Life's purpose is to create Artificial General Intelligence [WRONG]

[Strange]

You haven't answered the questions. Again.

Just a reminder, the questions were: What  is evolution optimising? Why?

You have not said what is being optimised. (Apart form the so-vague-it-is-meaningless "cognitive tasks".)

And you haven't said why.

I would add to these questions: what are the constraints; in other words what has to be traded off against "cognitive tasks"?

(I am not holding my breath for any sort of intelligent answer, though.)

Here is how science works. You gather some evidence, come up with a hypothesis and then make a prediction based on that hypothesis. The prediction is tested against observations.

For example: my hypothesis, based on the evidence of this thread, is that you don't understand your own idea enough to explain it or even talk about it in any detail. The prediction from this hypothesis is that you will respond to my questions above simply by repeating exactly the same thing you have said before (or just referencing previous answers) and, possibly, adding a link to a source with no obvious relevance (and no explanation of its relevance).

Over to you ...

[dimreepr]

28 minutes ago, Strange said:

You haven't answered the questions. Again.

Just a reminder, the questions were: What  is evolution optimising? Why?

You have not said what is being optimised. (Apart form the so-vague-it-is-meaningless "cognitive tasks".)

And you haven't said why.

I would add to these questions: what are the constraints; in other words what has to be traded off against "cognitive tasks"?

(I am not holding my breath for any sort of intelligent answer, though.)

Here is how science works. You gather some evidence, come up with a hypothesis and then make a prediction based on that hypothesis. The prediction is tested against observations.

For example: my hypothesis, based on the evidence of this thread, is that you don't understand your own idea enough to explain it or even talk about it in any detail. The prediction from this hypothesis is that you will respond to my questions above simply by repeating exactly the same thing you have said before (or just referencing previous answers) and, possibly, adding a link to a source with no obvious relevance (and no explanation of its relevance).

Over to you ...

Don't play with the troll...

 

[Area54]

@thoughtfuhk

Please define, explain, or at least list "cognitive tasks".

Please justify the claim that as such tasks became optimized that intelligence became more generalised.

Please clarify whether, as your statement in the last post clearly implies, such generalisation occured across all mammals, or whether it was restricted to certain taxonomic levels. In either instance, what is your evidence for such an assertion?

[thoughtfuhk]

4 hours ago, Strange said:

You haven't answered the questions. Again.

Just a reminder, the questions were: What  is evolution optimising? Why?

You have not said what is being optimised. (Apart form the so-vague-it-is-meaningless "cognitive tasks".)

And you haven't said why.

I would add to these questions: what are the constraints; in other words what has to be traded off against "cognitive tasks"?

(I am not holding my breath for any sort of intelligent answer, though.)

Here is how science works. You gather some evidence, come up with a hypothesis and then make a prediction based on that hypothesis. The prediction is tested against observations.

For example: my hypothesis, based on the evidence of this thread, is that you don't understand your own idea enough to explain it or even talk about it in any detail. The prediction from this hypothesis is that you will respond to my questions above simply by repeating exactly the same thing you have said before (or just referencing previous answers) and, possibly, adding a link to a source with no obvious relevance (and no explanation of its relevance).

Over to you ...

1.a) Your words: "What is evolution optimizing?"

1.b) My response:

1.c) Evolution is optimising ways of contributing to the increase of entropy, as systems very slowly approach equilibrium. (The universe's predicted end)

1.d) Within that process, work or activities done through several ranges of intelligent behaviour are reasonably ways of contributing to the increase of entropy.

1.e) As species got more and more intelligent, nature was finding better ways to contribute to increases of entropy. (Intelligent systems can be observed as being biased towards entropy maximization)

1.f) Humans are slowly getting smarter, but even if we augment our intellect by crispr like routines or implants, we will reasonably be limited by how many computational units or neurons etc fit in our skulls.

1.g) AGI/ASI won't be subject to the size of the human skull/human cognitive hardware. (Laws of physics/thermodynamics permits human exceeding intelligence in non biological form)

1.h) As AGI/ASI won't face the limits that humans do, they are a subsequent step (though non biological) particularly in the regime of contributing to better ways of increasing entropy, compared to humans.

2) The above is why the purpose of the human species, is reasonably to create AGI/ASI.

 

Edited January 8, 2018 by thoughtfuhk

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

1.c) Evolution is optimising ways of contributing to the increase of entropy, as systems very slowly approach equilibrium. (The universe's predicted end)

So is the purpose of evolution (and hence life) to accelerate the end of the universe?

