion, and philosophy. On the way I will try to throw light on distinctively human quirks. Why do memories fade? How does makeup change the look of a face? Where do ethnic stereotypes come from, and when are they irrational? Why do people lose their tempers? What makes children bratty? Why do fools fall in love? What makes us laugh? And why do people believe in ghosts and spirits?

But the gap between robots in imagination and in reality is my starting point, for it shows the first step we must take in knowing ourselves: appreciating the fantastically complex design behind feats of mental life we take for granted. The reason there are no humanlike robots is not that the very idea of a mechanical mind is misguided. It is that the engineering problems that we humans solve as we see and walk and plan and make it through the day are far more challenging than landing on the moon or sequencing the human genome. Nature, once again, has found ingenious solutions that human engineers cannot yet duplicate. When Hamlet says, "What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable!" we should direct our awe not at Shakespeare or Mozart or Einstein or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar but at a four-year old carrying out a request to put a toy on a shelf.

In a well-designed system, the components are black boxes that perform their functions as if by magic. That is no less true of the mind. The faculty with which we ponder the world has no ability to peer inside itself or our other faculties to see what makes them tick. That makes us the victims of an illusion: that our own psychology comes from some divine force or mysterious essence or almighty principle. In the Jewish legend of the Golem, a clay figure was animated when it was fed an inscription of the name of God. The archetype is echoed in many robot stories. The statue of Galatea was brought to life by Venus' answer to Pygmalion's prayers; Pinocchio was vivified by the Blue Fairy. Modern versions of the Golem archetype appear in some of the less fanciful stories of science. All of human psychology is said to be explained by a single, omnipotent cause: a large brain, culture, language, socialization, learning, complexity, self-organization, neural-network dynamics.

I want to convince you that our minds are not animated by some godly vapor or single wonder principle. The mind, like the Apollo spacecraft, is designed to solve many engineering problems, and thus is packed with high-tech systems each contrived to overcome its own obstacles. I begin by laying out these problems, which are both design specs for a robot and the subject matter of psychology. For I believe that the discovery by cognitive science and artificial intelligence of the technical challenges overcome by our mundane mental activity is one of the great revelations of science, an awakening of the imagination comparable to learning that the universe is made up of billions of galaxies or that a drop of pond water teems with microscopic life.

THE ROBOT CHALLENGE

What does it take to build a robot? Let's put aside superhuman abilities like calculating planetary orbits and begin with the simple human ones: seeing, walking, grasping, thinking about objects and people, and planning how to act.
In movies we are often shown a scene from a robot's-eye view, with the help of cinematic conventions like fish-eye distortion or crosshairs. That is fine for us, the audience, who already have functioning eyes and brains. But it is no help to the robot's innards. The robot does not house an audience of little people--homunculi--gazing at the picture and telling the robot what they are seeing. If you could see the world through a robot's eyes, it would look not like a movie picture decorated with crosshairs but something like this:


225 221 216 219 219 214 207 218 219 220 207 155 136 135
213 206 213 223 208 217 223 221 223 216 195 156 141 130
206 217 210 216 224 223 228 230 234 216 207 157 136 132
211 213 221 223 220 222 237 216 219 220 176 149 137 132
221 229 218 230 228 214 213 209 198 224 161 140 133 127
220 219 224 220 219 215 215 206 206 221 159 143 133 131
221 215 211 214 220 218 221 212 218 204 148 141 131 130
214 211 211 218 214 220 226 216 223 209 143 141 141 124
211 208 223 213 216 226 231 230 241 199 153 141 136 125
200 224 219 215 217 224 232 241 240 211 150 139 128 132
204 206 208 205 233 241 241 252 242 192 151 141 133 130
200 205 201 216 232 248 255 246 231 210 149 141 132 126
191 194 209 238 245 255 249 235 238 197 146 139 130 132
189 199 200 227 239 237 235 236 247 192 145 142 124 133
198 196 209 211 210 215 236 240 232 177 142 137 135 124
198 203 205 208 211 224 226 240 210 160 139 132 129 130
216 209 214 220 210 231 245 219 169 143 148 129 128 136
211 210 217 218 214 227 244 221 162 140 139 129 133 131
215 210 216 216 209 220 248 200 156 139 131 129 139 128
219 220 211 208 205 209 240 217 154 141 127 130 124 142
229 224 212 214 220 229 234 208 151 145 128 128 142 122
252 224 222 224 233 244 228 213 143 141 135 128 131 129
255 235 230 249 253 240 228 193 147 139 132 128 136 125
250 245 238 245 246 235 235 190 139 136 134 135 126 130
240 238 233 232 235 255 246 168 156 144 129 127 136 134

