Re: How Robots Will Steal Your Job

[Bent C Dalager]

It gets to the point that us talking to animals starts to look as
ridiculous as talking to a doll just because it has eyes and mouth
similarly situated and makes noise when we squeeze it!!!

Once we start talking to dolls because they have sound sensors and are
capable of responding to speech, you will have something resembling a
valid comparison.

As far as I am aware, we have already started doing this.

Cheers
Bent D

 

[Bent C Dalager]

Then they'd better get nukes or resolve to be lunch.

Of course, this particular line of reasoning would allow you to eat
Belgians too.

Cheers
Bent D

 

[Programmer Dude]

Of course, this particular line of reasoning would allow you to
eat Belgians too.

Belgian Waffles are YUMMY!! :-|

 

[Programmer Dude]

?? How in the hell did you parse that from what I wrote?

While an amusing verbal and semantic device here, I see no proof
that awareness would or could ever be MORE than what we have, or
that it could be less than what we have either.

[shrug] Depends on what you mean by "MORE". There's clearly a
continuum--even among humans. Extend intelligence beyond humans,
and no doubt the continuum is larger.

Awareness is a specific way of seeing, one that requires us be
less than omnipotent, but aware of past and future.

That's one way to *start* defining it. A full definition if
probably more elusive than that. And I think we need to be open
to the uncertainty of our position. Nevertheless, I do very
much suspect--and believe the evidence supports--that "intelligence"
transcends species. When/If we meet *truly* intelligent beings,
there will be no question.

The flip side is that, assuming animals don't have "critical mass
intelligence", they still deserve respect and care similar to that
we give infants--who also aren't "fully human"[1] yet.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[1] I know, I know. For once, take the *meaning*, not the *words*.

 

[George W. Cherry]

?? How in the hell did you parse that from what I wrote?

While an amusing verbal and semantic device here, I see no proof
that awareness would or could ever be MORE than what we have, or
that it could be less than what we have either.

[shrug] Depends on what you mean by "MORE". There's clearly a
continuum--even among humans. Extend intelligence beyond humans,
and no doubt the continuum is larger.

Awareness is a specific way of seeing, one that requires us be
less than omnipotent, but aware of past and future.

That's one way to *start* defining it. A full definition if
probably more elusive than that. And I think we need to be open
to the uncertainty of our position. Nevertheless, I do very
much suspect--and believe the evidence supports--that "intelligence"
transcends species. When/If we meet *truly* intelligent beings,
there will be no question.

Intelligence is the capacity to choose an appropriate action in
one's current situation. Animals certainly have that capacity--
and we human animals often fail to exercise it. Animals fare
should fine as situation-action agents in their native habitats, and
frequently adapt well to the environments we impose on them.
I enjoy animals tremendously and take care not to injure or in-
flict suffering on them. I respect them and their abilities. Why
demean or disparage them?

The flip side is that, assuming animals don't have "critical mass
intelligence", they still deserve respect and care similar to that
we give infants--who also aren't "fully human"[1] yet.

Very well stated, Dude.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[1] I know, I know. For once, take the *meaning*, not the *words*.

Yeah, don't look at my finger: look what I'm pointing to.

|_ CJSonnack <[email protected]> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|_______________________|

Nice website. Greta and Emmy would love to play
with Samantha.

George

 

[Bent C Dalager]

Intelligence is the capacity to choose an appropriate action in
one's current situation.

So intelligence and the development of philosophy are completely
unrelated?

Cheers
Bent D

 

[George W. Cherry]

So intelligence and the development of philosophy are completely
unrelated?

Developing philosophy was an appropriate action
for scores of human beings. Plato, Aristotle, Kant,
Descartes, and Daniel Dennett enjoyed their careers
as philosophers. Perhaps I missed the meaning of
your sentence.

 

[Bent C Dalager]

Developing philosophy was an appropriate action
for scores of human beings. Plato, Aristotle, Kant,
Descartes, and Daniel Dennett enjoyed their careers
as philosophers. Perhaps I missed the meaning of
your sentence.

But in that case we've still not gotten anywhere in understanding what
intelligence is. You're effectively saying that whatever one did at
any given time was probably an appropriate thing to be doing at that
time?

Unless you are saying that the degree to which one is able to enjoy
oneself is a measure of how intelligent one is?

