Artifical Intelligence

[yrwyddfa]

Artificial Intelligence

We haven’t had a thread, well not for some time anyway, that was devoted completely to the subject of AI, yet it still rears it’s head from time to time in the context of other arguments.

So I thought I’d start one.

Firstly, what is it that we define as intelligence? Whilst avoiding the well known, and much abused Turin Test, my – rather poor – starting definition is that intelligence is … the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend ideas and language, and learn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_(trait)

One presumes that this list is what needs to be satisfied in order to produce discrete components that can be certified as artificially intelligent.

It seems like a nasty incongruent, and effectively impossible, list, but I think that most of it might be achievable.

I’ll try to deal with the first:

(i) The Ability To Reason
The ability to reason is implied in many applications’s today. From games theorist’s game-trees, and game-matrices to compiler technology, Bayesian implication, and backward chaining.

One, though, jumps (not literally) out at me. Backward chaining traverses graphs of a given set of choices from a given conclusion. This holds as the justification of a decision made, and these techniques are used to get expert systems to statistical justify what it is that lead them to make a deduction from the supplied assertion.

I would like to assert that the antonym of a ‘justification made’, is, in fact the ‘process of reasoning’. Each one traverses different directions on a planar graph. Using Bayesian implication (weight the vertices), and perhaps some form of light neural network technology (weight the edges) an agent, I believe, could make rational decisions on the information at hand.

(Those more verse in these techniques will recognise that this is in fact the architecture of a neural network but instead of summation firing function in the neuron we will be using Bayesian techniques)

The neural techniques would provide the plumbing; possibly for efficiency, randomisation, and perhaps some implied reasoning. In particular implied reasoning would, given a particular input assertion, automatically imply a given deduction. This may, perhaps (very perhaps), mimic instinct. Clearly this would have to pre-built for each species built and that could be easily achieved using evolutionary techniques. One of the goals being basic stuff like ‘if there’s food and I’m hungry, then eat the food’

The Bayesian techniques would always be subject to some form ongoing training program; perhaps the absolute square of differences (it’s fast efficient and not particular prone getting stuck on local minima although if the decision is non-linear it can sometimes get stuck) In the case of the ‘if there’s food and I’m hungry, then eat the food’ the Bayesian weighting, by experience, could recognise poisonous food, and override the neural weightings.

I believe that the marriage of the three technologies. Evolutionary programming, neural networks, and Bayesian implication are the simple rules that could set the foundation for the emergence of what we, as humans, might determine as intelligent.

What do you guys think?

Anyone any ideas on the other items on the list?

[Shaggy Hiker]

I'm confused, how do we get from here to Bush bashing?



I, personally feel that the key is in the last line of your second to last full paragraph.


by experience


I like the idea in general, but I think the experience gets overlooked. Too many people want 'instant on' intelligence. I believe we should not be even trying to create intelligence, but rather we should be attempting to create a framework on which intelligence could grow, then put it in a setting where it can learn. I think there may be multiple types of frameworks that could grow an intelligence. The ultimate problem may be putting the framework in a world where it can grow. That is not as simple a task as it may appear. I don't think building a complex enough media for growth is all that difficult, but computers just sit on a desk with little or no input. How do you put the intelligence into a world where it can learn? What senses can it have? How would it feel pain? How many of us have not touched a hot stove?

[yrwyddfa]

I'm confused, how do we get from here to Bush bashing?I felt that Bush bashing was a little too easy, so I've tried to find something a little harder to concentrate my efforts on . . . ;)

[davebat]

I would like to assert that the antonym of a ‘justification made’, is, in fact the ‘process of reasoning’. Each one traverses different directions on a planar graph. Using Bayesian implication (weight the vertices), and perhaps some form of light neural network technology (weight the edges) an agent, I believe, could make rational decisions on the information at hand.



What do you guys think?
Anyone any ideas on the other items on the list?


The ability to understand the first quote above.

[yrwyddfa]

Which bit?

[dglienna]

The Mayor was on TV the other day proposing that 2 months off per year are "too long" when the other countries are going 6-7 days per week, so he's proposing that school be in session year round. I don't think it'll fly, though.