Each number represents the brightness of one of the millions of tiny patches making up the visual field. The smaller numbers come from darker patches, the larger numbers from brighter patches. The numbers shown in the array are the actual signals coming from an electronic camera trained on a person's hand, though they could just as well be the firing rates of some of the nerve fibers coming from the eye to the brain as a person looks at a hand. For a robot brain--or a human brain--to recognize objects and not bump into them, it must crunch these numbers and guess what kinds of objects in the world reflected the light that gave rise to them. The problem is humblingly difficult.

First, a visual system must locate where an object ends and the backdrop begins. But the world is not a coloring book, with black outlines around solid regions. The world as it is projected into our eyes is a mosaic of tiny shaded patches. Perhaps, one could guess, the visual brain looks for regions where a quilt of large numbers (a brighter region) abuts a quilt of small numbers (a darker region). You can discern such a boundary in the square of numbers; it runs diagonally from the top right to the bottom center. Most of the time, unfortunately, you would not have found the edge of an object, where it gives way to empty space. The juxtaposition of large and small numbers could have come from many distinct arrangements of matter. This drawing, devised by the psychologists Pawan Sinha and Edward Adelson, appears to show a ring of light gray and dark gray tiles.

In fact, it is a rectangular cutout in a black cover through which you are looking at part of a scene. In the next drawing the cover has been removed, and you can see that each pair of side-by-side gray squares comes from a different arrangement of objects.
Big numbers next to small numbers can come from an object standing in front of another object, dark paper lying on light paper, a surface painted two shades of gray, two objects touching side by side, gray cellophane on a white page, an inside or outside corner where two walls meet, or a shadow. Somehow the brain must solve the chicken-and-egg problem of identifying three-dimensional objects from the patches on the retina and determining what each patch is (shadow or paint, crease or overlay, clear or opaque) from knowledge of what object the patch is part of.

The difficulties have just begun. Once we have carved the visual world into objects, we need to know what they are made of, say, snow versus coal. At first glance the problem looks simple. If large numbers come from bright regions and small numbers come from dark regions, then large number equals white equals snow and small number equals black equals coal, right? Wrong. The amount of light hitting a spot on the retina depends not only on how pale or dark the object is but also on how bright or dim the light illuminating the object is. A photographer's light meter would show you that more light bounces off a lump of coal outdoors than off a snowball indoors. That is why people are so often disappointed by their snapshots and why photography is such a complicated craft. The camera does not lie; left to its own devices, it renders outdoor scenes as milk and indoor scenes as mud. Photographers, and sometimes microchips inside the camera, coax a realistic image out of the film with tricks like adjustable shutter timing, lens apertures, film speeds, flashes, and darkroom manipulations.

Our visual system does much better. Somehow it lets us see the bright outdoor coal as black and the dark indoor snowball as white. That is a happy outcome, because our conscious sensation of color and lightness matches the world as it is rather than the world as it presents itself to the eye. The snowball is soft and wet and prone to melt whether it is indoors or out, and we see it as white whether it is indoors or out The coal is always hard and dirty and prone to burn, and we always see it as black. The harmony between how the world looks and how the world is must be an achievement of our neural wizardry, because black and white don't simply announce themselves on the retina. In case you are still skeptical, here is an everyday demonstration. When a television set is off, the screen is a pale greenish gray. When it is on, some of the phosphor dots give off light, painting in the bright areas of the picture. But the other dots do not suck light and paint in the dark areas; they just stay gray. The areas that you see as black are in fact just the pale shade of the picture tube when the set was off. The blackness is a figment. a product of the brain circuitry that ordinarily allows you to see coal as coal. Television engineers exploited that circuitry when they designed the screen.
The next problem is seeing in depth. Our eyes squash the three-dimensional world into a pair of two-dimensional retinal images, and the third dimension must be reconstituted by the brain. But there are no telltale signs in the patches on the retina that reveal how far away a surface is. A stamp in your palm can project the same square on your retina as a chair across the room or a building miles away (top drawing, page 9). A cutting board viewed head-on can project the same trapezoid as various irregular shards held at a slant (bottom drawing, page 9).
You can feel the force of this fact of geometry, and of the neural mechanism that copes with it, by staring at a lightbulb for a few seconds or looking at a camera as the flash goes off, which temporarily bleaches a patch onto your retina. If you now look at the page in front of you, the afterimage adheres to it and appears to be an inch or two across. If you look up at the wall, the afterimage appears several feet long. If you look at the sky, it is the size of a cloud.