Cheers
Bent D

 

[Programmer Dude]

Intelligence is the capacity to choose an appropriate action in
one's current situation.

I agree that's an *attribute* of intelligence. I don't think it
(alone) *defines* it.

I was struck, just this morning, reading an article about an
archeological dig, how all human civilizations--ancient and
modern--contain a specific kind of art: representations of
both human and animal forms. Also representations of objects
both real and imagined in the environment.

I believe that urge to re-represent perceptions is likely one
of the "species-transcendent" properties of intelligence.
Others might be:

* the drive to modify the environment to insure security
* the drive to communicate
* the drive to keep and manage information.
* the drive to explore

Nice website. Greta and Emmy would love to play with Samantha.

Thanks! And she'd love it!!

 

[George W. Cherry]

But in that case we've still not gotten anywhere in understanding what
intelligence is. You're effectively saying that whatever one did at
any given time was probably an appropriate thing to be doing at that
time?

Intelligence is the capacity to choose an action in each
situation which produces the most satisficing [Herbert
Simon] or best consequence. This definition of intelli-
gence is consequentialist (utilitarian). Of course, this can
lead to the "frame problem", since we cannot easily pre-
dict the consequences of every action in every situation.
But intelligence does a better job of producing good-
enough consequences than ignorance or stupidity. But
perhaps this definition is too pragmatic for you, and
you have or are looking for a more theoretical or ab-
stract definition.

Unless you are saying that the degree to which one is able to enjoy
oneself is a measure of how intelligent one is?

Certainly, choices and behavior which produce one's
unhappiness are not very intelligent choices or behav-
ior. And my take on happiness is the "greatest happi-
ness principle". That is, other creatures' happiness is
part of my calculation.

George

 

[OmegaZero2003]

But in that case we've still not gotten anywhere in understanding what
intelligence is. You're effectively saying that whatever one did at
any given time was probably an appropriate thing to be doing at that
time?

Intelligence is the capacity to choose an action in each
situation which produces the most satisficing [Herbert
Simon] or best consequence. This definition of intelli-

Not necessarily!

Optimum or Maximum Expected Utility (MEUs) algorithms are fine in artificial
mechanisms,

but in biological organisms, the good-enough (as mentioend below) usually is
the case.

 

[Roedy Green]

but in biological organisms, the good-enough (as mentioend below) usually is
the case.

In the Darwinian selection game, what constitutes the "good enough"
bar slowly raises.

However, most animals are almost unchanged since Neanderthal days.
They have reached a plateau of evolution into their niches. Gazelles
are about as fast as they can get. As an animal, you are weeded out
by not meeting your species' passing grade.

 

[Roedy Green]

* the drive to modify the environment to insure security

I think an intelligent species capable of not going extinct within a
million years would not have this attribute as strongly as humans.
They would have an ethic that tried to disturb the environment as
little as possible, even as they created pockets of optimum
environment for themselves.

We humans are very casual about destroying the natural systems that
sustain us. I would think an intelligent species watching us would be
baffled why soil erosion is not a major issue in politics.

 

[OmegaZero2003]

In the Darwinian selection game, what constitutes the "good enough"
bar slowly raises.

Rmember that it is a mechanism against (the unfit) - not for (the fit)!

So what is left over is fit for today, but may not be for tomorrow.

And long-term, the march may not be to greener pastures.

However, most animals are almost unchanged since Neanderthal days.
They have reached a plateau of evolution into their niches.

Until the niche changes. Evolution is ongoing everywhere.

 

[George W. Cherry]

Intelligence is the capacity to choose an appropriate action in
one's current situation.

So intelligence and the development of philosophy are completely
unrelated?

Developing philosophy was an appropriate action
for scores of human beings. Plato, Aristotle, Kant,
Descartes, and Daniel Dennett enjoyed their careers
as philosophers. Perhaps I missed the meaning of
your sentence.

But in that case we've still not gotten anywhere in understanding what
intelligence is. You're effectively saying that whatever one did at
any given time was probably an appropriate thing to be doing at that
time?

Intelligence is the capacity to choose an action in each
situation which produces the most satisficing [Herbert
Simon] or best consequence. This definition of intelli-

Not necessarily!

Optimum or Maximum Expected Utility (MEUs) algorithms are fine in artificial
mechanisms,

but in biological organisms, the good-enough (as mentioend below) usually is
the case.

