The road to Skynet...
 

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:21:19 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is
Here wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:43:56 -0800 (PST), jamesgangnc
wrote:

On Feb 28, 1:57 pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:36:34 -0800 (PST), jamesgangnc

wrote:
Seems we seldom have more than one or two boating topics a day
anyway. But hope springs eternal!
And spring is right around the corner for you high latitude folks. It
was in the 80s here last week but a chilly 40 something this morning.
Hopefully the pool will warm up by late afternoon.

Back to computers: Read up on "the Turing Test" for some fresh
insights:

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

As you can see, this discussion has been going on for a long time. I
would postulate that Kasparov's automated opponent has already passed
the test within its limited realm. At some point, and it may have
already started, computers will be expertly programmed to simulate
feelings, emotion and creative thought. When the simulations become
so well done that world class experts can't tell the difference, what
do you have then?
Simulating human behavior is far from possessing human characteristics.

My blow up doll does both.

Do you mean she bitches at you to turn off the TV Sports channel and has
way too many headaches?

Yeah, dammit. Proof she's learned human characteristics.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

The road to Skynet...
 

On Feb 28, 3:14*pm, Vic Smith wrote:

When I was young I had a real problem engaging in small talk.
Some said it was just a question of maturation.
But I think I'm an android, and just learned it via programmed
accretion of knowledge in observing how humans do it.


Well, what if it turns out your really a 'borg instead????

The road to Skynet...
 

On Feb 28, 4:03*pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:14:01 -0600, Vic Smith

wrote:
But I think I'm an android, and just learned it via programmed
accretion of knowledge in observing how humans do it.
Oh, wait. *That's you! *(-:

Yes - it's true - I am an android. In fact, most of the universe are
biological artificial intelligences evolved well beyond the mere meat
bags here on Earth.

It's all a part of my master plan of Galactic Domination to pose as
human.

And now that you know the truth, you will be receiving a visit from my
team of Android Marines very shortly.

Enjoy your trip to Omicron Persei VIII. *:)

Hmmm, Lurr against Al'ar Phoenix

The road to Skynet...
 

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:43:56 -0800 (PST), jamesgangnc
wrote:

Back to computers: *Read up on "the Turing Test" for some fresh
insights:

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

As you can see, this discussion has been going on for a long time. *I
would postulate that Kasparov's automated opponent has already passed
the test within its limited realm. *At some point, and it may have
already started, computers will be expertly programmed to simulate
feelings, emotion and creative thought. *When the simulations become
so well done that world class experts can't tell the difference, what
do you have then?

Simulating human behavior is far from possessing human characteristics.

Agreed but the point of the Turing test is that if the simulation is
so well done that an expert can not reliably tell the difference, then
intelligence exists.

The road to Skynet...
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:43:56 -0800 (PST), jamesgangnc
wrote:

Back to computers: Read up on "the Turing Test" for some fresh
insights:

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

As you can see, this discussion has been going on for a long time. I
would postulate that Kasparov's automated opponent has already passed
the test within its limited realm. At some point, and it may have
already started, computers will be expertly programmed to simulate
feelings, emotion and creative thought. When the simulations become
so well done that world class experts can't tell the difference, what
do you have then?

Simulating human behavior is far from possessing human characteristics.

Agreed but the point of the Turing test is that if the simulation is
so well done that an expert can not reliably tell the difference, then
intelligence exists.

That was what they believed at the time. I don't think anyone seriously
buys that anymore and no significant efforts in the ai world today are
trying to pass the turing test. The turing test is a pretty old definition
of intelligence. And it all depends on your definition of intelligence.
The original topic was skynet, the fictional suggestion that once a certain
level of computation capability is passed the machine becomes self aware and
decides to destroy mankind Is self awareness a quality of intelligence?
What exactly is self awareness? Does a program that could pass the turing
test also self aware? Is your pet intelligent but just not as intelligent
as us?

The road to Skynet...
 

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:35:13 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Feb 28, 3:14*pm, Vic Smith wrote:

When I was young I had a real problem engaging in small talk.
Some said it was just a question of maturation.
But I think I'm an android, and just learned it via programmed
accretion of knowledge in observing how humans do it.


Well, what if it turns out your really a 'borg instead????

