Chat about Artificial Intelligence/Sentience

[joejoefine]

I just wanted to ask whether anyone believes that AI is actually possible, after being inspired by Deus Ex to ask myself such questions. I wanted to post my theory and see whether other people think it makes sense or whether there are alternate possibilities I have not considered. So here goes! By the way, I am not so much arguing that "intelligent" decisions can be made so much as I am arguing against the idea that artificial sentience (or awareness) is possible.

Theoretically, AI must at its core be a complicated script that is somehow capable of adopting identical behavioural patterns of an ordinary human being, thus being capable of reacting to stimuli in ways that have preferrable outcomes based on preprogramming of a "personality" or tendency for the computer to act in specific ways over others (taking the car over a plane to get to a destination for instance).

But no matter how intricate the script or programming may become, it is nothing but that; simply a program. If we observe simple scripts one may write in C++, for instance, the computer is following a basic set of instructions. I think it is clear to say that under these rudimentary conditions (say running a calculator program on C++), the computer can be said to be mechanically running a program the same way an escalator pulls people to a higher point - but neither are sentient.

So it seems to me contradictory to try to create a sentient computer from any form of programming. No matter how complex, you can always dissect the programming code into smaller and smaller fragments that become simple pieces of a complex whole - and these simple pieces are like individual calculator programs, individual escalators (if you will), that individually have no sentience, and which logically, altogether have no sentience.

Is the receival of sensory data or inputs "awareness"? If I program a computer to beep when I type in the number "2", isn't this nothing but another electronic operation that is analogous to putting my finger on one end of a lever to see the other end rise? If this were true, then surely we could say that airplanes are self-aware (they can sense altitude, among other things), which seems rather absurd.

The fundamental aspect of awareness seems to be the acknowledgement of my own existance, and following that, everything that I may do/think/feel. Can you write a program for awareness when it is just a lever, or an escalator in electronic/digital form? I think its impossible, so for this reason I think they should avoid putting efforts into developing truly autonomous artificial intelligence. But they could probably make a pretty darned logical computer of course, and I guess that's what the AI scientists are after if they share my theory on how sentience is impossible from a coding perspective.

Anyways I always wanted to share my thoughts on this after playing Deus Ex. Because I thought the AI programs were really cool (Icarus especially), and I was hoping that they would be possible one day. But then I thought about it more and came to the conclusion that its not possible, and that, furthermore, the human being can not be a biological program (the analogy to artificial intelligence), and must have something more..the "awareness" factor, which then pushed me into metaphysical areas. Then I learned about out of body experiences and the apparent existance of the "soul". Interesting times! I think there is a lot available if you merely have an open mind and want to figure things out on your own...and there's so much available on the internet these days.

Look forward to comments, but glad to share my thoughts anyways :)

[HouseOfPain]

Jo Jo Fine? What I tell you girl!

*Sorry, Massive Deus Ex nerd*

Anyway, Im in a hurry but I just recently re-watched Bicentennial Man! AI ftw, ill update later.

[rg_001100]

So it seems to me contradictory to try to create a sentient computer from any form of programming. No matter how complex, you can always dissect the programming code into smaller and smaller fragments that become simple pieces of a complex whole - and these simple pieces are like individual calculator programs, individual escalators (if you will), that individually have no sentience, and which logically, altogether have no sentience.

Not sure if I can comment... but wouldn't this paragraph sort of depend on whether you'd consider humans something special, or just a collection of bones and muscle moving about pointlessly... I suppose that counts as a religious view.
Because if humans are nothing special, and just a bunch of atoms & electrons... then surely the human brain (which I'd assume could be called intelligent) can just be broken down into smaller and smaller parts. "[simple] pieces of a complex whole".
If this is the case, that humans aren't anything special then I'd see only limitations in technology as the limit in creating AI. (We were "made"... AI can be "made" too.)

[tombraider1best]

Well Lara Is Artificial And She Is Very Intelligent

But Yes There Watching Always Watching

No Yes I Do Belive In Ai It's Reel

[Xaander Le]

It is possible for AI now (it dictates the behaviour of non-player characters in games, even if they all act thick), and it would be great if someday computers could behave like people. Just as long as they cannot to any of the following:

1) Kill themselves.
2) Kill any one else.
3) Have boring voices that send people to sleep.
4) Sing really badly.
5) Point-blank refuse to do something.