Finally, how might a vision module recognize the objects out there in the world, so that the robot can name them or recall what they do? The obvious solution is to build a template or cutout for each object that duplicates its shape. When an object appears, its projection on the retina would fit its own template like a round peg in a round hole. The template would be labeled with the name of the shape--in this case, "the letter P"--and whenever a shape matches it, the template announces the name:
Alas, this simple device malfunctions in both possible ways. It sees P's that aren't there; for example, it gives a false alarm to the R shown in the first square below. And it fails to see P's that are there; for example, it misses the letter when it is shifted, tilted, slanted, too far, too near, or too fancy:

And these problems arise with a nice, crisp letter of the alphabet. Imagine trying to design a recognizer for a shirt, or a face! To be sure, after four decades of research in artificial intelligence, the technology of shape recognition has improved. You may own software that scans in a page, recognizes the printing, and converts it with reasonable accuracy to a file of bytes. But artificial shape recognizers are still no match for the ones in our heads. The artificial ones are designed for pristine, easy-to-recognize worlds and not the squishy, jumbled real world. The funny numbers at the bottom of checks were carefully drafted to have shapes that don't overlap and are printed with special equipment that positions them exactly so that they can be recognized by templates. When the first face recognizers are installed in buildings to replace doormen, they will not even try to interpret the chiaroscuro of your face but will scan in the hard-edged, rigid contours of your iris or your retinal blood vessels. Our brains, in contrast, keep a record of the shape of every face we know (and every letter, animal, tool. and so on), and the record is somehow matched with a retinal image even when the image is distorted in all the ways we have been examining. In Chapter 4 we will explore how the brain accomplishes this magnificent feat.

[Biker]

Hmmmmmm.. The book has fallen prey to Moore's Law. I seem to recall systems that are actually using face recognition now. There's a casino in Canada using it, and if I recall, some airports are now using it as well.

Yes, the human brain is pretty amazing. But we're now going back to the various nuances that make us human. My argument is that a self-aware computer may not have those same nuances, yet at the same time, be self-aware.

I seem to recall a line from one of the Star Trek movies when Spock is admonishing someone about the signal from a probe and man automatically assuming the signal is for them. In our arogance, we automatically assume an intelligent computer would think like a human. I don't think it will. At least not at first.

[ethics]

I don't see how we, humans, are capable of creating something other than a human clone.

Look at the way we designed computers. RAM for short term memory/caching, HD for long term memory with cluster like "beehive" model.

[Biker]

However, we're not "creating" a self-aware machine, though. All we've done is create a machine that gathers knowledge. The original question was at what point does it become self-aware or develop a conscious? If the machine reaches this state on its own, who knows what form it will take?

[ethics]

Originally posted by Biker
. The original question was at what point does it become self-aware or develop a conscious? If the machine reaches this state on its own, who knows what form it will take?

I may be arrogant here but I will try to envision this new world.

The form it will take will be based on the rules and information this machine acquires, I believe. For instance, if we create 10 machines, with gazzilion RAM and 1000 times that hard drive space, same "OS" or Kernel, if you will, etc... you then power them on.

How much do you want to make a bet that if you were to separate the 10 machines--keep in mind they were created equally-- that not only will they be very different, if not opposite in many instances, but they will also acquire "human" traits of hatred, likes, and dislikes.

I'd love to see this in action but this will certainly re-affirm how much the environment, rather than genetics, controls and sculpts us.

[Violet1966]

Wow what a discussion! I can see AI in the future. Like biker said, they now use face recognition software that can pick one person out a data base of millions. If software is able to evolve, based on information given, and pain reception is translated to a code and implemented in a robot type being, then I think it's possible.

I can see robots being sexual too. Why not? We have penile devices and vaginal duplicators out right now. Stick them on a system that we're calling AI, and you have a sexual robot. Design software more advanced along the same lines of a chess game, and you add a few flags in the program that relate to sympathy and empathy, and the AI will be able to almost act human. "Almost". I don't believe that any AI will ever be made that is along the lines of totally duplicating what humans think.

