Re: How Robots Will Steal Your Job

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 19:02:42 GMT, "OmegaZero2003"

What I did was invent a number of generic utilities that worked on files. What my users did was create giant incredibly complex jobs weaving the utilities together in an elaborate web. They treated each step with the same casual abandon I would add two variables in a program. Each utility became a programming atom to them. When I created the suite I never envisioned more perhaps half a dozen being strung together. Part of the problem was my eyes were focussed too much on the low level. I had a failure of nerve to use the suite in such a high level way. I would likely have resorted to custom programming to solve their problems, rather than using a somewhat more indirect approach using the standard utilities.
We were working on a large lawsuit. BC Hydro had been sued by the contractors on the Peace River Power Project. We had rooms full of punch cards (moved to tape). The lawyers would demand some statistics, graphs or information, and we had to come up with in it with a couple of hours notice. This was in the days when you typically got one batch run per day on the mainframe. So the utility technique worked very well since the jobs usually worked first time. The goal was to shorten coding time, not execution time.
-- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming. See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You might be interested in:
http://www.frams.alife.pl /
// Jim
message (Bent C

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Making such a program is nearly trivial. Conway's Game of Life is proven to be unpredictable in the sense that you can only see what the outcome will be by running it. In the same vein, you can easily make a program that shares this property. Therefore, making unpredictable results in self-modifying code can be almost guaranteed, given a little unsupervised running time. As for the question, "who created the final outcome", that is for the philosophers. It is true that you made the efforts that produced the program that wrote the program, and if it is done on a computer using pseudo-random number generators, then it was wholly and completely deterministic- so, you are directly responsible. But that does not mean that you envisioned the end product! Sort of like dropping a jar of jam from 10 stories up and knowing what the splat would look like.
Cheers!
Chip Shults My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

proven to

be by

this
can be

program
pseudo-random
you are

the
[Zagan] If I may insert my 2 cents here... :*)
As Chip noted, " 'who created the final outcome' is for the philosophers." I tend to agree with this, but I will put a differenct twist on it below.
But before I do that, I want to make the point that it seems most people confuse intelligence and consciousness. While there is certainly a connection between intelligence and consciousness (as demonstrated by those entities that possess both), I must insist that intelligence can exist without consciousness. Is a paramecium conscious? It, being a single cell organism, I doubt it. But yet it does display intelligence (however primitive that may be). Consider a colony of bees. Is the qween or worker bees conscious? Again, I doubt it, but yet the colony does exhibit intelligent behaviour and produce complex structures.
The world is full of life forms that exhibit intelligence, but not necessarily consciousness.
If we take this as a given, then we might ask the question, "where does this intelligence come from?" The religious-minded may say, "God did it." The non-religious may say the intelligence is a product of evolution. If a religious scientist and a non-religious scientist were to study a colony of bees or ants independently, they will likely reach similar conclusions in their research. The point being that the "source" of the intelligence is not relevant. Bees exhibit intelligent behavior no matter whether "God did it" or evolution.
Returning to the issue of programming, we can say that the intelligence exhibited by a program is that of the programmer(s) who wrote the program. And this would be true in a sense. I recently worked on code for a rather large medical program that responded to external hardware as well as user input. It could be said that the intelligence of the program is my intelligence. However, I no longer work for that company. Eventually other programmers will modify the code I wrote; adding features and fixing bugs. Thus additional intelligence will be added to the intelligence I put into the code to begin with. The program runs and works according to the intended design. I don't have to be there for this to happen. This last statement may seem pointless, but think about it.
The program works as intended regardless of who wrote the code. It could be said that the intelligence in the program is a result of the fact God created me, or that I am a product of evolution. My point is that it doesn't matter!
I'm not saying that the source of "intelligence" is not of interest, I'm simply saying it doesn't matter in our discussion of "what" is intelligence.
Comments welcomed.
// Jim
--
|| Free Science Fiction
|| "The Keepers of Forever"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bent C Dalager wrote:

-------------------- Unimportant, an aware being can be predictable and still be aware.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz snipped-for-privacy@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote or quoted :

In genetic algorithms, computers change their own programming. Neural nets constantly tinker with their own programming.
What we are reserving for humans is the task of framing new problems that would be interesting to solve.
Even that is not strictly human any more. Some theorem proving program go looking for interesting theorems to prove, then prove them.
We used to think we were special because we were alive. DNA sequencing squashed that bit of pomposity. We still have pockets of pride left based on the fact we are human. Yet this superiority is a temporary accident, not some fundamental feature of the universe.
We are probably one of the stupidest creatures ever to walk the earth, in a Darwinian sense. No other creature managed to destroy its environment or create so many way to make itself go extinct in so short a time. We likely will not last another 100 years. We have simply created too many avenues for our demise. You get a multiplying odds effect.
I see our best hope as artificial intelligence that is capable of overpowering man's primitive wetware, designed for tribal warfare and intra-tribal competition. If we are lucky, it will force us to survive. On the other hand, it may decide man has to go to save life on planet earth. On the other hand, it may have no sentimentality about carbon-based life, and set about eliminating it all and replacing it with designed life forms based on silicon, germanium etc.
-- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming. See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Calum wrote:

----------------- Emotions are the part of thought that escapes our own self-analysis, but they are, nonetheless, logically derived, we simply have no direct overview of precisely how we arrive at them, not enough extra processing power to both reason our way to them, and also analyze that reasoning itself.
Such a limit is true of anything finite.