For those who haven't figured out what I'm referencing yet, here's some examples!

1) "I cannot self-terminate. You must lower me into the steel" (The Terminator in Terminator 2: Judgement Day)

2) Numerous fictional AI's

3) "Hello Dave..." (H.A.L. in 2001: A Space Odessey)

4) (Again, H.A.L. in 2001: A Space Odessey, the scene where his memory chips are being removed so he starts up again and starts singing 'Daisy' as his voice slows down until it stops altogether)

5) "I'm afraid I can't let you do that Dave." (Yep, its H.A.L. again!)

[HouseOfPain]

It is possible for AI now (it dictates the behaviour of non-player characters in games, even if they all act thick), and it would be great if someday computers could behave like people. Just as long as they cannot to any of the following:

1) Kill themselves.
2) Kill any one else.
3) Have boring voices that send people to sleep.
4) Sing really badly.
5) Point-blank refuse to do something.

For those who haven't figured out what I'm referencing yet, here's some examples!

1) "I cannot self-terminate. You must lower me into the steel" (The Terminator in Terminator 2: Judgement Day)

2) Numerous fictional AI's

3) "Hello Dave..." (H.A.L. in 2001: A Space Odessey)

4) (Again, H.A.L. in 2001: A Space Odessey, the scene where his memory chips are being removed so he starts up again and starts singing 'Daisy' as his voice slows down until it stops altogether)

5) "I'm afraid I can't let you do that Dave." (Yep, its H.A.L. again!)

You're crazy, Hal had a sexy voice :cool:

How about an AI with a suave british accent?

[joejoefine]

oh you guys :)

Not sure if I can comment... but wouldn't this paragraph sort of depend on whether you'd consider humans something special, or just a collection of bones and muscle moving about pointlessly... I suppose that counts as a religious view.
Because if humans are nothing special, and just a bunch of atoms & electrons... then surely the human brain (which I'd assume could be called intelligent) can just be broken down into smaller and smaller parts. "[simple] pieces of a complex whole".
If this is the case, that humans aren't anything special then I'd see only limitations in technology as the limit in creating AI. (We were "made"... AI can be "made" too.)

I agree - actually, I think I realized when I finished my post that, according to my view, human beings couldn't be sentient if they were just biological machines. So that's why it pushed me into believing that there IS something more - whether that's a Christian god (I doubt!) or "the source of all life" I can't know for sure, but yeah. It seems that, inadvertently, arguing against the existence of AI seems to have also argued against the whole principle of atheism, that consciousness is possible without a god, or supernatural entity. Who knows what consciousness really is, what "god" is, but it seems to me that there must be something else, because otherwise we would be impossibly conscious machines, an intricate set of chemical and electronic levers, our whole lives would be reactionary and effectively dead.

By the way, I can't help but kill joejoefine every time I meet him, just because he's such a drugged-out, trouble-making punk! Maybe I should have taken a different screen name ;) . Like Daedalus or something..that's coo.

Anyways, maybe I'll post my question on a philosophy forum somewhere, where people quote others a lot :).

[rg_001100]

oh you guys :)



I agree - actually, I think I realized when I finished my post that, according to my view, human beings couldn't be sentient if they were just biological machines. So that's why it pushed me into believing that there IS something more - whether that's a Christian god (I doubt!) or "the source of all life" I can't know for sure, but yeah. It seems that, inadvertently, arguing against the existence of AI seems to have also argued against the whole principle of atheism, that consciousness is possible without a god, or supernatural entity. Who knows what consciousness really is, what "god" is, but it seems to me that there must be something else, because otherwise we would be impossibly conscious machines, an intricate set of chemical and electronic levers, our whole lives would be reactionary and effectively dead.

By the way, I can't help but kill joejoefine every time I meet him, just because he's such a drugged-out, trouble-making punk! Maybe I should have taken a different screen name ;) . Like Daedalus or something..that's coo.

Anyways, maybe I'll post my question on a philosophy forum somewhere, where people quote others a lot :).

Of green (sorry the green is hard to read... but "green" was indistinguishable): Haha, I'm a christian :rasp: (but I do respect your belief, or lack of...) ([wise, all knowing voice:] and doubting is okay... :P). Argument of AI if people are special... possibly.

