Re: How Robots Will Steal Your Job

[Wojtek]

She may not have understood the relationship between the collar and the
door, no matter how obvious it may seem to us.

The following is a copy from the top quoted post:
--------
If she wants to go out to play, she sits by the door and waits until
someone notices. She does not get the collar, she does not sit by the
collar. In fact, she will sort of resist the collar being put on. Once
it IS on, she goes straight to the door and waits for it to be open
(proves that she knows about the relationship).
--------

I believe that she does understand the relationship. Note that if she
does not want to go out, and I pick up the collar, she will run away.
If I pick up the collar and she does want to go out, she tolerates it
being put on. And then makes a bee line for the door.

 

[Bent C Dalager]

I think that the density of good solutions in all possible guesses (or
mutations) is key to how we even exist at all. If it took too many
mutations for an organism to hit on an advantageous one, too many
evolutionary "guesses", then evolution could not work; organisms would
degenerate back into random noise. The space of possible mutations has
to be to some degree "dense" with advantageous mutations.

I think credit should rather be going to the incredible robustness of
DNA. Somehow, DNA seems to be very resistant to letting random
mutations to its genes cause significant changes in the organism.
Given this property, each actual change is incredibly small so even if
the change is disadvantageous, chances are the organism will be able
to cope. The weighted reproduction rate of the disadvantaged organisms
is only slightly worse than that of the advantaged ones and so only in
the very long term does the gene pool "improve".

Cheers
Bent D

 

[Bent C Dalager]

That's not up to us, we developed speech BECAUSE we were intelligent!
They must do so also.

A lot of animals communicate with one another. None of them have come
up with a cross-species language (that we know), but then, neither
have we.

Your criteria for accepting something not human as being intelligent
is that it should be a lot more intelligent than we are to even be
considered?

Cheers
Bent D

 

[Corey Murtagh]

The following is a copy from the top quoted post:
--------
If she wants to go out to play, she sits by the door and waits until
someone notices. She does not get the collar, she does not sit by the
collar. In fact, she will sort of resist the collar being put on. Once
it IS on, she goes straight to the door and waits for it to be open
(proves that she knows about the relationship).
--------

Sorry, but I interpreted that (wrongly it seems) as saying that she sits
by the door when she wants to go out, *regardless* of whether she has
the collar on or not. Doing so with the collar on will produce the
desired effect. Without the collar, you will eventually /provide/ the
collar, and she again achieves the desired effect.

I believe that she does understand the relationship. Note that if she
does not want to go out, and I pick up the collar, she will run away.
If I pick up the collar and she does want to go out, she tolerates it
being put on. And then makes a bee line for the door.

This does seem to indicate better that she understands the relationship.
But consider that she may be aware that:

a) she is incapable of putting on the collar

b) sitting by the door is a signal you recognize as her wanting to go out

So even if she /does/, as you believe, understand that the collar
relates to the door opening, she may have her own reasons for acting the
way she does.

Also, sitting staring at a closed door they want to get through seems to
be a common activity for a lot of cats that I've met. They learn over
time that humans will eventually get the idea and open the offending
door. If there's no human obviously paying attention, they'll either
make noise or go looking for one... and often forget that they wanted to
go out in the first place

 

[Sir Charles W. Shults III]

I have three cats, and each has learned to respond in what appears to be a
very intelligent manner.
Each will approach the door, but this is not necessarily a sign that they
want out. If they are sitting by the door (a glass door with vertical blinds),
they will do one of the following- stare through the blinds, but make no noise,
rattle the vertical blinds and meow, or in the case of one cat, literally try to
reach the door latch mechanism.
When they just sit, you can ask "do you want to go out?" If they meow, or
rattle the blinds, they want out. If they are just sitting and looking and you
ask, they will look at you and then resume staring. Opening the door in this
case results in them not going out, just looking at you.
Now, this clearly indicates that they have an interior mental state
equivalent to "I want to go out" or "I do not want to go out" because their
actions demonstrate the two states. And, they understand the query, "do you
want to go out" because they will respond in an appropriate manner. At least,
while they will sometimes respond to other questions (but not always), they show
a knowledge of the relationships- if you ask them and they want out, they will
respond.
In the case of the one cat that reaches for the door latch, she absolutely
shows that she understands that the latch must be related to getting out of the
door. She has observed us operating it and knows that somehow, in some strange
manner, it has some bearing on being able to get through that door.
Not only that, but this particular cat has figured out that when she is
outside, if she knocks on the door, we will let her in. Also, the other cats
have learned from observing this that they, too, can knock and get in. So they
have the ability to figure out an action that gets a response.
Furthermore, this cat has learned to knock on my bedroom door in the middle
of the night to show that she wants out- and that is sort of irritating. A
squirt bottle cured that. And that truly demonstrates learning and a bit of
understanding.

