Jump to content

Intoscience

Senior Members
  • Posts

    883
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Intoscience

  1. Since 99.9% of your posts on this entire forum are short cryptic responses is there any wonder? For now yes, but... as I have pointed out over the last X pages
  2. Difference being that rocks don't evolve in complexity, with any form of cognitive capability. Rocks (though many variety's) remain rocks since the earth solidified 4.5 billion years ago.
  3. Yeah, and again you are supposing limited human understanding and constraints on a completely different complex intelligent system that is evolving (currently by human design and control). A system that as it develops may gain consciousness that resembles, or not, our own. A rock is an inanimate object with no cognitive capability, so there is no comparison. Until we gain an understanding of when and how consciousness and or sentience is achieved in biological systems how can we even begin to wonder how/if or when it will come to being in A.I systems? The only thing we have is that there appears to be a correlation between consciousness and sentience based on complexity and intelligence. If any of these are major factors in this, then it would be plausible to assume as A.I evolves it could develop such traits, and even in a way that is unrecognisable to human or even biological experiences.
  4. I think this is the point I was attempting to get over to Dimreaper (my bold) since we developed and programmed current A.I then its easy to assume that the A.I will follow the coding we assign. But then when you even look at human ethics there is no set standard, there are many different cultures and which there is change as societies develop. So imagine a conscious A.I, how would we even begin to imagine its ethics? If it had any... I think what I'm alluding to is that with all good intent, once AI becomes self-aware with the capability to replicate and/then evolve, even if it has no ill or malicious intent to harm humans, may still inadvertently do so, and may do so with no care or consideration. Which is why I offered the loose analogy of the ants, we (at least in most cases) take no consideration for them when we build a road right through their hill. Thank you for the clarification. The problem is, to verify this we need a thorough understanding of what consciousness is and how it comes to be. Also does consciousness have differing levels and maybe differing types? AI may achieve a type/level of consciousness that is totally alien and completely unrelatable to what we experience.
  5. An AGI that is left to its own devises that has the capability to self-replicate and even make changes without any pre programming from its original creator. And you mistakenly believe that AGI will never have the ability to think for itself, i.e become self-aware in some form that it no longer requires human input to survive and possibly evolve. You are also constantly imposing human thought, language, understanding on to machines that we may never have any idea or even begin to comprehend how they may think (process). Your analogy of an ant hill is erroneous, the ant hill is more compatible to a house or hotel. No one would expect a house to become sentient. AGI is heading towards intelligence (some would argue its already here) that will exceed our own. If, a big if, it becomes sentient as a result (since we have no idea of what mechanism causes consciousness) then things will get interesting.
  6. Then we become potentially vulnerable. Depending on how aggressive, how concerned it/they is/are and whether we are considered of any value. Even then if we are of value, what type of value, as a resource? I appreciate this is all just speculation, but there is a potential that we would lose control.
  7. Agreed thanks. Science fiction is based on human assumption and/or fantasy. We cannot predict with any certainty if or how A.I may evolve once it has the ability to self-replicate. Any assumption we make will be based on human knowledge and experience. My point being, that making predictions of a system that may evolve beyond our understanding and/or imagination is futile. How ever preparing for (or attempting to prevent) against human threat should still be seriously considered. We consider ourselves at the top of the food chain per-say, since we consider our selves the most advanced intelligence on this planet. What happens when we are not?
  8. We may assume that there is no specific detailed outlined goal. But we accept that in general Darwinian evolution is the mechanism where organisms adapt to environmental changes in order to survive. I would argue that compared to a mechanism that can very quickly adapt, as shown in the example by iNow, organic Darwinian evolution is terribly inefficient, most especially when it comes to time. Humans followed the Darwinian evolution process, but we are now entering an era where by we can accelerate the process through our own genetic modification. An A.I system that can be left to its own devices may choose to follow an evolution path that we cannot even begin to imagine. Provided that it has the resources & capabilities to do this, then it will have a mechanism that is far more efficient than the biological Darwinian one, though similar in some respects, but much much faster and more efficient. Just to be clear, I used the Darwinian mechanism as a loose analogy not to be taken too literally. "Darwinian evolution in hyperdrive"
  9. I'm not sure that natural selection mechanism in Darwinian evolution is fully understood. However lets assume that its basically a process of trial and error, environmental influence and general mutations. With A.I this process could be simplified and work in a far more efficient manner. Where the mechanism would focus on requirements, adaptions to influence and survival, with minimum loss, and fast effective solutions. Darwinian evolution seems to follow this pattern but rather haddock and over a long period of time that appears less efficient.