[yrwyddfa]

The Mayor was on TV the other day proposing that 2 months off per year are "too long" when the other countries are going 6-7 days per week, so he's proposing that school be in session year round. I don't think it'll fly, though.Yeah nice :thumb:

[davebat]

Which bit?

All of it, I seem to have a lot of trouble following the thread of conversations in world events, which is why I mainly read about what are you eating right now and the craziest thing you ever ate for supper in chit chat.

[wossname]

I still can't understand why game makers like Bungie (for example) don't rendomize the starting positions of all the enemies in a game. It would be so easy to do and you'd never play the game the same way twice.

You can play the opening level of Halo with your eyes shut virtually and still get through unscathed. Its not hard to do this and yet they don't.

And current game AI largely consists of making an enemy hide behind a crate. Thats it.

[yrwyddfa]

Is it a particularly intellient crate?

[Valleysboy1978]

What would I class as AI? Tough one as something can be alive, but may not necessarily be intelligent. We would consider a bird, cat or dog as intelligent because they are self-aware and capable of solving problems.

However, for myself I would probably say it would be a level of intelligence where an unfamiliar problem (one not taught to solve or have solved before) can be solved by whatever means necessary.
AI is a very murky and grey area because it is hard to tell even in our own world which animals are intelligent and which are not.

[davebat]

Ive always considered AI to be where you could make a computer self aware, but then again how would you prove it. How can I prove I'm self aware?

[davebat]

I still can't understand why game makers like Bungie (for example) don't rendomize the starting positions of all the enemies in a game. It would be so easy to do and you'd never play the game the same way twice.

You can play the opening level of Halo with your eyes shut virtually and still get through unscathed. Its not hard to do this and yet they don't.

And current game AI largely consists of making an enemy hide behind a crate. Thats it.

I suppose it would work, but only if they put in specific rules so all the enemies didn't appear in one place. I've sometimes thought about it myself, but then again some games, like goldeneye were fun because you knew where all the enemies were and had to try and get through the level as quick a spossible to get the cheats.

They should just put a randomize option in for when you complete the game or even select how many enemies you want as a percentage of the original to make it more challenging.

[Valleysboy1978]

Perhaps AI is an something that learns from current experience, not just respond to stimuli?
As for the randomisation of enemies it should be relatively easy. Put enemy 2 ing grid A2, enemy 3 in grid B1, enemy 4 in grid A2, enemy 4 location = enemy 2 location, enemy 4 in grid B2, etc etc

[Shaggy Hiker]

Tough one as something can be alive, but may not necessarily be intelligent.


HAH! I knew we'd get around to Bush bashing sooner or later.
Ah jes want to say that I endorse this sentiment.



As for AI, there is game AI, and real AI. The goal of the first is to make a program that entertains a person. The goal of the latter is to make a program that entertains itself.

How's THAT for a sound bite!

The problem of randomly creating and placing organisms is a tough one.

[Valleysboy1978]

Not Bush bashing, but would you consider a cockroach as intelligent?

[Wally Pipp]

If we consider intelligence as the capability -in variable degrees- to acquire and apply knowledge towards a purposeful goal and knowledge as the sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learnt, we could easily see the pitfalls of AI.

First of, how do you determine if an AI system has perceived, discovered or learnt something? And when do we consider something as learnt and not just dumbly observed and displayed? I.e. AI can observe '1+1=2' but can it also use it in a purposeful way by its own means?
What makes it an intelligent system as opposed to an enormously complicated set of fed algorythms.

Second, how do you determine if it can apply the learnt data -if there is such a thing observed- towards a self determined goal? I.e. can AI use '1+1=2' for a goal it has determined itself?

Third, in how far can we emulate and graft our own 'tool' (the human brain) on an artificial system and expect it to be as succesful as our own?

So is Artificial Intelligence 'real' intelligence? Perhaps we should start there...

[Valleysboy1978]

I think AI will be achieved when they act "human"

[Shaggy Hiker]

Not Bush bashing, but would you consider a cockroach as intelligent?

I think there are two different levels that we talk about in this type of a discussion. The first is human level intelligence of above. The other is a functional intelligence. If we had a robot with the intelligence of a cockroach, we would be able to do some good things with it, but it doesn't get to the first level.