Cheers!

Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip

 

[CyberLegend aka Jure Sah]

Using that criteria, a common calculator is more intelligent than your
average person, in that it can calculate the square root of a number
quicker. I do not believe that a calculator is intelligent.

It is intelligent in the mathematical sense.

If I misspell a word, my word processor will tell me that it is
misspelled. That is what it was programmed to do. Does that make the
word processor intelligent? All it is doing is looking up a pattern of
bits, and doing comparisons.

Look. Neural systems aren't supperior to silicon ones simply because
they're wet and squishy. Just like the computer does bitwise
comparisments, your brain is doing something very simmilar in a slightly
diffirent way.

The diffirence in function of course arises in what a person has been
told to do. Don't you agree that you can't call a child stupid because
he didn't know he had to check the meaning of his text while writing? If
you just answered "yes, that child has to be awfully stupid not to check
that", try asking someone that actualy works on a school.

I disagree. Intelligence is the ability to solve problems that may not
lie in your area of expertise. What I know about routing transmission
lines could be written on the head of a pin using a 20 point font.

However, using my brain, I could probably come up with a way to get
electricity from one place to another. Would it be the optimum
solution? Nope, probably not even by several orders of magnitude. BUT,
I can at least TRY to solve a problem that is wildly out of my
knowledge domain.

One word: BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!!

A computer cannot solve problems it has not been programmed for.

On the contrary, it can. It is simply fact that usualy you don't want
the computer solving problems it was not programmed for. Why? See above.

Observer aka DustWolf aka CyberLegend aka Jure Sah

C'ya!

--
Cellphone: +38640809676 (SMS enabled)

Don't feel bad about asking/telling me anything, I will always gladly
reply.

"Yes, Master."

Have you been told Internet will always be
threatened by worms viruses etc? We don't think so:
http://www.aimetasearch.com/ici/index.htm

MesonAI -- If nobody else wants to do it, why shouldn't we?(TM)

 

[CyberLegend aka Jure Sah]

Wojtek's point was that a person will submit to elective surgery even
with full knowledge that there will be pain /after/ the anaesthetic has
worn off. But then we know that pain-killers exist, but we also know
that they're not going to remove all of the pain.

Still, not so sure that animals wouldn't make the same decisions if
given enough information to act on. It's just a little difficult to
convey that information to something we can't communicate with.

Actualy: Elements of submission are more common with animals than with
humans. It might help if you take for your example an animal to which it
is natural to live in a hierarchy where diffirent individuals take care
of oneanother. For example wolves.

Also, I would like to mention that when my cat gets her her fur cloged
up into problematic bundles, she will willingly sit in my lap until I
have removed them all even tho it is an obviously painfull process.

Observer aka DustWolf aka CyberLegend aka Jure Sah

C'ya!

--
Cellphone: +38640809676 (SMS enabled)

Don't feel bad about asking/telling me anything, I will always gladly
reply.

"Yes, Master."

Have you been told Internet will always be
threatened by worms viruses etc? We don't think so:
http://www.aimetasearch.com/ici/index.htm

MesonAI -- If nobody else wants to do it, why shouldn't we?(TM)

 

[CyberLegend aka Jure Sah]

A lot of animals communicate with one another. None of them have come
up with a cross-species language (that we know), but then, neither
have we.

If so, I would find it curious to learn that a dog I spend a longer
amount of time with will know what I'm thinking of.

Are dogs more intelligent than humans?

Observer aka DustWolf aka CyberLegend aka Jure Sah

C'ya!

--
Cellphone: +38640809676 (SMS enabled)

Don't feel bad about asking/telling me anything, I will always gladly
reply.

"Yes, Master."

Have you been told Internet will always be
threatened by worms viruses etc? We don't think so:
http://www.aimetasearch.com/ici/index.htm

MesonAI -- If nobody else wants to do it, why shouldn't we?(TM)

 

[CyberLegend aka Jure Sah]

Better: You THINK you're in charge. Most social animals still devolop
their normal society within the human oppression, what I laugh at most
however, is a human calling him self the leader of a pack of dogs that
he claims possesion of.

and kill them. If they were intelligence they would:
1) resent that, 2) try to convince us not to eat them. They don't.