  10. That is just an assumption based on human thinking. You can build and programme A.I to resemble and have human morals, values and maybe understanding. However when it evolves, which it will if it can make copies of itself and programme those copies, Darwinian evolution in hyperdrive, then there is no guarantee that what follows will resemble human like thinking in anyway what's so ever. At this point it could become comparable to us as being ants and A.I as being us. The ants pose no threat, but at the same time they have no comprehension of how we think, and we have no concern about their habitat when we decide to build a house. There is concern, warranted or not there is concern among A.I developers regarding the unknown once the singularity is upon us. Interestingly one such comment I heard was - "Advanced alien intelligence, well we will meet it soon, but it won't be from another planet. It will go on to colonise the galaxy".
  11. I guess this is the problem with trying to understand the possibility of human threat from A.I (if there is one). We can programme the A.I to resemble human experience, but once it becomes self-aware and capable of self programming then things might change way beyond we could imagine.
  12. Very true I have no argument with that. One could argue you have to eliminate the sensational to conclude the mundane. The odds are the mundane will trump by far the vast majority, but that is still no reason to presume the mundane to begin with. What about the large galaxies that have been imaged that seem to contradict the mainstream view either on how galaxies may form or the age of the observable universe? I would suggest that this (if verified) to be both sensational and contradicting. I guess it all depends on your interpretation of sensational.
  13. In science? I'm not an authority in science. JWT is producing some sensational imagines that seem to be contradicting well established mainstream theories.
  14. Ok, I'm more than happy to admit my error, I will apologise for my accusation towards you. It's not about reinvention though is it? I was just pointing out that any presumption whether its more likely or not is a presumption. Just because a mundane presumption is more appealing than a sensational one doesn't automatically qualify ahead. The null starting point is exactly that null. No presumptions, just a set of assumed odds based on previous experience. In my line of work I do many investigations over a variety of subjects, environments, disciplines. I have learnt from experience that you cannot start any investigation with any presumption, even when you have an initial assumption (gut feeling from experience). Sometimes the sensational (though admittedly rare) pops up very unexpected.
  15. Are we so sure? One could argue that if it warps then it's physical (to some degree) If there are multiple timelines then one could argue that on this particular one then yes it was inevitable. A bit like one of the hypothetical solutions to the grandfather paradox.
  16. No difference, you are making an assumption on an unknown. Whether that assumption is mundane or sensational is irrelevant. Investigations should assume nothing, and follow all possible paths until each path can be dismissed. Some of those paths can be quickly dismissed or prioritised as lower due to either the cost in time and resources or the least likely based on experience that's fine. But starting with a presumption is not a good investigative tactic. I watched the video, this wasn't the lecture I was referring to. However the content is the same. Thanks As normal you misrepresent what I said to strengthen your own arguments. I said - either incomplete or not quite correct At no point did I say that incomplete was the same as wrong. So what are you trying to argue? If both theories are incomplete then there is something missing, that something will do one of 3 things. It will either supersede one or both models or it will consolidate them. At the same time (speculation time) it may provide a discovery at a deeper level of how the universe works, that is sensational compared to our current understanding. Or it may cement the current models at a deeper level. We know far less about 90+% of the observable universe than we now about the remaining. So if someone was to present you with a theory based on less than 10% of the observed data (already with holes in it) of which appears totally different than the remaining 90+%, stating that they had a complete working model you would laugh the theory out of the room. You make no assumption either way from the start. You gather the evidence you have. You then proceed by process of elimination starting with the easiest simplest, most cost effective lines of enquiry. You then slowly methodically dismiss possibilities and/or put difficult lines of investigation to one side for a later time when all the easier lines of enquiry have been investigated. At the end of the investigation if there is no conclusion, you can either make an assumption based on likelihood or experience, or/at the same time remain open minded about the other possibilities.
  17. I was talking about the ants not the hill, but hey ho. Were you comparing ants building a hill to humans building A.I? You could build a computer into the lawn mower that controls how it operates. If sufficiently intelligent enough, (comparable to humans) then it may understand exactly why it mows the lawn. Not only that it may have the capability to chose, so now it may decide that mowing the lawn is a waste of time and that it could utilise its capabilities for other actions.
