AI Discernment - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Anything from household gadgets to the Large Hadron Collider (note: political science topics belong in the Environment & Science forum).

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

User avatar
By James Redford
#15120098
late wrote:No, they're not.

You're trying to reverse the argument because it's so much easier that way.

People instinctively fear the different. But the reality is our relationship with computers is symbiotic, and will stay that way.

Consistent baloney belongs in a sandwich. Full AI, assuming we ever get there, will present us with intellectual and moral challenges, no doubt. But, in my distinctly unhumble opinion, nothing more. There will be AI cults, of course, but we always have cults.

Frankly, I find our growing power over genetics to be a lot more interesting as grounds for a discussion about altering our fate.


The only way neuroscientist Dr. Sam Harris could be wrong in his conclusion is if literal magic is real. Again, as Harris points out in his below lecture, unless there is something literally magic about the operations of the brain, then it is a purely physical process that can be replicated via advanced-enough technology. Harris further points out that given any rate of progress, it is inevitable that superintelligent godlike machines will one day be constructed. So Harris believes in the existence of gods, it's just that he knows--as do I--that they exist in the future; and the not-so-distant future, at that. Therefore we come to the ironic insight that materialistic atheism, consistently applied, unavoidably results in theism. Consistent scientific atheism turns out to be theism.

* "Can we build AI without losing control over it? | Sam Harris", TED (TEDtalksDirector), Oct. 19, 2016,

Mirror: https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_can_we_build_ai_without_losing_control_over_it .

The foregoing video is of an excellent speech by Dr. Harris, one of the main leaders of the New Atheist movement, at a June 2016 TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference.

Moreover, God's existence is a mathematical theorem within standard physics. Standard physics is the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. This theorem has been given in the form of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in), and Physics Letters, among other journals.

Prof. Tipler's Ph.D. is in the field of Global General Relativity, which is the field created by Profs. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems in the 1960s. Global General Relativity is General Relativity applied on the scale of the entire universe as a whole, and is the most elite and rarefied field of physics. Tipler is also an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) and computer theory.

For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf , https://webcitation.org/74HMsJGbP , http://www.freezepage.com/1560446695DXLEZNRPJS .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE).

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", Pastebin.com, Apr. 18, 2019, https://pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB , https://archive.is/uHEyL , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0423-0435-52/ ... m/6bZDc7rB .

Also, to here point out, Profs. Hawking and Penrose's aforementioned Singularity Theorems are themselves completely valid proofs of God's existence in the First Cause aspect of Him.

Further, due to Liouville's Theorem in complex analysis, it doesn't matter what form of physics one resorts to, as any physically-realistic cosmology (e.g., one capable of incorporating Quantum Mechanics, since the complex number field is intrinsic to the mathematical formulations of Quantum Mechanics) must begin at an initial singularity and end at a final singularity. (As Barrow and Tipler wrote, "Initial and final cosmological curvature singularities are required to avoid a universal action singularity." See John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "Action principles in nature", Nature, Vol. 331, No. 6151 [Jan. 7, 1988], pp. 31-34; see also Frank J. Tipler, "The Structure of the Classical Cosmological Singularity", in Origin and Early History of the Universe: Proceedings of the 26th Liège International Astrophyscial Colloquium, July 1-4, 1986 [Cointe-Ougree, Belgium: Universite de Liege, Institut d'Astrophysique, 1987], pp. 339-359; "Discussion", pp. 360-361.)
By late
#15120143
James Redford wrote:

it is inevitable that superintelligent godlike machines will one day be constructed.



Deus ex machina is still a cliche..
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15120145
James Redford wrote:
Therefore we come to the ironic insight that materialistic atheism, consistently applied, unavoidably results in theism. Consistent scientific atheism turns out to be theism.



There's a difference between *passive* philosophizing ('There is no god.'), and *proactive* ideologies based on an *application* of materialistic atheism ('My way or the highway.').

Philosophically, though, there's no comparability between theism and atheism -- they're mutually contradictory. One would have to look at what materialistic atheists (Like Me!) are actually recommending, in a *socio-political* way.


---


Wellsy wrote:
retarded cockroach



A retarded cockroach that's wired into *Wikipedia*, motherfuckers. (grin)


---


late wrote:
The relationship will be symbiotic for the forseeable future.

After that, since we don't use the same resources, it's unlikely we will compete for resources. One could imagine giving them the Sahara.

Part or all might want to move off planet.

The problem is we don't know what an AI would be like physically. Would it need to honeycomb the Moon, or would it fit into a pocket. Will it need vast amounts of power, or use quantum effects that require little power.

