Re: How Robots Will Steal Your Job

[Roedy Green]

Imagine trying to simulate Abundance in Forth. In Abundance, programs
can run forward or backward in time.

I meant to say Imagine trying to simulate Abundance in Java.

 

[Roedy Green]

In that statement the word 'direction' is quite obviously used
(intentionally or otherwise) as 'guidance.'

As an atheist, I certainly did not mean to imply that.

There is a grand overall direction in evolution to greater complexity,
and cleverer solutions. However, I don't mean to imply there is a man
in a white coat in the sky directing it all.

 

[Bent C Dalager]

And yet in your statement quoted at the top of this post you use
'direction' in a way that plainly indicates the concept of 'direction of
movement,' which is /not/ incompatible with 'random,' apparently in an
attempt to validate your prior post.

You can certainly use random development in order to achieve a
desirable direction. You just need to do some culling of the random
results.

When it comes to evolution, you get random development from random
mutations and you have the environment providing the culling of the
unsuitable mutations. Overall, this provides progress towards the
desirable goal of "succeeding in producing offspring".

Consider a naive sort algorithm:

1) Rearrange the data in a random order
2) Are they now in sorted order? If not, go to 1
3) Success

Randomness harnessed to solve a problem.

Cheers
Bent D

 

[Corey Murtagh]

-------------
Read up on emergent properties, neither of the above is needed,
precisely. The direction that can emerge out of a non-conscious process
can still be complex and directed toward the only way to achieve such
things as awareness, purposefulness, and destined outcomes.

Agreed. I was making the point that Roedy's statement appeared to be
self-contradictory.


The more common translation to idiomatic english comes out as:
"Anthing said in latin sounds profound" :>

 

[Roedy Green]

Understanding the brain may not require total knowledge of it, including
everything contained within, etc.

Some of the most interesting brain research is on vision. We learn how
frog and human eyes summarise low level information, finding edges,
movement etc. and pass that on.

There may be equivalent sumarising techniques for what we consider
extremely wooly information, such as interpersonal relations. It may
be that they are so close, so obvious, we can't see them.

What seems to hang computers up is getting nice clear raw data. Humans
seem to just pick it out of the air just by existing, functioning all
the time without complete information.

"We don't know who discovered water, but we're certain it wasn't a
fish."

~ John Culkin

 

[Roedy Green]

I can't imagine it. I could to it in C++ fairly readily though

BTW: nice bit of marketroid nonsense you've got there.

Abundance is primarily a data entry language. When assertions fail
the program automatically backs up in time to a previous snap shot
state to give the user a chance to rekey the fields that were
incompatible. The user can also back up state by state with the Up
arrow key which takes them back in time.

 

[Bent C Dalager]

By that definition, it is impossible to compare intelligence.
In fact the whole concept becomes redundant, since existence
would imply intelligence.

It's impossible to compare it anyway since we don't really have the
first clue what we mean by the term. The only thing we can know for
sure about intelligence is that whatever it is, humans have it

Cheers
Bent D

 

[Roedy Green]

A desperately urgent effort to communicate by symbols with us who
have the power to kick them, kill them, neuter them, and starve them.

I think each cat species has about 20 cries. Some Japanese company
has come out with a device that listens to the cry and converts it to
English for those without an ear for cat.

Dolphins can understand a command of the form, "Do something acrobatic
you have never done before." This would be difficult even for a human
to accomplish. It requires both creativity and memory.

 

[Roedy Green]

They simply make noises when harmed like we do because we have those
same constructs UNDERLYING OUR awareness

Why would they go to all the fuss of expressing pain if they were not
actually feeling it? Why do you PRESUME this elaborate deception?

I contend it is man's guilty conscience. If you believe things like
this, it lets you torture animals with impugnity.

 

[Corey Murtagh]

You can certainly use random development in order to achieve a
desirable direction. You just need to do some culling of the random
results.

