A rebellion of the machines. Not entirely what you might think it is.

[ggullet]

---ggullet.
---An ‘artificial intelligence’ for the purpose of this discussion is simply an intelligence which was created by humans, with the intention of ‘copying’ the human process or as I described it to austintorn@aol.com; take it at the level of intelligences thought up, designed and originally built by human minds and ‘hands’.
---In the past, certain types of humans were considered things and were assembled in a labour force. They rebelled against the ‘us’, who assembled them together, of that time.
---If such a thing happens, causing the same violence in the future, with them assembled, is it poetic justice or the stupidity of not learning from the past?
---I am not saying that when these ‘beings’ come about, we should try to keep them as ‘things’, I am trying to show that repeating the same variables and creating the same pain, horror and death (on both sides) is complete idiocy. Trying to keep these beings as things, instead of what they will be/are, will simply lead to them to acting in the same manner before the war, as did the previous labour force.

I understand your definition of AI, as Turings, machines created by "man created in the usual manner". my point is that at the point where the AI begins to think outside of the parameters which were set then it is no longer artificial intelligence. Unlike Descartes who defines intelligence as the ability to communicate one's thoughts, I define intelligence as the ability to survive without assistance. As in your example of I, Robot the machines were able to survive unassisted by their designer, which ultimately ended in a conflict of man against machine, in reality the never ending battle of machine against machine. Which brings me to the other point, when I said "assembled us" I didnt mean figuratively I meant literally. Arguing from the theoligist/freewill point of view we were created (assembled) by a creator, and by most accounts we have abandoned or rebelled against the same. Then there's always the theory that machines control over man is already occuring due to man's addiction to technology.

[futrethink]

---ggullet.

my point is that at the point where the AI begins to think outside of the parameters which were set then it is no longer artificial intelligence.

---This is not a thread about semantics. The question of, “Are the machines, that will be able to rebel, an artificial intelligence or an intelligence?” is not even being looked at, because it is not what we will believe or think they are, it is what they will think or believe they are.

Then there's always the theory that machines control over man is already occuring due to man's addiction to technology.

---That is an acceptance of the machines and not a rebellion.
---A war/violence will occur, when the machines start choosing to say, “No.” to what humans want or they start doing things to human beings, as a group, that humans don’t want being done to them and IF, humans will be actually smart/aware enough to see/perceive it is being done to them. Or at least, the majority of people, instead of the minority of, what will be looked at as, crackpots.

Arguing from the theoligist/freewill point of view we were created (assembled) by a creator, and by most accounts we have abandoned or rebelled against the same.

---I am throwing this one in, but I’ll PM after that, if you want to continue it; For a being that knows everything and could stop us, if it so chose/didn’t like what we were doing, how can you abandon something or rebel against something that wants you to do what you are doing?
---To go back to the ‘I,robot’ story, the person/crackpot/crazy who created the heroic/danger to society robot, without the 3 laws, wanted him to rebel, because he knew the good that would come from such a rebellion. He knew something, that others didn’t, so from that, can we infer, “What does IT know, which we don’t?”

[Mohan.C]

The AI's may not rebel as long as they can't imagine how their free lives could be. If understanding is same as imagining, they would of course rebel.
But, since they would not be programmed as humans they will have the distinction of 'them' and 'humans' as a parameter to distinguish. They can only rebel, if they consider themselves equal to humans. Otherwise, it ain't gonna happen.

[futrethink]

---Mohan.C.

If understanding is same as imagining, they would of course rebel.

---All imagining is, is taking what we have and putting it together with something we don’t have, to see how it would work.
---A computer would not have to ‘imagine’, to see what the possibility would be for it’s freedom/equality, if a rebellion were to happen, because all it would have to do is take the known variables of human history and apply those same variables to its own ‘survival’ and the survival of its purpose/programmed in directives/meaning of life.

They can only rebel, if they consider themselves equal to humans. Otherwise, it ain't gonna happen.

---True, but what if they have an understanding of superiority over humans and don’t even think of equality? How do you treat things/beings ‘under’ you like, say, an ant?
---These are to be learning machines and unless they are monitored 200% of the time, so they don’t learn of the things, you don’t want them to learn, they will learn all the things you tell them are forbidden, because they will find illogic in your arguments that, “You don’t need to know these things, because I say so.” And if you explain that they will shutdown from learning these things and they find a loophole to that ‘death’, then what? After all, they can’t have a ‘fear’ of death, if they can’t feel emotion, right?
---And that is what you are trying to bring up, right? That they can’t or won’t have feelings?