Not too conversant with Borgs, but don't they know they are Borgs?
I have no such knowledge, so I'm probably ok on that.
I do get "signals" sometimes, but attribute those to Larry not
properly modulating his transmissions. Can't be sure they are coming
from Larry, but since "Mercedes" and "fry oil" are often detectable
in the transmissions, it's a good bet.
Then again, maybe I'm just confusing "signals" with actual usenet
posts. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.

--Vic

The road to Skynet...
 

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:19:39 -0500, "jamesgangnc"
wrote:

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:43:56 -0800 (PST), jamesgangnc
wrote:

Back to computers: Read up on "the Turing Test" for some fresh
insights:

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

As you can see, this discussion has been going on for a long time. I
would postulate that Kasparov's automated opponent has already passed
the test within its limited realm. At some point, and it may have
already started, computers will be expertly programmed to simulate
feelings, emotion and creative thought. When the simulations become
so well done that world class experts can't tell the difference, what
do you have then?

Simulating human behavior is far from possessing human characteristics.

Agreed but the point of the Turing test is that if the simulation is
so well done that an expert can not reliably tell the difference, then
intelligence exists.

That was what they believed at the time. I don't think anyone seriously
buys that anymore and no significant efforts in the ai world today are
trying to pass the turing test. The turing test is a pretty old definition
of intelligence. And it all depends on your definition of intelligence.
The original topic was skynet, the fictional suggestion that once a certain
level of computation capability is passed the machine becomes self aware and
decides to destroy mankind Is self awareness a quality of intelligence?
What exactly is self awareness? Does a program that could pass the turing
test also self aware? Is your pet intelligent but just not as intelligent
as us?

Must. Not. Reply. Must. Resist. Replying.

Ah hell... :)

I still think it's a question of defnition. If humankind can wrap
it's collective brain around a concept that will accept intelligence
or a form of consciousness without those features that define us (even
as we struggle to define it outselves as you said), then that will be
the definition.

Consider this - myth brought us Golems, Afreets and Frankenstiens are
all visions of life other than ours. In a sense, Golems, Afreets and
Frankenstiens are extensions of human fear of being duplicated (or
reanimated in the case of Frankenstein). Zombies, ghouls and in
general the undead also are part of these fears.

In short, humans don't wish to be duplicated in any form even if it is
amoral "life" which means that unless and until humans can accept that
other forms of intelligence and consciourness exist. With respect to
the example I provided, all are humanoid in some fashion and operate
on a logic system that is foreign. However, who is to say that the
thought process of an Afreet isn't just a different order of morality
and consciousness?

I'll give you an example of what I mean. We extend the definition of
"life" to single celled organisims. A single celled organism can't
make decisions based on a logic tree and simply exist. On the other
hand, a computer can, and does, make decisionsl based on an ordered
logic system based largely on what we believe human thought does.

How can one non-functional low order form be considered "life" and the
other fully functional higher order form not? I would posit that it's
a bias by organic creatures against those that are not organic - that
even at this early stage of computational "intelligence", computers
are life.

With respect to my dogs, one of them is smarter than I am. :)

The road to Skynet...
 

On Feb 29, 11:58*am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:19:39 -0500, "jamesgangnc"
wrote:





"Wayne.B" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:43:56 -0800 (PST), jamesgangnc
wrote:

Back to computers: Read up on "the Turing Test" for some fresh
insights:

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

As you can see, this discussion has been going on for a long time. I
would postulate that Kasparov's automated opponent has already passed
the test within its limited realm. At some point, and it may have
already started, computers will be expertly programmed to simulate
feelings, emotion and creative thought. When the simulations become
so well done that world class experts can't tell the difference, what
do you have then?

Simulating human behavior is far from possessing human characteristics.

Agreed but the point of the Turing test is that if the simulation is
so well done that an expert can not reliably tell the difference, then
intelligence exists.

That was what they believed at the time. *I don't think anyone seriously
buys that anymore and no significant efforts in the ai world today are
trying to pass the turing test. *The turing test is a pretty old definition
of intelligence. *And it all depends on your definition of intelligence..
The original topic was skynet, the fictional suggestion that once a certain
level of computation capability is passed the machine becomes self aware and
decides to destroy mankind *Is self awareness a quality of intelligence?
What exactly is self awareness? *Does a program that could pass the turing
test also self aware? *Is your pet intelligent but just not as intelligent
as us?