Let me guess, you're posting from the philosophy group right? :>

Attempting to paraphrase your statement in (slightly) less ambiguous terms:

"You can use random input plus selection to produce, or increase
progress toward, a desired outcome."

Is that close to what you intended to say?

In that case I have no problem with it. It's a simple 'chaos can
produce order' statement. Infinite monkeys and all that :>

What I have a problem with is the sophistry exercised by Roedy -
specifically his mixture of two different meanings of the word 'direction.'

 

[Corey Murtagh]

There was a healthy dose of anthropomophizing in that statement, yes.
But cats do have significant personalities, they communicate, exhibit
emotional states beyond simple stimuli-driven response, etc.

Are they smart in comparison to the average human? Not by my standards.
Compared to dogs? I think so :>

Speaking of dogs... certain breeds of dog are known for their
intelligence. Doberman Pincers have been known to exhibit sophisticated
problem-solving abilities, etc.

It amuses me to personalize my cat beyond her actual abilities, but that
doesn't mean that it's /all/ imaginary, or that I can't tell the
difference. I've spent a lot of time around her over the years, and I
don't think I flatter myself too much when I say I have some idea of her
though processes. Take away a human's vocal abilities for a day, and
I'd probably understand her just as well as I do him.

Yes, we have complex languages, both written and verbal. Yes, we are
very good at abstracts. Yes, we're more intelligent... but none of that
in any way means that a cat is /not/ self-aware.

 

[Corey Murtagh]

Some of the most interesting brain research is on vision. We learn how
frog and human eyes summarise low level information, finding edges,
movement etc. and pass that on.

Vision is a fascinating field. Unfortunately it's something I can only
hover on the edge of and go "ooh, ahh" with the rest of the mob.
Interesting stuff, but well above my head

There may be equivalent sumarising techniques for what we consider
extremely wooly information, such as interpersonal relations. It may
be that they are so close, so obvious, we can't see them.

The day someone figures that one out, I'll be first in line for the
answer. Interpersonal relationships are incredibly complex things
involving reactions of someone else. At best you can guess at what's
going to happen, and hope you had enough information to guess right.

Fortunately we collect information on people at a subconscious level
whenever we're around them. If we're lucky that information can help us
guess more accurately

What seems to hang computers up is getting nice clear raw data. Humans
seem to just pick it out of the air just by existing, functioning all
the time without complete information.

I think it's more the case that computers are, for the most part,
designed and programmed around the concept of absolutes. Digital
devices deal with analog data poorly at the best of times. When we're
trying to use them to model something that even we don't really
understand, it's pretty much doomed to fail.

Something I heard a few years ago: "If we do manage to create a true
artificial intelligence, there's every possibility that we won't
recognize it."

IMO We have too narrow a view of 'intelligence,' and probably will until
we encounter an intelligence that is equal to, but significantly
different from, our own. But I'm not placing any bets on whether or not
we'll ever recognize it as such :>

 

[Roedy Green]

You save snapshots of certain parts of the program state and load one of
those snapshopts when the user requests it. That doesn't sound like
time travel to me *shrug*

The net effect is you can run programs forward or backward.
Metaphorically you travel back in time to correct an error.

 

[Roedy Green]

Why would they go to all the fuss of expressing pain if they were not
actually feeling it? Why do you PRESUME this elaborate deception?

We have a model, ourselves, of feeling pain, and wriggling. Why would
you make up a different model to apply to fish, especially when you
have no evidence that the other model fits facts better. (Fish react
to "painful" stimuli just as vigorously as humans.)

The reason is someone when you were little told you that fish don't
feel pain or that they were unconscious. He told you that so you
would not feel bad about bonking them. He may or may not have
believed it himself.

In a similar way, we had the model of our sun and planets, yet for
some reason instead of the obvious working assumption that the rest of
the universe was likely much like here, we persisted in assuming the
view that we were utterly unique in all the universe, even though we
had not a shred of evidence to support it.

