Re: How Robots Will Steal Your Job

D. Jay Newman wrote:


------------------------ I'm bright enough to realize that imagining myself in a lion suit is not the same as being one. The rest of you I'm not too sure about.

--------------------- Cognitive researchers tend to agree with ME, actually!! In fact, that's where *I* GOT this stuff!

---------------------- That wouldn't be some variety of nature-boy tree-hugger.
That would be someone who wants to be a robot when he grows up and who doesn't believe in the Feudal Xtian God, but instead in something resembling an ElectricAcidZen Paradoxical Reality.

------------------------ Altered consciousness, not stupid consciousness.

-------------------------- Which I have done, and which you really didn't like. You see, that's the problem. I don't think you have examined it closely enough internally, and I would recommend you resolve this by careful introspection. That is the only experiment that needs to be done.

--------------------------------- It says "I love you" because it was taught that by being fed nuts, NOT because it knows what "I" means. I have carefully followed that.

---------------------------------- Indeed. How perceptive, and to think, people had only been believing that was true of parrots for 100,000 years now. They simply didn't realize that they could be taught to rote-speak programmable output of their pattern/color/texture recognition mechanism.

---------------- Then what are we doing here? ;->
-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
I believe that Dr. Allan Comeau did a fine job writing about the various forms of intelligence in the December, 2003 issue of SERVO Magazine.
www.servomagazine.com
Dan Danknick Technical Editor, SERVO
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dan Danknick wrote:

----------- Well? What did he say?
-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
D. Jay Newman wrote:

----------------------------- I could. I have no need to. Why cite a jerk you won't quote?
-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:

But I don't - why would you imagine that I do? To say a cat is conscious is not to say that a cat shares our manner of experiencing consciousness, any more than saying a cat has hair means that a cat has hair just like ours. Nevertheless, a cat has consciousness, and hair.

Your problem is that you are trying to deny the possible existence of any form of consciousness or self-awareness that is different from ours, but your main strategy is to redefine English words, which needless to say helps not a whit in any argument related to what may or may not be the case in the real world.
Your last statement may be true, i.e. that animals with human minds would try hard to make the fact known to humans. But that does not say anything about whether animals have consciousness or self-awareness. Animals have animal minds, animal consciousness, and may well have animal self-awareness.
In short, you can't prove that animals are like clockwork toys just by proving they are not like humans. Simple enough for you?
- Gerry Quinn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:05:48 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote or quoted :

We already know for example that AI will have memory, logic and arithmetic ability far exceeding our own.
There was a time when feats of mental arithmetic or logic would have been used to prove the superiority of the human species. Quietly such demonstrations have died away. We keep adjusting the criteria to make sure we "win".
For a while we decided that perhaps pattern matching -- with vaguely defined notions of similarity -- like face recognition was what made us superior to the machines, until neural nets started beating us at face recognition.
Ability to play master level chess was once considered evidence of a rational mind, until machines started to beat us.
We have an advantage. We can study the brain and steal its structures and algorithms, improving on them, without the Darwinian constraint of installed base.
The nerve cell is quite slow. Eventually it might be possible to just replace nerve cells one by one with faster ones. Is not what you end up with still human in some sense even if the brain is entirely artificial. It is really not that different than a human with an artificial knee or heart.
-- 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
message (Gerry Quinn) wrote

No, it'll be more like we'll tie into preexisting structures to add or enhance functionality. I heard of an experiment recently where monkeys were taught to play a game using implanted probes. They were able to move objects around on video displays using their thoughts. Pretty incredible.
Imagine being able to drive, or to control mechanical objects using your thoughts...
Regards Bob Monsen
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roedy Green wrote:

This seems to be a common assumption that may or may not be true. Most of the technologies that are used AIs that can "learn" also have the capability to forget.
Now, it may be possible to hook this AI up to a normal computer.

Of course. The problem wiht defining AI is that we don't have a good handle on what "real" intelligence is.

Yes, we have now reduced this task to a relatively simple algorithm and so it can't be *the* indicator of true intelligence.

