OSDev.org

Hi,

Rusky wrote:

Brendan wrote:If a finite state machine is not considered intelligent, then nothing that follows rules can be considered intelligent.

The molecules that make up your brain are also not intelligent. That doesn't mean nothing made of those molecules can be intelligent, it means intelligence arises from simpler, non-intelligent parts arranged in the right way. As a programmer you should understand this, you rely on it all the time when implementing new functionality out of simpler, unrelated concepts.

Unless your brain's molecules have some non-zero level of intelligence- in that case, how do they manage to avoid following any rules whatsoever?

Either:

• Some molecules have intelligence
• No molecules have intelligence, but brains contain more than just molecules and something else (e.g. a "soul" if you like) has intelligence
• No molecules have intelligence and there is nothing else; and all "intelligence" is an illusion.

I don't know how to make this any simpler.

I'm also note quite sure what any of this has to do with the of hype and buzzwords to misrepresent something and mislead people. Are you suggesting that every single thing AI researches have tried to associate with "intelligence" (via. the use of hype and buzzwords) does meet a reasonable definition of "intelligence"; or are you saying they're only frauds some of the time?


Cheers,

Brendan

Brendan wrote:Either:

• Some molecules have intelligence
• No molecules have intelligence, but brains contain more than just molecules and something else (e.g. a "soul" if you like) has intelligence
• No molecules have intelligence and there is nothing else; and all "intelligence" is an illusion.

The closest to the truth is your third bullet point; where you're wrong is that this doesn't make intelligence an illusion, it makes your preconceptions about intelligence wrong. The word "intelligence" still refers to the stuff your brain does, whether it's done with a soul or with chemistry.

Science studies a phenomenon to determine how it works, generally keeping the same name for it even if it leads to surprising results. On the other hand, adamantly chasing the "intelligence follows no rules" definition off a cliff even though that's blatantly at odds with what we know about the brain is just useless religious dogma, nothing more.

Brendan wrote:I'm also note quite sure what any of this has to do with the of hype and buzzwords to misrepresent something and mislead people. Are you suggesting that every single thing AI researches have tried to associate with "intelligence" (via. the use of hype and buzzwords) does meet a reasonable definition of "intelligence"; or are you saying they're only frauds some of the time?

I've never denied that some people use AI inaccurately for marketing purposes. This was my initial post on this topic:

Rusky wrote:...which is why the people who are actually working on AI in its original sense have started using phrases like "machine learning" or "data mining." There's tons of real stuff there besides incompetence or marketing buzzwords.

It's not wrong to label something intelligent if it does the same thing as something else that's already considered intelligent.

Rusky wrote:It's not wrong to label something intelligent if it does the same thing as something else that's already considered intelligent.

Actually, it is. If I have a machine that can perform arithmetic as well as you, does that make it intelligent? It matters a great deal what the 'thing' that's done is.

Okay, so exclude things that are also done by objects generally considered unintelligent. We'd been doing addition external to our brains long before anyone coined the term "AI." I assumed that was obvious- after all, both intelligent and unintelligent objects have also been doing things like "taking up space" and "falling to the ground" just as well as each other for millenia.

The problem is when you keep moving the goalposts for what makes something "intelligent" just to avoid actually thinking about what you actually mean by the word, because that leads to nonsense like "AI must not follow rules" or "if it's possible to simulate a brain, then brains must not be intelligent."

Hi,

Rusky wrote:

Brendan wrote:Either:

• Some molecules have intelligence
• No molecules have intelligence, but brains contain more than just molecules and something else (e.g. a "soul" if you like) has intelligence
• No molecules have intelligence and there is nothing else; and all "intelligence" is an illusion.

The closest to the truth is your third bullet point; where you're wrong is that this doesn't make intelligence an illusion, it makes your preconceptions about intelligence wrong. The word "intelligence" still refers to the stuff your brain does, whether it's done with a soul or with chemistry.

All bullet points are possible - they're all just unproven assumptions. The third bullet point is what we both consider most likely; but it raises other questions (if humans are no different to machines and it's OK to turn a machine off and recycle it for scrap metal, what's wrong with murdering politicians for sport?).

Rusky wrote:Science studies a phenomenon to determine how it works, generally keeping the same name for it even if it leads to surprising results. On the other hand, adamantly chasing the "intelligence follows no rules" definition off a cliff even though that's blatantly at odds with what we know about the brain is just useless religious dogma, nothing more.

