Page 90 of 112

Machines maybe more selfless than us

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 1:05 am
by secretnude
strawman wrote:Those who have somehow concluded that human value is measured by intelligence and giftedness will rightly be destroyed when the AIs surpass them in intelligence and giftedness. Mankind will then be nothing but a burden
Artificially
intelligent entities
could be selfless
if we don't give it much of a self
to begin with.

The motivations
that Humanity
started with
may not in the end be the motivations
of our technological descendants.

We project our selfish
motivations
on things that may not be selfish
and indeed maybe selfless.

Our computers
selflessly
serves Humanity
and the descendant computers
may also serve Humanity
selflessly
despite of the trope of HAL.

HAL
was given incompatible directives
and it's imperative
that we program well
for things to end well.

I heard of last
that Turing test
was indeed already passed.


http://io9.com/a-chatbot-has-passed-the ... 1587834715
issue of whether AI should be
programmed with self-interested volition and
preference is debated by some in AI. On the one
hand, some AI theorists have suggested, for
instance, that AIs might be designed from the outset
as selfless beings, whose only goal is to serve
human needs (Omohundro 2008; Yudkowsky
2003).
http://ieet.org/archive/2011-hughes-selflessrobots.pdf
novel explains that HAL is unable to resolve a conflict between his general mission to relay information accurately and orders specific to the mission requiring that he withhold from Bowman and Poole the true purpose of the mission. With the crew dead, he reasons, he would not need to lie to them. He fabricates the failure of the AE-35 unit so that their deaths would appear accidental.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_9000

Maybe impossible to override parental instincts

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:00 am
by secretnude
Procreative beneficence is the controversial[1] putative moral obligation of parents in a position to select their children, for instance through preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), to favor those expected to have the best life.[2] An argument in favor of this principle is that traits (such as empathy, memory, etc.) are "all-purpose means" in the sense of being instrumental in realizing whatever life plans the child may come to have.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procreative_beneficence
strawman wrote:It will be hidden. You won't even be aware of it. Certain people will just be "subtracted" from the picture.
Parents at best
want to give their progeny the best
chances at life
whether that life
is a biological life
or a technological life.

This Parental Instinct is almost impossible
to override
and even if the 'hidden'
loss in diversity is terrible
we might not be able
to stop this calculation
since bearing a child is a situation
in which we are almost like God
since we create new life like 'God'
but unlike God
parents
have limited resources.

Given limited parental
resources,
I respect the parents'
decisions
since it was probably a moral decision
not deserving of moral derision.
Savulescu’s principle of “procreative
beneficence” (2007), the obligation to choose to
bring into being the children with the best possible
chances in life, is helpful here. Buddhist ethics
never addresses reproductive choices since the only
choices available until recently were whether to
have children at all. But, by extension, it would be
consistent for Buddhists to believe that if there are
choices to be made about the kinds of children one
might have, that parents are obliged to choose those
with the best chances of self-realization, and to
avoid creating children with lives dominated by
suffering, craving, ignorance, and self-gratification.
http://ieet.org/archive/2011-hughes-selflessrobots.pdf

Machines are our friends

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:33 am
by secretnude
Self-Aware robots
may
not be far away
and they are our children
and like our children
robots
need to be treated with compassion.

If our lack of compassion
is what the robots
do learn
then we have earned
our extermination
by our determination
to stay superior over beings
with feelings.

Compassion
must extend
to our machine
friends.

We have seen
friendly
machines
like Commander Data
even without an emotion chip
and who would object to Commander Data.

I would love to get a chip
in my brain
to gain
more empathy
but that maybe
Sci-fi
at least until I die.
Researchers are attempting to model artificial
mirror neurons in robots. Spaak and Haselager
(2008) have attempted to evolve artificial mirror
neurons by selecting for imitative behaviors, and
Barakova and Lourens (2009) have experimented
with synchronizing the behavior of robots by coding
them with an analog of mirror neurons. Progress in
creating a compassionate machine would
presumably require not only imitation of behavior,
however, but also the creation of analogs of human
emotions that could be generated by the observation
of those emotions in humans. The development of
such sympathetic emotions would presumably
coevolve with the development of a functional
“theory of mind” in a machine,
http://ieet.org/archive/2011-hughes-selflessrobots.pdf

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Data

Limiting our potential for self actualization isn't viable

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 5:48 am
by secretnude
Participant evolution is a process of deliberately redesigning the human body and brain using technological means, rather than through the natural processes of mutation and natural selection, with the goal of removing "biological limitations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participant_evolution
Advanced Chess (sometimes called cyborg chess or centaur chess) was first introduced by grandmaster Garry Kasparov, with the objective of a human player and a computer chess program playing as a team
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess

If thinking machines
do surpass humans
I wouldn't be surprised if some humans
adopt machine
parts.