Again, like the above. It used to be considered that chess was an unsolveable problem by a machine intelligence. With both algorithm improvement and Moore's Law, this was disproved.
Frankly, I would rather see a great Bridge program.

Sort of. We can *study* the structures, but until we understand them better than we do now, we can't really improve them.
I prefer the process of duplicating these processes, so that we get the same, or simlar, end results. I'm of the "rational behavior" school of AI: I don't care how (or even *if*) a machine thinks, but rather that it can behave in a way that we would consider rational.

The nerve cell may be slow, but the simulations we can make of it are even slower. The problem is that not only does each neuron have a rather large number of direct inputs, it seems to be able to be indirectly affected by nearby neural activity.
I'm not saying that we cannot eventually duplicate it, but I doubt we will be duplicating the human brain anytime soon.

-- D. Jay Newman http://enerd.ws/robots /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gerry Quinn wrote:

---------------------- To say a cat is "conscious" is a lie because we know what OUR being "conscious" IS, and we know that a cat is NOT what ours is, because it doesn't do what WE do. It's that simple!

---------------------- No, and a cat has fur. You may call it "hair", but it doesn't look like MY "hair" and it doesn't do what I do with mine.

--------------------------- Not deny, merely question its value. Their "self-awareness" seems to be so non-real as to fail to justify for them any status in MY book that doesn't involve use of their meat or fur, or as a NON-aware lap-warmer, by human criteria.
To be aware of one's Self is, simply to be aware of one's Self! It cannot BE something "so special" or "so different in kind" that we cannot identify it. If one IS self-aware, then one knows what one looks like, and tries to communicate with others of its kind, and tries to affect its world in all manners favorable to itself. A cat doesn't even know its face in a mirror. And that's NOT self-awareness! To not get that it has to be attentive without even actually KNOWING that it IS so, IOW, it is a NON-aware consumable Bio-MACHINE!!

--------------------------- No, I merely clarify english. You may WANT to CALL something "conscious" by CLAIMING erroneously by analogy that surely everything with EYES is and must be SOME kind of "aware" in order to direct its ATTENTION to its senses, while ALTOGETHER failing to realize that you have inadventantly included robotic toys, washing machines, light switches and programmble timers IF ONLY they had fur and faces!

---------------------------- You're claiming that awareness can be less than aware. Disingenuous.

-------------------------- Of course it does. Whereas you don't KNOW, you SAY, whereas I see what I DO know, and say simply "THEY DON'T"!!

--------------------------- Except cognitive researchers have tried to find the most basic elements of "Awareness" in them by asking, "What are the outward symptoms of such an Awareness?", and they have found NADA!! ALL those processes they manifest show nothing but non-aware function. They are NOT aware of existing. They do NOT conceive of themselves with THOUGHTS! The *WORLD*, *LIFE*, in other words, the ONLY WAY AND MEANS BY AND IN WHICH WE EXIST AS WE KNOW EXISTING, IS BY MEANS OF A STORY TOLD BY US TO US ABOUT OURSELVES, A WORLD OF THOUGHTS, and THEY don't HAVE one!! THEY AREN'T EVEN HERE EXCEPT AS FEATURES INTERNAL TO *OUR* WORLD and LIFE!!!!! They are MACHINERY, FURNITURE!

--------------------- *IF* there WERE other Aware Animals who knew they existed and therefore automatically understood what WE mean here, and who live and breathe IN ADDITION to the complement of NON-aware animals on this planet, then this would be obvious to you, but merely because you have evolved on a planet where ALL OTHER species AT THIS TIME HAPPEN TO BE only pre-conscious bio-machines, your desperate affinity for hopefully believing in teddy bears and your reflex to crave some company around here on this rock, is leading you astray.
If Dolphins really were aware, they would tell us so, and have enough sense to MAKE SURE they had tried enough different ways to make it obvious to us. And by now we'd have a common language we had both agreed on!! Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

If that is your argument, it is the flaw that is utterly simple - the word "conscious" does not mean "conscious in the same manner as a human" any more than "hair" means "human hair".