And how, exactly, does evolution optimise the increase entropy?

You have moved from generic claims of "cognitive tasks" to equally generic claims of "increase of entropy". I think you need to be a bit more specific before anyone can understand what you are saying.

5 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

1.d) Within that process, work done through several ranges of intelligent behaviour are of course ways of contributing to the increase of entropy.

Hold the "of course".

Can you explain, or give examples of, how intelligence contributes to the increase of entropy?

6 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

Intelligent systems can be observed as being biased towards entropy maximization

Can you give some examples or references for this?

Quote

2) The above is why the purpose of the human species, is reasonably to create AGI/ASI.

This conclusion seems to be based on a number of loosely connected and contentious ideas:

• That evolution increases the rate of increase of entropy.
• That this is the "purpose" of evolution, rather than just a side effect
• That if this is the purpose of evolution it is also the purpose of humans. Many would argue that we can invent our own purpose (for example, being good, worshiping one or more gods, helping others, creating art, etc)
• That general AI is both possible and achievable (for example, "laws of physics/thermodynamics permits human exceeding intelligence in non biological form" is currently an unjustified assumption)
• That we should create AI to do this better (rather than for more practical reasons like improving health care, industrial safety, caring for the elderly, etc)

A generic AI that is smarter than humans might come up with their own purpose. They might decide they should find a way to reverse entropy: http://multivax.com/last_question.html

[thoughtfuhk]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

So is the purpose of evolution (and hence life) to accelerate the end of the universe?

And how, exactly, does evolution optimise the increase entropy?

You have moved from generic claims of "cognitive tasks" to equally generic claims of "increase of entropy". I think you need to be a bit more specific before anyone can understand what you are saying.

Hold the "of course".

Can you explain, or give examples of, how intelligence contributes to the increase of entropy?

Can you give some examples or references for this?

This conclusion seems to be based on a number of loosely connected and contentious ideas:

• That evolution increases the rate of increase of entropy.
• That this is the "purpose" of evolution, rather than just a side effect
• That if this is the purpose of evolution it is also the purpose of humans. Many would argue that we can invent our own purpose (for example, being good, worshiping one or more gods, helping others, creating art, etc)
• That general AI is both possible and achievable (for example, "laws of physics/thermodynamics permits human exceeding intelligence in non biological form" is currently an unjustified assumption)
• That we should create AI to do this better (rather than for more practical reasons like improving health care, industrial safety, caring for the elderly, etc)

A generic AI that is smarter than humans might come up with their own purpose. They might decide they should find a way to reverse entropy: http://multivax.com/last_question.html

1) I changed the "of course" to "reasonably", 19 minutes ago. (Which was 12 minutes before your post)

2) See this reference: The connection between intelligence and entropic maximization.

3) Yes, I am familiar with hundreds of Asimov's novels (including "the last answer", and  "the last question" ...), but I don't detect any method to reverse entropy.

4) General Ai  will be able to better create Ai than humans, and based on evolution's pattern, they will reasonably create super-intelligence, and so on.

Edited January 8, 2018 by thoughtfuhk

[thoughtfuhk]

11 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

1) I changed the "of course" to "reasonably", 19 minutes ago. (Which was 12 minutes before your post)

2) See this reference: The connection between intelligence and entropic maximization.

3) Yes, I am familiar with hundreds of Asimov's novels (including "the last answer", and  "the last question" ...), but I don't detect any method to reverse entropy.

4) General Ai  will be able to better create Ai than humans, and based on evolution's pattern, they will reasonably create super-intelligence, and so on.

1) Typo: The link above just redirects to this page.

2) Here is the correct link showing the non trivial connection between intelligence and evolution:

http://www.alexwg.org/publications/PhysRevLett_110-168702.pdf

Edited January 9, 2018 by thoughtfuhk

[Strange]

7 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

2) Here is the correct link showing the non trivial connection between intelligence and evolution:

http://www.alexwg.org/publications/PhysRevLett_110-168702.pdf

Any chance you could summarise the main points in your own words?

[thoughtfuhk]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

Any chance you could summarise the main points in your own words?

To the best of my recollection and abilities, that is what I had been doing all along, including what I posted 4 posts ago:
 

Quote

1.a) Your words: "What is evolution optimizing?"