Of blue: Reality is a myth :nut:... I dunno. If I think I think does that mean I can think?

Of red: Don't expect an answer from the philosophy forums any time soon :nut: I wonder why that would be...

[John Carter]

Interesting subject and interesting questions. Too bad I'm not particularly smart on the issue. :nut: However, at work an interesting study on an unrelated topic came in which addressed some of the AI issues you bring up.

As you note, thus far, despite science's increasing understanding of the function of the human brain and the chemical/electrical processes that are involved, there is as yet absolutely no empirically definable clue as to what process or collection of processes is responsible for "consciousness", self-awareness, sentience, call it what you will. While specific areas of the brain can be clearly linked to specific forms of reasoning and emotional responses, the "divine spark" of identity and personality is thus far completely undetectable.

The study assumed that someday in the not-close future an AI MIGHT be developed, but not before 70 years or so. As you note with your discussion of programming issues, the authors did not believe Moore's law applied to creation of AI. They seemed to believe that a hypothethical AI might eventually be developed by extremely complex "learning machines" that were not themselves sentient, and would be the product of many, many previous generations of machine-designed machine, which would eventually have to mimic biological architectures to achieve success.

Would like to be able to quote the study, but it was proprietary. That particular part, while quite interesting, wasn't definitive about anything except the complexity of the issue.

[rg_001100]

1) Interesting subject and interesting questions. Too bad I'm not particularly smart on the issue. :nut: However, at work an interesting study on an unrelated topic came in which addressed some of the AI issues you bring up.

[Stuff about the brain...]

2) The study assumed that someday in the not-close future an AI MIGHT be developed, but not before 70 years or so. As you note with your discussion of programming issues, the authors did not believe Moore's law applied to creation of AI. They seemed to believe that a hypothethical AI might eventually be developed by extremely complex "learning machines" that were not themselves sentient, and would be the product of many, many previous generations of machine-designed machine, which would eventually have to mimic biological architectures to achieve success.


1) "Not particularly smart on the issue"? :confused: (If you're not you can fake it pretty well. I hope I can too...).

2) These "learning machines" that (hypothetically) make the sentient machines:
I'd've thought that to be able to make something as complex as a sentient machine, even for a "learning machine" would take analytical skills, which would have to ask "why?" about something (and be able to answer the question). Or at least interpret meaning from data (e.g. I look at those pixels, see patterns, = see symbols, see letters, see words, see meaning, etc.). I mean, I can understand a robot might be able to see a trend... but I don't think it would be able to make a conclusion from that, without having been told before that it happened that way.

[John Carter]

1) "Not particularly smart on the issue"? :confused: (If you're not you can fake it pretty well. I hope I can too...).

2) These "learning machines" that (hypothetically) make the sentient machines:
I'd've thought that to be able to make something as complex as a sentient machine, even for a "learning machine" would take analytical skills, which would have to ask "why?" about something (and be able to answer the question). Or at least interpret meaning from data (e.g. I look at those pixels, see patterns, = see symbols, see letters, see words, see meaning, etc.). I mean, I can understand a robot might be able to see a trend... but I don't think it would be able to make a conclusion from that, without having been told before that it happened that way.

That's what I meant by not being too smart on the subject. :) I don't know how "dumb" machines could be expected to produce a "smart" machine, save by running enough modelling and simulation experiments that would have to be based on whiz-bang input from a human "hunch" that pays off. The finer details of the "how" weren't really the focus of the study, more the societal implications of successful AI creation, which, unsuprisingly, used the word "Terminator" to describe the worst-case scenario. Here's a link to the website of one of the source authors of a less grim scenario that seemed to postulate some sort of fuzzily uplifting transformation, rather than extinction, of humanity as a result of AI development- http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?m=1

[rg_001100]

That's what I meant by not being too smart on the subject. :) I don't know how "dumb" machines could be expected to produce a "smart" machine, save by running enough modelling and simulation experiments that would have to be based on whiz-bang input from a human "hunch" that pays off. The finer details of the "how" weren't really the focus of the study, more the societal implications of successful AI creation, which, unsuprisingly, used the word "Terminator" to describe the worst-case scenario. Here's a link to the website of one of the source authors of a less grim scenario that seemed to postulate some sort of fuzzily uplifting transformation, rather than extinction, of humanity as a result of AI development- http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?m=1

:nut: is how I feel when I read through the titles and explaination of those documents (haven't had a go at reading any of them). It would seem some people would consider the "terminator" scenario a success of humanity...