  18. Did not Malevolence emerge in humans, based on consciousness and intelligence? You seem to agree that urges, reactions, feelings are emergent, so why not malevolence? I don't think we understand consciousness enough to predict what a "conscious" A.I may think, feel, or react to. Also does it need to be conscious (at least as we experience it) to think and make decisions based on learning and experience? I'd even argue that a unsympathetic A.I would be more dangerous than one that can feel empathy. Lets face it from one perspective humans look very much like parasites! So logically would one not eradicate such?
  19. Why would there be a null hypothesis for something unexplainable? Assuming its mundane is no different than assuming its sensational. Both have little evidence to lean one way or the other. I don't believe in ghosts, alien visitations or any other sensational phenomena, simply because I haven't seen enough credible evidence to convince me of such. But then I also don't just assume everything that is currently unexplained has/will have a mundane explanation. But there are question marks by many leading scientists hanging over our understanding of the laws of nature. The standard model and relativity are our best models for this, yet both are either incomplete, or not quite correct. I agree that these are the only tools we have to work with for now, but this doesn't mean that they are absolute and therefore there may be things that we currently believe are not possible or very improbable may turn out not so. Speculation, yes agreed, but why not if we know there is something missing? I was listening to a lecture from Sabine Hossenfelder just the other day, where she was discussing about FTL travel and communication. How there are speculative, but potentially possible, ways around it and advanced aliens (if they were to exist) may have discovered how to use this knowledge. Does this make her a crackpot?
  20. That's my point, there are plenty of suggestions for many number of things some more credible/likely than others. But until its/or if achieved then we don't know. And again the phenomena can be observed and measured but what is causing it is yet unknown. Agreed, plenty of suggestions exist but until it can be verified then we don't know. Why is this any different for UAP's & UFO's where there is observation and data, with plenty of suggestions which currently cannot be verified? But there is a stigma around UAP's but non around dark matter, or dark energy,or multi verses or higher dimensions...? The only thing that is dissimilar, is that the "effects" of dark energy, dark matter etc... are being constantly observed.
  21. True, though I wasn't referring directly to that specific sighting. But I guess its difficult to follow up without some data to analyse. Makes sense, no point in claiming a theory based on speculative science. Doesn't stop you from wondering though. You do get the impression that there is an air of arrogance towards those who pursue UFO claims. There are scientists who believe that our understanding of physics is absolute and anyone who suggests otherwise is a crackpot. This is the stigma attached to such discussions. It makes perfect sense to use the data & tools you have available to attempt to solve a problem. If the problem can't be solved then fine, but that problem maybe solved at a later date when better data & tools are available. We can't ignore that there are gaps in our scientific understanding of how the universe works at both the quantum and the cosmic scales. We don't understand how to consolidate gravity in our 2 best models, we have no clue what dark matter is, we have no clue what dark energy is. Basically we know far less about the vast majority of the universe than we do.
  22. Astronaut and airline pilot sightings are quite abundant. But there never seems to be any particular investigative follow up by any leading experts (or so it appears). I'm quite amazed at how many sightings & sound for that matter have been witnessed by so many credible people. Including many from the space programs dating all the way back to the early 60's. I guess you can look at it 2 ways, all the sightings have been ignored, as nothing worth investigating. Or many if not most have been investigated and some of the information remains sensitive for one reason or another. I'm quite skeptical of alien visitations, but the more reports I see, especially those from very credible sources, then I do start to wonder a little. I don't think we can discount it just because we currently think its highly improbable. All our investigative resources are based on our current understanding of physics. But we all know, that as successful as our models are, there are gaps. The gaps may turn out to be very insignificant. All very speculative I know, but but one can't help but think - what if.
  23. Well if you are going to use very brief,simple and undetailed descriptions, like these you have presented (to be fair to Sensei, they do sound rather childish, in that I would only use your similar descriptions whilst explaining to very young children), then for physics I probably say, (to paraphrase) - physics is the study of motion. Obviously there is much more to physics, and each field of science, but to a young child who is inquisitive and just starting to grasp the concept of science, then this may suffice. I liked this one. Ooh... maybe one for the philosophy section me thinks
  24. It's my understanding that physics is the underlining science of all sciences.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.