[AccessD] AI

[Rocky Smolin]

" would be happy to amend my statement to say not in your lifetime"  all righty then.  The jury is still out then isn’t it?

" we have (notionally anyway) an existence outside of our bodies" Now there's an obscure statement.  What are you hinting at? Something in the theological vein? Perhaps (date I say it) one's immortal soul without which you're speculating that there can be no reflecting consciousness? 

Hmmm, a bold assertion. Presumptuous one might say - to hang your thesis on an unproven assumption.  But...that's what makes a horse race.

R

-----Original Message-----
From: AccessD [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Bill Benson
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 2:24 PM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: Re: [AccessD] AI

It does not necessarily cover a really, really long time if time stops. But that's just one of the many possibilities that could happen with Time. To assume something which had a start will necessarily not have an end is a pretty big leap of faith. I would be happy to amend my statement to say not in your lifetime and long past the lifetimes of anyone who will remember you as well.

Anyway, it was not so much a statement about how much time it would take, but a statement about the way computers are currently built, and how they will be built for the readily foreseeable future. Under current architectural principals, which involve mechanical instruments and energy sources, as opposed to bio-engineered components (and if you are going to call bio-engineered computers "architecture" then you may as well say that human beings are already "computers", just not very sophisticated ones), there can be no singularity. WE may not be able to distinguish computers of the future from sentient and conscious beings, but those fabricated entities will never "know" they are computers, they will only be able to continue to run routines which they were programmed to run, and not "know"
they are running anything. And I guess by "know", I mean feel.

What makes humans meta machinery is that we have (notionally anyway) an existence outside of our bodies. Has this been proven? It depends on who you ask. But I think it is a pretty safe bet that any computer, no matter how advanced, once there is no longer a power source to keep it running, will immediately stop thinking. I think this becomes particularly important for those considering to eventually upload their consciousnesses into some kind of mechanical housing way off in the future, in an effort to live forever. In my view while they may succeed in creating cloned mechanical replications of their "beings", those beings will not really be "beings", rather they will be "its", and they will be able to interact with their own like (and if we are still around, the likes of us) but not ever deserve the right to vote.

<IMHO>

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Rocky Smolin <rockysmolin at bchacc.com>
wrote:

> Your mind seems pretty well made up on the subject.  Perhaps this is a 
> good time to review a notorious list of predictions about tech:
>
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertszczerba/2015/01/05/15-
> worst-tech-predictions-of-all-time/#776c6afd1299
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yaz3yced
>
> " never, ever, ever" covers a really, really long time.
>
> R
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AccessD [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf 
> Of Bill Benson
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 3:09 PM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: Re: [AccessD] AI
>
> But does the computer know it is playing Go? Does it "know" anything?
>
> Computers will never, ever, ever have true consciousness, and they can 
> never teach themselves anything that their creators did not design 
> them to "learn", and they will never be able to make qualitative 
> judgments about the value of what they are learning unless their 
> creators tell them what's valuable. They can never feel, so they can 
> never infer or interpret anything unique or uniquely.
>
> Anyone who preaches AI reaching a singularity is a nut case.
>
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Jim Lawrence <accessd at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > That a computer could be taught to play the game of GO is 
> > irrelevant, in the over all scheme of things. That a computer could 
> > teach itself the toughest game on the planet. And it’s just getting 
> > started; that is the real story.
> >
> > http://www.cbc.ca/listen/shows/quirks-and-quarks/segment/14467121
> >
> > Computers invent new ways to play the world's hardest game.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > --
> > AccessD mailing list
> > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
> >
> --
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
>
> --
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
--
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com