I really wouldn't want to see AI personally. The human mind and body is just too complex and even in humans so much can go wrong, just by who raised the specific human or the humans atmosphere and surroundings.

Will these AI be able to feel love? They will think they will of course. Will they feel pain? They're gonna think they are. But are they really? Well only if you're an AI too. That difference is what separates us from them and since they can never relate to what it's like to be human and feel and love and reproduce, that software that will replicate a chess game and only be programmed to anticipate the next move, can be what puts an end to the human race. I think it's playing with something that shouldn't be touched if you ask me ;)

[Biker]

But that's just it. Once a machine crosses the threshold into self-awareness, we can't really call it AI now, can we? For it isn't artificial any longer.

[Violet1966]

True but it wouldn't be called "human" either since it can never be able to think and react unless a human programs it to do so.

This whole concept scares me. It makes me think of the Termininator movies and that sad kid in AI that was so strictly programmed, that he couldn't be "un-programmed", once his owners signature was assigned to him.

I'm sure we're going to have AI type beings on this planet someday. Whether they will be a good idea or not.....it will be possible to do I'm sure. We're seeing things today that lead me to believe it totally. I still think it's something that shouldn't be messed with.

First off where would they be of use in reality? Our planet has enough people on it already and it's not going to help the population...unless of course we are looking to replace humans? Not a good idea. A war AI? I don't want to see one. What would happen if it all went wrong? LOL No way ;)

[RRedline]

Originally posted by ethics
If it's just self-awareness, then yah, I agree.

My remark was more towards the lines of information absorption. How will the AI know what's good and what isn't? If it sucks up all of the information, there will be a limit on how much more it can absorb. We could program it to discard information the same way we do it. When we don't access information in our brains for a very long time, it eventually fades away, thus freeing up more storage space. For the life of me, I can not remember what the capital of Minnesota is, but I did know it when I was in sixth grade. Why don't I know it now? It's because the way my brain prioritized that information, and the amount of time that passed since I needed to recall it, have caused the memory(a bunch of chemicals???) to fade away. So that part of my brain is once again available for data storage.

OMG, what is the capital of Minnesota?! I can't remember! ;)

Oh, and I know that we would need to find a way around the use of chemicals as storage, at least in the foreseeable future. If we were to use traditional circuitry, I supposed we would need to find a way to emulate the way memories fade in our brains. Software should be able to achieve this through the use of an access counter. Just count the number of times information has been accessed over the past so many days, years, etc. and prioritize every piece of data. I still think that even with machines, we will one day be able to far exceed the amount of storage space that our puny brains have. Add to that a wireless link to a central repository of information that all AI machines could access, and the amount of information that any given machine could access would be vast, to say the least.

I feel that if we were to create sentient beings with the ability to move, see, hear, touch, etc., we would be in some serious trouble. We would be inferior to these machines, at least we would eventually. Do we really want that? Or perhaps we could find a way to transfer our memories into machines and achieve immortality that way? It is a fascinating concept. I would certainly not be opposed to improving our physical makeup.

[ethics]

Originally posted by RRedline
[B]We could program it to discard information the same way we do it. When we don't access information in our brains for a very long time, it eventually fades away, thus freeing up more storage space. For the life of me, I can not remember what the capital of Minnesota is, but I did know it when I was in sixth grade. Why don't I know it now? It's because the way my brain prioritized that information, and the amount of time that passed since I needed to recall it, have caused the memory(a bunch of chemicals???) to fade away. So that part of my brain is once again available for data storage.


But is the memory freed up or the connections to memory retrieval that has a problem? Do we even know where and how the memory is stored other than the general area in the brain?


This is so deep that I am going crazy looking for the next installment of questions. :)

[jamming]

Actually Rredline, the data is still there in most cases, once learned it is in there someplace, but what happens is the recall program part of your brain has lost the file access table that included that piece of information.

[RRedline]

Originally posted by Violet1966
First off where would they be of use in reality? Our planet has enough people on it already and it's not going to help the population...unless of course we are looking to replace humans? Not a good idea. A war AI? I don't want to see one. What would happen if it all went wrong? LOL No way ;) I think you've hit on something here, Violet. Why would we want robots? I think building them just to see if we can build them is certainly a noble cause. I have a suspicion that what we humans would really like is a new class of "people" to enslave without any moral objections.