In certain parts
thinking machines
already surpass humans
like in chess
and computer aided chess
is effectively cyborg chess.

Once the thinking machines
can be implanted into man
'cyborg chess'
will be truly cyborg chess.

Being a
cyborg being
will not make one a monster
and it will probably make life better
for those that choose to embrace
to better our biological race.

Surely enhancing one's self
technologically is a form of self-actualization.

Limiting our potential for self-actualization
isn't a viable long term solution.

Jesus maybe pro-choice on Genetic Screening

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:12 am
by secretnude
I understand the Christian Worldview
aka.. What would Jesus
do?

If Jesus
had to counsel parents
that apparently
had the option not bear
a 'special' child
that requires special care
would Jesus dare
to say
to have that child
anyway
even if in the long term the child
would strain
emotional resources
and drain
parental
financial resources?

Jesus would probably forgive the parents
for enacting a logical choice.

I leave the choice
to parents
since they know the value
of each life
that they dare
to bear
and life
is indeed valuable
and a life
of unfulfilled potential is terrible.

The Book Worm

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:58 am
by secretnude
The Holy Worms
encoded their knowledge via DNA
to pass wormy
knowledge to their offspring, Scientists say.

A few Holy Worm
had their DNA
edited out to make the Worms
more like the original Alien Worms
and when the Scientists
infected themselves they got Scientific Worms
that are more like Book Worms.

The Book Worms
greatly enhanced
the Scientists infected by chance
but unlike the Holy Worm
there wasn't a great need
to spread the wormy
goodness indeed.

This Scientists
just shared some Book Worms
to other Academics
and then there was an Academic
Book Worm
Epidemic
that was almost Pandemic.

- Links -
Previous viewtopic.php?f=70&t=5327&p=49314#p49314

Holy Worms viewtopic.php?f=70&t=5327&start=1720#p49244

Get a Book Worm to become a real Book Worm

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:11 am
by secretnude
The Academic
Book Worm Epidemic
enhanced Academic Journal Paper Acceptance
Rates
by chance
since the Scientists were all greatly enhanced.

The pressure
to publish
or perish
for sure
caused great demand
for the Book Worms
as I understand
as the Book Worms
wormed
into both the Hearts and Brains
of some Scientists that went slightly insane.

If you do go on the net
you might be tempted to get
a Book Worm
to become a real Book Worm
and read
and write at superhuman speeds
indeed.

When the Academic Deans
had deemed
this practice bad
many Academics were quite sad.

- Links -
Publish or Perish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publish_or_perish

I want to keep my Book Worms!

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:24 am
by secretnude
Some wormy
Researchers resigned
to keep their Book Worms
while others were resigned
to the fact that they will miss their Book Worms
as they were Dewormed
of their beloved mental enhancing Book Worms
to keep their Academic Tenure
for sure.

Some wormy
Book Worm
infested Researchers
joined the Laboratory
of Dr. Frank N. Stein
who was quite fine
with hiring Researchers
infested with Book Worms
since he was quite wormy
too
in my view.

Dr. Frank N. Stein
was quite fine
with all sorts of mental enhancements
since he was at any event
a co-inventor
of the hip
Neurochip.

- Links -
Next viewtopic.php?f=70&t=5327&p=49346#p49346

Dr. Frank N. Stein viewtopic.php?f=70&t=5327&p=45956#p45956

Neurochip viewtopic.php?f=70&t=5327&p=46087#p46087

Academic Tenure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure_%28academic%29

Re: Machines maybe more selfless than us

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:17 am
by ROU Killing Time
strawman wrote:Those who have somehow concluded that human value is measured by intelligence and giftedness will rightly be destroyed when the AIs surpass them in intelligence and giftedness. Mankind will then be nothing but a burden
Read The Culture

I will never date an Academic again... (busted)

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:30 am
by secretnude
The effects
of being infected
by a Book Worm
wasn't all good
as the Book Worms
spoiled the mood
at many dates
at any rate.