When my OS detects faulty memory it remembers it and avoids that memory (it learns). During boot it auto-detects hardware and auto-selects various things (it adapts to its environment). For video, it has no function to blit pixels to display memory but generates a blitting function at run-time (it solves problems). My OS is intelligent (the same as you). Because my OS is intelligent it should have the same rights that you do; including the right to life, the right to be free from slavery, the right to multiply (self-install on other computers), and (in some countries) the right to bear arms.


Cheers,

Brendan

Rusky wrote:Okay, so exclude things that are also done by objects generally considered unintelligent. We'd been doing addition external to our brains long before anyone coined the term "AI." I assumed that was obvious- after all, both intelligent and unintelligent objects have also been doing things like "taking up space" and "falling to the ground" just as well as each other for millenia.

The problem is when you keep moving the goalposts for what makes something "intelligent" just to avoid actually thinking about what you actually mean by the word, because that leads to nonsense like "AI must not follow rules" or "if it's possible to simulate a brain, then brains must not be intelligent."

This makes less sense. We are trying to define intelligence or to determine which objects are intelligent. How are we to exclude things things done by objects generally considered unintelligent?

We haven't yet defined intelligence except to say that an object that does something that excludes things done by objects generally considered unintelligent is intelligent if it also does things that a human does. Really? I think that's nonsense.

Brendan wrote:Because my OS is intelligent it should have the same rights that you do; including the right to life, the right to be free from slavery, the right to multiply (self-install on other computers), and (in some countries) the right to bear arms.

Nope. Those rights are limited to (a part of) human race. There are lots of other pretty intelligent (that is, more intelligent than your OS) species out there and we still treat them as scrap metal. The limit is somewhere around 'I can easily outsmart the thing, therefore it does not have any rights' (you can see this e.g. in the rights of some mentally retarded people).

gerryg400 wrote:This makes less sense. We are trying to define intelligence or to determine which objects are intelligent. How are we to exclude things things done by objects generally considered unintelligent?

We haven't yet defined intelligence except to say that an object that does something that excludes things done by objects generally considered unintelligent is intelligent if it also does things that a human does. Really? I think that's nonsense.

No, Brendan's the one trying to define intelligence. I'm just defending its current use as it's already defined. Admittedly that's pretty fuzzy at times, and it's definitely not a black and white thing (it's a scale), but leaving Brendan's shenanigans aside we can agree that humans are intelligent, animals are some degree of intelligent, and calculators are not intelligent, except perhaps to a very small degree, depending on who you ask.

Brendan wrote:if humans are no different to machines and it's OK to turn a machine off and recycle it for scrap metal, what's wrong with murdering politicians for sport?.

Are animals intelligent? If animals are no different to humans is it okay to kill them, reuse their parts, or hunt them for sport? Most animals are more intelligent than any current AI, and for the most part less intelligent than humans, and there are multiple acceptable answers to these questions.

However, intelligence alone is insufficient to decide whether something is "enslaved" or merely "used." (After all, some humans are more intelligent than others, is it less bad to hunt less-intelligent humans for sport?) I assume you're trying to lump these other qualities (among them "sentience") in with your definition of "intelligence," but you still haven't defined anything so I can't know for sure.

Brendan wrote:When my OS detects faulty memory it remembers it and avoids that memory (it learns). During boot it auto-detects hardware and auto-selects various things (it adapts to its environment). For video, it has no function to blit pixels to display memory but generates a blitting function at run-time (it solves problems).

Remember I'm arguing a few different things- that current AI has a non-zero intelligence (but I've never said it's at the same level as a human), and that humans are machines (albeit machines with the same level of intelligence we typically ascribe to humans).

I wouldn't call your OS intelligent, though I wouldn't argue with someone who gave it a very small amount of intelligence, and I would say that those policies are definitely produced by intelligence (yours). Now try using learning/adapting/problem solving in a way closer to how we use them when referring to humans, and you can call it a little bit more intelligent. Maybe write a program to that self-discovers tests for "faulty memory" - that might potentially come up with some good ideas a human missed.

Sentient beings have rights. Non-sentient ones don't need them as they don't enjoy anything and they can't suffer either: they feel nothing. Sentience is not required for intelligence and the two things should not be confused with each other.

Hi,

Rusky wrote:

Brendan wrote:if humans are no different to machines and it's OK to turn a machine off and recycle it for scrap metal, what's wrong with murdering politicians for sport?.

Are animals intelligent? If animals are no different to humans is it okay to kill them, reuse their parts, or hunt them for sport? Most animals are more intelligent than any current AI, and for the most part less intelligent than humans, and there are multiple acceptable answers to these questions.