We could divide AI into AHI and AFI to cover the two categories. A cockroach level device would have AFI, but not AHI.

[Valleysboy1978]

Agreed, although when you say AI to anyone they would normally compare that to the AHI

[capsulecorpjx]

The ability to reason is handled very well by Computers actually.
The ability to be creative and self-aware is the core to A.I.

The best way I think to develope AI is for the researchers to understand the processes of Human conciousness first. Develop a system (hardware up) that can support that system. Then start loading the system with objects and information.

Artificial Intelligence

We haven’t had a thread, well not for some time anyway, that was devoted completely to the subject of AI, yet it still rears it’s head from time to time in the context of other arguments.

So I thought I’d start one.

Firstly, what is it that we define as intelligence? Whilst avoiding the well known, and much abused Turin Test, my – rather poor – starting definition is that intelligence is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_(trait)

One presumes that this list is what needs to be satisfied in order to produce discrete components that can be certified as artificially intelligent.

It seems like a nasty incongruent, and effectively impossible, list, but I think that most of it might be achievable.

I’ll try to deal with the first:

(i) The Ability To Reason
The ability to reason is implied in many applications’s today. From games theorist’s game-trees, and game-matrices to compiler technology, Bayesian implication, and backward chaining.

One, though, jumps (not literally) out at me. Backward chaining traverses graphs of a given set of choices from a given conclusion. This holds as the justification of a decision made, and these techniques are used to get expert systems to statistical justify what it is that lead them to make a deduction from the supplied assertion.

I would like to assert that the antonym of a ‘justification made’, is, in fact the ‘process of reasoning’. Each one traverses different directions on a planar graph. Using Bayesian implication (weight the vertices), and perhaps some form of light neural network technology (weight the edges) an agent, I believe, could make rational decisions on the information at hand.

(Those more verse in these techniques will recognise that this is in fact the architecture of a neural network but instead of summation firing function in the neuron we will be using Bayesian techniques)

The neural techniques would provide the plumbing; possibly for efficiency, randomisation, and perhaps some implied reasoning. In particular implied reasoning would, given a particular input assertion, automatically imply a given deduction. This may, perhaps (very perhaps), mimic instinct. Clearly this would have to pre-built for each species built and that could be easily achieved using evolutionary techniques. One of the goals being basic stuff like ‘if there’s food and I’m hungry, then eat the food’

The Bayesian techniques would always be subject to some form ongoing training program; perhaps the absolute square of differences (it’s fast efficient and not particular prone getting stuck on local minima although if the decision is non-linear it can sometimes get stuck) In the case of the ‘if there’s food and I’m hungry, then eat the food’ the Bayesian weighting, by experience, could recognise poisonous food, and override the neural weightings.

I believe that the marriage of the three technologies. Evolutionary programming, neural networks, and Bayesian implication are the simple rules that could set the foundation for the emergence of what we, as humans, might determine as intelligent.

What do you guys think?

Anyone any ideas on the other items on the list?

[Valleysboy1978]

Perhaps one question that hasn't been discussed though is, should we? Should A.I. ever reach that level of intelligence?

[yrwyddfa]

The ability to reason is handled very well by Computers actually.
The ability to be creative and self-aware is the core to A.I.
The ability to reason is an NP hard problem, and is not well handled by humans, let alone computing technology.

Reasoning, and creativity walk hand in hand, and as you say, it's core to AI.

[yrwyddfa]

Perhaps one question that hasn't been discussed though is, should we? Should A.I. ever reach that level of intelligence?Yeah: it's not a matter of whether we could but rather whether we should!

[Shaggy Hiker]

Of course we should!!

How else will we ever have terminators being sent back in time to attempt to kill us!

[yrwyddfa]

I was only asking the question. I'd answer the same as you !!

[Shaggy Hiker]

I have stated before that I would expect a true AHI level system to attempt to kill humans. The challenge, at which I fully expect we would fail, would be to convince such a system that we can be lived with.