-------------- Animals are NOT conscious, because if they were, and I mean in the same manner as we call it so, they would actively seek our recognition and company and try desperately to win our acknowledgement of their awareness so that we would not eat them or let them die.
Do they have something below the sophistication of what we call consciousness? Surely, and many levels of it besides, but if you can attempt to imagine yourself failing to realize the importance of wanting humans to know you are a thinking being, then THAT IS the level at which they are NOT working, and that seems quite a ways down the ladder from us, too far, in fact, to recognize as anything LIKE ourselves anything THAT unaware.
They would be active, but NON-CONSCIOUS, and so they are, except perhaps for mere glimmerings in apes, elephants, and cetaceans.

-------------- Humans can't either. They are "programmed" by their experiences.
What you're fishing for is consciousness, which is the internal self-modeling in an alternate real space produced by interrelations of non-contemporaneous memory accesses.

------------------------ Nonsense. It achieves subtlety the same way the brain has done, by the evolution of new kinds of brain matter, so that we need new kinds and uses of memory to achieve any single step-wise leap of the break barriers of potential to install yet a higher level of subtlety.
Consciousness is a matter of internal modeling of oneself in a new kind of space, an imagination, which requires a separate attention to the very self that is perceiving, as yet another object to consider.

----------------- They don't realize what THEY are doing, let alone what WE are doing.

---------------------- We have improved things somewhat over the random luck of the individual in this new level of subtlety by acting as a group, which can choose to alter outcomes, while the individual is determined and programmed by its experiences, and is unable. You see, we can change others, and act as a group to change others, but we cannot act to change ourself simply because we ARE ourself, and that's circular and futile, we are already what we are and cannot change lest we have been changed from without. There is no such thing as "Free Will". It's nonsense. Whatever we think we cannot change by whim, or else we would have already.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz snipped-for-privacy@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SNIP

Of course you can "change by whim" and people have done it already. We do it all the time. Change means doing things differently than before. I choose all the time to do things differently as an outcome of rational or emotional thought processes or for no conscious reason (a whim).
You may act as an individual or group to control others by reducing their choices. Ultimate control means reducing their choices to zero.
But the only person you can directly change is yourself. You may choose to change yourself as a result of the group you are part of. But it is still your choice not the groups. That is assuming a "free" society which allows that particular choice to be taken.
There are degrees of freedom. Free will means free to act. You must list the set of actions that can be chosen. The choice itself may be determinate but the number of choices is a measure of the degrees of freedom possible. Otherwise we would always take the same action regardless of the situation.
The confusion over "free will" in a determinate world is a religious one.
John Casey
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JGCasey wrote:

--------------- Nope. That's change due to input and circumstances, not choice. You can't help but change exactly in the manner as you were always going to change from before the origin of the world.

---------------- Nope. You can't prevent yourself from doing it just as you are made to by circumstances of your life experience. That's determined action, NOT "Free Will". You cannot do it any other way than you did it, and that was CAUSED, as all physical motion of matter is CAUSED. You're no different in that respect than any other hunk of matter, just more complicated. The stuff between your ears determines what you think, and you can't change it, because you *ARE* IT!! It would be like pulling yourself into the air by your necktie.

----------------------------- You don't grasp the difference between the choices made by a device or person because it HAS to do so due to its experiences and programming, versus some imaginary "Free Will" that is supposed to be be entirely whimsical, and that violates all known laws of physics.

------------------------ Again you're mistaking the choices you are forced to make due to your life experiences and circumstances, for "Free Will"-"choices". Ain't.
Listen!: If you are honest, you will admit that you cannot change the tiniest thing you believe by any force of whimsical "Free Will". If you can, I ask you to right now change the tiniest thing you sincerely believe into its opposite belief. YOU CAN'T DO IT AT ALL! And you know that you'd be LYING to even SAY that you had done so, and EVERYONE knows that!

--------------------------- No, all preprogrammed devices are "free to act" however they happen to be programmed to do so. You simply are refusing to understand the processes that make you who you are as programming and circumstances that determine what you will do.

--------------------------------- We do sense circumstances, but so do washing machines and other simple robots.