[Rachie]

To create artificial Intelligence is like to create a human being, or a computer capable of thinking.

It's like making a brain or something from scratch, re-creating the human race but to an advanced intelligence level.

Sounds incredibly bizarre to me.

Would we really want to make that? Unless we follow along I, Robot's footsteps.....

And then the robots didn't go to kill us all and take over (in a way). The followed the logic that, using Sonny's words:

"Sometimes the created must protect the creator."

If that does happen, let's hope they go down that thought track. :lol:

[rg_001100]

Would we really want to make that? Unless we follow along I, Robot's footsteps.....


To prove that we could.... (that and it would probably bring about massive leaps in technology... for the good or otherwise of humanity.)

[Xaander Le]

If somebody did make an 'AI' that could gain sentience, they would have to carefully debug their code (if code was used) to prevent bugs or ensure that it could not end up thinking about a paradox such as 'how to prevent a person coming to harm when they are hell-bent on killing themselves and/or others' (if we follow Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics) or set up the AI to truthfully report all information it has, only to then tell it to hide information.

Ok, those two examples are based on AI's in films (I, Robot's V.I.K.I. and Space Odessey's H.A.L.), but what is terrifying is that those scenarios could easily become reality. Not to mention what might happen if we put an AI in charge of a major stockpile of missiles, then attempt to pull the plug when it becomes self-aware.

[HouseOfPain]

To create artificial Intelligence is like to create a human being, or a computer capable of thinking.

It's like making a brain or something from scratch, re-creating the human race but to an advanced intelligence level.

Sounds incredibly bizarre to me.

Would we really want to make that? Unless we follow along I, Robot's footsteps.....

And then the robots didn't go to kill us all and take over (in a way). The followed the logic that, using Sonny's words:

"Sometimes the created must protect the creator."

If that does happen, let's hope they go down that thought track. :lol:

Perhaps humans are lonely.

We need something of intelligence to talk to other than ourselves.

I am sure AI is possible, but not for some time. (As an Atheist I would say we are nothing special and I think it is possible to create AI)

I think the only thing holding a religious person back from the thought of AI would be the lack of a 'soul'.

Therefor I think it can be done!

EDIT: Instead of I, Robot's robots, think more along the lines of Mass Effect's AI robots, which were made by the Quarians and then subsequently turned against them to form their own society to combat organic life.

[Scadvid]

I think the only thing holding a religious person back from the thought of AI would be the lack of a 'soul'.

And a conscience.

Machines without one = mass extermination (see the fear in DX3).

[Eddy Bones]

Here's the dilema. When you write a program, you're just writing logic. This logic can very well impersonate true human nature, but what it comes down to in our current programming practices is a complex system of human logic (if-else, loops, and case structures). It doesn't account for conscience, true emotion, etc.

You really have two options. The first is think of every action humanly possible and program for such an event. But this isn't really intelligent.

The second option is to produce self-writing code that updates itself based on external stimuli. This is sort of possible but probably a pain in the butt to do. You have two coding methods: Compiled code and interpreted code. If you make AI to be auto-writing, it also needs to be auto-compiling, and depending on the sheer size of the code base you would be sitting there waiting for your AI creature to finish before every new action. It already takes forever to compile the bits and pieces of a computer program - I wouldn't want to attempt to compile a simulated brain. If it's interpreted, you're still going to have to wait forever because of the top-down interpretation of the code. It's like a letter - start at the top and go down.

So for one thing, our processors are going to have to step it up a lot because I believe AI code would be greatly more extensive and processor-heavy than any other code.

You can program little behavioural quirks and pseudo-random actions, but they're still in essence just logical behaviours. You may not always be able to guess what your AI is going to do, but it's always calculated logically based on the variables passed in. I can't imagine trying to program the vast array of human nonsense into AI. Two people sitting in the same room will do two very different things due to the same stimuli.