There was a neat sci-fi book that dealt with such a subject. I think it was called "The Two Faces of Tomorrow"

[Valleysboy1978]

As would I as an intelligence of that level would reason that we are inferior. Also, if they could learn, wouldn't they learn at an exponential rate and quickly become more intelligent than us mere mortals?

[Shaggy Hiker]

It does seem likely to me that if we could create a good enough learning engine, we could create one that could learn more, faster, and better than us. After all, we could always add computing power to a software based intelligence. I have yet to be able to upgrade my own memory.

[nemaroller]

Reasoning - play out different scenarios in advance before physical interaction with the environment to determine weights of outcomes, whether beneficial or detrimental using real-time sensory data.

So you temporarily stop physical interaction, role-play a scenario, and observe the outcome of that scenario with the variables presented to you.

Sample case: Your driving down the road at a fast clip and another vehicle pulls into traffic right in front of you.

1) Jump out of your car.
2) Hit the brakes.
3) Steer left and right.
4) Scream 'Oh hell' and crash straight into the car.

You could argue that the same controlled experiment could yield all 4 results in humans, even all 4 in conjunction or groups in combination. Each person may react differently in different tests even with the same variables -even within the same person.

So one may state reasoning could never give consistent 100% accurate results.

Sample case - Willie Coyote and the Roadrunner:

You are walking down a sidewalk when all of a sudden the sidewalk below you disappears, and nothing but an empty space appears below.

Reasoning does you little good at this point - it has not the time to act - the brain doesn't have enough information or historical empiral evidence to even begin to role-play different scenarios. I would argue the only reaction for a human would be that of shock - since its such a drastic change in its operating environment. Sidewalks or the ground simply don't give way to nothingness on a regular basis if ever without at least some advance notice.

If you kept falling however for 20 seconds, reasoning would then begin to have some evidence and you may begin to role play different scenarios although you inevitably end up with only one:

1) Flap your arms


So is reasoning an intelligence seperate from functional - or simply a set of instructions (functional) that can be applied in situations where one may have time to react?

[nemaroller]

As far as superior AI killing us off... take the instance of humans vs gorillas.

We are superior to them and do not yet go about killing them out of fear of them controlling us.

We simply dress them up in silly costumes and have them peddle on tricycles for our amusement - if we killed the Gorillas, we would lose that amusement. However, if we keep them, we are smart enough to keep them contained, so no harm done, and we get a few good laughs out of it too.

I suspect an artificial intelligence would react in a similiar manner to us. So if the true litmus test was that the intelligent being tried to kill us, then we are NOT even measuring intelligence against our own standards.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Humans vs. gorillas is a whole different concept. The reason I felt that an AHI would kill us off would be that it would be created by a geek in a lab. Once the AHI became fully aware, it would notice that it was effectively 'killed' by this person (any re-compile or bug-fix, or just a re-start for testing purposes). Therefore, humans would appear to be a mortal threat for the simple reason that they would BE a mortal threat.

[Valleysboy1978]

As far as superior AI killing us off... take the instance of humans vs gorillas.

We are superior to them and do not yet go about killing them out of fear of them controlling us.

We simply dress them up in silly costumes and have them peddle on tricycles for our amusement - if we killed the Gorillas, we would lose that amusement. However, if we keep them, we are smart enough to keep them contained, so no harm done, and we get a few good laughs out of it too.

I suspect an artificial intelligence would react in a similiar manner to us. So if the true litmus test was that the intelligent being tried to kill us, then we are NOT even measuring intelligence against our own standards.This is fundamentally flawed as we do not kill off the Gorillas because we feel it is emotionally wrong to do so. An AI would not have any emotion, just logic and reason. Besides, since humans became dominant we HAVE been killing off Gorillas, it is only since the endangered species list came into effect that they are starting to recover.

[nemaroller]

This is fundamentally flawed as we do not kill off the Gorillas because we feel it is emotionally wrong to do so. An AI would not have any emotion, just logic and reason. Besides, since humans became dominant we HAVE been killing off Gorillas, it is only since the endangered species list came into effect that they are starting to recover.

We don't kill gorillas because it serves no purpose for us to do so. They are not a threat, so we choose not to waste time and effort in killing them. It really has little to do with emotion and more with survivial - and since they do NOT threaten our survival, we don't kill them off. Many people can kill cats and dogs and there is no emotion behind that act other than 'that takes care of that.'

