[extropy-chat] AI is a myth

[Samantha Atkins]

On Feb 15, 2006, at 12:27 PM, Peter K. Bertine, Jr wrote:

> Samantha,
>
>
>
> I promise not to be a toady anymore.
>
>
>
> You have a funny concept of Singularity.  Please offer your proof  
> of why a > human AI is impossible.  If there is no such proof then  
> there is no basis for calling such a "myth".  I didn’t use the word  
> impossible. I said I didn’t believe in a common AI meme. My  
> understanding of an AI singularity is that when enough computers  
> are hooked up, with enough power, something magic happens and  
> “life” is created in a process that we will not understand.  By  
> “life” I mean a conscious entity based on silicon powered by  
> electricity.  I place the burden of proof upon the people trying to  
> create AI.  AI is an extraordinary concept, a very sexy meme,  
> humans love it.  Merry Shelly created the first AI meme when she  
> wrote Frankenstein.  The success of her work, a 19 year old girl’s  
> short novel eclipsing  her husband and Lord Byron, is extraordinary  
> and is proof that there is something in the human psyche that longs  
> for spontaneous life, the regeneration of Jesus, the rising of the  
> dead.  AI is a fantastic scientific possibility, but I am dubious  
> that it is inevitable.  It will require enormous human effort to  
> make a conscious machine.  It is fun to think that some network of  
> Cray’s or some distant generation of Play Station will suddenly  
> wake up, think therefore it is, and demand a seat at the UN; but  
> that is all it is, fun, it’s fiction, it’s The Terminator or War  
> Games, it’s a myth.
>
>

That isn't a very good model of Singularity.  Read the following and  
see if you still have the same opinion.

http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html
http://www.singinst.org/what-singularity.html

>
>
> Peter, until someone comes up with a *really* good explanation for  
> the "missing mass" you have to admit that our current picture of  
> reality is quite incomplete.  Robert, I do not have to admit  
> reality is incomplete due to the “missing mass” in the universe.  A  
> is A.  Until I can probe it, measure it and repeat it and get  
> others to probe it, measure it and repeat it, with the same  
> results, then it is far worse than *theory*,  it is wishful  
> thinking and nothing more than the very human urge to find meaning  
> out of randomness
>
>
>
> Read again.  "Our *picture* of reality is incomplete."
>
>
>
> I have read it again and again and my point is weak here but what I  
> wanted to do was challenge Robert from the start.  Our picture of a  
> universal model is incomplete.  We don’t know if the universe will  
> expand forever or implode.  But “reality” is a big word.  Robert  
> was setting up an argument with me in which I had to admit in the  
> likelihood of alien civilizations playing god with solar systems,  
> galaxies, and even us.  Taken out of context the sentence is  
> correct if reality refers to cosmology.  But the sentence is the  
> first step to get me to agree to a long string of sentences that  
> lead up to a “concept” that I do not believe.  In reality we have  
> no evidence of advanced civilizations playing god with solar  
> systems. I wish we did !  And if Robert was just chatting with me  
> about how such civilizations might function I would be honored and  
> we’d have a hell of a conversation.  However, I got into this whole  
> mess with Robert because his memes had become myths to a poster to  
> this site.  Someone who showed evidence of mental instability was  
> taking what Robert said and using it to support his fantasy.  This  
> person is now going back to his cult and saying that he has been in  
> continuous contact with Robert and that Robert supports the basis  
> of their religion/cult.  I don’t want Transhumanism to be  
> associated with a religion/cult and I needed to confront Robert.
>
>
>
>

Wow.  You sure make it complicated.   There is a chain of observation  
and reasoning that leads inexorably to the possibility of  >human  
intelligence which leads to a Singularity.  What is on the other side  
of that is anyone's guess.  However, there is nothing in reality that  
precludes an intelligence sufficiently powerful to simulate an entire  
world or universe from coming into being.   Some of Robert's comments  
come from recognition of this possibility.  Just because someone you  
consider unbalanced bounces off of the implications is no reason to  
attempt to deny the entire chain of reasoning that led to such an  
implication.  If you want to challenge the conclusion then you will  
have to wade into the argument and show flaws along the way.  It is  
no good simply denying because you don't like the implications or how  
some people take them.

- samantha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060216/fbf232ba/attachment.html>