Aside from all that, we just don't have a real coding practice for AI yet. We have object-oriented programming, but we don't have anything near conscience-oriented programming. We have programming for temperature and speed and weight and time and dimension and every measurable thing you can think of, but try adding all those together and making them act upon each other. What a mess that would be!

The only standard for intelligence is the human brain which we do not fully understand. How can we make artificial intelligence yet if we don't understand out own intelligence?

Well I'm not the best programmer of all time (yet... gotta be optimistic) though it is my career. So those are just some base, generic thoughts about the matter... :)

[jcp28]

Oh sure, it's possible. I think that pretty much any intelligent being can have their mind broken down into parts as described by above posters. So we can certainly make AI. But I don't think there's really much we can do if any of them decide to go "Terminator" on us. However, if we take care to prevent such events from occuring, that would be highly unlikely.

[Scadvid]

The only standard for intelligence is the human brain which we do not fully understand. How can we make artificial intelligence yet if we don't understand out own intelligence?

And learning about daily. Like we're not born with all the brain cells we thought we had...just something medicine learned recently.

But intelligence is just one side of the equation. "What defines humaness" also will be a problem to manually code. We can do gestures as that's visible and Human A and Human B can see and understand it despite all translation problems. But human mannerisms on cue, and randomly (like when we're bored or tired or "not thinking")? It could be coded but humans will sense something is still off, that's artificial, as it's not one of us.

Then, how does one program a conscience? To give a machine the ability to understand consequences in not just rote (programming A = B and don't cross the C line)? That's requiring to program something even higher -- wisdom (the ability to know the difference of cause and effect).

That technology won't exist for decades (and will we want machines to actually THINK? The whole nightmare of sub-classes and rights and all from manmade pieces of steel and plastic? Can man handle such "life" and recognize it as being equal to us, or even compete with us to be the top of the food chain [and what happens when we program these machines to EAT -- as that will come, because some programmer would think it's "kewl"]?).

We want dumb AI, that is human like. But to get to be human like requires facing all the ethical/moral issues that goes with it, like machines regarded as equals or superior to humans themselves.

Can mankind handle that responsibility?

[HouseOfPain]

And learning about daily. Like we're not born with all the brain cells we thought we had...just something medicine learned recently.

But intelligence is just one side of the equation. "What defines humaness" also will be a problem to manually code. We can do gestures as that's visible and Human A and Human B can see and understand it despite all translation problems. But human mannerisms on cue, and randomly (like when we're bored or tired or "not thinking")? It could be coded but humans will sense something is still off, that's artificial, as it's not one of us.

Then, how does one program a conscience? To give a machine the ability to understand consequences in not just rote (programming A = B and don't cross the C line)? That's requiring to program something even higher -- wisdom (the ability to know the difference of cause and effect).

That technology won't exist for decades (and will we want machines to actually THINK? The whole nightmare of sub-classes and rights and all from manmade pieces of steel and plastic? Can man handle such "life" and recognize it as being equal to us, or even compete with us to be the top of the food chain [and what happens when we program these machines to EAT -- as that will come, because some programmer would think it's "kewl"]?).

We want dumb AI, that is human like. But to get to be human like requires facing all the ethical/moral issues that goes with it, like machines regarded as equals or superior to humans themselves.

Can mankind handle that responsibility?

(This should be in the Deus Ex Thread too :P)

Simply because it begs to answer the question "What makes us human".

Is it our flesh? Bone? Mind? Intelligence?

I think it is our self-awareness coupled with our ability to feel emotion. If you can get a machine to fell those two things, I would consider that to be human.

Intelligence doesnt make someone human, simply because we have a lot of stupid people and a lot of smart machines.

Also, Can mankind handle the responsibility? When we still judge other HUMANS by the color of their skin and their religion? Mankind as a whole is a terrible person. Soon we'll tip the scale between Dumbasses and Smart, intelligent, and all around kind humans. But thats not for a few more decades ;)

[Scadvid]

(This should be in the Deus Ex Thread too :P)

Hands are full already! :lol:

Simply because it begs to answer the question "What makes us human".

Mankind will debate that question until he's no more (e.g., "I think, therefore I am"), and in the end will it even matter? We are limited beings with a ticking time bomb of fate and mortality. The former dictates our very existence; the latter, which limits seeing "the end" to know how far we can exist.