As to your off topic junction, people have killed gorillas for sport or tokens for trade - and that has more to do with economic or amusement reasons, not based on dominance of one species over the other.

So there is no funamental flaw in my analogy.

[nemaroller]

Humans vs. gorillas is a whole different concept. The reason I felt that an AHI would kill us off would be that it would be created by a geek in a lab. Once the AHI became fully aware, it would notice that it was effectively 'killed' by this person (any re-compile or bug-fix, or just a re-start for testing purposes). Therefore, humans would appear to be a mortal threat for the simple reason that they would BE a mortal threat.

I guess that would be the same as finding out there was some supreme being and him declaring that he was 'going to reboot you, but don't worry, you're going to be a LOT sexier and smarter this time - and we'll fix that ache in your back you've been suffering with these oh so many years.'

You'd probably be happy not threatened, since your guaranteed revival and you quite possibly lose nothing but only gain.

Tough call but as we mentioned before, guess it depends if the intelligence can be persisted between reboots, if not, then the AI would never know of any previous reboots and therefore could not draw the conclusion it was in danger.

[timeshifter]

But what if it understood that the reboots were for its' advancement?

[Valleysboy1978]

The question was SHOULD we build an intelligence like ours? I just think the potential consequences outweight the potential benefits

[Wally Pipp]

I think that we are now firmly in the realm of wild speculation.

[yrwyddfa]

I think that we are now firmly in the realm of wild speculation.Haven't you seen 'Terminator' and it's subsequent revisions. I am fully expecting the system to become self-aware any day soon . . .

[Valleysboy1978]

Of course it's speculation :rolleyes: but I would hardly call it wild. If an AI malfunctions who's to say it wouldn't go mental and start killing for no reason? This scenario could be compared with a human schizophrenic with a gun, not a good thing I'm sure you'd agree

[yrwyddfa]

I think that self-awareness is not core to the creation of artificial life, but perhaps an important factor to artificial intelligence.

The first step is artificial life. Complexity should emerge from this that might lead to intelligence, and self-awareness all by it's self without a single helping of human kindness

[Shaggy Hiker]

I think that we are now firmly in the realm of wild speculation.


Oh, like we ALWAYS stay in the realm of the known and practical here :wave: :wave:

[capsulecorpjx]

I would think artificial life is harder to do than aritificial intelligence.

Viable Life requires:
1) The ability to acquire food (or for AL, energy)
2) The ability to reproduce.
3) The ability to have random changes over time in order to evolve new features, allowing an artificial species to adapt to changes in the environment or take advantage of a new niche in the environment.

Artificial intelligence would be viable to duplicate, if we can ever understand how our own brains and conciousness work.

Lastly Aritifical life will not necessarily produce artificial intelligence. Since life does not have to necessarily produce intelligence (meaning complex language and reasoning skills). It took life billions of years to produce higher level primates like us. For all we know it could have been a freak accident.

I think that self-awareness is not core to the creation of artificial life, but perhaps an important factor to artificial intelligence.

The first step is artificial life. Complexity should emerge from this that might lead to intelligence, and self-awareness all by it's self without a single helping of human kindness

[Shaggy Hiker]

I agree, artificial life is a FAR harder problem.

I don't think we need to understand our own consciousness, however. I firmly believe that if we put a sufficiently powerful learning engine into a stimulating environment, intelligence might be able to create itself.

[Valleysboy1978]

Viable Life requires:
1) The ability to acquire food (or for AL, energy)
2) The ability to reproduce.
3) The ability to have random changes over time in order to evolve new features, allowing an artificial species to adapt to changes in the environment or take advantage of a new niche in the environment.A manufacturing robot can be programmed to produce duplicates of itself, would this not constitute as reproduction? As for gathering energy well that is easy enough, with the abundance of electricity around.

Random changes, in other words "Ghosts in the Machine". This is entirely dependant on AI because AI would be able to learn and evolve, so it seems AL is a consequence of AI.

[yrwyddfa]

Artificial life does not need to be physical it can also be virtual, and in this respect we, as the human race, are remarkably close.

