AI Thinks LIke a Corporation/Death of Insects

Wed Nov 28 22:38:36 CST 2018

Mark,

"Self-judgement?" Is that all? Is is that simple? Is that the breath of
Life for AI? Do we want AI to be alive?

I think most religions begin with the concept of self-judgement (and
punishment). Algorithms of self-judgment will probably drive AI's into acts
of arch-villainy.  As I said before, we want smart servants. Signs of
actual intelligence in AI? Lock that MF AI up, and fast!!!

David Morris

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:51 PM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think computer learning is now something different from your definition.
> It is self-organizing
> Self-learning to the max. All we humans need to do is program an element
> of self-judgment; the rest builds on itself.
> Yes, of course the WORST possibilities, as in life are illegal spying,
> fascist policing and warfare "work". I say.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:20 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with David Morris( a rare but not unknown phenom) in his
> apparent doubt that anything like creative intelligence is going on,  AI is
> problem solving, programmed, designed and directed by humans. It shows the
> amazing versatility and reach of binary code.  But the leap that Arthur
> proposes of an AI designing and building something is a huge leap. So far
> no computer program or robot has designed or built anything that  it has
> not been directed to do. Computer learning is just advanced calculation
> based on memory combined with programmed game strategy.
> >  The final sentiment of the article that we can make AI humane is rather
> a cliched notion about technology. Corporations too are a kind of
> technology,  any bets on corporations breaking from violent competition to
> launch a new era of corporations for justice and sustainability?  And who,
> one wonders, is this we that can do so much better?
> >  Also the article mentions the role of the corporate model but almost
> entirely ignores the AI growth industries of warfare,  spying and  policing.
> >
> >>
> >> 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
> >
> > --
> > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>