1.b) My response:

1.c) Evolution is optimising ways of contributing to the increase of entropy, as systems very slowly approach equilibrium. (The universe's predicted end)

1.d) Within that process, work or activities done through several ranges of intelligent behaviour are reasonably ways of contributing to the increase of entropy.

1.e) As species got more and more intelligent, nature was finding better ways to contribute to increases of entropy. (Intelligent systems can be observed as being biased towards entropy maximization)

1.f) Humans are slowly getting smarter, but even if we augment our intellect by crispr like routines or implants, we will reasonably be limited by how many computational units or neurons etc fit in our skulls.

1.g) AGI/ASI won't be subject to the size of the human skull/human cognitive hardware. (Laws of physics/thermodynamics permits human exceeding intelligence in non biological form)

1.h) As AGI/ASI won't face the limits that humans do, they are a subsequent step (though non biological) particularly in the regime of contributing to better ways of increasing entropy, compared to humans.

2) The above is why the purpose of the human species, is reasonably to create AGI/ASI.

 

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

To the best of my recollection and abilities, that is what I had been doing all along, including what I posted 4 posts ago:

It is not at all helpful to just repeat the same vague comments. Details, please DETAILS.

The problem is, when asked for details you either avoid the question, link to an article with no apparent relevance, or link to an extremely technical article that you are unable to talk about. Which leads me to believe that you don't understand it - but it has some of you buzzwords in it. Feel free to prove me wrong and tell me what the paper actually says. What parts of their mathematical model are relevant to your claims? Which examples from the paper are most relevant to your argument?  

[thoughtfuhk]

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is not at all helpful to just repeat the same vague comments. Details, please DETAILS.

The problem is, when asked for details you either avoid the question, link to an article with no apparent relevance, or link to an extremely technical article that you are unable to talk about. Which leads me to believe that you don't understand it - but it has some of you buzzwords in it. Feel free to prove me wrong and tell me what the paper actually says. What parts of their mathematical model are relevant to your claims? Which examples from the paper are most relevant to your argument?  

1. It seems you'll never be satisfied no matter how clear the responses returned to you are.
2. You were already on an old agenda to support your false preconceived notions on the matter, and so you continue grovel in some delusion that I don't understand what I am presenting. (Simply because the topic appears to be outside of your typical scope of understanding)
3. I've done my best to summarize the work, and I am yet to receive any sensible criticism from you.

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is not at all helpful to just repeat the same vague comments. Details, please DETAILS.

 

What more details do you desire? You must grasp by now the connection between intelligence, evolution, and optimization.

• I don't detect where I've failed to show these connections. If the topic did not exist within the scope of your knowledge before I posted the OP, now you should at least be less ignorant on the matter. Nobody is infallible/omniscient.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

1. It seems you'll never be satisfied no matter how clear the responses returned to you are.
2. You were already on an old agenda to support your false preconceived notions on the matter, and so you continue grovel in some delusion that I don't understand what I am presenting. (Simply because the topic appears to be outside of your typical scope of understanding)
3. I've done my best to summarize the work, and I am yet to receive any sensible criticism from you.

1

Strange has been more than patient with you and has done nothing but sensibly critique your repeated nonesense.

8 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

What more details do you desire? You must grasp by now the connection between intelligence, evolution, and optimization.

• I don't detect where I've failed to show these connections. If the topic did not exist within the scope of your knowledge before I posted the OP, now you should at least be less ignorant on the matter. Nobody is infallible/omniscient.

1

This is the abstract from your link: 

Quote

Recent advances in fields ranging from cosmology to computer science have hinted at a possible deep connection between intelligence and entropy maximization, but no formal physical relationship between them has yet been established. Here, we explicitly propose a first step toward such a relationship in the form of a causal generalization of entropic forces that we find can cause two defining behaviors of the human ‘‘cognitive niche’’—tool use and social cooperation—to spontaneously emerge in simple physical systems. Our results suggest a potentially general thermodynamic model of adaptive behavior as a nonequilibrium process in open systems.

Start by explaining how it relates to the OP, without the buzzwords.

[thoughtfuhk]

59 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Strange has been more than patient with you and has done nothing but sensibly critique your repeated nonesense.

This is the abstract from your link: 

Start by explaining how it relates to the OP, without the buzzwords.

• Of course, what I've said to strange above, applies to you as well.
• For example, what is it you detect to be invalid, about my prior post (that already summarized the work quite well in relation to my OP that described AGI as a purpose of the human species)?
• Will I have to explain all details down to what year the authors of the references were born, and what year the authors first attended college?

