AI Thinks LIke a Corporation/Death of Insects

[Arthur Fuller]

.. The AI successes that impress me more are those that develop hypotheses
from sections of our knowledge, hypotheses that can be usefully tested to
grow real world knowledge.

I wish that I could hope for humans to pass this tough test that you
propose. In my experience, few if any can meet your measure, myself
included. So what 1% of the 1% are you describing?

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 5:58 PM Peter Brawley <peter.brawley at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 03:00, 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.
>>
>
> We can generalise anything. The ones worth remembering will be those very
> few that prove out empirically .
>
> Some *specific AI machines* can build their own successors. AI in general
> is already continuously building its own successor, but AI in general is
> mainly human. And that AI isn't just far away from emulating human
> thought. It's hardly begun.
>
> Winning games is fun. A specific AI machine winning N games in a row is a
> far cry from analysing & managing the whole real world. The AI successes
> that impress me more are those that develop hypotheses from sections of our
> knowledge, hypotheses that can be usefully tested to grow real world
> knowledge.
>
> PB
>
>
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> --
> Peter Brawley
> www.artfulsoftware.com
>
> *Where money is speech, speech isn't free.*
>
>

-- 
Arthur