Basicaly, if you take your dog, with whom you've spent your entire life
and inflict a wound on him that will not be directly leathal, the resent
will be noticed. And if you do that in a pack of dogs, the other
membmers will assure you they realise what you have done (if it's not
the Alpha you've killed).

BTW, personaly, I don't belive pray animals deserve to be called
particulary intelligent tho. But then again, humans ARE pray animals.

Oh? Look, if you would be practicaly capable to observe at least other
PEOPLE's thoughts, I think you wouldn't be claiming such absurdly stupid
things here...

------------------
It need not know the word yes, but:
It would have to be obviously frantic to inform us, knowing what we
might do since we are in control, and then make every effort to
symbolically communicate. If it can't, then it doesn't exist. Symbols
are part and parcel of what we mean by awareness. In other words it
better take up a stick and start scratching in the dirt and making
sense.

Hmm. When I look at a dog and the dog looks back at me and we run allong
a cupple of meters, keeping a steady distance between the two of us, the
symbol communication system in my brain generates that magical gut
feeling that we understand each other, that system signals to the other
systems in my brain, one of which logicaly conclude that that constant
checking on eachother and the fact that we are both carefully keeping a
constant maximum range between us must mean that we both exist.

Natural leanguage is equaly extrasensioary.

So are most animals. Are you faceblind or something?

--------------------
No entity is a being and has a right to life until and unless they
are bright enough to demand those rights in a manner that any other
such being can understand. That means symbolically.

They AREN'T till they make the effort! Nothing IS alive or DESERVES
the assumption that it IS alive, until it can demand that it be
respected! Until they can do that, they are FOOD!!

So... are you saying every Omega wolf in a given wolfpack is not actualy
alive? (An Omega wolf is the lowest ranking in the pack hierarchy,
usualy submits to everybody else in the pack and makes no effort to
climb into higher ranks, in effect making no requests to others and
never stands for himself; a position which, however inconcievable to
most humans, is rather advantageous.)

LOL.

Thanx for that prog, man. I love it.

Observer aka DustWolf aka CyberLegend aka Jure Sah

C'ya!

--
Cellphone: +38640809676 (SMS enabled)

Don't feel bad about asking/telling me anything, I will always gladly
reply.

"Yes, Master."

Have you been told Internet will always be
threatened by worms viruses etc? We don't think so:
http://www.aimetasearch.com/ici/index.htm

MesonAI -- If nobody else wants to do it, why shouldn't we?(TM)

 

[Constantinople]

(e-mail address removed) (Bent C Dalager) wrote in @tyfon.itea.ntnu.no:

I think credit should rather be going to the incredible robustness of
DNA.

I think much credit probably should go to the DNA, but I don't think the
question is either/or. The DNA doesn't do it alone.

 

[Airy R Bean]

You are describing what is in your mind, and anthromorphising that
the dog has a similar mind and so understands you. Does your dog
understand the opinions that you are presenting in this NG?.

If it was suggested to you that you had the equivalent brain of a dog, I
think
that you would be insulted.

 

[Corey Murtagh]

You are describing what is in your mind, and anthromorphising that
the dog has a similar mind and so understands you. Does your dog
understand the opinions that you are presenting in this NG?.

Since when did understanding newsgroup posts become a foundation
requirement of intelligence? If that /were/ a requirement, I'm guessing
some people that keep posting to this thread would probably fail to
qualify :>

If it was suggested to you that you had the equivalent brain of a dog, I
think that you would be insulted.

I doubt that anyone is trying to claim that dogs are as intelligent as
humans, simply that they possess /more/ intelligence - or
self-awareness, or possibly consciousness - than some people (like
Steve) are giving them credit for.

 

[Hans-Georg Michna]

Hans-Georg Michna wrote:

Nonsense, I've turned off several just today.
I'm not talking about a rebellion, just human control.

Steve,

yes, those are the ones the system allows you to use. But when
the system becomes intelligent, it will not let you use those it
does not want you to use. This is already happening today.

The system means today's system of computers and humans, but
humans are gradually being taken out of the loop.

Hans-Georg

 

[Hans-Georg Michna]

... are really "Self Aware" and not just clever? Maybe I am missing something,
but what would you define as "Self Aware"? Has anyone tried showing them
photos of themselves? If they recognized photos of themselves as themselves,
would that suffice? Interesting topic for all sorts of thought experiments,
but without some form of communication will it ever be possible to really
know if other creatures are self aware?

