Re: How Robots Will Steal Your Job

This is a totally humanocentric pile of bullshit, not to mention being logically invalid. Humans can speak a handful of languages, most of which are related to one of about 5 or 6 roots. Learning a new language requires assistance from someone who knows the other language, and preferably knows yours as well. It takes a /very/ long time for two people with no common language between them to learn each other's language.

Several years ago, during the height of the space craze, a number of attempts were made to create a system to initiate communication with an intelligent creature with no familiar language. Lots of linguists devoted insane amounts of effort, and they eventually came up with a system that all agreed was very good. Until they tested it. The test subjects had no common root languages with the testers, were judged to be of high intelligence, and yet several weeks passed without a single advancement in communication. From memory the whole project was dropped at that point, since if it couldn't be used to communicate with an intelligent subject who was so similar to the testers in every respect other than language, then what hope did the system have of working with an intelligent being with a potentially /very/ different mental structure?

But then from what you've already said, if it can't come and make itself intelligible to /us/, then you don't class it as intelligent.

All you've proved so far is that you mind is more closed than Fort Knox.

------------ Yes, and?

Many do.

------------- Sure, but you repeated his own lies.

-------------- Oh yes, I like giving them very much.

-Steve

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 10:03:40 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" wrote or quoted :

Has anyone done a serious study to find out?

Consider that hieroglyphics baffled scholars for centuries until someone found the Rosetta stone.

It seems to me from watching Walt Disney as a kid, that the chipmunk relative the prairie dog has a number of sounds, as do monkeys, to identify various predators.

What is a language? Something for communicating information through abstract sounds or symbols. It may not be that sophisticated a language, but it works to warn other prairie dogs to look up or down for danger.

-- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming. See

for The Java Glossary.

Nope. I mean, yes, there are a few core concepts that make up the bulk of modern cryptography (although more than one; elliptic curve cryptography, Feistel systems, and public key systems based on the difficulty of the discrete logarithm problem come to mind). But adding a fillip on top may very well be counterproductive; anything that adds biases to the encryption may screw up the entire system.

There's a reason that cryptographers recommend that amateurs just stick with well-tested algorithms from the literature, without trying to "improve it".

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

------------------- 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

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:

MesonAI -- If nobody else wants to do it, why shouldn't we?(TM)

Depends somewhat on the people involved, doesn't it? It would take *me* forever and a day, but I know people who pick up new languages rapidly.

(I would prefer the word, sentient. My *dog* is intelligent.)

I still think a key difference is that--if you meet another human (or, presumably, alien), there would be obvious *attempts* to communicate and find common ground. This is missing with regard to our animal friends.

There is limited communication between my dog and me, but most of it comes from my attempts to communicate with her. She has very few messages other than, "Want food", "Want to go out", "Want food", "Want petting", "Want food",... and "Want food."

How do you know?

How do you know?

It may be that your inability to recognise "obvious"[1] attempts by your dog to communicate with you are most frustrating for her.

[1] Obvious to the dog, that is.

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 20:35:10 +0000 (UTC), Richard Heathfield wrote or quoted :

read my little story about the dolphin and the paddles at

People's preconceived notions can make them miss cues obvious to others.

-- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming. See

for The Java Glossary.

How many animals have made obvious and overt attempts to communicate with you (anything beyond their own immediate needs)?

Me either.

Over nine years of observational data.

A. She seems quite happy and unfrustrated. (Must be all that food and those long walks.)

1. A sentient being would be capable of recognizing the failure and attempting something else. As the failure in this case is manifest, alternate strategies are clearly required. None is evident.
2. A sentient being would very likely pick up on, and use, some of *my* communication methods. No evidence of such exists (and, yes, I fully recognize that absense of proof is not proof of absense, but after nine years of close, daily bservation the absense is very, very suggestive...even compelling).
3. A sentient being would very likely recognize and respond to my attempts to communicate in it's language. Again, nonesuch is evident.

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 16:06:27 -0500, Programmer Dude wrote or quoted :

Yes. See

-- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming. See

for The Java Glossary.

Have read it, and as I've said, animals are clearly capable of communicating their basic needs and wants. Even cows communicate distress at not being milked (and cows ain't quite the brightest critters on the planet).

If your dolphins--or my dog--were truly sentient, they'd also try communicating on our level, since--to a truly intelligent being--it would be rather obvious the message wasn't getting through very well.

And when you asked what its favorite food or color was it replied....

(Note: two-year-old humans WILL reply!)

You make some very good points, but is the process of attributing to other animals fundamentally all that different from what we do within our own species? With our own species, we certainly get more feedback which serves as reinforcement and helps to both establish and sustain communication - but it is also true that most folk get quite close to their pets (and some to their livestock!), and whilst many may sneer at such "anthropomorphic" behaviour, we have little evidence that what we do there is really all that different from what we do with each other. We have less in common with other animals, but does it make any sense at all to use the word "intelligence" in such contexts. Just think back a century or so when we were not so politically correct.

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 18:02:43 -0500, Programmer Dude wrote or quoted :

Please read The Language Instinct by Steve Pinker

see

He argues that human brains have a prewired program for human language parsing. Basically what happens when you learn a language as a child is a few configuration parameters get tweaked to tune the algorithms.