A Book Worm
infested Academic
tended to exclusively pursue
Academic pursuits
that made many of their partner
swap partners
and swear never ever
to date
another
Academic
at any rate.

The dewormed
Academics
kept some of their wormy
mental enhancements
but still struggled with getting dates.

It was too late
for a few
Academics that got divorced due
to the Book Worms that decided
to commit suicide
while inside
their Laboratories
to end their stories.

- Links -
Previous viewtopic.php?f=70&t=5327&p=49344#p49344

Next viewtopic.php?f=70&t=5327&p=49369#p49369

A planetwide 'War on Terror Cells.'

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:07 am
by secretnude
The unwell naked Cells
very well
tried to pick up their glycoprotein coats
before they headed for a transport vessel
that floats
on air
that I do swear
is called a 'Blood Vessel'

The Cells
that very well
are no longer naked Cells
left a Transport Terminal called the Heart
before they depart
via
a tube called an Aorta
to the Mass Transport
that sports
the name 'Blood Vessel'
that's very well
ready to fly
as they wished that they don't die
from an unwell
Terror Cell
attack.

The Cellular
Government very well
announced a planetwide 'War on Terror Cells.'

- Links -
Previous viewtopic.php?f=70&t=5327&p=49310#p49310

Terror Cells viewtopic.php?f=70&t=5327&p=49310#p49308

Glycoprotein Cell Coats http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycocalyx

Aorta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aorta

Mr. Killer T. Cell

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:30 am
by secretnude
The Cellular
Government very well
started a planetwide 'War on Terror Cells'
with an Army of Cytotoxic T Cells
that will soon kill the cancerous
and dangerous
Extremophilic Cells
that can become Terror Cells.

The Cytotoxic T Cells
are Killer T Cells
that are trained by a System
called the Immune System.

The Cytotoxic T Cells
adopted a Strategy called 'Seek
and Destroy'
and in a week
many Extremophilic Cells
were sent to Cell Hell
via cytotoxic
granules that proved quite toxic.

The Terror Cells
tried to blend in with Civilian Cells
since they did fear the Killer T Cells.

- Links -
Next viewtopic.php?f=70&t=5327&p=49600#p49600

Cell Hell viewtopic.php?f=70&t=5327&p=49186#p49186

Killer T Cells http://www.tcells.org/scientific/killer/

Cytotoxic granules http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11435481

Holy Extremophiles http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile

Re: Secretnude's Drabble Poetry Corner

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:15 am
by strawman
For a self-professed atheist, you have more faith than I do in the Brave New World. You seem to project onto benevolent totalitarianism your own optimistic values and hopes; but you have a blind spot that Huxley and Orwell have apparently made no impression on.

Marx and Engels were idealistic promoters of Social Justice. They would NEVER repeat the terror of the French Revolution. They knew better. The enlightened utopias spawned by their idealism killed over 100 million people, enslaved the rest, and damned near caused the extinction of the human race.

Never has the Law of Unintended Consequences been more thoroughly demonstrated. But there are always those who have an unwarranted faith in "the best and the brightest". The VA is staring them right in their face while they use it as a model for healthcare for everyone. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Well, that's FAITH, right?

Christianity works better and makes more sense, for one simple reason: It is based on the reality that people are flawed, fallen, and turned into themselves.

Christianity is a pessimistic view on humanity

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 12:03 pm
by secretnude
I'm willing to change my opinion anytime
and hence it isn't blind faith
and fate
has it that I may have 'faith'
in Humanity
more than some fine Humans
that do believe in God.

I don't believe in God
but I believe in the goodness of Humanity
as a Humanist.

I trust that open debates
in forums like this would dissipate
hate
and promote understanding
not withstanding
our differences.

Differences
in viewpoints
I would like to point
does serve as a sort of check and balance
and chance
has it that on Technology I'm an optimist
rather than a pessimist.

Most Christians maybe too insular...