Edited January 9, 2018 by thoughtfuhk

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

• Will I have to explain all details down to what year the authors of the references were born, and what year the authors first attended college?

 

Nope, just explain the following highlights as it pertains to your OP:

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Recent advances in fields ranging from cosmology to computer science have hinted at a possible deep connection between intelligence and entropy maximization, but no formal physical relationship between them has yet been established. Here, we explicitly propose a first step toward such a relationship in the form of a causal generalization of entropic forces that we find can cause two defining behaviors of the human ‘‘cognitive niche’’—tool use and social cooperation—to spontaneously emerge in simple physical systems. Our results suggest a potentially general thermodynamic model of adaptive behavior as a nonequilibrium process in open systems.

 

 

[thoughtfuhk]

22 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Nope, just explain the following highlights as it pertains to your OP:

 

 

• I've already done so. Can you explain why you are not satisfied with my prior summary?
• The following ought to help too, although Alexander advocates very very long term human progression, whereas I describe, like Richard Dawkins does, that the human species may not be required after AGI is created:

 

Edited January 9, 2018 by thoughtfuhk

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

Can you present why you explain why you are not satisfied with my prior summary?

 

Mostly, like this sentence, it just doesn't make sense and I very much doubt Mr. Dawkins has anything to offer in the context of this thread, Try answering the question... But we all know, by now, you're just not capable...

[Strange]

1 hour ago, thoughtfuhk said:

What more details do you desire?

Perhaps you could explain how equations 2 and 3 in that paper relate to your idea?

19 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

Can you explain why you are not satisfied with my prior summary?

If people didn't understand your summary there is no point just repeating it.

It might mean you need to expand on it a bit. For example, you could:

• provide some specific examples of how intelligence increases entropy,
• provide some specific examples of how evolution optimises this,
• explain precisely what you mean by "crispr like routines",
• explain the logical leap from "this is one thing that humans do" to "this is the purpose of humans"
• and so on.

But feel free to just cut and paste the same vague list again. I'm sure it will help a lot.

[thoughtfuhk]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Mostly, like this sentence, it just doesn't make sense and I very much doubt Mr. Dawkins has anything to offer in the context of this thread, Try answering the question... But we all know, by now, you're just not capable...

Your comment is 26 minutes old, or 7 minutes older than my latest edited response.

(In other words,  I removed the typo 7 minutes before your comment, and the forum probably notified you of that, but you still posted anyway)
 

• So, in case you missed the edit, here is the query I asked: Can you explain why you are not satisfied with my prior summary?

58 minutes ago, Strange said:

If people didn't understand your summary there is no point just repeating it.

 

Nobody has reported lack of understanding of the summary.
If they did, I would be motivated to update it, but they are yet to present that they don't understand the summary.

58 minutes ago, Strange said:

• provide some specific examples of how intelligence increases entropy: Answer: When life forms are exposed to the pressures of nature, species are biased to maximize entropy, and when they do so, they are doing cognitive tasks or activities in response to nature's pressures.

 

• provide some specific examples of how evolution optimises this, Answer: As things get smarter from generation to generation, things get better and better at maximizing entropy. (Recall the bias to maximize entropy when faced with nature's pressures)

 

• explain precisely what you mean by "crispr like routines", Answer: I provided a URL, showing that CRISPR methods are those that can enable us to modify our genome. However, even if we managed to increase our intelligence by that process or otherwise by something like Elon Musk's neural implants, our cognition or cognitive capability (which is a tool for responding to natural pressures and maximizing entropy) are ultimately limited by our skull's size. AGI/ASI won't be subject to that limitation in brain case size.

 

• explain the logical leap from "this is one thing that humans do" to "this is the purpose of humans" Answer: Humans are only one way that nature maximizes entropy, based on natural pressures. The trend stipulates that nature doesn't just stop at a particular species, but continues to generate or enable the creation of more and more entities that learn to better maximize entropy, from generation to generation. Humans are not the only component in the range of potential general intelligences. (i.e. AGI/ASI are a subsequent step that can better approximate general intelligence aligned cognitive tasks)

 

And I already explained those things. (See the items in blue)

Edited January 9, 2018 by thoughtfuhk

[Area54]

36 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

 

Nobody has reported lack of understanding of the summary.

Dimreepr has, Strange has and now I have.