One speculation is that dolphins use a holographic language where they paint sonic pictures.

It is rather difficult for either species to learn the native language of the other. So the two mutually create an artificial language.

-- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming. See

for The Java Glossary.

How do you know they're not solving partial integration equations in their heads to relieve the sheer boredom of standing around in a field all day with nothing else to do?

You assume that a truly intelligent animal would want to communicate with us in the first place.

(a) If, somehow, an intelligent animal /did/ manage to communicate with a human, what is the likely outcome? That the human will simply not believe what he has heard/seen/smelt/thought/whatever; (b) if, somehow, an intelligent animal /did/ manage to persuade a human that it really could communicate, the human is unlikely to be silly enough to report the fact to anybody; (c) if, somehow, the human /was/ silly enough to report the fact to anybody, he is very unlikely to be believed by anyone worth persuading; (d) if, incredibly, the human /was/ believed, the animal is very likely to end up under a laboratory microscope.

A truly intelligent animal would try to act as if it were not intelligent, at least when around humans. The problem is that it is impossible to distinguish such animals (if they exist) from non-intelligent animals, provided they are sufficiently intelligent to disguise their intelligence.

If they're really bright and if they have the option, they'll choose an environment where we have trouble following them. Sea water is always a good bet, since we're having some difficulty destroying the sea, it being rather larger than the average Great Lake. (It's not for want of trying, though.)

Now, maybe there's no such thing as an intelligent, self-aware animal, after all. We don't know. It's unlikely that we shall ever know for sure. To claim that we /already/ know is IMHO to mistake absence of evidence for evidence of absence.

I don't *know*, but I consider the idea far fetched in the extreme. Until I see clear evidence cows have any sense of mathematics, let alone higher math, I'll bet the obvious.

Yes I do. I assume any intelligence desires to communicate.

An appearance on Letterman, at the very least.

All seriousness aside, I think it would change the course of human history.

Some perhaps, but clearly there are people with a strong desire that animals are sentient, so I have to assume the message would get through eventually (if not, in fact, instantly, which is my guess).

Surely you jest? Miss the opportunity to become one of the most famous people on earth? The tv rights alone would set you up for life.

Again, I disagree completely. If I walked into any animal research facility with a talking dog, once it were established the dog does in fact talk, *history* would be made.

Very possibly, but the whole scenario makes a silly assumption: that no animals are intelligent until one suddenly becomes intelligent, looks around, figures out the ramifications of revealing intelligence and decides to tell no one.

Richard, I think you've got old Occam spinning like a dervish in his grave! (-:

Consider: if *an* animal is intelligent, and if this is "normal", then doesn't this require that many animals be intelligent? And what is the likelyhood of them *all* deciding to play mum? What is the likelyhood that *none* of them get the message through? What is the likelyhood that *all* of them fool *all* of us *all* the time (and there is a *saying* about THAT idea!).

But you provide no sensible reason for this silence.

That would suggest they needs be *much* more intelligent than us, since it's manifest that humans can't keep a secret. What are the chances this intelligence was able to evolve and surpass us without our noticing it?

Actually, some scientists are quite concerned about our seas. Vast coastal areas have been entirely fished out, and pollution has been found through out the seven seas.

And we are exploring the sea. Deep thermal vents and all that. Ever been down in a sub? It's interesting. After about 100 feet, all the rich life (corals, fish, etc.) thin out leaving a fairly barren environment. Things do live down there, but it's nothing compared to the first 100 feet or so.

But in any event, what are you suggesting here? That a species

*decided* to return to the sea? Or *decided* to never leave it? Pretty neat trick--deciding to evolve in a given direction!

Agreed. But the odds and the evidence suggest there isn't.

Also agreed, but to imagine small chances into larger probabilities is wishful thinking at best.

A favorite contemporary SF author, David Brin, wrote a collection of essays and SF shorts, called OTHERNESS. His theme is the tendency in Western thought to bend over backwards to accommodate off-beat "It could be true, you never know" ideas.

A big part of his point is that, yes you often can't know for sure, but action requires picking a position until that position is shown to be wrong somehow.

Until someone demonstrates more than wishful thinking about cows doing higher math or entire species conspiring to conceal themselves from us--admittedly we being in a position to do great harm to them, but also being in a position to provide great help--I'm going to go with what *appears* now to be real.

I'd guess that's certainly true NOW, although which really came first is a bit of a chicken/egg thing. But I agree that speech likely has a very good "impedence match" with the human brain.

However, I am including all forms of communication. I am not restricting this to speech.

My dog is able to communicate basic wants and needs by posture, eye contact (big with animals) and movement. If she wants a treat, she stands by the kitchen and looks at where the treats are stored. On our walks, she often appears to have a clear idea of which direction she'd like to go.

The commuication is clearly there, it's just rudimentary and basic. Not unlike talking with a one-year-old. It just seems to me that, if animals ARE any better than your basic one-year- old, there would be more progress in our mutual attempts to communicate. After all, we've had thousands of years to spend on the problem.

And I suspect that if there is something to this, we will eventually discover it. So far, not.