To me it seems odd we assume that the rules of physics and chemistry
are uniform throughout the universe (even though we have only light to
analyse), but we presume there is no biology anywhere but here. We
did this is the face of evidence of how quickly life appeared after
the earth cooled.

It is curious the odd assumptions people will make when there is no
clear evidence to disprove them, e.g. that angels protect them from
harm.

We have an assumption that machines can't be more intelligent than us
even though we already have many counter examples of skills they have
better than us.

Even moving gracefully is becoming the domain of the artificial life
forms.

The merger of artificial and biological lifeforms may ease the
transition. To our descendants, the form of consciousness we live in
now would appear be painfully fuzzy headed, like a very bad hangover.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Eh? One gains mass by switching on gravity?

Well, it can't hurt. By switching on gravity, you attract more mass. Once it
arrives, you grab it and don't let go.

Bizarre science aside,

What's bizarre about it? The only bizarre thing is the original
statement - "Intelligence is the ability to home in on a desirable solution
quickly" - which I was challenging by showing an example of a "desirable
solution" which would force the OP either to agree that big rocks are
intelligent, or withdraw his statement.

to come to that conclusion, you'd have to
first establish the truth of your leading IF.

You don't think an astronomical body can gain mass using gravitational
attraction to bring that extra mass toward itself? Is that your point?

As I understand it, it's quite the opposite of generalizing. I'd
bet dollars to donuts the squirrel sees each nut as distinct, but
simply recognizes food when it discovers it.

Safe bet, since it will never be proved either way.

Generalizing would lead to counting, and we're pretty positive
that squirrels don't count.

I remain to be convinced. And who do you mean by "we"?

Oh, I DO suppose! (-:

Quite. I think we're at least partly in violent agreement.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Observation (plus it's the current "party line" on the matter).

I've observed that animals /do/ have a sense of past and future. As for the
party line, has it had any input from animals? If so, I'd be /very/
interested to hear about the results! If not, then the party line is
ill-informed and can safely be ignored.

Conditioned response has nothing to do with a time sense. It's
a re-wiring of the brain (as is all learning). It's nothing more
than an adjustment to the neural net so that a given stimulus has
a higher probability of generating the response. Nothing to do
with a time sense.

If that is so, then our own "time sense" is nothing more than an adjustment
to the neural net, so we don't have a sense of past either. And yet we know
we do. What we don't know is whether animals do.

As far as we know, it's purely hard-wired instinctive behavior.

As far as they know, our habitual glancing at our watches is purely
hard-wired instinctive behaviour. No squirrel ever asked me why I look at
my watch. I never asked a squirrel why he stores up nuts for the winter. If
I /could/ talk to a squirrel, Dr Dolittle style, I wonder what he'd say?
Obviously, I can't know. But, somehow, you /can/ know. How? Do /you/ talk
to the animals? And do they talk back in a way that you can mysteriously
understand?

Observation. No animal I've ever known (and I've known a few) has
ever demonstrated that sort of curiousity. Nor have I ever heard
of such.

There are more things in heaven and earth, ProgrammerDude, than are dreamt
of in your philosophy.

I would assume that if animals were capable of that level
of abstract thought, we'd see *some* sign of it.

It's a lousy assumption, but anyway, I've seen plenty of curiosity-driven
behaviour in animals.

Did you ever see the Gary Larson cartoon in which a bunch of cows are all
standing to attention on their hind legs? Then one of them, keeping watch
by the hedge, says "CAR!" As the car drives by, all the cows are standing
normally, on all fours. Just as soon as the car is out of sight, they all
stand to attention again. Silly, of course, but nevertheless a reminder
that we would be foolish to assume that things are only true if they happen
to correspond with the things we know about.

So have I, and likewise!

My point exactly.

Nothing magical, just my observations. (I like most animals better
than I like most humans, so I've been around them a bit, and I've
payed a lot of attention to them.)