We live in the here-and-now dreaming of the future. The very future we'll never even see or experience.

And the point? To dream? For what r-e-a-l purpose other than an intellectual challenge?

Mankind's greatest asset and his greatest curse is his mind. He can use it for good (to benefit the species); or evil (to destroy the species). The search and application of REAL AI is one of those mind teasers, that can do either.

We want so much to be God, and in turn, may even try to destroy Him with his own creation (much like how the DX game has played out), and in essence, destroy ourselves as mankind's idea of God is his own image.

Self-defeating prophecy.

BTW, I'm a Deist for many reasons, this "meaning of life" being one of them. ;)

[rg_001100]

I am sure AI is possible, but not for some time. (As an Atheist I would say we are nothing special and I think it is possible to create AI)

I think the only thing holding a religious person back from the thought of AI would be the lack of a 'soul'.


I wouldn't say an Atheist would find it any easier to program an AI than a religious person.

And a conscience.


Sentience brings with it the conscience.

You can program little behavioural quirks and pseudo-random actions, but they're still in essence just logical behaviours. You may not always be able to guess what your AI is going to do, but it's always calculated logically based on the variables passed in. I can't imagine trying to program the vast array of human nonsense into AI. Two people sitting in the same room will do two very different things due to the same stimuli.


(I liked that paragraph about constant compiling or interpretation of the brain :lol:... the brain's "hardware" though...)

And so we wonder if humans just perform their actions based on some sort of "programmed" logic... or if there is some sort of "soul", personality dictating the decisions we make differently to others. (I'm sorry, I haven't played DX... it sounds interesting).

[Scadvid]

Sentience brings with it the conscience.

Yet actual awareness can't be programmed itself (that's REAL life). And if mankind can't fathom HOW to do so, sentience won't exist.

No magic wands in this. Real AI (the type that is self-sufficient) has to start from bits and bytes of code, and evolve into it's own life BEYOND the code itself.

The machine becomes a man.

Accelerated evolution per se, but from code to life itself (200 years? 2000 years? But evolve it must, and without mankind's thumb print).

Only then can a machine be sentinent.

Personally hope it'll never get to that extent, as that'll be the fall of mankind. A new species will emerge, and as time and history has showed, the new species kills off the old for survival. Co-existence would be impossible, as the new life will require even more resources to live than even mankind (artificial life is extremely costly in energy [again stressed!] and resources to maintain).

[HouseOfPain]

I wouldn't say an Atheist would find it any easier to program an AI than a religious person.

Thats not what I meant, what I meant by that is that as an Atheist I think I find it easier to believe that AI is possible more than someone who is religious. My religious friends think that intelligence and the like are made from God and that humans cant create intelligence because we are... inferior to God.
:nut: :nut: :nut:

[jcp28]

Yet actual awareness can't be programmed itself (that's REAL life). And if mankind can't fathom HOW to do so, sentience won't exist.

No magic wands in this. Real AI (the type that is self-sufficient) has to start from bits and bytes of code, and evolve into it's own life BEYOND the code itself.

The machine becomes a man.

Accelerated evolution per se, but from code to life itself (200 years? 2000 years? But evolve it must, and without mankind's thumb print).

Only then can a machine be sentinent.

Personally hope it'll never get to that extent, as that'll be the fall of mankind. A new species will emerge, and as time and history has showed, the new species kills off the old for survival. Co-existence would be impossible, as the new life will require even more resources to live than even mankind (artificial life is extremely costly in energy [again stressed!] and resources to maintain).

Oh, it's certainly possible for this to happen. Whenever you have two different groups that have to share limited resources, then conflict becomes that much more likely to break out the more those resources are depleted. But I'd be careful before stating how quick AI would turn to violence.

Partly because I kind of disagree with your argument about resources. I would hope that 200-2000 years in the future, our population growth will have stabilized and that we will have spread out to other planets, minimizing these problems that I admit are very worrisome in our modern world.

Not to mention that we'll likely have technology that will allow us to allocate the resources however we want.

I'm not saying something like you postulated isn't impossible, but other scenarios, like "benevolent protection like AIs" could happen too. But that all depends if things develop like the Orion's Arm universe, where there are AI "gods" all over the place, or if they are more the sort of thing that is kept under guard in a military base as sort of "super-secret" weapons.