Exactly. This seems absent despite the efforts of workers with a vested interest in succeeding. SOME patterns have been found to allow communication (I want to find out more about elephants as a result of this thread!), but consider: if they are as intelligent as us, why aren't they studying us as hard as we are studying them?

Where is their science? Where are their scientists?

No doubt they consider the idea of your being able to do higher math equally far fetched. They know they're right. How will you prove it to them, since you are ignorant of their rather intricate symbology?

The obvious is that you don't know either way.

I see no reason to make that assumption. Just because humans are chatty, that doesn't mean that all intelligent creatures are chatty. Nor does it mean that humans are intelligent, by the way.

And how would that benefit the animal?

Sure, with possibly catastrophic effects on the relevant species, whatever it might be. An intelligent species might be able to predict this, and stay the hell away in the first place.

Only if the animal wishes to communicate. My point is that this would be against the animal's best interests.

There's a great cartoon about a singing frog. Warner Brothers, I think. This guy discovers a singing frog in a box. The frog does the whole top-hat-and-wand song-and-dance routine, and has a remarkably fine singing voice. Excited at the prospect of fame, the guy takes the frog to a theatrical agent, where the frog just sits there going "ribbit". Whenever the guy is alone, the frog will perform, but /only/ when the guy is alone.

My point? Simple really - don't make the mistake of thinking that an animal that made the mistake of communicating with a human would be obliged to repeat that mistake.

Not if the dog doesn't want to talk. And, if it is truly intelligent, it won't say a word, even if it has the vocabulary and linguistic skill of Shakespeare himself.

No, it doesn't make any such assumption. It certainly doesn't make the assumption that no animals are intelligent. Rather, it attempts to demonstrate that, if some animals are intelligent *and* capable of communicating that intelligence to human beings, evolution could easily have selected against those that chose to succumb to that temptation. In other words, if you're stupid enough to talk to people, you don't live long enough to breed.

On the contrary. I'm making no assumptions whatsoever. You are making the fundamental assumption that, if animals were intelligent, they would attempt to communicate with us in such a way that we could understand.

Note that this is a self-defeating assumption, since mankind has made very few genuine attempts, and possibly no successful attempts, to communicate with animals in such a way that /they/ could understand. Therefore, if using your arguments, an intelligent animal would have to deduce that humans are not intelligent.

Yes.

High. After all, have you heard from any? No? Well, then. (This is your own argument, played back against you.)

High. For a start, they might be too bright to try. Secondly, we're not really listening terribly seriously. Thirdly, we don't actually know their language (if they have a language).

I think that, if some animals are intelligent, the vast majority of those animals fool the vast majority of us the vast majority of the time, and that's enough.

Oh, come on. Look at the problems:

1) Self-preservation. Any animal successfully communicating with us would become an instant research project, almost certainly resulting in the loss of liberty and, perhaps, the eventual death-in-captivity of the animal. Bit of a downer. 2) Apathy. We don't speak KomodoDragonese or DuckBilledPlatypian, and nobody seems to be making any serious attempts to learn those languages. If we can't be bothered to communicate with animals, what makes you think they're bothered about communicating with us? 3) Cultural differences. We place a high value on communication because we're good at communicating. Perhaps an intelligent animal might have a very different set of values. For example, it might consider our fetish for communication to be a sign of /non/-intelligence. ("For heaven's sake, mankind, how can you sneak up on an antelope if you're yapping all the time?")

Well, being much more intelligent than humans wouldn't be hard, I'm afraid.

High. Humans not only can't keep secrets, but also are very unwilling to notice anything that they weren't expecting to notice or don't want to notice. For example, most of us refuse to believe that we are governed by self-serving idiots, because to believe that would be to understand that we were pretty dumb for putting them in charge, and nobody likes to think of themselves as dumb. In the same way, we rather like being the only intelligent species on the planet, and we'd really rather not share the honour. Of course, you can find quite a few humans with more intellectual honesty than that, but they are surprisingly rare.

Oh, I know. I'm not saying we can't do it. I'm just saying it's taking longer than usual.

Perhaps the latter. Perhaps, even, the former.

Humans do this already.

I must disagree here. The odds are not capable of calculation because we lack data. As for evidence, I think it's trivial to interpret the observable facts as evidence for, or evidence against, the intelligence of animals, depending on what we wish to believe.

Whoever said anything about small chances? As for wishful thinking, I don't recall claiming that I want to show that animals are intelligent. In fact, I hope for their sake that they are not, in a way. I'm just trying to show that the arguments presented so far against the idea are not even remotely compelling.

Yes, that's fair enough, but you should not then consider the fact of picking a position to constitute evidence that the correct position was picked!

Until someone demonstrates more than wishful thinking about animals being mere automata put here for no other reason than to give us something to prod and poke at, I'm going to go with what appears now to be real. I've seen alertness, curiosity, playfulness, and even mischief in animal behaviour; it seems very clear to me that animals are self-aware, intelligent to at least some degree, and very definitely conscious. Prove that they aren't, and I'll cheerfully acquiesce. So far, you have advanced no proof, so I have to go with what seems self-evident.