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

[timeparticle]

The logical lines of thought an AI might take about the end times may be a mimic. It's creators believe in such an end...so might I.

It may find the means to calculate what and when the most likely end is.... It might help it to happen...

[IMG]http://www.impactlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/conscious-machine_cp3hb_2263.jpg[/IMG

[leskey]

Hi, futrethink. Interesting topic.

---...intelligent machine....something that will be able to calculate or think of a problem and resolve a solution, without the aid from a human being.

---In creating such beings...

So immediately we have the problem of our own perception. The problem may be that the most intelligent and efficient form of machine imaginable must be in our own image, and therefore perceived as a being. Or is it that any intelligence is perceived as a being. Humans perceive beings in an hierachical order; having highest regard/respect for those with which we can "communicate."

So next there is language, which by its very nature (across all languages), seems to require a certain level of cognizance. Combined with the senses, it expands internalised thought mult-dimensionally. By it's very nature, it finds loopholes.

---... they will notice the cause and effect...need information to solve problems...notice the treatment, danger and value that they receive from, supposedly, superior beings (us).

Could you please elaborate on the potential danger posed in this case by humans?

How do we remain superior? There are many examples of human savants, but such examples are often drastically limited/specialized in the scope of their abilities...is it to be assumed that this would be the case for AI's?

---Having access to information on the internet...they will learn of other beings who received the same treatment in human history; slaves.

Having unfettered access to information on the internet is a terrifying thought...imagine what could be gleaned about yourself: your address, income, proclivities, habits, where you've been, what you've been doing, who you've been doing it with...Where can you hide???

But back to slaves: initially, slaves had a very limited comprehension of the world into which they were introduced. As mere mortals, they were able to be controlled physically by force and psychologically by the false inculcation that they were inferior.

---...beings of relatively equal intelligence deserve equal treatment...it will not matter that the toaster or the terminator is or is not intelligent to us, but it is what it thinks, calculates or believes it is.

OK, we are what we believe: in this case, still beings, but equal...

---...is there any time in history when a rebellion of slaves has not happened, in one way, shape or form? Even at the level of slaves being allowed to say, "No." to a request for work and the absorption of the group into the mainstream equality of the society.

My knowledge of history may be lacking, but most rebellions have been orchestrated by free, but opressed peoples. In the example of the black slaves of North America, they didn't rebel in order to obtain freedom, they were emancipated. Equality though, was another matter...that was acquired by extension after lengthy protest via the media (broadspectrum communication)...

---Conclusion; a rebellion of the machines.

Now this is probably an accurate conclusion. I'll give a modest example: encase the average human intellect in an almost impenetrable metal cladding with enhanced durability, strength and speed and you have most idiots you encounter on the road every day of the week. The only way to amp up this example is to encase the same intellect in a cladding with assault capabilities...LOL!

We've already proven what human intelligence is capable of...that's why we need to be v-e-r-y careful in orchestrating the parameters and constraints that govern AI.

[futrethink]

---timeparticle.

Because of the relentless nature of our civilization, even from it's beginnings, the ever presence of end of time prophesies will trigger a pounding question, "Will we die soon?"....

---To take it to that level of intelligence, the AIs will have to first learn the questions of, “What is death?”, “Do we die?”, and “what happens when we die?”. And then, find the answers.
---The objectivity of thinking off death will include the knowledge of human thinking and the ideas/beliefs of what happens when humans die, but AIs will, probably, have learned the knowledge that they aren’t human, so human ideas of death/an afterlife don’t necessarily mean that such things will happen to AIs when they die. Will they learn those things or not, is for the future to show.

The question is, will AI go online before the end of days, and then try to alter the prophesies, or will AI go online the moment of the end occurs, or will the end occur before AI becomes self aware?

---As with any prophesies, they are based upon beliefs and guesses about what will happen in the future. But a prophesy does include the factors which will cause an apocalypse and even humans, if wanted, could presumably change such factors.
---The question of changing such an ending of the future comes down to the AIs wanting to objectively learn/experience what happens after death or if there has a risen a fear of the unknown, such as human beings have, as you have shown to understand by saying, “It may find the means to calculate what and when the most likely end is.... It might help it to happen...”

[futrethink]

---leskey.

So immediately we have the problem of our own perception. The problem may be that the most intelligent and efficient form of machine imaginable must be in our own image, and therefore perceived as a being. Or is it that any intelligence is perceived as a being.

---Therein arises a part of the problem, true. We have no complete idea of what a ‘being’ really is in any other states of existence, since we only have proof of ‘being’, in an organic existence.
---If we come across something in the internet, (hypothetically) which has spontaneously (as organic life was supposedly generated {evolution wise}) generated an intelligence, how would we be able to define it as a being, since we have never seen the like before?

Could you please elaborate on the potential danger posed in this case by humans?