Nevertheless, it leaves hairs on my couch.

Then why not just say that, instead of trying to construct some irrational 'proof'? If you're not sure it's okay to eat animals, live with the guilt or become a vegetarian - don't murder logic as well as cows.

Why are you screaming? Are you an animal frantically tapping on the keyboard when it's human owner is away? As for machines, I have every reason to believe that consciousness is a continuum, and at some point deterministic machines will be built that I will be prepared to describe as conscious. I don't think washing machines are far along that continuum.

I claimed nothing there except that a statement of yours might well be correct.

Argument by assertion, no more.

Screaming doesn't make assertions true.

You fail to provide a shred of evidence that cats are not conscious. We do in fact have some evidence that various apes have thought processes that in some ways resemble ours. I see no reason to believe that cats and dogs do not have the same, at a somewhat lower level.

Dolphins probably just assume we are aware. If they ever thought about whether we know they are aware, they would assume we do. None of the apes that learned symbolic languages ever showed concern that people would think them machines. If I recall correctly, one was in fact 'interrogated' on this point, and put cats, apes and humans in the 'living' category, but ants in the 'machine' category. A fair enough division into conscious and unconscious.
Maybe you could learn from that ape.
- Gerry Quinn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote in

I've been wondering about the logic behind the vegetarian option.
It is not ok to breed an animal for the sole purpose of killing and consuming it. Yet, if not for carnivore humans, that (individual) animal would never have lived.
It is not ok to hunt wild animals for food. What about weeding out the weak (or overpopulation) for the (supposed) good of the species? Predators do it to prey. Lemmings do it to themselves. Some carnivores do it to each other (cannibalism).
It is ok to starve wild animals to extinction by destroying their habitats to make farmland on which to grow vegetables for all these new vegetarian converts. Organic farming is no better (less yield per area - so more habitat destruction). Organic produce does have more flavour though.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gerry Quinn wrote:

----------------------- Of course it does, because we are our only example of it. Lots of things are called hair.

---------------------------- Saying that is the SAME as what I say! The very REASON we let each other eat lower animals is BECAUSE we ALL KNOW they are non-conscious!

---------------- I don't feel like I'm screaming!

--------------------- No, it's mine.

---------------- Except legitimate ones.
and at some point

----------------- I agree. But animals are NOT.
I don't think washing machines are far along that

--------------------------- Me neither.

--------------------------------- I didn't say "human" minds, I said CONSCIOUS minds.

---------------------------- Limit yourself to what you know directly, and you will see. Eschew "thinking" of what you see, and simply SEE it!

------------------------- I'm not screaming, think of measured crisp speech. Think of it as stridency!

--------------- If they were, they would do what WE do because WE'RE conscious!

------------------- Lower levels are not merely less of the same, or the same done slower, but NOT THE SAME AT ALL! Cats are NOT human retards!!

---------------------------- Dophins simply don't.

-------------------------- I'd love to see that cite.
-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

The ongoing 30-year old study of Koko the gorilla (http://www.koko.org /) makes it painfully obvious to anyone (except you) that consciousness is not just a human trait.
Consider the following quote from http://www.koko.org/faqsite /
"Tell us a bit about how you and Koko are able to communicate.
Koko and I communicate with each other through a modified form of American Sign Language (ASL). Koko has demonstrated well over 1,000 such gestures. She also understands over 2,000 words of spoken English, so people can speak to her and she will respond in sign. She also communicates with her normal gorilla vocalizations, of purrs and cries. In our more than 28 years together, Koko has expressed the whole range of emotions associated with humans, like, happiness, sadness, love, grief, embarrassment."
I'd say, based on your posts, it's clear she is able to express herself better than you.
Note: Followup-To set.
Christer Ericson Sony Computer Entertainment, Santa Monica
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Circular argument, or argument by assertion - feel free to choose which fallacy you are committing, as your statement can be construed either way.
If a cat can be unconscious, a cat can be conscious. The vast majority of English speakers will agree with me.