[BLOWHARD]

Plenty of great science fiction has been written about AI, Asimov, Clarke, SO many more. I really like Rudy Rucker's absurdists approach. But really, in modern terms, you can't talk AI in fiction without William Gibson's Sprawl series. Each of the books in the series focuses on AI and the AI controls the motion of the plot.
Great stuff, if you read and want to see how convoluted imaginary AI can be, you need to read Neuromancer, Count Zero and Mona Lisa Overdrive!!! :)

Oh, one other thing, "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?" :D

[Scadvid]

Partly because I kind of disagree with your argument about resources. I would hope that 200-2000 years in the future, our population growth will have stabilized and that we will have spread out to other planets, minimizing these problems that I admit are very worrisome in our modern world.

It's like this.

To get to the next technological age, whatever society that wants to advance must have the ability to produce 10x the amount of energy of the technological age they're currently in to get there. Currently in the USA we produce only 2x the amount needed.

Each leap forward the society has to produce more efficient energy resources to enjoy the benefits of their new technology. The zest for more "clean" fuel (and what I mean about that isn't between something like solar and fossil fuel, but the quality of the energy itself. High density and level output [steady wavelength]), will tax all resources to produce it.

Understand 10x the amount of energy production can't come from things like fuel cells, hydrogen or whatever battery source so planned as a oil replacement (very limited). It has to be a constant, ready source of energy. Things like a Dyson sphere is what it'll take to get the quantity of energy needed. The quality will have to be refined (much like crude oil is refined into gasoline), on every further technological advancement.

Then look at the trouble the world has just to get ISS up and running. Now think of the thousands of light collectors, that must be maintained (all those service missions, that will still need humans to eyeball them, as machines aren't very reliable in space -- one X-class flare and fried city!).

[And all this has to be in place before we can even think of colonizations on Mars and beyond].

Imagine the fight for energy in 200 to 2000 years, because the infrastructure needed to produce that much energy. Humans could live without it, future machines couldn't survive without it (who'll depend on "clean" high output energy sources). When humans will cry for their needs, the machines will cry for their needs, and all hell will break lose when they compete for resources (e.g., mankind food and water/machines energy [the one thing it can't replicate itself much like it's parts]).

Then add the wrinkle of some despotted programmer who thought machines should be more "human" and decided Star Trek was fun, and makes a "harmless and funny" Data that now eats.

Notice Sci-Fi writers don't want to even go there? That fascination with making himself [vanity] stops just short of the machine actually being on top of the food chain [it's fear of being consumed].

It's why mankind should REALLY think ahead of the consequences of making AI "life like" and not just think of what's "kewl" and "hells bells" of reprecussions, because the fascination of playing God can exterminate the species (and the history of mankind is he's always in the "here and now", greedy for things today, without a thought of tomorrow).

Between humans and machines, the most efficient in the use of resources will survive (and that won't be humans, as we're so organic, primitive and petty).

[HouseOfPain]

It's like this.

To get to the next technological age, whatever society that wants to advance must have the ability to produce 10x the amount of energy of the technological age they're currently in to get there. Currently in the USA we produce only 2x the amount needed.

Each leap forward the society has to produce more efficient energy resources to enjoy the benefits of their new technology. The zest for more "clean" fuel (and what I mean about that isn't between something like solar and fossil fuel, but the quality of the energy itself. High density and level output [steady wavelength]), will tax all resources to produce it.

Understand 10x the amount of energy production can't come from things like fuel cells, hydrogen or whatever battery source so planned as a oil replacement (very limited). It has to be a constant, ready source of energy. Things like a Dyson sphere is what it'll take to get the quantity of energy needed. The quality will have to be refined (much like crude oil is refined into gasoline), on every further technological advancement.

Then look at the trouble the world has just to get ISS up and running. Now think of the thousands of light collectors, that must be maintained (all those service missions, that will still need humans to eyeball them, as machines aren't very reliable in space -- one X-class flare and fried city!).

[And all this has to be in place before we can even think of colonizations on Mars and beyond].

Imagine the fight for energy in 200 to 2000 years, because the infrastructure needed to produce that much energy. Humans could live without it, future machines couldn't survive without it (who'll depend on "clean" high output energy sources). When humans will cry for their needs, the machines will cry for their needs, and all hell will break lose when they compete for resources (e.g., mankind food and water/machines energy [the one thing it can't replicate itself much like it's parts]).