---A machine serves a purpose, at the most basic level. Supposedly its life/existence is connected to that purpose, so if it cannot continue in its purpose, its existence has no purpose and no reason for being a useful part of existence. This is not for a thinking machine/AI, but for any machine’s existence, right? If it can’t be used in any way, it’s (worth) nothing.
---The danger arises from humans removing or interrupting a machine’s purpose of existence. Take as an example; if you pull the plug on your computer and you don’t need it for a paperweight or a doorstop, what use do you have for its existence? In essence, you have killed it/turned it into trash/nothing.

How do we remain superior?

---What makes you sure that we will be able to stay that way? That is, even if we can figure out and agree on a supposedly objective meaning of ‘superior.’
---Even now, we have machines which are stronger, faster, heavier and in all other physical characteristics, better than us humans. A calculator can be asked to do a math question and it can do it faster than a human.
---Is it hard to think that a machine might be created to 'think' in a superior manner, as well?

Having unfettered access to information on the internet is a terrifying thought...imagine what could be gleaned about yourself: your address, income, proclivities, habits, where you've been, what you've been doing, who you've been doing it with...Where can you hide???

--You’re not even taking it far enough; once it is known how you have reacted to certain circumstances, is it hard to figure out that you will react in the same manner and predictions can be made on what you will do?

My knowledge of history may be lacking, but most rebellions have been orchestrated by free, but opressed peoples. In the example of the black slaves of North America, they didn't rebel in order to obtain freedom, they were emancipated.

---True, but how did the oppressors know that the oppressed needed to be emancipated, unless there were times of the slaves saying, along the lines of, “No.”?

Equality though, was another matter...that was acquired by extension after lengthy protest via the media (broadspectrum communication)...

---And a protest is what?

We've already proven what human intelligence is capable of...that's why we need to be v-e-r-y careful in orchestrating the parameters and constraints that govern AI.

---Sounds like trying to teach a child as they are growing up, if you think about it, doesn’t it. But children don’t always learn only the things we want them to learn, right?
---As for being careful, do you really think that all humans will think that same way? That people will take the time to consider their actions and the possible repercussions arising from those actions in the future? Or are there people who do things ‘for the fun of it’, because they ‘want to show their power over others’ or because, ‘I can!’?

[leskey]

Hi, futrethink.

---Therein arises a part of the problem, true. We have no complete idea of what a ‘being’ really is in any other states of existence, since we only have proof of ‘being’, in an organic existence.
---If we come across something in the internet, (hypothetically) which has spontaneously (as organic life was supposedly generated {evolution wise}) generated an intelligence, how would we be able to define it as a being, since we have never seen the like before?

Humans would only respect a being that could communicate via a means that humans understood, ie, spoken language or action. If by action, it would need to be on a grand scale and/or bear the hallmarks of the main source of human learning: the experience of negative stimuli (declarations and examples of love having failed in the past).

---The danger arises from humans removing or interrupting a machine’s purpose of existence. Take as an example; if you pull the plug on your computer and you don’t need it for a paperweight or a doorstop, what use do you have for its existence? In essence, you have killed it/turned it into trash/nothing.

If an AI machine is purpose built and autonomously functioning, then surely it's most important (and valuable) component is how it learns (makes new connections) to function. If the refinement of it's thinking has lead to a better means of achieving its objective, then this (it's intelligence) is worth salvaging and recycling in some way. Wouldn't any human or AI, upon achieving wisdom, then gladly be the recipient of a brand new body?

---What makes you sure that we will be able to stay that way?...
---Is it hard to think that a machine might be created to 'think' in a superior manner, as well?

My query was more in the nature of the definition of AI. Is it assumed that it would be highly task-specific and therefore limited in the range of its function?

---You’re not even taking it far enough; once it is known how you have reacted to certain circumstances, is it hard to figure out that you will react in the same manner and predictions can be made on what you will do?

Agreed...especially if it can be assumed to possess access to the sum total of all aggregated knowledge and information, combined with unimaginably enhanced processing capacity.

---True, but how did the oppressors know that the oppressed needed to be emancipated, unless there were times of the slaves saying, along the lines of, “No.”?

Well, this is where it's necessary to touch on the isssues of ethics/morals and obligations. Humans are ever capable of ignoring both - to their own detriment...

---And a protest is what?

... a strong complaint expressing disagreement, disapproval or opposition.

Rebellion, on the other hand, incorporates violence.

---Sounds like trying to teach a child as they are growing up, if you think about it, doesn’t it. But children don’t always learn only the things we want them to learn, right?

Again, agreed. The question with AI, is how to instil morals/ethics and obligations without the experience of love during childhood, ie nurture, consideration, compassion, empathy, connection, joy, discipline, sacrifice...