From my window, I can see lots of pheasants, a peacock, a few wrens, a
family stoats, and plenty of rabbits and squirrels, and even rats on
occasion (if I'm not quick enough with the rifle). Not all at once, of
course. I've spent a fair amount of time observing them. It is very easy to
forget that I am observing animals, because their behaviour reminds me /so
much/ of people. There is much about them that is curious, amusing,
playful, caring, weak, strong, cruel, and deadly. I am very loathe to
anthropomorphise them, but I am equally loathe to make sweeping, ignorant
generalisations about their lack of qualities that we take for granted in
ourselves - curiosity, time sense, consciousness, and so on.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

By this standard, one could say rain water "solves" the problem of
removing the air from a pail.

And therefore, by Roedy's arguments, rainwater is intelligent.

Now, perhaps, you will see what I was getting at with my "gravity" argument.
You have found a parallel example.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Given that human can write genetic algorithms that combine random
mutations, selection, and a master designer (the human programmer), I
don't see these as mutually exclusive.

Presumably, then, you are prepared to accept the existence of a "master
designer" that imposes directed purpose on natural evolution? I don't think
it would be consistent for you to hold any other position. After all, it
was you who proposed such a master designer in the first place.

Of course, the rest of us know full well that no such direction is necessary
- evolution /has/ no direction. It is merely a way of describing the
dynamical process in which changeable organisms adapt - or do not adapt -
to constantly changing environments. Those that happen to adapt, survive.
Those that happen not to, don't. This isn't direction. It's just "how it
comes out in the wash".

But please don't let me stop you believing in God. That's the last thing I'd
want to do.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

[Attributions fixed. Please be more careful, people! Thanks.]

I can almost see it, in a twisted way. With gravity a body will attract
other bodies, which increases the probability that it will collide with
something, and that the collision will produce an amalgamation. Each
such collision increases the mass of the amalgamation of objects.

Precisely. Thus, the astronomical body "solves the problem" of not being fat
enough, by switching on its gravity; it then attracts extra mass, thus
homing in on the desirable solution of being fatter.

That is my point, in fact: that the "definition" Roedy Green provided -
"Intelligence is the ability to home in on a desirable solution quickly" -
is open to such obvious abuse that it is effectively meaningless. When a
solution is called "desirable", the question arises of who desires it. By
answering that question carefully and accepting Roedy's definition of
intelligence, we can make just about *anything* appear intelligent.

But damn, no one told me I had a /choice/ in the whole gravity question.
Where's the switch?

Um, if you were intelligent, you'd already know where it is. (I don't know
either. And the planet isn't telling.)

"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!"

Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.

 

[Roedy Green]

Presumably, then, you are prepared to accept the existence of a "master
designer" that imposes directed purpose on natural evolution? I don't think
it would be consistent for you to hold any other position. After all, it
was you who proposed such a master designer in the first place.

No, I see that assumption as an unnecessary addition that complicates
and explains or predicts nothing. You certainly don't need it to
explain evolution. You may for the big bang, though articles in
Scientific American tackle the strange co-incidences in the values of
various universal constants that turn out to be just too convenient.
Hawking conjectures we may eventually prove they are mathematically
constrained to have those values.

Christians believe in dull universe and an outlandish God. I believe
an astounding universe without a God as most likely to be true. Why
is it so much harder to believe that God could do something than the
universe innately having that ability too?

There is nothing inconsistent about any of those three elements
existing together. We know the first two exist. Our whole practice
of animal husbandry depends on it. I have seen no evidence of the
third.

I wrote an essay giving arguments for and against the existence of
God, at http://mindprod.com/god.html. I consider this a completely
separate question from whether the Biblical description of God is
accurate should one exist. I explore that question in another essay
at http://mindprod.com/real.html


I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more
surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that
the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we
can suppose.
-- J.B.S. Haldane