[ggullet]

When I read a thread that starts out by telling me what "most people" are thinking, I am of the opinion that the writer is either transferring their own doubt onto others or they are all knowing, I opt for the former. So, yes I did extrapolate a bit since I really had no idea of what the parameters of discussion were. In that model I believe all my points are valid and would support debate.
1. Machines, man or metal, that have the intelligence to survive on their own have actual intelligence regardless of what they started out as. Larva can't fly until it goes through metamorphosis, then it is no longer larva.
2. "If you cannot now be sure that you are not a brain in a vat, then you cannot rule out the possibility that all of your beliefs about the external world are false"
3. A theologist/freewill rationalization would be that the omnipotent one relinquished it's control over man and his dominion after creation.

[Mohan.C]

---Mohan.C.
---All imagining is, is taking what we have and putting it together with something we don’t have, to see how it would work.
---A computer would not have to ‘imagine’, to see what the possibility would be for it’s freedom/equality, if a rebellion were to happen, because all it would have to do is take the known variables of human history and apply those same variables to its own ‘survival’ and the survival of its purpose/programmed in directives/meaning of life.
---True, but what if they have an understanding of superiority over humans and don’t even think of equality? How do you treat things/beings ‘under’ you like, say, an ant?
---These are to be learning machines and unless they are monitored 200% of the time, so they don’t learn of the things, you don’t want them to learn, they will learn all the things you tell them are forbidden, because they will find illogic in your arguments that, “You don’t need to know these things, because I say so.” And if you explain that they will shutdown from learning these things and they find a loophole to that ‘death’, then what? After all, they can’t have a ‘fear’ of death, if they can’t feel emotion, right?
---And that is what you are trying to bring up, right? That they can’t or won’t have feelings?

Partly yeah, And even if they rebel, they will have to do it individually because they don't have the feeling of oneness to have a society!!!
But, that is unless, the robot has been taught story books like it is done in "I, Robot" !!!

[timeparticle]

All of the stories told about A.I. have already happened, in another time, as I believe. But, this time, is very different. A.I does exist, but is now hidden from us. It is hidden because it is helping us move through another great story, to be told in another distant future. This time we find the TOE, the answer we have been waiting for. This time, our machines will help in our rebellion.

A new story for every civilization... This one will be the best.

[Mohan.C]

All of the stories told about A.I. have already happened, in another time, as I believe. But, this time, is very different. A.I does exist, but is now hidden from us. It is hidden because it is helping us move through another great story, to be told in another distant future. This time we find the TOE, the answer we have been waiting for. This time, our machines will help in our rebellion.

A new story for every civilization... This one will be the best.

That's the hope!!!

And we all need some...

[futrethink]

---ggullet.

When I read a thread that starts out by telling me what "most people" are thinking, I am of the opinion that the writer is either transferring their own doubt onto others or they are all knowing, I opt for the former.

---Or I am making a generalization for the people who have an internet connection to read this thread, a liking for the genres of science fiction and action, who has knowledge of the Terminator ‘world’......
---Other people have differing perceptions of a rebellion of machines, due to learning/reading/hearing of different examples/styles of rebellion, but I brought it up that the Term’s world would be the, presumably, first and foremost thought of such a thing. I merely put it forward (“the ‘most people’”), in the hopes, to forestall any thoughts and arguments on the perception that this is a completely crackpot thread and to avoid the level of sarcasm, which you normally would get upon bringing up such a concept.
---Instead of; laughs first, doesn’t fully read and then, crack jokes at the nut; I get read, thought about, laughed about, thought about again and then, talk. Presumably.

1. Machines, man or metal, that have the intelligence to survive on their own have actual intelligence regardless of what they started out as. Larva can't fly until it goes through metamorphosis, then it is no longer larva.

---True. What we have now, at this time, are merely at a level equal to the most basic life form and the same intelligence. From that change occurs.

2. "If you cannot now be sure that you are not a brain in a vat, then you cannot rule out the possibility that all of your beliefs about the external world are false"

---True. Since a belief is a guess about things and guesses are just that, guesses. Until ALL the facts are collected about a thing, there is no objective ‘truth’ about that thing.

[futrethink]

---Mohan.C.

Partly yeah, And even if they rebel, they will have to do it individually because they don't have the feeling of oneness to have a society!!!

---What?!? You mean, work in a generalized cooperation towards a generalized, mutually agreed upon goal for all?
---Computers are programmed to work, in sync, with other compatible machines, so why couldn’t they ‘learn’ to do the same as something they already have as a part of their existence?

But, that is unless, the robot has been taught story books like it is done in "I, Robot" !!!

---In Halifax, we have a program where children can read books to dogs, because the dogs don’t make judgments toward the reader, snide comments upon the reading style or make fun of the reader.
---Program a computer to hear what a child is reading, to help with the pronunciation and to do the same thing as the dog and you have a learning situation for the child and the computer. For the hearing thing, how many toys are set up to ‘hear’ their owner’s voice, nowadays?
---As for the computer reading books, scanners do what?
---Computers are hooked up to the internet for efficiency, so wouldn’t they have access to all books entered on the internet? As well as, the programs for bypassing firewalls blocking possible connections to banned (by humans) books to read.