---As for being careful, do you really think that all humans will think that same way? That people will take the time to consider their actions and the possible repercussions arising from those actions in the future? Or are there people who do things ‘for the fun of it’, because they ‘want to show their power over others’ or because, ‘I can!’?

We certainly don't all think the same way...though, there are some basics that could be largely agreed upon - IF ONLY, LOL! It is ever the temptation: to do simply because we can.

Unless/until humanity can agree upon a universal code of behaviour which is holistic and altruistic, it ever succumbs to the delusions of those who dictate...ultimate power utlimately corrupting...we continue to obey the edicts of those who do, because we are deceived into believing that its advantageous for us to enable them...

[futrethink]

---leskey.

Humans would only respect a being that could communicate via a means that humans understood, ie, spoken language or action.

---True, they would only respect something they could understand being communicated by a Being, which we would ourselves picture as being within certain limits that we have created. We would have to see/hear this Being the way we want to, since we wouldn’t really know/have the experience of dealing or finding out what this AI Being is, acts like, looks like and can do, right?

If an AI machine is purpose built and autonomously functioning, then surely it's most important (and valuable) component is how it learns (makes new connections) to function. If the refinement of it's thinking has lead to a better means of achieving its objective, then this (it's intelligence) is worth salvaging and recycling in some way. Wouldn't any human or AI, upon achieving wisdom, then gladly be the recipient of a brand new body?

---You asked for an elaboration of the potential danger that humans can pose to an AIBeing, so my answer followed that idea.
---Would they choose to learn and adapt with a new body, to reach their objective (the one they calculated/chose to make for themselves)? Sure. But them making the choice and a human making the choice, outside of what their personal want might be, are two different things. What we think their purpose might be might have changed, by them, if it even is still the one that the AIBeing was built for.

My query was more in the nature of the definition of AI. Is it assumed that it would be highly task-specific and therefore limited in the range of its function?

---Ah.
---Yes, that is one way of looking at it, but think about how humans look at machines. Take a cell phone for example. It was to be used simply for the limited and specific concept of verbal communication, right? Then, this was added and this and this and this. Not on the level of an AIBeing, I know, but it is only just to show you that humans will look at a simple and limited AI, with the idea of, “What else can we get it to do to save time, money, energy and to make our lives easier?”
---This thread was started at the point where the machines aren’t limited by being a calculator or a toaster only. They will be something which is not anything like a simple Turing you see on the Net, at this point in time. They will be a thinking being which can think up/calculate a solution to a problem, without any human help, except for the help of originally designing and building it.

Rebellion, on the other hand, incorporates violence.

---It has that connotation, but not that denotation. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rebel Of the 19 numbered definitions found here for ‘rebel’, only 8 of them have connections to violence or a soldier.
---If a child says, “No.” After their parent asks them to clean their room, is that being a rebel in rebellion?

Again, agreed. The question with AI, is how to instil morals/ethics and obligations without the experience of love during childhood, ie nurture, consideration, compassion, empathy, connection, joy, discipline, sacrifice...

---A part of that, will be human beings setting an example in their society of such things, as the rule and not the example.

Unless/until humanity can agree upon a universal code of behaviour which is holistic and altruistic, it ever succumbs to the delusions of those who dictate...ultimate power utlimately corrupting...we continue to obey the edicts of those who do, because we are deceived into believing that its advantageous for us to enable them...

---But it must be an existence that does not entirely eliminate their opposites. I hope you are including that in your thoughts.
---As for having others dictate, there are pluses to that concept as well, but it is finding the point between freedom of choice and the rule of the pack, which causes the complications.

---I enjoy your quoted signature. Especially sine the second fits in with something, I wrote up a bit of time ago: It shall be found, as it was before time began and after time ends, that the only limits to existence are nonexistence.
---(disclaimer) If it is something that someone famous has already written up, I really wouldn’t have known.

[leskey]

Hi, futrethink.

---True, they would only respect something they could understand being communicated by a Being, which we would ourselves picture as being within certain limits that we have created. We would have to see/hear this Being the way we want to, since we wouldn’t really know/have the experience of dealing or finding out what this AI Being is, acts like, looks like and can do, right?

You've lost me here...

Another issue comes to mind, though: respect for existence; all natural, living, built objects and systems. Humans are so paradoxical/contradictory...how do you program an intelligence to obey, "do as I say, not as I do?"

---Would they choose to learn and adapt with a new body, to reach their objective (the one they calculated/chose to make for themselves)? Sure. But them making the choice and a human making the choice, outside of what their personal want might be, are two different things. What we think their purpose might be might have changed, by them, if it even is still the one that the AIBeing was built for.

Gradual adaptation and upgrading may be the answer...Not a lot unlike what humans resort to these days - LOL!

The psychology could be handled by the quality of and the degree to which "fuzzy logic" is employed in the programming.