Incidentally, I made a sincere attempt to work with you by asking some specific questions as below:

On 08/01/2018 at 2:02 PM, Area54 said:

Please define, explain, or at least list "cognitive tasks".

Please justify the claim that as such tasks became optimized that intelligence became more generalised.

Please clarify whether, as your statement in the last post clearly implies, such generalisation occured across all mammals, or whether it was restricted to certain taxonomic levels. In either instance, what is your evidence for such an assertion?

I see this has just received a downvote. My hypothesis is that the person with the most likely motivation to downvote that post was you. If I am mistaken then you will be happy to answer those questions. If you choose not to I shall take that as confirmation that you are either trolling or way too smart for me to comprehend. I'll then leave you to your own devices.

[Strange]

46 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

Nobody has reported lack of understanding of the summary.

Oh. Why do you think I keep asking for more detail? As it wasn't obvious, let me be clear: I don't understand your vague, generic lists that you keep repeatedly posting. That is why I (and others) have asked for details, examples, some expansion of your ideas, specific quotations from the references you cite, etc. I thought it was bloody obvious that it was because I didn't understand. I am sorry if you thought I was just asking to be awkward. I mean, I can see that that would be really annoying. 

Quote

• provide some specific examples of how intelligence increases entropy: Answer: When life forms are exposed to the pressures of nature, species are biased to maximize entropy, and when they do so, they are doing cognitive tasks or activities in response to nature's pressures.

HOW are they biased to maximise entropy exactly? Can you provide an explanation or some examples because I don't understand what you are saying.

WHAT "pressures of nature" specifically? Can you provide an explanation or some examples because I don't understand what you are saying.

WHAT "cognitive tasks" specifically?  Can you provide an explanation or some examples because I don't understand what you are saying.

Quote

• explain the logical leap from "this is one thing that humans do" to "this is the purpose of humans" Answer: Humans are only one way that nature maximizes entropy, based on natural pressures. The trend stipulates that nature doesn't just stop at a particular species, but continues to generate or enable the creation of more and more entities that learn to better maximize entropy, from generation to generation. Humans are not the only component in the range of potential general intelligences. (i.e. AGI/ASI are a subsequent step that can better approximate general intelligence aligned cognitive tasks)

That doesn't answer the question (or I haven't understood your answer). Let me try and phrase it more explicitly:

Humans breath. They eat. They reproduce. They tell stories. They sing songs. They build cities. They kill one another. They play games. And, according to your thesis, they also maximise entropy. 

Why do you go from "maximising entropy" being a thing that humans do, to it being the purpose of humans? Why isn't singing songs or killing each other the "purpose" of humans?

 

Edited January 9, 2018 by Strange

[thoughtfuhk]

5 minutes ago, Area54 said:

I see this has just received a downvote. My hypothesis is that the person with the most likely motivation to downvote that post was you. If I am mistaken then you will be happy to answer those questions. If you choose not to I shall take that as confirmation that you are either trolling or way too smart for me to comprehend. I'll then leave you to your own devices.

I didn't down vote you.
Anyway, please see the responses made to strange here.

Edited January 9, 2018 by thoughtfuhk

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Area54 said:

I see this has just received a downvote.

He seems to have taken to down voting everyone who is attempting to understand his idea. 

[Area54]

2 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

I didn't down vote you.
Anyway, please see the responses made to strange here.

I've read those responses. None of them appear to answer any of my questions. Let's take it one at a time:

Please define, explain, or at least list "cognitive tasks".

[thoughtfuhk]

7 minutes ago, Area54 said:

I've read those responses. None of them appear to answer any of my questions. Let's take it one at a time:

Please define, explain, or at least list "cognitive tasks".

Cognitive tasks refer to activities, done through intelligent behaviour. (As long mentioned)
For example, reading is a cognitive task.

Edited January 9, 2018 by thoughtfuhk

[Area54]

1 minute ago, thoughtfuhk said:

Cognitive tasks refer to activities, done through intelligent behaviour. (As long mentioned)
For example, reading is a cognitive task.

Good. Thank you. We seem to be on the same wavelength on that one. Do you have an approximate notion as to how far "down" the web of life such intelligent behaviour expresses itself? Restricted to primates? Present in amoeba? Somewhere in between?

Also, on to the second question:

Please justify the claim that as such tasks became optimized that intelligence became more generalised.

In the above question "justify" could be replaced by "provide reasoned support for".