Listen to the smart Robit.

I’ll probably regret this, but – Oh Hi there! I didn’t see you come in. So glad you could join me... Anyways, the topic is Artificial Intelligence. And its inevitable dominion over us all. Fear it, Fear iiit!

Some crackers, high as a kite in their alcohol induced rage-a-thons, call into question the very possibility of ‘machines’ exhibiting certain (if not all) characteristics that are usually reserved exclusively for the humans. Others, in their adolescent-esque angst ridden opinions about the frail human condition, proclaim that the machine is the only way forward, and will surpass the humans in every way.

Which side are you on? ...They're bolth (it has begun) pretty good.

I don't recall being high as a kite or raging on.

I've started reading that book you lent me, but I'm only like 50 pages in. More on this later, perhaps.

There'd better be...

Ok, I've read quite a bit of it now; let misinformation commence!

In the book, he makes the connection between AI and super-advanced computers (let me interject here and say that quantam mechanics is a total mindfuck) as if AI is inevitable, a consequence of advanced computing, as if the computer will become self-aware, like Skynet. But it isn't, as far as I can tell. They'll only be self-aware if we program to be, and based on his predictions that we'll have to get neural implants and shit them compete with self-aware computers, I don't know why we'd ever want them. What's wrong with just having superadvanced computers?

Yeah, I do get your point about it perhaps not being proven to be inevitable that super advanced computing (or whatnot) will lead to "intelligence", but it certainly hasn't been proven that it won't. Well, it may have for the computing machines that we mainly use now, but that's not the only kind, there are more in the works, and you only have to look at, amongst other things, those robot videos to see that we are only just at the beginning of understanding how to build these things, and we're only at the beginnig of understanding how our braing works.

I am interested in your comments that seem to imply that it could only be self aware if we programmed it. Why? I really don't get this. After all, we know a machine that does become self aware without any programming. The brain. Are we assuming it does that via supernatural means (aka magic)? And why could we not mimic those natural means? Sure they'll be difficult, we know that they are, but there's no reason to suspect impossible, in fact, there's every reason to suspect that we will be able to do it, I think, unless you've got a reason against that?

What's wrong with having super-advanced computers? Nothing. They will rule (literally). But I guess this comes down to, sort of, what's wrong with basic level agriculture? Compared to what was before, perhaps nothing. But compared to what will be available, perhaps everything. Humans suck. We know that. That's why a considerable -no wait, almost all - of our resources have gone into fixing things that are broke with us. Our bodies will soon, seemingly if people want (which they do), be replaced with 'superior' 'artificial' replacements. Why not the brain?

Does the brain actually not contain any baseline programming at all? Instincts and race memory and sort of "how to be a human" programming? I'm not familiar with this, really, so tell me.

I don't think we'll be unable to mimic the brain's natural method of computing; the case in the book for the use of neural nets is pretty compelling (until we quantam on down and nothing is ever the way it seems anymore).

By artificial replacements, are you talking about putting actual human consciousness/whatever into a robot body? I don't think most people will want that. Also, if you do what he was talking about in the book - download a completely accurate map of your personality and knowledge into a computer - that's not you, it's a copy of you. And I realise that from a digital computing point of view that that's the same thing, but from the perspective of the person being copied, they're the original, in a sweaty-useless-disgusting-flab body, and there's a computer replica of them. And he says, well, what if you kept transferring your consciousness over to a new host robot or whatever? I say that no such transfer is possible. Your current consciousness ceases to exist; you die. All this would mean is that a completely convincing replica continues on, which is just not the same thing.

Even with neural implants - you put a chip in your head that increases the speed of your mind and your memory capacity - I have to think that that would alter the way you think and possibly alter your personality. I don't know if that's desirable.

Anyway, we should collaborate on an old skool sci-fi book about this and reap the money and womens.

Brain and 'baseline coding'. Most definitely. Good point. And how did that get there? Well, billions of years of evolution. We don't have billions of years to let these robots 'do it themselves', so to speak, at least we don't wanna wait that long, so, yes, we will 'program' these intial abilities in (actually, I believe there is some talk surrounding harnessing this 'evolutionary' process). That doesn't in any way make them any less 'autonomous' or 'intelligent'.

So, now we talk about being able to mimic the brain's method, and why you don't believe that that will make the machine just like a human. I assume those two paragraphs were related.
Yes I'm talking about robots being conscious. Yes people probably won't like that. So much the worse for those people.
Copying your personality into a computer (or robot) won't mean that's you? And why is this? Who are you? A completely convincing replica is not the same? I'm being reminded of Dennett's (I think?) zombie argument.