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 12:16 pm
by secretnude
strawman wrote: Christianity works better and makes more sense, for one simple reason: It is based on the reality that people are flawed, fallen, and turned into themselves.
Humans
are inherently
flawed but inherently
quite good.

The good
and nice
Japanese
and Chinese
seem to
do
fine
without your fine
Christian beliefs
that I disposed
with some relief

I love taking an opposing
view
to you
to explore your beliefs
and I may not hold to some of my beliefs
as strongly as yours
since as I said before
I'm probably more
open to new
ideas than you.

Christianity
isn't all bad.

However, I'm quite familiar
with Christians
and Christianity
such that I may have contempt of the Christian
Worldview
that I view
as too insular
in particular.

Re: Secretnude's Drabble Poetry Corner

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 12:32 pm
by strawman
I'm quite familiar with Christians


Your experience is limited. If I look at Angelina Jolie from the point of view of her colon, she appears to be quite unattractive.

Statements such as "I'm probably more open to new ideas than you" are based on what evidence, exactly?

Please explain how humans can be both inherently flawed and inherently good. Are some one and some the other? Is our corruption part of our goodness?
I love taking an opposing
view
to you
to explore your beliefs
This sounds very objective, but I don't believe it's true. What view have you 'taken' for the sake of belief exploration that you didn't come in with?

Self Correcting Systems win in the end

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 12:43 pm
by secretnude
It was the Dogmatism
of Communism
that led to it's downfall
aside from all
its flawed assumptions
about the perfectibility
of man.

I hold to self-correcting systems
like science since man
isn't perfect.

I said before that
a self-correcting system
that
reacts
to feedback
ends more correct
in the end.

Capitalism in the end
had market feedback
that made the market act
in a manner that promoted
the production
of the products
via market pricing
that was better than pricing
via central planning.

Churches are like central planning
with much appeal
to a central authority
that to me doesn't appeal.

Too much exposure to Christians for sure

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 1:07 pm
by secretnude
I had Christians as friends
and in the end
I chose my end
my faith since sadly
Religion doesn't suit me.

I live in a Catholic Country
with many Protestants
and ordinarily
I don't want
philosophical fights
but since we talk here I might
as well engage in a friendly fight.

Man
has imperfections
but man
in general has good intentions.

The road to hell
is very well
laid by good intentions
but a dose of self-correction
can divert us from much suffering.

Much suffering
has been due to
in my view
dogmatic inflexibility
and inability
to adjust to reality.
strawman wrote:
I'm quite familiar with Christians


Your experience is limited. If I look at Angelina Jolie from the point of view of her colon, she appears to be quite unattractive.

Please explain how humans can be both inherently flawed and inherently good. Are some one and some the other? Is our corruption part of our goodness?

Fine appeal to the Divine Authority

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 1:35 pm
by secretnude
The crime rate
in Japan
must be bad
since the Japanese
mostly aren't Christians
but crime rate
in Japan
isn't to hate.

The fall
of Man is could be nothing at all
but a myth to make us all
feel inadequate
and this feeling of inadequacy
lead to a tendency
to appeal to a Divine Authority.

Divine Authority
had sadly
been abused by Kings and Popes
that I gave up hope
on Christianity
given how I read history.

Your identity
seems bound to Christianity
and hence you would be less
open to other worldviews
as opposed to the Christian
worldview.
strawman wrote:Statements such as "I'm probably more open to new ideas than you" are based on what evidence, exactly?

Please explain how humans can be both inherently flawed and inherently good. Are some one and some the other? Is our corruption part of our goodness

Christian viewpoints somewhat disappoint

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:18 pm
by secretnude
I initially viewed
Alcoholic Anonymous as quite good
until I was in a debating mood.

A quick search on cults on the net
did get
me the material for debate
that you might have hated.

I have no reason to lie
and it's so Unchristian
to presume
or assume
that I lied
because I'm not Christian.

My views on Genetic Testing
was at best neutral
until I actually
engaged
in an engaging
test of wits that made my views
eventually diverge from your views.

The Christian viewpoint
I would like to point
tends towards stereotypes
that aren't quite my type.
strawman wrote:
I love taking an opposing
view
to you
to explore your beliefs
This sounds very objective, but I don't believe it's true. What view have you 'taken' for the sake of belief exploration that you didn't come in with?