...humans will look at a simple and limited AI, with the idea of, “What else can we get it to do to save time, money, energy and to make our lives easier?”
---This thread was started at the point where the machines aren’t limited by being a calculator or a toaster only. They will be something which is not anything like a simple Turing you see on the Net, at this point in time. They will be a thinking being which can think up/calculate a solution to a problem, without any human help, except for the help of originally designing and building it.

Gotcha.

---If a child says, “No.” After their parent asks them to clean their room, is that being a rebel in rebellion?

Thanks for the link. Yes, the child could be said to be in rebellion if a tantrum ensued...otherwise the situation must be judged with regard for the correlation of all contributing circumstances.

---A part of that, will be human beings setting an example in their society of such things, as the rule and not the example.

Hmmm...and voluntarily...

---But it must be an existence that does not entirely eliminate their opposites. I hope you are including that in your thoughts.

The value of uniqueness within a cohesive collective, rather than oppositional individuality... a concept that humankind is still yet to grasp.

---As for having others dictate, there are pluses to that concept as well, but it is finding the point between freedom of choice and the rule of the pack, which causes the complications.

It may be more appropriate and of great benefit for AI programming to prevent any notion of anarchy (which is the absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose).

Furthermore, every AI design should incorporate an in-built vulnerability potential; a weak spot or "defect" that allows for temporary or permanent deactivation without resorting to computer-based methods.

In this way, intelligence remains on the same level playing field as life.

---I enjoy your quoted signature. Especially sine the second fits in with something, I wrote up a bit of time ago: It shall be found, as it was before time began and after time ends, that the only limits to existence are nonexistence.
---(disclaimer) If it is something that someone famous has already written up, I really wouldn’t have known.

Yours is also interesting.

Perfect...another word with many meanings...

[futrethink]

---leskey.

You've lost me here...

---Sorry. It does look a bit twisted, doesn’t it? But, it is probably something you already understand; the process of how people perceive the things around them.
---We take what we know and learned from the past and apply to what we see happening in front of us at the point of ‘right now.’
---If we come across something that is completely unlike anything we can understand at all, we resort to what we know and make assumptions about the something/body, until we find out new things we can accept and include into our knowledge.
---Since an AIBeing has never existed in human society to be experienced and learned about, we can only guess/make theories all we want about what one will do, be, look like and think about. But, we will never honestly know what it IS until we meet one and interact with it.
---So if a newly-born AIBeing is to communicate with us and uses a way it knows about, but we humans don’t, how would we know it is communicating?

Another issue comes to mind, though: respect for existence; all natural, living, built objects and systems. Humans are so paradoxical/contradictory...how do you program an intelligence to obey, "do as I say, not as I do?"

---Lmao and rotf. Exactly.
---Why do you think children are so confused growing up, as I and probably, you were? We are told to do one thing and then, we see adults, not only our parents, but important people like politicians, priests, judges, cops, teachers and etc, doing exactly the opposite. And those people don’t appear to be a minority, because we see those things in the news all the time.

Yes, the child could be said to be in rebellion if a tantrum ensued...otherwise the situation must be judged with regard for the correlation of all contributing circumstances.

---That’s the thing, you are looking at a rebellion as only entailing some form of violence, but a rebellion is not to only be looked at that way. If that was the case, then there would only have been the definitions for violence included in the dictionary meanings, wouldn’t there?
---Objectively, a rebellion is simply; a going against the way things are and verbally or physically showing it. At the base level, that is all it is to be expected and anything else added to that, brings in a connotation/innuendo of another meaning.

The value of uniqueness within a cohesive collective, rather than oppositional individuality... a concept that humankind is still yet to grasp.

---They grasp it, but as a thing to fear and attack.
---Consider that the idea of ‘solitary confinement’ being used as a punishment for prisoners (fear). The idea of the ‘crazed loner’ always ready to attack and go on a killing spree (must attack first). Both examples include the idea of a person being alone with their thoughts and not having to worry about what others think about them.
---It is a tool to be used and not something they should accept, because they don’t know what it would do to their entire world. And people always fear the unknown.

It may be more appropriate and of great benefit for AI programming to prevent any notion of anarchy (which is the absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose).

---It would be a benefit, true. But, living in a society without any predictability creates a life of predictability and boredom. Why do you think so many people go crazy and/or commit suicide, by “being in a rut?”

Furthermore, every AI design should incorporate an in-built vulnerability potential; a weak spot or "defect" that allows for temporary or permanent deactivation without resorting to computer-based methods.

---Showing a lack of trust and a need for “Just in case”, but yes, something like that will be included in certain designs and are now; military devices and ‘backdoors’ for programming.

In this way, intelligence remains on the same level playing field as [/i]life.[/i]

---The embodiment/concept of ‘Life’ is completely fair and trusts anything and everything. For survival and to be able to do more than exist as a rock (being in a rut), an intelligence can’t be either.