AI Thinks LIke a Corporation/Death of Insects

Wed Nov 28 07:47:19 CST 2018

Mark,
I've played out the *Game of the Century*, and many other Fischer games, to
my constant amazement. But all things considered, John Stuart Mill surely
holds some sort of record; by the time he was three, he could read, write
and speak English, Latin and Greek. I'm fluent in English competent in
French, and am now trying to learn Mandarin. At age 71, it's not easy. Ah
well. As T.S. Eliot wrote:
I grow old, I grow old,
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:46 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:

> The anecdote of the Go Champion being STUNNED, STUNNED I TELL YOU, by an*
> early* move where the rock was placed way out of range of where the
> action was happening is.......something.
>
> In chess, which I know a little, the AI's recapitulated the whole history
> of various openings in days and hours as well, with increasingly
> perfectible moves and, of course never a blunder but "surpises" at the
> grandmaster level only in the perfection of conceived sequences (hard at
> that level to be in a position for a surprise as  in Fisher's Game of the
> Century).
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:32 AM Arthur Fuller <fuller.artful at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> From an article on GeeksAreSexy.net:
>>
>> "By starting without any human-like preconceptions, AlphaGo Zero was able
>> to develop strategies more suited to its capabilities. It still needs to be
>> tested against human players, but one expert who analyzed the
>> inter-computer games says it used techniques he had never previously seen.
>>
>> Google’s hope is that such an approach might work in other areas of
>> artificial intelligence, with computers that develop techniques and
>> procedures that make best use of a computer’s capacity rather than trying
>> to refine the way human brains approach tasks."
>>
>> This is analogous to the history of man's attempts to fly. Early attempts
>> were modeled on birds; men with wings attached by harness, etc. Then came
>> the Wright brothers, and look what happened in 115 years, 1903 to last week
>> -- 852 feet back then, Mars last week (54.6 km).
>>
>> Similarly, by teaching itself to play GO, AlphaGO Zero bypassed human
>> preconceptions about the game, and came up with moves never before seen. AI
>> will do the same, I think.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:41 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Dave, I'm sorry. I can't do that, Dave"...
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 4:22 AM John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Arthur's on the money. I was an AI skeptic like David for a long time,
>>>> until I learned the current prevailing method of development:
>>>> essentially pitting two AI against one another, each trying to
>>>> convince the other that it is "real", although the criteria for that
>>>> will vary. And each learns from the other's failures, and does a bit
>>>> better, and so on and so on in a reciprocal manner that is only
>>>> limited by the computing power and electricity. So yes, DM, they're
>>>> already talking among themselves, so to speak. But they can have
>>>> centuries of conversations in seconds.
>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:00 PM Arthur Fuller <fuller.artful at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > There is an old religious/philosophical question, originally from old
>>>> Jewish theology I think: if God is all-powerful, can he create something
>>>> greater than Himself? Applied to AI, this question describes what Ray
>>>> Kurzweil calls The Singularity. One has only to look at AlphaGO to see
>>>> this. The original AlphaGO soundly thumped the world's best GO player,
>>>> after having taught itself to play the game in two weeks, playing against
>>>> itself. It successor, AlphaGO Zero, played a 100-game match against its
>>>> progenitor, with a result of 100 games to zero.
>>>> > One can generalize this phenomenon: an AI will design and build its
>>>> own successor, and once that happens, further growth will proceed
>>>> exponentially. Kurzweil defined The Singularity as the moment when AI
>>>> becomes smarter than its creators. Once that happens -- and I (and others)
>>>> believe it surely will, then all bets, and all considerations about our
>>>> well-being, are off.
>>>> >
>>>> > Arthur
>>>> >
>>>> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 5:27 AM John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I think what the article makes clear is that what "we" want from AI
>>>> >> doesn't matter - as far as I know nobody on the P-list is leading
>>>> that
>>>> >> charge, but certain people are and we shouldn't talk about the
>>>> >> "progress" or "evolution" of a particular technology as if it's
>>>> >> ahistorical and inevitable.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> A practical example: there's a lot of talk about the ethics of
>>>> >> automated cars, and what their algorithms should take into account
>>>> >> when deciding who dies in a crash. From all I've read/heard the
>>>> >> discussion comes down to utilitarian ethics, and what would be the
>>>> >> greater good in such a situation. But utilitarian ethics treats
>>>> people
>>>> >> as mathematical variables and is far from the only ethical model that
>>>> >> could be applied, but it's the model that makes most sense from a
>>>> >> programming standpoint, and perhaps the standpoint of a legal
>>>> >> corporation trying to cover its posterior.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Maybe the problem in AI thinking like a corporation is that
>>>> >> corporations are very good at a lot of things (perpetuating their own
>>>> >> survival, decentralised functioning, reorganising themselves to adapt
>>>> >> to challenges, reducing individual culpability) but not so good at
>>>> >> others (pretty much everything covered in the history of ethics).
>>>> >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 4:08 PM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Does anyone think AI would be better with a chaos quotient?  I
>>>> don't think so.  So Predictable Intelligence is our real goal. We want
>>>> *smart* servants, not intelligence.  So, of course predictable AI will
>>>> support corporate structures.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > it seems to me that AI is essentially imitative, not creative, not
>>>> spontaneous.  It isn't really intelligent. We don't want it to talk back or
>>>> even question us.  We won't ever tolerate that.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > David Morris
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 9:47 PM Ian Livingston <
>>>> igrlivingston at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Yep. Chiming in with gratitude, Rick. Thanks.
>>>> >> >> My answer to the concluding question is pending, though I tend
>>>> toward the
>>>> >> >> latter proposition.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:58 PM John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> > Thanks Rich, great read.
>>>> >> >> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:41 AM bulb <bulb at vheissu.net> wrote:
>>>> >> >> > >
>>>> >> >> > > Really excellent article, thank you Rich.  Working for a
>>>> company that is
>>>> >> >> > making massive investments in AI - this puts things in
>>>> perspective..
>>>> >> >> > >
>>>> >> >> > > -----Original Message-----
>>>> >> >> > > From: Pynchon-l <pynchon-l-bounces at waste.org> On Behalf Of
>>>> rich
>>>> >> >> > > Sent: dinsdag 27 november 2018 15:45
>>>> >> >> > > To: “pynchon-l at waste.org“ <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>>> >> >> > > Subject: AI Thinks LIke a Corporation/Death of Insects
>>>> >> >> > >
>>>> >> >> > > thought you guys would be interested
>>>> >> >> > >
>>>> >> >> > >
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/11/26/ai-thinks-like-a-corporation-and-thats-worrying
>>>> >> >> > >
>>>> >> >> > > like everything else these days we're dazzled by the science
>>>> not knowing
>>>> >> >> > or caring about context, origins
>>>> >> >> > >
>>>> >> >> > > and this
>>>> >> >> > >
>>>> >> >> > >
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/magazine/insect-apocalypse.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
>>>> >> >> > > --
>>>> >> >> > > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>>> >> >> > >
>>>> >> >> > > --
>>>> >> >> > > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>>> >> >> > --
>>>> >> >> > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> --
>>>> >> >> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>>> >> --
>>>> >> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Arthur
>>>> >
>>>> --
>>>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Arthur
>>
>>

-- 
Arthur