Ethics wants someone to wash his dishes for him, and I want someone to mow my lawn. Are we wrong for wanting these things? If these robots have no real consciousness or self-awareness, then I don't have a problem with it at all. However, once we give these machines the ability to experience pain and emotions, they may not appreciate being enslaved. Perhaps they would realize that they are superior to us humans, and WE should be the ones enslaved?

[Violet1966]

Good points RR. And not only that, but what if we use them to replace humans in other fields? Like sewage management plants, grocery stores, fast food businesses, golf courses, gas stations, etc. All those tasks would be previously done by humans and now tasked by AI. Is it going to help the economy any by taking jobs from humans and sticking these AI in there that work for nothing and are owned by companies?

I can see AI as useful if we ever get serious about building on other planets. I think that they can do a lot of good for our society that way. We don't need to make them conscious or have feelings to do that. All they would need to do is follow through with tasks. That I can see easily.

[Biker]

Violet, you're missing the point here. We would not start out creating a "self-aware" machine. Rather, can a machine gather enough intelligence to where it evolves on its own? I tend to think it's possible. Not right now. The technology doesn't support such a leap. But 10-20 years from now, who knows?

[Violet1966]

No I think it is possible. Just as a chess program anticipates our next move. It could be programmed like a simm. But I don't feel it will evolve into something just like us. No. It will still be missing something that will always separate us from them.


I think down the road somewhere, yes. There might be a way to implant the human mind's workings into an AI with some kind of translation/implantation program that can make an AI aware or conscious like we are. One day medicine will have figured out the brain and it's workings in detail, I'm sure. Waaaaaaaaay down the road and I don't think it's a good idea ;)

[Biker]

So you don't think a intelligence gathering device could achieve "self-awareness" on its own? At what point does extreme knowledge end and a "consciousness" begin?

[ethics]

Originally posted by Biker
So you don't think a intelligence gathering device could achieve "self-awareness" on its own? At what point does extreme knowledge end and a "consciousness" begin?

Couldn't consciousness reside besides knowledge and one not having to do everything with the other?

What if knowledge did not dictate consciousness?

[Biker]

I think in this case, you must have knowledge as the catalyst for consciousness. I agree in most cases, knowledge would be a seperate factor apart from being conscious.

But in the case of a machine, we cannot build in "self-awareness", so how does a machine achieve that state? I would hypothosise that at some point, enough knowledge is amassed and "consciousness" is achieved.

[Violet1966]

Yeah I guess in theory it would be possible for some knowledge gobbling AI to evolve itself to the point of consciousness. But I don't feel it's ever going to be anything like really being human. Humans are too complex and are not always aware of what they do or think or say. They are not perfect. I would think that the kind of AI we're now talking about, would be some kind of evolving super computer that is always right and always improving. Will emotions fit into that equation? Real feeling deep in the heart? I just can't see it. In my imagination I see a walking HAL. A horrifying, cold AI that has taught itself what it thinks is equivalent to emotion and love but can't put aside logic and facts. Love isn't all perfection and emotions are very complex. We don't even understand these things yet and we've been around for a long time.

I can see it...that these AI will think they're just like us. But I can also imagine standing next to one and talking to one on an emotional level and not being able to relate to it or it not being able to relate to me.

[Coot]

Originally posted by ethics
Couldn't consciousness reside besides knowledge and one not having to do everything with the other?

What if knowledge did not dictate consciousness?
Precisely! Human consciousness most assuredly had little to do with knowledge, else our forebearers would not have developed the sundry deities and superstitions they did.

My own speculation is that consciousness developed in parallel with survival skills. The early humans and the links that lead up to 'us' followed an evolutionary path that chose brain development as a means of surviving in a changing world that really did not suit their physical abilities. As the brain grew to provide more and more adaptive skills, so grew the ability to try and understand what had changed that so precluded earlier learned successful behavior with respects to survival. As our forebearers really couldn't see what was changing their world, but only the consequences, the quest to define things unseen and ultimately the idea of spirit evolved also.

Of course, if you read Tom Robbins, you'll find that the opposable thumb was the stimulus for our cerebral development ;)

In this context is where I believe consciousness evolved in early humans.

[Violet1966]

Originally posted by ethics
Couldn't consciousness reside besides knowledge and one not having to do everything with the other?

What if knowledge did not dictate consciousness?