Eddie,

let's turn the question around and ask ourselves what exactly we
mean, preferably in measurable terms, when we say, "I am
self-aware."

And, by the way, the question is not all that terribly
interesting when it comes to artificial intelligence, because
the ultimate question is still whether some kind of intelligence
will be able to sustain itself, procreate, expand, rule.

Hans-Georg

 

[Hans-Georg Michna]

I don't doubt it, but that point is irrelevant to what I'm saying. I'm
saying that the INTERPRETATION of the experiment is extremely silly. As I
see it, the experiment tests for a certain kind of flexibility in
perception, specifically, the ability to learn how to interpret mirror
reflections correctly (i.e., as reflections of things in front of the
mirror rather than as things standing behind the mirror). It's the
interpretation of the test as being about self-awareness that I find silly.

I understand your point, but indications are that this test
shows at least something that only very few species have,
including humans. It shows that the animal understands that it
looks like its companions. Otherwise it would not reach for its
own head to rub off a spot.

The rest of the problem revolves around the definition of
self-awareness. To me it is the ability, to shift my viewpoint
above myself, imagine myself in the landscape, and understand
that I'm an object in my surroundings just like many other
objects and just like my species companions.

The question is, how can we design a better test for this? Many
instinctive actions work without this ability, and it is
difficult to design a test that differentiates between
instinctive action and rational self-awareness. Offhand I can't
think of one that's more convincing than the mirror test, but
I'll keep thinking.

Perhaps if an animal A finds out by trial and error that solving
some non-trivial problem yields some food, animal B is allowed
to watch animal A, and later goes and does the same thing
without trial and error, that could be proof. It proves that
animal B understands that it is like animal A and has the same
effect on its surroundings as A. The residual question would be,
could it be mere aping? But in this test it would not be enough
to ape the movements of animal A, it requires understanding of
the problem solving procedure as well. I don't know, difficult
question.

Hans-Georg

 

[Hans-Georg Michna]

Just that they
don't have as much emotional freight as we do.

Wasn't it Niko Tinbergen who once said, "Animals are very
emotional humans with very little intelligence."?

If anything, animals have more intense emotions (= instincts)
than we do, because they are entirely emotion (= inctinct)
driven.

Hans-Georg

 

[Airy R Bean]

Misquoting corrected.....

Since when did understanding newsgroup posts become a foundation
requirement of intelligence? If that /were/ a requirement, I'm guessing
some people that keep posting to this thread would probably fail to
qualify :>
I doubt that anyone is trying to claim that dogs are as intelligent as
humans, simply that they possess /more/ intelligence - or
self-awareness, or possibly consciousness - than some people (like
Steve) are giving them credit for.

 

[Hans-Georg Michna]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:51:52 +0200, Hans-Georg Michna

How does a mathematical formula that requires an external seed equate
to creativity? Since an identical seed will always have the same
"random" number set.

Wojtek,

you'd have to get some external seed. Take the clock.

Hmmm, by this definition a chess program has intelligence, since it
creates possible action paths, assigns a value to the outcome of each
path, then acts on the "best" action path.

As far as I know, Big Blue was not successful because it had much
better algorithms, but that it could "explore" more paths within time
constraints. Huge memory and massive parallel processing.

Well, playing chess counts as intelligence for me. A narrow kind
of intelligence, but intelligence nonetheless. I always use a
narrow definition of intelligence anyway, because any wider
definition than, say, IQ, is bound to be useless.

Hans-Georg

 

[Hans-Georg Michna]

All I have asserted is that there is a speed component to
intelligence. If entity A can come up with a solution faster than
entity B, it is more intelligent.

Roedy,

I think you have to exclude learned behavior. Intelligence is
the ability to solve new problems that are different from all
earlier problems encountered.

Hans-Georg

 

[Hans-Georg Michna]

a) we cannot even define "intelligence".

Intelligence is the ability to act purposefully in new
situations.

b) we probably will not recognise it as such if if we accidently
hit on a solution.

I guess I would.

... all my life i've been hearing that the only thing
that stops us from having the type of being from "bladerunner"
was computing power. now we have it oozing out of our ears ...

Nope, we're still not too close to the performance of the human
brain. Current estimates are that we'll reach that around 2010
in a supercomputer and around 2020 in a $1,000 computer.

So give it a bit more time.

Hans-Georg