AI Thinks LIke a Corporation/Death of Insects

Wed Nov 28 23:23:41 CST 2018

Yes, it is.....

One computer-programmed unit of a made object works pragmatically.

We all already refer to the AI which can become a great Go player as a
separate thing.unit, etc.

I DON'T want to call it a 'self' even by analogy so I'll take it back and
use one of these words.
There is no difference in action and reality.

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:46 PM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>