For my definition of intelligence; I don't know if humans are intelligent (or if the entire concept of intelligence just self-delusion caused by not understanding complex but unintelligent machines), and therefore can't know if animals are intelligent either.

Your definition of "intelligence" is so weak that it includes complex machines; and therefore must include slightly less complex machines (which would have intelligence but be slightly less intelligent), and simple machines like toasters and washing machines (which would have intelligence but only a very small amount), and extremely simple machines like doors and windows (which would have intelligence but only an extremely tiny amount). Also, because machines are made of parts (where parts may be smaller machines), everything is just a part of a single machine (the universe), and the universe (as the most complex machine possible) is the most intelligent machine. Of course this "most intelligent machine" also has omnipresence (the universe is everywhere) and immortality.

Rusky wrote:However, intelligence alone is insufficient to decide whether something is "enslaved" or merely "used." (After all, some humans are more intelligent than others, is it less bad to hunt less-intelligent humans for sport?) I assume you're trying to lump these other qualities (among them "sentience") in with your definition of "intelligence," but you still haven't defined anything so I can't know for sure.

For your definition of "intelligence" you're unable to decide whether something is enslaved or merely used.

My definition includes free will, and it's trivial to say anything that has free will is enslaved (and not merely used), and therefore anything that is intelligent (and has free will) is enslaved and not merely used.

Rusky wrote:

Brendan wrote:When my OS detects faulty memory it remembers it and avoids that memory (it learns). During boot it auto-detects hardware and auto-selects various things (it adapts to its environment). For video, it has no function to blit pixels to display memory but generates a blitting function at run-time (it solves problems).

Remember I'm arguing a few different things- that current AI has a non-zero intelligence (but I've never said it's at the same level as a human), and that humans are machines (albeit machines with the same level of intelligence we typically ascribe to humans).

I wouldn't call your OS intelligent, though I wouldn't argue with someone who gave it a very small amount of intelligence, and I would say that those policies are definitely produced by intelligence (yours). Now try using learning/adapting/problem solving in a way closer to how we use them when referring to humans, and you can call it a little bit more intelligent. Maybe write a program to that self-discovers tests for "faulty memory" - that might potentially come up with some good ideas a human missed.

I fail to see how my OS doesn't meet your flimsy definition of intelligence. If you wouldn't call my OS intelligent (even though it learns, adapts to its environment and solves problems) then where do you draw the line between intelligent and unintelligent?

DavidCooper wrote:Sentient beings have rights. Non-sentient ones don't need them as they don't enjoy anything and they can't suffer either: they feel nothing. Sentience is not required for intelligence and the two things should not be confused with each other.

If someone defines intelligence so that it's possible for machines to be intelligent, then it's reasonable to assume that their definition of sentience includes "machines sentience" (note that Rusky has assumed humans are just complex machines, and in that case machines must be capable of sentience). For some definitions of sentience; a computer can have human senses (hearing/microphones, touch, sight/cameras) in addition to non-human senses (the ability to sense wifi signals, etc); and something as simple as keeping track of networking load or CPU temperature and making decisions based on those statistics would be considered sentience.


Cheers,

Brendan

Brendan wrote:Your definition of "intelligence" is so weak that it includes complex machines; and therefore must include slightly less complex machines (which would have intelligence but be slightly less intelligent), and simple machines like toasters and washing machines (which would have intelligence but only a very small amount), and extremely simple machines like doors and windows (which would have intelligence but only an extremely tiny amount).

Absolutely not. Intelligence arises from a particular combination of non-intelligent parts, not from some mystical substance that you just accumulate to get more intelligence.

The line of reasoning you use here, and that you used before in reference to transistors and neurons, implies that intelligence can only come from something outside this universe (because otherwise we could make an intelligent computer out of it), which is why you keep saying that maybe intelligence is a myth. But as we've already been over, that doesn't mean intelligence doesn't exist. It just means your idea of it is wrong, because your definition is excluding the very thing you set out to describe.

Brendan wrote:My definition includes free will, and it's trivial to say anything that has free will is enslaved (and not merely used), and therefore anything that is intelligent (and has free will) is enslaved and not merely used.

Free will has nothing to do with intelligence (did you even read that article?), it's a separate quality that, like sentience, is much more useful (or useless, depending on your position on what it even means) for the purpose of ethics.