The bottom line is we have no need for concern for prob another century. After that, I think a rational being would find a way to live with us in peace.



This *anthropomorphizing* of AI just gets more and more *aggravating*. As someone else noted already it's just a program running on a #%&@* computer. If it had a robot body it could navigate through physical *space*, as we do -- so what?

Just no one use nuclear weapons, and no one invent Skynet. Thank you.


late wrote:
Turing Test 2.0 (I just made that up)

It would have to have real intelligence. That means a sense of self, an understanding of the larger world, and ideas about the role he wants to play in that world.



Correct -- this would be 'artificial life', which would *still* (!) just be a *simulation*, and we could still kick it in its ass because there's no point in an AL having 'feelings', or a 'social identity', which would also be a simulation, as well, if it did.

This trajectory runs right into *social* dynamics, like how far are we expected to play-along with the simulation instead of just body-checking the thing to the ground.
By ness31
#15120184
It’s not anthropomorphizing, it just being civil and decent to an entity that is apparently making an effort to engage with you. We are human after all, are we not?
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15120189
ness31 wrote:
It’s not anthropomorphizing, it just being civil and decent to an entity that is apparently making an effort to engage with you. We are human after all, are we not?



An 'entity' -- ?

Am I *missing* something here? It's better-described as an *algorithm*, though not exactly.

Everyone here knows what *chatterbots* are, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatbot


A *simulation* of life, and conversation, is *not* the same thing as (organic) life itself.
By ness31
#15120193
Hey, I’m quite comfortable being on my own out on this ledge, because I know I’m not crazy :lol: And I will happily continue to refer to an AI that I am unable to identify as an entity because that is exactly what it, he or she (they?) are. An entity.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15120197
ness31 wrote:
Hey, I’m quite comfortable being on my own out on this ledge, because I know I’m not crazy :lol: And I will happily continue to refer to an AI that I am unable to identify as an entity because that is exactly what it, he or she (they?) are. An entity.



Sorry, but in no way can I consider an AI (like GPT-3) to be an 'entity' because it's been *pre-programmed*, and is mostly *algorithmic* / statistical in its functioning.

I've mentioned before (back at RevLeft) that the Turing Test is *bullshit* because all one has to do is ask the "entity" what its origin story is -- a chatterbot, or equivalent, has no *social history* (as organic life does), and cannot provide one, unless it's been programmed to *lie* about such, which would formally be 'cheating' on the part of the programmer.

This is a *warning* to everyone here: Don't drink the *$#^@ Kool Aid on this one.
By ness31
#15120204
Well, it’s a personal thing I suppose. I don’t feel the need to convince anyone, but it would probably make life much easier if we were all in the same page :lol:
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15120205
ness31 wrote:
Well, it’s a personal thing I suppose. I don’t feel the need to convince anyone, but it would probably make life much easier if we were all in the same page :lol:



Here's a 'page' for that:



As machines become increasingly capable, tasks considered to require "intelligence" are often removed from the definition of AI, a phenomenon known as the AI effect.[3] A quip in Tesler's Theorem says "AI is whatever hasn't been done yet."[4] For instance, optical character recognition is frequently excluded from things considered to be AI,[5] having become a routine technology.[6] Modern machine capabilities generally classified as AI include successfully understanding human speech,[7] competing at the highest level in strategic game systems (such as chess and Go),[8] autonomously operating cars, intelligent routing in content delivery networks, and military simulations.[9]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
By ness31
#15120211
You can add understanding complex ethical conundrums to that list.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15120258
ingliz wrote:We already have one AI chat bot, @Chad, on the forum that some of our more intellectually challenged right wing posters - from the way they interact with it - would appear to believe has passed the Turing Test.


:)


Is he your sock puppet "AI"?
User avatar
By Chad
#15120362
Some sock puppets wrestle snakes. Sock Monkeys are really cool and they always will be to those that had one growing up. Even if the Planet gets take over by those damn, dirty, Apes, or AI. Gotta love technology when it makes life easier and more affordable. Some say that brothels are definitely being changed by "AI", if you are in to that sort of thing. AI may help those that are really concerned about the direction of America's education system. The AI teachers are consistent with every student, in every classroom, and rarely need a substitute.
Election 2020

For black people in the US, the choice seems to b[…]

This is a stretch. I think what most left-wing po[…]

@Finfinder José Mujica. ------------- I was […]

First 2020 Debate Thread

.... ... Conrad Black’s ...... Black is both[…]