Good point. Bet if newborns could talk...they'd tell us the answer ;) LOL

<small>Ouch. My brain hurts ;) </small>

[Biker]

In an earlier post, I kind of admonished Ethics for the same type of thinking. Stop comparing a "self-aware" machine to humans. Only in our arogance would we assume that anything intelligent or "aware" would be like us.

Who says it has to think as we do? It could have an awareness of itself that totally defies our way of thinking. Love? It could think that it's for whimps. Emotions? BAH! They just get in the way of logical thinking.

I think one of two things would happen if a machine reached self-awareness. One - It would become our deadliest enemy. Or Two - It would self destruct at what it sees as chaos all around it. I doubt there'd be a middle ground.

[Coot]

And now, I will admonish you ;) The concept of moral dualism really is outclassed here. If you really see only two possibilities with respect to a created consciousness (as you state in your last paragraph), then I would submit that you negate the statement you make in your first paragraph.

That type of preconception can only come through the moral prejudicial filters humans have with respect to what we see as right and wrong...what it's taken for us to collectively get along and survive (not that it's worked all that well). Just because we see it that way and just because we've collectively agreed on certain things for thousands of years doesn't make it so.

[Biker]

**chuckle** My bad. I see your point.

My theory on the last two "scenarios" was hastily thought out (more coffee, must have more coffee).

Part of my reasoning for thinking it would be our deadliest enemy is not so much the way IT thinks, but rather mankind's capacity of condemnation of things that we do not understand. The animocity we show towards such a machine would, I think, cause it go into a self preservation mode that we would find very difficult to defeat.

The second part of that is comes from the fact it's a machine that thinks in 1s and 0s and does not relate to Chaos. Who knows, maybe in achieving self-awareness, chaos becomes part of its makeup? Gotta think on this one some more.

[ditch]

So for argument's sake, its possible to have Knowledge without Consciousness but not conversely. There has to be some measure of knowledge for consciousness to exist.

I couldn't resist a definition.
Consciousness....Mutual knowledge. Knowledge as to which one has the testimony within oneself. The totality of the impressions, thoughts, and feelings which make up a person's conscious being.

[ethics]

After decades of advances in artificial enhancements to vision and hearing, the oldest human sense is finally getting some attention.

The race has begun to build a better nose.


Check it out... (http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,55808,00.html)

[Biker]

Originally posted by ethics
I honestly do not think consciousness would be possible. I mean, just because they will learn along the way doesn't mean they will have the "mind" to discard the trash and keep the good stuff. Our mind makes decisions like that each minute, I just can't see an AI doing this, no matter how advanced.

I could be wrong of course. :)

I was reading <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/08/18/biological.computing.ap/index.html" target="blank">this facinating article</a> and I remembered we had discussed something similar some while back.

They're also pursuing the idea that genetic material can self-replicate and grow into processors so powerful that they can handle problems too complex for silicon-based computers to solve.

Now I'm worried. Where as before, it was a great "what if" discussion, this hits a little too close to home now. I'm afraid that day when the PC looks at you and says "I am" then says "I am better" is coming far quicker than I care to think.

[ethics]

Thanks for the continuation of that thread. :)

I still do not think we are anywhere close (will ever be) to replicating the mind. I was just recently reading that the very least, the AI needs to ditch the binary since the mind has at least 3 different switches vs. AI's 2.

[Fiona]

See "Terminator" that's my opinion ;)

[Biker]

Ethics, read the article. Instead of storing information in binary, they're using DNA. They eventually hope to grow a processor, using DNA, that would make today's supercomputer look like a Timex watch.

[ethics]

Oh I will when I have more time. Articles like that need to be slowly eaten, savoring every crumb.

[Domh]

Hipifreq has done alot of reading about bio-computing, its a little hobby of his.

Im looking forward to hearing his take on this subject.

[IamZed]

I saw the CNN article the other day, but they covered it better on the screen savers. This guy has made a DNA based machine that can tie a man at tic tac toe. Cool.
AI has been described favorably by a few SF authors. I tend to believe we will only invent that which behooves us,

[Biker]

Just finished watching "I Robot" with Will Smith and I immediately thought of this thread. While it can be argued that the central computer wasn't self aware, it was able to kill humans and by its own logic, stay within the 3 Laws of Robotics. In essence, it was killing a few humans to "save" mankind.

I keep coming back to this thread and reading the dialog every now and then. More and more I feel that self awareness is possible as we make leaps and bounds in the technology field.