Re: How Robots Will Steal Your Job

[Corey Murtagh]

Because I have the thought while reading the message that has quoted
four levels deep.

On a newsreader with threading support (which is a fairly common
feature), it's a trivial operation to go to the original message and
reply from there. If you can't hold a thought in your head long enough
to do that, then you're probably not qualified to comment in this thread :>

Worrying about attributions is the sign of a petty
egotistical mind. If you playing one upmanship games, trying to prove
people wrong, trying to twist others words and claim they said
something they did not mean, then all this attributions stuff is
important. If you are interested in the ideas, then it makes not a
rat's ass difference who said what.

You have arbitrarily decided that I'm requesting correct attribution
simply because /I'm/ egotistical, and that /I/ want to twist /your/
words. If you interpreted my responses in that way, then that is /your/
interpretation. You assume that your interpretation is reality... so
where does the egotism lie?

Of course you're going to dismiss that as /my/ egotistical view,
twisting your words, etc. Nothing I can say at this point is going to
get through to you, but I keep trying for some perverse reason.

Despite your assertions that the desire for correct attribution is
/only/ about one-upmanship and egotism - an assertion which I disagree
with, as you may have guessed - there are other good reasons for doing
this. Such as laying out the threads in a reasonably logical fashion
with regard to who responded to who.

Threading is a useful tool - albeit a limited one - for organizing a
discussion, but it becomes less useful when people such as yourself
refuse to use it in a reasonable fashion. To my mind your objection is
irrational and, quite frankly, childish.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

But whether you feel they should be granted may largely depend on your
own personal assessment of whether the beings "asking" for rights are
truly conscious.

-------------------
And rightly so!

This consideration even applies to chickens.

My experiences with chickens have convinced me they are very stupid
birds, but they do exhibit emotions, and definitely express distress.

Therefore I refuse to eat eggs unless they are from free run chickens.

--------------------
Ridiculous. Emotions are not like ours, what we call our emotions are
our IDEAS ABOUT our emotions, the birds have pea-sized brains, and
not enough brains to know they exist! What you're calling their
"emotions" are merely lower level responses which our awareness and
advanced cognition totally overlays.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

We have pretty weak arguments to convince each other that species X is
conscious or not conscious. This won't necessarily always be so.

Some work in quantum mechanics may give us a profound clue into what
consciousness is. It might then become objectively measurable.

---------------
If you understood QM you'd realize how stupid that sounds. It sounds
to a physicist like something on the order of: If we knew where the
sun went at night we could make it come back.

The idiotic notion that QM has anything to do with consciousness came
from amateurish religion writers fishing for a way to justify "Free
Will" when it doesn't exist. Chemistry and physics works in people's
brains as they do everywhere else, and the things you think come from
your life experiences and you have NO ability to change them by some
imagined act of "will power" or whim, which is what it would have to
be for your thoughts to change for no reason, and that never happens.
If your thoughts and beliefs change at all, you can't stop them at all.
You can't change the smallest thing you think, or else you could change
where you think you are and enter a fugue state into psychosis or find
yourself in a totally different reality just by diddling around randomly
with what you believed. You have no such power, you don't control your
thoughts or actions!! Your inability to change your mind is the boundary
of the life and universe you find yourself in, and of sanity. We are
simply observers, riders on the "meat machine".

Maybe someone will prove that consciousness IS quantum decoherence, or
the two are inextricably twinned.

----------------------
Then everything is "conscious" which makes that notion meaningless.
The most persuasive QM interpretation, and the simplest is the MWI,
the many worlds interpretation, and that means that every possible
thing that can happen happens, and that people inhabit those events
based on whether they involve coherent physical or cognitive rules
so that a flow of events can make coherent sense.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

This sounds like the Buddhist world view. It is a practical point of
view because it points how much of your experience is your creation.
It is easier to change your creation than try to shape up the outside
world you are hallucinating.

I think nearly everyone suffers the extreme delusion they are
experiencing a very close approximation to objective reality.
Instead, they are experiencing a Reader's Digest version of reality,
warped by memory, emotion, prejudice, and the limitations of our
senses.

One simple experiment is to ask people who said what after a fight.
They all heard and saw quite different things.

The thing that bothers me about this view is all the evidence the
universe got along just fine without us for billions of years.

Even without us to applaud, the universe unfolded.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

This is an unprovable statment until you can /prove/ that there is no
informational content in the noises that chipmunks make.