Must. *Not. *Reply. *Must. *Resist. *Replying.

Ah hell... *:)

I still think it's a question of defnition. *If humankind can wrap
it's collective brain around a concept that will accept intelligence
or a form of consciousness without those features that define us (even
as we struggle to define it outselves as you said), then that will be
the definition.

Consider this - myth brought us Golems, Afreets and Frankenstiens are
all visions of life other than ours. *In a sense, Golems, Afreets and
Frankenstiens are extensions of human fear of being duplicated (or
reanimated in the case of Frankenstein). *Zombies, ghouls and in
general the undead also are part of these fears.

In short, humans don't wish to be duplicated in any form even if it is
amoral "life" which means that unless and until humans can accept that
other forms of intelligence and consciourness exist. *With respect to
the example I provided, all are humanoid in some fashion and operate
on a logic system that is foreign. *However, who is to say that the
thought *process of an Afreet isn't just a different order of morality
and consciousness? *

I'll give you an example of what I mean. We extend the definition of
"life" to single celled organisims. *A single celled organism can't
make decisions based on a logic tree and simply exist. *On the other
hand, a computer can, and does, make decisionsl based on an ordered
logic system based largely on what we believe human thought does.

How can one non-functional low order form be considered "life" and the
other fully functional higher order form not? *I would posit that it's
a bias by organic creatures against those that are not organic - that
even at this early stage of computational "intelligence", computers
are life.

With respect to my dogs, one of them is smarter than I am. *:)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I can expand my definition of life to include computers. And your
dog.

I'm also ok with computers being intelligent. And your dog being
intelligent. And most of the posters in this news group being
intelligent.

I'm stalled at self aware and consciousness. I believe those are
qualities outside being able to make logical decisions. I think your
dog is self aware. I think most people that have spent time
interacting with animals recognizes that they do have some self
awareness. Humans did not cross some mytical boundary to become self
aware. Your computer is not self aware. I do not deny the
possibility of mechanical consciousness. But I do not believe that
the present direction of modern computers is leading to such a being.
While it is difficult to agree on the definition of consciousness, I
think the majority of people will want to include characteristics that
are outside simply functioning and making logic tree decisions.
Characteristics that for lack of a better word we call human. You
have to work inside the range of reasonable definitions.

The road to Skynet...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


With respect to my dogs, one of them is smarter than I am. :)

What I have heard, is they all are. ;)

By the way, are you a closet philosopher?
You need to start writing into some weekly publications, your short
essays would definitely create a buzz.

The road to Skynet...
 

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:46:27 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


With respect to my dogs, one of them is smarter than I am. :)

What I have heard, is they all are. ;)

I suspect you may be right.

By the way, are you a closet philosopher?

No - I'm a closet moron.

You need to start writing into some weekly publications, your short
essays would definitely create a buzz.

Last time I did that, a review committee called it a dissertation and
gave me a post graduate degree after asking me some questions and
asking me to defend my position. After about five minutes of spirited
discussion, we broke for coffee and never went back into session -
they granted the degree without dissent.

I've long suspected that none of them actually read it. It was, how
you say, arcane and somewhat obtuse. No, obtuse is way too lenient -
opaque is much more descriptive. Out of the six reviewers, maybe one
understood what I was getting at and her understanding was marginal at
best. What they did read was the acknowledgement page in which every
one of the reviewers was given due credit for their contribution to my
meager efforts and I liberally dropped footnotes using their papers,
essays and, in one case, an item that had nothing what so ever to do
with the dissertation, being so convoluted that it was impossible to
understand, but it sounded good.

You see, mathematicians write in the passive voice using few nouns and
verbs developing a neutral approach without ever actually saying
exactly what it is they wish to say doing it all by implication
sprinkling graphs, charts and equations liberally in between
paragraphs and when they get bored with their own voice they throw in
a semi-colon; and then continue on with their original thought only by
this time the reviewer has gotten so bored with the long sentence that
he/she automatically assumes that something important was said and
thus will agree as long as he/she has been quoted and properly
footnoted.

The secret of my success was very long sentences sometimes
encompassing whole paragraphs and gratuitous fawning - see above. :)

That and color - lots of bright lines, color highlighting equations
and interesting variables and pretty colored explosions of graph
lines. Distracting camouflage which blinded them to the fact that I
didn't know what the hell I was talking about either.

There you have it.