Yes, that's what I said: "satisficing consequences" are good-
enough consequences.

 

[George W. Cherry]

I think an intelligent species capable of not going extinct within a
million years would not have this attribute as strongly as humans.
They would have an ethic that tried to disturb the environment as
little as possible, even as they created pockets of optimum
environment for themselves.

We humans are very casual about destroying the natural systems that
sustain us. I would think an intelligent species watching us would be
baffled why soil erosion is not a major issue in politics.

Successful parasites do not proliferate to numbers
which overwhelm and destroy their host. We do not
have this situation-action rule. In situations of limited
resources successful species conserve their resources.

George

 

[Bent C Dalager]

Intelligence is the capacity to choose an action in each
situation which produces the most satisficing [Herbert
Simon] or best consequence. This definition of intelli-
gence is consequentialist (utilitarian). Of course, this can
lead to the "frame problem", since we cannot easily pre-
dict the consequences of every action in every situation.

You would have to take into account what the decision-maker knew at
the time and consider what the optimal solution would have been based
on that information.

Anyway, if you want to use this definition to measure intelligence,
you are left with the problem of determining what the "best"
consequence actually is. This is certain to be extremely
individual. Who gets to be the judge?

But intelligence does a better job of producing good-
enough consequences than ignorance or stupidity. But
perhaps this definition is too pragmatic for you, and
you have or are looking for a more theoretical or ab-
stract definition.

I'd like something that is practical in the sense that you could use
it to detect or even measure intelligence.

Cheers
Bent D

 

[George W. Cherry]

Intelligence is the capacity to choose an action in each
situation which produces the most satisficing [Herbert
Simon] or best consequence. This definition of intelli-
gence is consequentialist (utilitarian). Of course, this can
lead to the "frame problem", since we cannot easily pre-
dict the consequences of every action in every situation.

You would have to take into account what the decision-maker knew at
the time and consider what the optimal solution would have been based
on that information.

Anyway, if you want to use this definition to measure intelligence,
you are left with the problem of determining what the "best"
consequence actually is. This is certain to be extremely
individual. Who gets to be the judge?

But intelligence does a better job of producing good-
enough consequences than ignorance or stupidity. But
perhaps this definition is too pragmatic for you, and
you have or are looking for a more theoretical or ab-
stract definition.

I'd like something that is practical in the sense that you could use
it to detect or even measure intelligence.

Are you familiar with the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale,
widely used by psychologists to measure intelligence? It
poses situations to the subjects for which there is one correct
(appropriate) action. There is a pretty good decription at

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cach...html+wais+intelligence&hl=en&start=5&ie=UTF-8

One of the subtests on the WAIS is digit span. (Short-term
Memory is a component of intelligence.) The tester reads
a sequence of digits to the subject and the subject must re-
peat them. Longer and longer sequences are read to the
subject until the subject's STM is exceeded. Intelligence is
multifaceted, not a single capacity. There are many other
subtests in the WAIS. In each case a situation is defined
for the subject and the subject must execute the right action.
Half the tests are not verbal.

George

 

[Frank Iannarilli]

Oh, I don't really care to add anything to this discussion; I was
attracted to adding my tripe to the longest-sequence thread I've ever
seen ;-)

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Once we start talking to dolls because they have sound sensors and are
capable of responding to speech, you will have something resembling a
valid comparison.

As far as I am aware, we have already started doing this.
Bent Dalager - (e-mail address removed) - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd

-------------------
The point being, that's an error based on illogic and poor judgment.

It's fine to talk to telephones, they have "intelligent" agency
(though not necessarily conscious in the case of speech recognition
menus lately) on the other end, but talking back to a "Chatty Cathy"
is stupid.

Pro-Lifers are similarly idiotic in being convinced that anything
that LOOKS like a baby is the same as a baby, even when it is not.
They might as well try to save little robots based on PICs.

This is a very common failure-mode for a species that has deeply
layered pre-conscious reflexes to regard a specific arrangement of
eyes, projections and orifices endearing. Lower animals are similarly
endowed with the same reflexes, but that's ALL they have, they can't
question their response with a higher order oversight of these lower
automatic processes such as our awareness. We can, or should. The
reason we take lower animals as pets is because we aren't too bright
quite yet. It's actually as silly as a dog-bitch nursing a piglet.

-Steve