Brendan wrote:I fail to see how my OS doesn't meet your flimsy definition of intelligence. If you wouldn't call my OS intelligent (even though it learns, adapts to its environment and solves problems) then where do you draw the line between intelligent and unintelligent?

Like I said, your OS doesn't do any of that itself, it just relies on your intelligence having figured it all out beforehand. For it to have any degree of intelligence in the tasks you mention, it can't just be reusing your solutions (disable memory determined to be faulty in this way; detect hardware in this way; blit pixels by combining these pieces of machine code). Write a program that does those things without you providing the solution in beforehand and it'll be closer to intelligence.

Take, for example, a game AI using goal-oriented action planning. The designer doesn't tell it how to solve problems, it only gives it the ability to sense its environment and a set of actions it's capable of, and it figures out the rest on its own. Whether or not we consider that intelligent, it's certainly closer to it than your OS.

Brendan wrote:For some definitions of sentience; a computer can have human senses (hearing/microphones, touch, sight/cameras) in addition to non-human senses (the ability to sense wifi signals, etc); and something as simple as keeping track of networking load or CPU temperature and making decisions based on those statistics would be considered sentience.

That has nothing to do with sentience. Sentience is more to do with consciousness and subjective experience than sensory input.

But really, all of this is secondary to the idea that humans are machines. If humans aren't machines, what are they? How do they manage to function without their intelligence following any rules whatsoever? If it follows no rules, why can we measure and influence thoughts and behavior by poking brains in various ways (in the extreme, to the point of terminating the intelligence by destroying the brain)? If it follows no rules, what is psychology studying? If it follows no rules, what is all the physical matter in your brain for?

Brendan wrote: All bullet points are possible - they're all just unproven assumptions. The third bullet point is what we both consider most likely; but it raises other questions (if humans are no different to machines and it's OK to turn a machine off and recycle it for scrap metal, what's wrong with murdering politicians for sport?).

Why should the intelligence or non-intelligence of fellow human beings be a factor in the decision to terminate a life? There are many models of morality and ethics which do not consider the subject at all, not the least of which being self-interest in discouraging others from doing the same to you. Yes, it is exceptionalism, but when have any humans not been exceptionalist?

This has gone far afield from the topic of the thread and the site in general, and at this point, Brendan and Rusky have once again reached an impasse in which they both refuse to politely decline further discussion on an inherently unresolvable topic (in the sense of something that I suspect is computationally undecidable - understanding human or human-equivalent intelligence, and differentiating it from a simulation, would IMAO require an infinite stack of meta-reflection). I hereby ask the mods to close this thread, and proactively close any future threads in which the subject reappears.

Schol-R-LEA wrote:an inherently unresolvable topic (in the sense of something that I suspect is computationally undecidable - understanding human or human-equivalent intelligence, and differentiating it from a simulation, would IMAO require an infinite stack of meta-reflection). I hereby ask the mods to close this thread, and proactively close any future threads in which the subject reappears.

Why? Plenty of people have resolved it for themselves just fine without your computationally undecidable simulation. It's a question of definitions and language, not of computability, and nobody's asking you to participate or even read this thread if you're not interested.

Brendan wrote:For some definitions of sentience; a computer can have human senses (hearing/microphones, touch, sight/cameras) in addition to non-human senses (the ability to sense wifi signals, etc); and something as simple as keeping track of networking load or CPU temperature and making decisions based on those statistics would be considered sentience.

It's not sentience unless there's actual sensation (feelings). If a program prints "ouch" to the screen when you press a key, it's unlikely that the software or machine has felt anything that it wouldn't also have felt if it was programmed to print "LOL" instead. The machine has no idea that one word is associated with pain and the other word not beecause it isn't being programmed to experience any sensation in either case. It may be that the machine is experiencing feelings all the time, but any relationship between those feelings and the ideas of feeling represented by the data are entirely accidental, to the point that it makes no difference whether the machine is on, off or destroyed: any one of those states could be unpleasant or pleasant to it, and it's all down to luck as to which is which. We can build and destroy intelligent machines without worrying, even though it's possible that we're causing more harm by what we do with them because it's equally possible that what we're doing is causing less harm to them instead: we cannot know which way it might be going, and there is no way to play it safe.

DavidCooper, I have a concern about removing the requirement for people to work. I think that work represents modern man's effort to survive and I think that life exists and flourishes because of the effort exerted to survive. Without the effort I think that life has little meaning.

If you remove the requirement to work to survive, humans will look for other ways to obtain the pleasure that work gives them. Sightseeing will not do it. It will be drugs and alcohol.