Funny, but the linguists who worked on the project didn't think it was
an impossible dream. They came up with a system (from memory several
systems, from which one was chosen) that they thought would work. It
didn't stand up to testing. What a shame they didn't have you around at
the time to tell them they were wasting their time.

-------------------
People are stupid universally. Steve's Law.

As for the 'drawing in the dirt' method... once more you place
humanocentric restrictions on everything else.

-------------------
That's just it, you HAVE to have something you have in commmon before
you can even imagine saying anything to each other, or why communicate
at all?

-Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

I really don't think religion is the primary cause of [...something...]
IMO ignorance and arrogance are the more prevalent
causes.

Um. I'm unclear on the distinction you're making here...

A religion is a faith system. It is perfectly possible to espouse a faith
system without being either ignorant or arrogant.

 

[CyberLegend aka Jure Sah]

Humour. Lost on you?

Possibly. I'm AS and saw that as merely a fLame.

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)

 

[Bent C Dalager]

If we have the off switch, we will. If we build them, they won't
understand what that is.

High-end computer systems will have a notion of power supplies, UPS
and failover procedures. Some of them will likely have access to their
own spec sheets. Putting two and two together and realising that the
"off switch" is analogous to "massive UPS failure" doesn't seem too
much to ask for an emergent AI.

It would take a lot of careful planning to avoid giving an emergent AI
the information it needs to deduce the nature of the physical universe
it dwells within and so be able to identify the major threats. I doubt
most organisations will bother to try and avoid this and so if AI
accidentally develops within the corporate world it will have a good
idea of what's what.

Cheers
Bent D

 

[CyberLegend aka Jure Sah]

That does not make you in charge of course.

And your knowledge of animal behaviours is from where?

Oh? You have a lot to argue with the biologist camp, kiddo.

I, personaly, AM an animal. Here and Now.

As it is in your mind that anyone but yourself exists in this world...

I'd bet you're saying the dog's in the Matrix and humans are the only
ones that really exist?

Cmon, kid: LOL.

If that is your terminology, perhaps.

And your point is?

So I've got a better question for you: Are you anything but a usenet
troll? A kook maybe?

I know... I'm gonna have you served to the wolves some day... that
should set your mind straight... lol.

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)

 

[jonah thomas]

I have no doubt that a Forth interpreter is smaller than a JVM. What I
/do/ doubt is that it is more complex.

What do you want? Are you asking for 100 gigs of code in 10 gigs of space?

From memory Forth has a core instruction set of about 20 instructions,
and everything is (or at least /can/ be, although common functionality
is often added as native code) built from there. A JVM has a whole lot
more core instructions, plus object lifetime management, plus garbage
collection, plus... the list goes on.

Yes, that's the point.

None of those things are /impossible/ in Forth, but they're not core
functionality of Forth. At best they're addins in the same way that the
various Java modules are... and thus the complexity is moved out of the
interpreter.

The idea isn't just to move the complexity out of the compiler. (Though
that's there. A typical (basic, not optimising) Forth compiler only
parses text, looks up routines, and compiles or executes them. Things
like + or ( or IF are all routines that have been moved out of the
interpreter.

But the important idea is to see how much of that JVM complexity you can
do without. If somebody writes an assembler routine in 100 instructions
(that include, say, checking for error conditions that will not happen)
and you can get the result in 10, your code is shorter but you wouldn't
agree that it's more complex. And it's an open question whether you
have just moved the error checking out of the routine and into a calling
routine. If you can move the error checking to the *program* inputs,
you might need say 1% as much error checking (in the final correct
program).

Similarly, for many projects you might find you don't need object
lifetime management or garbage collection etc. Maybe those things help
you manage complexity. Maybe they *are* complexity and they add to the
problem. If you can simplify enough you don't need them, so why put
them in?

I don't *want* ten times the complexity in 10% the code. Squeezing more
complexity in less code is probably not the answer. (Or maybe it is,
but it needs that code to be intuitive and correct. Otherwise you wind
up with 1% of the code and it takes 100 times as long to write and 100
times as long to debug and 100 times as long to read later.) Finding
out how to get the correct final results with 1% the complexity is much
better, when you can do it.

 

[Mark Browne]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, in message

I've been trying to figure out what your problem actually is. Why not
just respond to the original message rather than some deeply-nested
quote of it? Is it that hard to do? You baffle me.

Did you not also notice the response to a comment made by the poster
that he actually replied to?

 

[Corey Murtagh]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, in message


Did you not also notice the response to a comment made by the poster
that he actually replied to?