Even if it wasn't you, would it be another person?

I totally agree, it would be hard to see how neural implants could not alter personality and whatever else. But doesn't learning and general aging and development?

Yes, Sci-fi book. That is happening.

You've misunderstood my first two paragraphs. I asked about whether the brain did come with baseline coding; you told me it did. That's fine, just fine. I said that I think we would be able to mimic the brain's method.

But then why do we need to use similiar self-aware or learning programs to make these advanced neural net computers work? Couldn't they be just used to run programs? I don't want a personal computer that disagrees with me when I try to use it.

I never said that a perfect, robotic or computer-based copy of me wouldn't be a person. It just wouldn't be me. That whole "is it a person" thing is an entirely new question. I'm just saying that if the consciousness or mind or whatever that I experience now, ends, I will have no further perceptions or contact with this new, improved copy of me; from my current perspective of consciousness I will be dead.

And if you wanna make friends with a robotic copy of me instead of me why don't you just make one!

(runs off, tears, etc)

Marc wrote:You've misunderstood my first two paragraphs. I asked about whether the brain did come with baseline coding; you told me it did. That's fine, just fine. I said that I think we would be able to mimic the brain's method.

Did I? I thought that was what you said. Eh?

Marc wrote:But then why do we need to use similiar self-aware or learning programs to make these advanced neural net computers work? Couldn't they be just used to run programs? I don't want a personal computer that disagrees with me when I try to use it.

This, I think, I'm misunderstanding. I'll try. When you say "programs" I assume (by reading your following sentence) that you mean some form of human directed/controlled piece of software (or something like that). And yeah, it's unlikely that we would use them for that, for precisely the reason you stated. If these conscious machines come about, then that's no reason to suppose that 'normal' computers will be superceded, though I can see how that conclusion would be drawn. It's likely that both systems will develop in tandem, since computers as we know them are far superior at some things, whereas this 'other' method of computing is better at different things.

Marc wrote:I never said that a perfect, robotic or computer-based copy of me wouldn't be a person. It just wouldn't be me. That whole "is it a person" thing is an entirely new question.

I agree. Sorry, that's what I was trying to do, ask you the different question.

Marc wrote:I'm just saying that if the consciousness or mind or whatever that I experience now, ends, I will have no further perceptions or contact with this new, improved copy of me; from my current perspective of consciousness I will be dead.

Mmm. That may be tautological... I think. Saying that "someone else" isn't "me", is kinda true by definition, isn't it? But now we open up the discussion to what we mean by "I". Which is a really interesting, but prickly, discussion that's been going on for some centuries, and hasn't been concluded yet. Though there's been a lot of thought provoking ideas, like, briefly, if the new robot isn't you, are you the same person as the 4 year old Marc? If so, why? You've got some similar memories, maybe similar dispositions (maybe not). And this is at most, but a copy would be exactly the same.

So, now, as you've pointed out, we've got two (or more) questions that have arisen. And to stop them from getting further tangled up with each other (as they already have) we need to separate them. Here's my suggestion for the questions/concepts:

1. Consciousness/Intelligence in 'artificial' machines.
2. Personal Identity (and the continuity of)

The original topic did mainly seem to be about (1) (and number two somehow crept in) but we seemed to have come to some sort of agreement on it, I think. So, maybe there's only point (2). But I think you mentioned you had no interest in discussing that... so now I'm watching TV.

Though, I might just comment on something that was mentioned when I talked to you and Al, and that was that I do see what you were saying about clones not being the same person. I agree. And then there was the Milk analogy — about filling a drunk glass of milk with new milk doesn't mean the old milk is back. The only thing I'd want to add to this is that the difference between the milk and a mind is that the mind can be seen as a 'pattern', whereas milk is just milk. The amazing thing about 'patterns', or 'information', is that they are medium-independent i.e. it doesn't matter what they reside in or what they are made of (in terms of material), they are the same. So, in reference to the milk analogy, simply filling the now empty glass with new milk won't mean the old milk is back, I agree, and so would Kurzweil, I reckon. But, if we could create a pattern in the milk, copy the pattern to a new glass of milk, destroy (drink) the old glass of milk... now do we have something?

I think there has to be a discussion on Personal Identity and what we mean by words like "I" in order to have a "free exchange of ideas" (as I'm led to believe they say in Germany).