AI Thinks LIke a Corporation/Death of Insects

Wed Nov 28 22:46:20 CST 2018

Also, how does an AI become a "self?" That's a WHOLE 'nuther issue.

David Morris

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:38 PM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>