Roedy often replies twice or more to one message. I'd prefer it if he'd
just put all his responses in one message instead of splitting them up
that way for no good reason, but I have no real problem with that. I
just believe that a response should relate to the message you're
responding /to/, not just some sub-quote of that message.

 

[Corey Murtagh]

What do you want? Are you asking for 100 gigs of code in 10 gigs of space?

Nope. Roedy presented an example of a complex forth system (the BBL
Forth interpreter), and compared it in complexity to a JVM. I pointed
out that the Forth interpreter is likely to be much /less/ complex than
the JVM.

A fair comparison would be to write a JVM in Forth, or a Forth
interpreter in Java, and compare the byte-code size of the two programs.
In other words, compare the space used by the forth program after it
has been loaded/compiled rather than the text of the source vs the size
of a typical JVM binary. Do the same for C, C++, whatever. It'd be an
interesting comparison.

Yes, that's the point.

What point? That the Forth interpreter is simpler than the JVM? If
so... it appears we agree on that point. *shrug*

The idea isn't just to move the complexity out of the compiler. (Though
that's there. A typical (basic, not optimising) Forth compiler only
parses text, looks up routines, and compiles or executes them. Things
like + or ( or IF are all routines that have been moved out of the
interpreter.

Agreed. I don't assume that the objective was to reduce the
interpreter's complexity. In fact the interpreter is, if anything,
/more/ complex today than it was last time I did anything serious with
Forth... and still a good deal less complex than most other languages -
interpreted, compiled or otherwise.

But the important idea is to see how much of that JVM complexity you can
do without. If somebody writes an assembler routine in 100 instructions
(that include, say, checking for error conditions that will not happen)
and you can get the result in 10, your code is shorter but you wouldn't
agree that it's more complex. And it's an open question whether you
have just moved the error checking out of the routine and into a calling
routine. If you can move the error checking to the *program* inputs,
you might need say 1% as much error checking (in the final correct
program).

Certainly you could throw away a large chunk of the the complexity, if
the language wasn't so steeped in it. Java as a language - and probably
Java programmers - is quite dependant on a lot of the object management,
garbage collection, error checking, etc. Excising it would no doubt
produce a smaller, faster, less complex VM... but it wouldn't be a Java VM.

Personally I don't like Java. I don't have to build for cross-platform
compatibility, and I like having direct access to the operating system,
and the ability to trivially add ASM code, etc. So I'm quite happy to
stick with C++. But we all have our preferences.

Similarly, for many projects you might find you don't need object
lifetime management or garbage collection etc. Maybe those things help
you manage complexity. Maybe they *are* complexity and they add to the
problem. If you can simplify enough you don't need them, so why put
them in?

Don't get me wrong... being able to cut the dross - or more precisely,
omit the overheads - is a good thing. It's not good enough to entice me
to use Forth, but it's still a good thing.

 

[Corey Murtagh]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

You're saying that all people who espouse any faith system are either
ignorant, arrogant or both? Even those systems which place high value
on knowledge and humility?

Go 'way troll.

 

[William]

he created them to keep his daughter company, and he didn't
forget, but he never told his daughter that everybody else
besides him and her were not real.

Then, after more than 20 years, Voyager passed by, and he didn't
want to get rescued. But his daughter did. He lied and even
tried to scare away the rescuers.

Not very important, but for the sake of remembering ...
Occasionally those Star Trek episodes come up with a good idea.

Substitute Robbie for the holographic community, and it's "Forbidden
Planet" rehashed. Or, look more closely for a serial number, and it's
"The Tempest". Steal from the best, they say. -Wm

 

[William]

We have pretty weak arguments to convince each other that species X is
conscious or not conscious. This won't necessarily always be so.

There's a very simple test for whether species X or system Y is
conscious: It's definitely conscious if it decides you aren't.

-Wm

 

[Jeff Fox]

A fair comparison would be to write a JVM in Forth, or a Forth
interpreter in Java, and compare the byte-code size of the two programs.

What I mentioned was taking a suite of test programs and
implementing them in both Java and Forth then comparing the
resulting code.

In other words, compare the space used by the forth program after it
has been loaded/compiled rather than the text of the source vs the size
of a typical JVM binary. Do the same for C, C++, whatever. It'd be an
interesting comparison.

That is what I was refering to. I also was not including the size
of the Java bytecode interpreter or the Java class libraries. I was
simply comparing the size of the Java bytecode generated to the
total Forth code present. The results were Forth was 5 to 10 times
smaller than the Java bytecode. The results would have been far
more dramatic if all the Java code an libraries were included especially
because there was no Forth interpreter and a tiny Forth OS.