--------------------------- There is no "Free Will", you have simply been brainwashed by religion to believe in it as some ridiculous matter of "faith", and you are programmed primitively to believe it, and cannot help yourself, which is amusing!
If I had been successfully brainwashed and programmed to regurgitate the notion of "Free Will" as desperately as you have been, then *I'd* do so as well!!
You see, shame-based religions requires a belief-system that requires they punish people for disobeying them, they believe that each person and only them should be blamed for believing any other than what they are told to believe, even though they know inside that their religion makes no rational sense and have to buy and hide their actual disbelief from everyone else in their family, church, life, even themselves if they can manage it, by some twisted rationalization about them being flawed, evil or sinful.
The other more non-shame-based traditions, Hinduism and Buddhist and Taoism, and notably Judaism, don't have any belief requirements and consequently believe totally in destiny, fate, Kismet, and that life is Determined. And so do physicists, even QMechanicists who adhere to the best fit for the data, the Many Worlds Interpetation!!
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz snipped-for-privacy@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SNIP

one.
Steve you have jumped to the wrong conclusion about what I believe.
My last sentence which I did not snip out was a summary saying that the confusion over the legitimate use of the words "free" and "will" are a result of make believe religious beliefs. It is the idea that we have (or are) a "soul" that can act independently and with full knowledge of right vs wrong and thus can be held accountable for our actions.
There is no evidence for this. Indeed, the evidence is that all our actions are the result of a physical deterministic brain.
Physical systems, including brains, have degrees of freedom.
The more intelligent you are the more degrees of freedom you have when it comes to generating an action for any given situation. If you are cold (situation) and know how to make fire (internal) you will be able to "free" yourself from the cold.

Then it's a shame then that the "shame-based religions" don't have free choice to change how they think :)
We all act on our beliefs, even if they are determinate in nature.
-John Casey
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JGCasey wrote:

---------------------------------- Yes. Ooops, did I err?

------------------------ Indeed.
--------------------- Yup. Okay.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz snipped-for-privacy@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You are trying to re-define "conscious" as "having a mind similar to a human mind". Why not use that construct, and see whether you still have points to make?
My cat actively seeks my recognition and company. The thoughts that I might eat her or let her die probably don't cross her mind, but I have no reason to believe that my human neighbours are concerned about these possibilities either.
- Gerry Quinn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:48:56 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote or quoted :

LOL. Well put.
-- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming. See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gerry Quinn wrote:

-------------------- Since that's the only kind we know and understand, it seems reasonable. We can't do this kind of "analysis from within" for any other kind honestly.

---------------------- You do it, you seem intrigued.

---------------------- It hangs around if you feed it, who knows or cares why? If it knew of itself in anything like the way that WE know of ourselves, however, it would be trying to learn to read and write.

---------------------- Nor does she regarding her death. Quite different from any human.

------------------------ They don't rely on you for food.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz snipped-for-privacy@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It's not reasonable, bacause it is unrelated to the standard meaning. A dog or cat can, plainly, be unconscious or asleep. Therefore it is clear that a dog or cat can, at other times, be conscious or awake.

On the contrary, I am pointing out that, if the construction is spelt out, all that remains of your post is pointless tautology.
- Gerry Quinn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gerry Quinn wrote:

----------------------------- A dog can be blue if painted, and so can we. It's unrelated to the ineffable nature of full self-awareness. Sleep is not provably necessary to awareness, nor is any other feature we share with other animals, hunger, sex drives, etc. These are things that while shared, only WE are aware of!!! To say they "share" ANYTHING is simply inaccurate if by that you mean share OUR manner of Experiencing them!

------------------------------ It's far from pointless. There is NO WAY to justify the assertion that awareness is demonstrated by "shared" behavior features between our species and LOWER animals that DOES NOT involve the full recursive grasp of self-existence!! I can't think of ANY feature of animals of their nature or behavior, that justifies an assumption of awareness on their part ABSENT AN ATTEMPT TO COMMUNICATE WITH US THAT MAKES THEM LOOK AS FRANTIC TO DO SO AS A HUMAN MIND TRAPPED IN ONE OF THEIR BODIES WOULD INVARIABLY DO!! Human self-awareness is a feature of our existence that is NOT shared with lower animals, or it would PROVE itself by extensive NON-normal FRANTIC efforts to communicate with us and have us understand the levels of reason we would then share.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz snipped-for-privacy@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
...

Well, no. They have just decided humans are not worth talking too. ;-)
[ And please don't shout. ..I have a hang-over. ]
-- Andrew Thompson * http://www.PhySci.org/ PhySci software suite * http://www.1point1C.org/ 1.1C - Superluminal! * http://www.AThompson.info/andrew/ personal site
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Andrew Thompson wrote:

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

-------------------- Shouldn't drink, dummy! I'm tired of people hurting themselves and then whining about it.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz snipped-for-privacy@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course, this particular line of reasoning would allow you to eat Belgians too.
Cheers     Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - snipped-for-privacy@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bent C Dalager wrote:

Belgian Waffles are YUMMY!! :-|
--
|_ CJSonnack < snipped-for-privacy@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.