Then add the wrinkle of some despotted programmer who thought machines should be more "human" and decided Star Trek was fun, and makes a "harmless and funny" Data that now eats.

Notice Sci-Fi writers don't want to even go there? That fascination with making himself [vanity] stops just short of the machine actually being on top of the food chain [it's fear of being consumed].

It's why mankind should REALLY think ahead of the consequences of making AI "life like" and not just think of what's "kewl" and "hells bells" of reprecussions, because the fascination of playing God can exterminate the species (and the history of mankind is he's always in the "here and now", greedy for things today, without a thought of tomorrow).

Between humans and machines, the most efficient in the use of resources will survive (and that won't be humans, as we're so organic, primitive and petty).

Quoted for truth

Us humans suck :nut:

[jcp28]

It's like this.

To get to the next technological age, whatever society that wants to advance must have the ability to produce 10x the amount of energy of the technological age they're currently in to get there. Currently in the USA we produce only 2x the amount needed.

Each leap forward the society has to produce more efficient energy resources to enjoy the benefits of their new technology. The zest for more "clean" fuel (and what I mean about that isn't between something like solar and fossil fuel, but the quality of the energy itself. High density and level output [steady wavelength]), will tax all resources to produce it.

Understand 10x the amount of energy production can't come from things like fuel cells, hydrogen or whatever battery source so planned as a oil replacement (very limited). It has to be a constant, ready source of energy. Things like a Dyson sphere is what it'll take to get the quantity of energy needed. The quality will have to be refined (much like crude oil is refined into gasoline), on every further technological advancement.

Then look at the trouble the world has just to get ISS up and running. Now think of the thousands of light collectors, that must be maintained (all those service missions, that will still need humans to eyeball them, as machines aren't very reliable in space -- one X-class flare and fried city!).

[And all this has to be in place before we can even think of colonizations on Mars and beyond].

Imagine the fight for energy in 200 to 2000 years, because the infrastructure needed to produce that much energy. Humans could live without it, future machines couldn't survive without it (who'll depend on "clean" high output energy sources). When humans will cry for their needs, the machines will cry for their needs, and all hell will break lose when they compete for resources (e.g., mankind food and water/machines energy [the one thing it can't replicate itself much like it's parts]).

Then add the wrinkle of some despotted programmer who thought machines should be more "human" and decided Star Trek was fun, and makes a "harmless and funny" Data that now eats.

Notice Sci-Fi writers don't want to even go there? That fascination with making himself [vanity] stops just short of the machine actually being on top of the food chain [it's fear of being consumed].

It's why mankind should REALLY think ahead of the consequences of making AI "life like" and not just think of what's "kewl" and "hells bells" of reprecussions, because the fascination of playing God can exterminate the species (and the history of mankind is he's always in the "here and now", greedy for things today, without a thought of tomorrow).

Between humans and machines, the most efficient in the use of resources will survive (and that won't be humans, as we're so organic, primitive and petty).

Maybe so. But this would take a while. The possibility of conflict is one that can be spotted pretty early on by those who pay attention. Which tend to be fringe people, admittedly. But Believe me, it's not like I would welcome AI with open arms either. I just think that if we have the resources at some point to deal with it, we should. However if we don't have such resources, I'd support cutting funding for ANY AI research.

You remind me a lot of this guy who runs another site I go to with the way you look at population control and conflict. Even though I kind of agree with such an outlook, I don't try to discount anything else either. However if there's NO possibility that things could not be improved somehow, then I see your point of view as being far more accurate.

[Scadvid]

I take a more problematic look at cause and effect, knowing that mankind is a selfish beast that is only looking out for his interests today. Those who sound the alarm tend to be marginalized as "kooks" and what not, because the status quo prefers to deal with the "here and now" (much like the status of R+D in industry today).

I'd rather shine a candle in the darkness, than live with a dirty conscience in just "riding the wagon".

Principles over popularity anyday.

So I raise the spectre of "what can be" about REAL AI, before folks turn it into a black comedy straight from "Red Dwarf" that won't be in the future. So many read and dream, but forget dreams also have consequences.