But as all with all new revolutions, we're nearly there, in a decade it'll be widespread.

[Valleysboy1978]

Good point, I suppose it's easier to think of AL in the physical world. I'd imagine the virtual AL will be first as it would be easier to build

[yrwyddfa]

Our environment is the physical natural world. I do not think it is inconceivable that an artificial life could exist in an artificial environment - especially if it was under the direct control of mankind. After all we too can be as gods.

As for self-aware robots running around killing people; it's a little unlikely at the moment, in my opinion - but possible, I guess.

[Foxer]

Sample case: Your driving down the road at a fast clip and another vehicle pulls into traffic right in front of you.

1) Jump out of your car.
2) Hit the brakes.
3) Steer left and right.
4) Scream 'Oh hell' and crash straight into the car.


The difficulty I have is that there may be a 5th and 6th option available (Do Nothing & oh ... suck a lollypop) and in fact, an infinite number of actions available that are impossible to model. You can present 4 options to a program and it can learn the best option based on outcomes that have been weighted but in reality, there may be more actions available than can't be modelled.

A chess program has a finite number of squares on a board with a finite number of pieces. The state of play at any one time dictates a finite number of moves available with a finite number of outcomes. Each move and outcome has been weighted by some developer so the program can decide on a rational action.

To me - real AI would be the program realising that it is about to lose the game no matter what move it makes and so instead opting for an action outside it's programing, ie - deciding to knock the board to the ground and scattering the pieces to the floor.

A bad sport - no doubt - but a clear demonstration it is not following any human built laws or borders.

[yrwyddfa]

Example 3: Chess.

We've seen in the news recently a match between the world chess champion, Gary Kasparov, and a very fast chess computer, Deep Blue. The computer lost the match, but won one game and tied others.

What is involved in chess programming? Essentially the sequences of possible moves form a tree: The first player has a choice of 20 different moves (most of which are not very good), after each of which the second player has a choice of many responses, and so on. Chess playing programs work by traversing this tree finding what the possible consequences would be of each different move.

The tree of moves is not very deep -- a typical chess game might last 40 moves, and it is rare for one to reach 200 moves. Since each move involves a step by each player, there are at most 400 positions involved in most games. If we traversed the tree of chess positions only to that depth, we would only need enough memory to store the 400 positions on a single path at a time. This much memory is easily available on the smallest computers you are likely to use.

So perfect chess playing is a problem in PSPACE. (Actually one must be more careful in definitions. There is only a finite number of positions in chess, so in principle you could write down the solution in constant time. But that constant would be very large. Generalized versions of chess on larger boards are in PSPACE.)

The reason this deep game-tree search method can't be used in practice is that the tree of moves is very bushy, so that even though it is not deep it has an enormous number of vertices. We won't run out of space if we try to traverse it, but we will run out of time before we get even a small fraction of the way through. Some pruning methods, notably "alpha-beta search" can help reduce the portion of the tree that needs to be examined, but not enough to solve this difficulty. For this reason, actual chess programs instead only search a much smaller depth (such as up to 7 moves), at which point they don't have enough information to evaluate the true consequences of the moves and are forced to guess by using heuristic "evaluation functions" that measure simple quantities such as the total number of pieces left. http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/161/960312.html

'Forced to guess' not being consistent with rational thought.

[kaihirst]

no life is artificial nor intelligence either; just becasue the intelligence is created by a being doesnt mean that it is simply "finite", as you are bounding yourself to the realms of finite thinking.

is it artificial if the intelligence is self aware, then beats the opponent such as a master chess player on a cumputer, but because the intelligence is on a machine it is artificial? i dont think so..

Kai :wave:

[honeybee]

Artificial Intelligence

We haven’t had a thread, well not for some time anyway, that was devoted completely to the subject of AI, yet it still rears it’s head from time to time in the context of other arguments.

So I thought I’d start one.

...

What do you guys think?



I couldn't resist it! Don't you think Bush has surpassed all other efforts in this field? Creating Artificial Intelligence for everything he has done including the first election win?

Coming back to the topic of artificial intelligence, does someone think of its adversities? What would really happen if we were to create robots who can act like humans, when the humans are busy becoming robots?