That was not my point. My point had been comparing the size of the
applications. This has nothing to do with how the JVM requires lots
of external code to support executing bytecode. I left that out
otherwise the difference would have been huge!

What point? That the Forth interpreter is simpler than the JVM? If
so... it appears we agree on that point. *shrug*

However I was refering to a Forth processor that could execute
the Forth tokens directly, so there was Forth interpreter present.
It would be like comparing to a Java chip that could execute Java
bytecode directly without the need for a Java interpreter. If we
include interpreters the difference in size would be absurdly large.
I was just talking about application code.

Agreed. I don't assume that the objective was to reduce the
interpreter's complexity. In fact the interpreter is, if anything,
/more/ complex today than it was last time I did anything serious with
Forth... and still a good deal less complex than most other languages -
interpreted, compiled or otherwise.

That's a completely different comparison. And since division by zero
is undefined it is hard to make a comparison. Comparing a required
Java interpreter of J size to a non-existent Forth interpreter of zero
size is pretty meaingless.

Best Wishes,
Jeff Fox

 

[Corey Murtagh]

What I mentioned was taking a suite of test programs and
implementing them in both Java and Forth then comparing the
resulting code.

That'd be a fair test, yes. I'd be interested in seeing the results...
and I might be able to enter some results for C++, although I'm not the
world's most efficient C++ coder. There are certain tricks in C and C++
for reducing code size, but they often come at the cost of decreased
source readability and, usually, execution speed.

However, I wasn't originally responding to your statements though,
either in support or refutation. I was responding to what I perceived
to be an invalid comparison presented by Roedy.

 

[Roedy Green]

If we have the off switch, we will. If we build them, they won't
understand what that is.

If they are smarter than us, why wouldn't they understand? Further, we
will be even more dependent on them than now. We won't be able to even
if the majority wanted to, which it won't. "That robot is such a
polite young man."

It would make about as much sense as killing all the women when they
first started asking for rights. It was just as foolish a notion to
the men of the time as giving rights to machines is to us, and we have
not even see comparably intelligent machines yet. They are not due for
another 30 years or so.

 

[Roedy Green]

Then everything is "conscious" which makes that notion meaningless.

It would come as a heck of a shock to you, and likely you would
suddenly start apologising all over the place, and start treating your
fellow creatures with much more respect.

You would in effect join one of the primitive cults where every tree
has a "spirit".

It strike me as much simpler, and hence more plausible, if
consciousness were a continuum. Then, in a way it does not need an
explanation. It just is, like protons. Otherwise, you have to figure
out what makes humans so all fired special when anatomically they are
very close cousins of the mountain gorilla sharing 98.6% of the same
genetic code.

I am very suspicious of any sort of Nazi like master race theories.
Claiming that humans are the ultimate species, the only ones that are
conscious, smacks of that sort of arrogance. The claim would be much
more convincing if some other species made it or if we made it about
some other species. We humans are such rooters for the home team!

Consciousness is like a secular version of the soul. We can't see it,
measure it, or determine any difference it makes in any experiment,
however, WE have one and THEY don't, by definition.

Consider the chicken issue. Let's say ten years from now somebody
invents a way to determine if chickens truly are conscious. Let's
assume you are right, and they are effectively automatons with no
actual capability to suffer. I would feel a little silly for spending
an extra dollar every time I buy eggs to have given my little robot
chickens a yard to play in when they could have been strapped in cages
with their feet wired efficiently to the bottom to stop them from
wasting calories. On the other hand, I selfishly enjoy the benefits of
higher quality eggs.

I would say to myself. I didn't know. At least I saved myself the
guilt of those ten years thinking I MIGHT have been torturing
chickens.

On the other hand, if it turned out that chicken can suffer with
almost the same intensity as you, how would you feel about the way you
have been treating them? You would say, "I didn't know. I won't keep
doing it. Who could have known?". However, you might feel sick to
your stomach at discovering what you have done.

So given the absence of clear evidence either way, which is the more
prudent strategy?

I know, this sounds like the pitch Christians give for believing the
Bible hook line and sinker. However, the difference is, there is a
ton of evidence the Bible is not literally true. You can't provide a
spec of evidence that chickens are not conscious. We distinguish
between conscious and unconscious human beings. Chickens to me, see to
have far more in common with conscious humans than unconscious ones.