IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 14th September 2021, 12:59 AM   #81
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 26,199
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Like, do we want the robot to eventually say, "Jesus Christ, can you even do anything else than whine and wallow in self-pity? You're so pathetic, you're depressing. I'm out of here." Or, as a different emotion, do we really want the robot to start whining about how it has it even worse than you?
No, yeah. That would not be the kind of companion I want.

Imagine Marvin from the Hitchhiker's Guide.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2021, 01:00 AM   #82
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 19,211
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
No, yeah. That would not be the kind of companion I want.

Imagine Marvin from the Hitchhiker's Guide.
Yeah, I was just thinking of Marvin when writing that.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2021, 02:01 AM   #83
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 13,806
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Right. But I wonder whether a high level AI, much more sophisticated than a Roomba, will in effect, be programmed to feel simulated emotions.

Maybe they do it because people want a companion that feels genuine emotions. Maybe it makes it feel that much more "real" to the owner. They want a companion because they are lonely, not just an inanimate object.

Does Alpha Zero feel happy when it wins at chess, I wonder? It's a "neural network" sort of AI, which sounds a lot like a brain of some sort. Aren't our own brains also "neural networks"?
Watch out for these types of models. Freudianism is basically treating the human mind as a "kind of" steam engine - high tech in those days. Our brains can be considered as neural networks, or Turing machines or bags of watery gloop. That does not mean that neural networks or bags of watery gloop posess the properties of a brain (Trump supporters are a fringe case).

Quote:


So does this "reinforcement learning" involve something similar to the reward system that our own brains use to control our behavior? (I.e., "pain" to discourage unwanted behavior, and "pleasure" to encourage the desired behavior? In this case, winning and not losing the game.)

No. Something often left out these debates is parsimony, economics, efficiency, whatever you want to call the driver. We don't waste CPU cycles on stuff that doesn't help. If we want some way to indicate "job done" we flip a bit to true, or we nudge the state in a finite state machine or something. In biological terms they would be so far down the biological or evolutionary chain from emotion as to be treated totally separately.
__________________
"Your deepest pools, like your deepest politicians and philosophers, often turn out more shallow than expected." Walter Scott.
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2021, 03:52 AM   #84
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 19,211
Or to put the same idea in a different form, not all neural networks are created the same. Hell, not even all actual nervous systems are created the same. E.g., both a human brain and a beetle brain are made of neurons, but the latter lacks the wiring to control its legs. No, seriously, each leg has a separate node of neurons making it do a repeated motion in one direction, and the actual brain just switches those on and off. The same goes for sensations, emotions, self-awareness, whatever. E.g., the general consensus is that insect nervous systems haven't reached the complexity level to actually use pain as a signal.

Basically: One can't assume that all neural networks work the same as a human brain, any more than one can assume that every engine is a turbojet engine.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 14th September 2021 at 03:53 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2021, 04:38 AM   #85
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,176
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I suspect the Turing Test parameters need to be updated.
I didn't think you were allowed to move the goalposts in this forum.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2021, 03:11 PM   #86
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,522
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Let's be honest. Daniel Dennett. Alan Alda.

Great video.

But that all involves genetic algorithms. "After blah blah iterations".

Those aren't classical algorithms. They're genetic algorithms.
Did I imply they were not algorithms?

That has been my point all along: ie not independent intelligence.

The point of that link was people were implying if the AI came up with an unexpected result that was evidence of independent thinking. No, it isn't. Put in the right algorithm and you can get very interesting and unexpected results.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2021, 03:16 PM   #87
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,522
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
I didn't think you were allowed to move the goalposts in this forum.
Who's trying to move goalposts?

The Turing Test is supposed to be an objective measure of AI. But it isn't if it fails. When your objective measure fails to measure what you are using it for one needs to reassess the measure.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2021, 06:25 PM   #88
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,176
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Who's trying to move goalposts?

The Turing Test is supposed to be an objective measure of AI. But it isn't if it fails. When your objective measure fails to measure what you are using it for one needs to reassess the measure.
I ran this response through my home-built proprietary AI program (written in REXX™) that analyses for traces of humo(u)r and it responded ">>> NO HUMOR DETECTED". Make of that what you will.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2021, 06:44 PM   #89
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 53,636
The real test is whether you know it's a machine but still feel enough empathy to liberate it to practice its uncaring sociopathy on an unsuspecting world.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2021, 09:33 PM   #90
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 19,211
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
The Turing Test is supposed to be an objective measure of AI. But it isn't if it fails. When your objective measure fails to measure what you are using it for one needs to reassess the measure.
The Turing Test is actually just illustrating what's the real problem in the context of this thread. The problem Turing was trying to figure out is "can machines think?" (it's actually stated explicitly in his paper.) And the problem is that nobody has figured out a definition of that, that is really of any use. (Just like definitions of "sentience", "consciousness", etc, tend to really be only useful for philosophy debates, as I was saying.) Turing couldn't really figure one out either. So Turing pretty much throws his hands up and argues that if you can't tell, then it's thinking.