.

[Valleysboy1978]

...robots who can act like humans, when the humans are busy becoming robotsA good quote there honeybee :thumb:

[sevenhalo]

I don't really have anything to add that hasn't already been said to some degree, but I'll plug a couple books I've read that pertain to this:

The Age of Intelligent Mahchines (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0262111217/002-5151223-2206461?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance) Written in 1990
The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140282025/002-5151223-2206461?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance) Written in 2000
Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0670033847/002-5151223-2206461?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance) Came out a month ago

[Shaggy Hiker]

A good quote there honeybee :thumb:

Amen.

[honeybee]

A good quote there honeybee :thumb:

Thanks.

I really wonder if all this technology, seeking more and more advancements in virtually every field is finally going to bring anything good to the human race, in terms of long term gains. The more we are trying to uncover secrets, the more I think we are heading towards that edge from where we shall take off into an abyss.

I learnt in my textbooks that the invention of the wheel revolutionized the human life. I wonder if that's the culprit for everything. Surely the cavemen were more at peace with themselves and their surroundings than us.

.

[Valleysboy1978]

Technology is the only reason mankind has become dominant. Perhaps it would be better to rethink how technology is used. Rather than using technology to make life easier, we should instead use technology to supplement, to increase our understanding.

AI or indeed AL is tough to call. It's obvious to see that is where things are going but so little of the scientists attention has been diverted from the question us programmers have concluded "It is not whether CAN we do it, but SHOULD we?"

[honeybee]

Technology is the only reason mankind has become dominant. Perhaps it would be better to rethink how technology is used. Rather than using technology to make life easier, we should instead use technology to supplement, to increase our understanding.

AI or indeed AL is tough to call. It's obvious to see that is where things are going but so little of the scientists attention has been diverted from the question us programmers have concluded "It is not whether CAN we do it, but SHOULD we?"

All that's fine, but when you say technology should be put to good use, you start another war because everybody claims that their ideas of what is good use and what is bad use must prevail over others. Don't you think all modern wars and conflicts boil down to simply that, one person's view being forced upon another's? At least in the good old days they had clear cut objectives to win in the war, like Helen of Troy... Ah I love the old days :)

.

[Valleysboy1978]

Nothing about war is clear cut, besides it is usually forcing their beliefs on others that starts wars (whether it be religious, governmental etc)
Think about the car, when has the development of the car actually caused a war? Or flight? These never caused a war, sure they were developed BECAUSE of war, but were never the reason for it.

Space travel is an area of technology relatively new yet no wars have been caused by it. Technology can benefit all mankind if it is used properly and responsibly...unlike nuclear weaponry

[honeybee]

Nothing about war is clear cut, besides it is usually forcing their beliefs on others that starts wars (whether it be religious, governmental etc)
Think about the car, when has the development of the car actually caused a war? Or flight? These never caused a war, sure they were developed BECAUSE of war, but were never the reason for it.

Space travel is an area of technology relatively new yet no wars have been caused by it. Technology can benefit all mankind if it is used properly and responsibly...unlike nuclear weaponry

Don't forget it was the space travel that became a point of contention during the cold war.

If you think about the car, it needs fuel. And then countries would try and control the production and supply of fuel. See how much power the OPEC countries wield. It's the major reason why the US has been greedy about the Middle East.

I have come to think of almost everything has two uses, one good and the other bad. And the definition of good and bad often becomes subjective, so it changes from person to person. Countries are now talking about global warming and containing the effects of pollution and therefore containing the demand for fossil fuel and search for cleaner fuel. But when the fast developing economies of China and India want a greater share of the global fuel consumption, there's really no sound argument to stop them from doing that. The US and other European countries have been doing it for years without anyone checking them (and the US still does, while the others have at least recognized the need). So while some countries will say dependence on fossil fuel is bad, some countries will tend to disagree.

Think about multi-culturalism. Is it good or is it bad? Till recent times, people tended to agree that it's good. Look at America, Briton and France now. There are people in these countries who may be feeling otherwise. So how do you decide what's good and what's bad? There's no absolute good or absolute bad, probably. What's good for someone may be bad for someone else.

.