No it isn't. Almost everyone thinks animals are conscious, and most people eat meat. Of course, we tend to ensure that animals are unconscious (indeed, dead) at the time of consumption, except those like oysters to which we don't ascribe significant consciousness. Few people would consider it ethical to take a bite out of a live cow - indeed we concern ourselves with laws regarding humane killing. If we thought animals were unconscious, why would we care?
The way I look at it, they would eat us, and turn-about is fair play.

You were explicitly using the word in your invented and incorrect sense of "having consciousness like a human". I merely translated your assertion into English.

"I see a cat. The cat sees me. God sees the cat and God sees me." So we used to recite in kindergarten many years ago. I still have had no reason to quarrel with the first two sentences.

They do lots of things we do.

I think it is from a book called "The Ape's Reflexion" - maybe you can find a copy somewhere. It was an interesting read.
I don't know any apes, but I am convinced that many of my four-legged friends are quite conscious and aware.
- Gerry Quinn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gerry Quinn wrote:

-------------------------- Misapplication of fallacy. What I said is simply true, you have NO evidence of ANY sort that something that reminds you of our own awareness is anything of the kind, merely because it does so, when you are emotionally invested in the result.

---------------------------- The cat can be non-moving other than for breathing, but without being humanly conscious. People might grant free use of the word, merely for lack of another in the current state of the language, but the same might be said of an anaesthetized insect, and this same audience would permit it, so that means nothing. Just because the state of an animal might seem outwardly similar in every visible respect to that of a human, this may be so despite the fact that the human is specially conscious as we believe but the animal never has been, in the way we value, even though it looks the same outwardly.
In other words, many performances of animal functions have nothing whatsoever with the function of actual awareness, and they are merely the bodily reactions that EITHER an aware or a non-aware animal's body will produce, and are unrelated to actual self-awareness. An example would be that an animal might well eat, sleep, produce REM, and apparently be attentive to a stimulus without actually having any semblance of the kind of human awareness that makes us know that we exist as a specific thought. These actions are unrelated to whether the animal is cognizant of its existence as a theory, or whether it even HAS a mind that produces thoughts separate from its immediate attention.

---------------------- People are easily confused about what they believe, but they clearly value animals as less valuable so as to justify killing and eating them. This means that they inherently MUST believe that whatever animals have is less important than what we have.

------------------------------------- Agreed, but this comes only of the confusion I meantioned that is based on the same confusion as YOU manifest here about the difference between outward signs of function, and actual self-awareness, and how easy those are to confuse one for the other simply because we are the only aware being we share ideas with. You see, animals don't HAVE "ideas" that exist as symbolic memories.

----------------------- Except, of course, that is fodder for humor precisely because they cannot, and WE KNOW they cannot conceive of even their own death, or in fact any future state.

--------------------------------- Just because it only applies to humans on this planet doesn't mean that it wouldn't apply to aware robots or other alien species.

--------------- You see NO "god", liar.

------------------ I see the camera, the camera sees me.

------------------------------- But nothing special to being aware in the manner we know WE are aware!

---------------------------- I'd enjoy it if they were, but I very much doubt they could. If they could, then they would do more to save themselves from our pragmatic use of them and join with us. Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

[snip]
I think there's little point in arguing further with you. Have a good new year, and (just for me) knock any animals you plan to eat alive on the head first.
- Gerry Quinn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gerry Quinn wrote:

I think the problem is at least a level deeper.
UNESTABLISHED--so far--is whether a true consciousness, which is so different from our own as to be unrecognizable, can exist.
I contend that, not only is this unestablished, it's unlikely.
It's quite fanciful to imagine minds so different from ours that we would not credit them as minds at all, but I think it is just that: a fancy. I see no reason full "consciousness" wouldn't transcend the particular "iconic and verbal lingo" of a species.
--
|_ 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
Programmer Dude wrote:

--------------------------------- Cute, so you're saying that we aren't even conscious!!!

----------------------------------- 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. Awareness is a specific way of seeing, one that requires us be less than omnipotent, but aware of past and future. -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
"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

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

[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.

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*.
--
|_ 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
_____________| How's my programming? |

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