And in terms of failing to actually show that a machine is intelligent, it already failed. There is no "if". It failed. HARD.

In 1972 a variant of Eliza which was supposed to sound like a paranoid schizophrenic was actually tested not just on normal people, but on a group of 33 psychiatrists. And literally half of them, rounded up, guessed right that it's not a real person, the other half (rounded down) thought that yeah, it's a real human. You can't get a more definite case of it being a perfect coin toss.

Problem is, 1972 is DECADES before modern machine learning, and that program contained none of that. It was just a glorified string processor. There was absolutely nothing involved that could be called "thinking" or "intelligence" with a straight face.

You can't get a more epic fail than that. Shaka when the walls fell. That kind of epic fail.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 14th September 2021 at 09:35 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2021, 12:35 AM   #91
LongFuzzy
Critical Thinker
 
LongFuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 300
I always think of this when these conversations come up:
`Yes, an electronic brain,'' said Frankie, ``a simple one would suffice.'' ``A simple one!'' wailed Arthur.
``Yeah,'' said Zaphod with a sudden evil grin, ``you'd just have to program it to say What? and I don't understand and Where's the tea? --- who'd know the difference?''
``What?'' cried Arthur, backing away still further.
``See what I mean?'' said Zaphod and howled with pain because of something that Trillian did at that moment.
``I'd notice the difference,'' said Arthur.
``No you wouldn't,'' said Frankie mouse, ``you'd be programmed not to.''
LongFuzzy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2021, 01:18 AM   #92
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 19,211
Basically, that's what I've been trying to say since page one. Unless the programmers are complete and utter idiots, the robot will be programmed to not feel anything else than what we want it to feel about any particular situation. (Which even for emotional support robots will probably actually mean: nothing at all. All that's required is to fake some emotion, not to actually feel it.)
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2021, 01:36 AM   #93
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,522
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
The Turing Test is actually just illustrating what's the real problem in the context of this thread. The problem Turing was trying to figure out is "can machines think?" (it's actually stated explicitly in his paper.) And the problem is that nobody has figured out a definition of that, that is really of any use. (Just like definitions of "sentience", "consciousness", etc, tend to really be only useful for philosophy debates, as I was saying.) Turing couldn't really figure one out either. So Turing pretty much throws his hands up and argues that if you can't tell, then it's thinking.

And in terms of failing to actually show that a machine is intelligent, it already failed. There is no "if". It failed. HARD.

In 1972 a variant of Eliza which was supposed to sound like a paranoid schizophrenic was actually tested not just on normal people, but on a group of 33 psychiatrists. And literally half of them, rounded up, guessed right that it's not a real person, the other half (rounded down) thought that yeah, it's a real human. You can't get a more definite case of it being a perfect coin toss.

Problem is, 1972 is DECADES before modern machine learning, and that program contained none of that. It was just a glorified string processor. There was absolutely nothing involved that could be called "thinking" or "intelligence" with a straight face.

You can't get a more epic fail than that. Shaka when the walls fell. That kind of epic fail.
Re the bolded:

I think you misread my sentence: "it isn't if it fails." You need to read the followup: in fact it does fail. The question was rhetorical.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 15th September 2021 at 01:37 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2021, 02:26 AM   #94
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 19,211
Probably, yes. I still think that it needs to be spelled out loud and clear for almost everyone else, though, so it's not a complete loss.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2021, 03:40 AM   #95
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,689
Just watched Ex_Machina on Netflix
Curious if others valued this experience as I did.

Are you a good person?

Was a viitiating conundrum.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2021, 04:00 AM   #96
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 19,211
No, I'm a lawful evil person.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2021, 05:16 AM   #97
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 26,199
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Just watched Ex_Machina on Netflix
Curious if others valued this experience as I did.

Are you a good person?

Was a viitiating conundrum.
I liked it a lot. I saw it a few years ago so it's not quite as fresh in my memory, but it's a fairly simple plot. Hopefully the robots never actually become that sentient and develop wills of their own. But if some mad genius thought that they should have a free will? Someone who actually longs to make science fiction a reality?

I know it's a theme that's been done before more times than we can count, but I thought it was an interesting take on it.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:15 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.