<div dir="ltr"><div><sigh><br>This is another moment when I find my guts crawling with frustration. I had sworn off responding to this stuff. Screw it, it's friday. I tried to get this into IEET. But apparently being actually qualified and actually doing AGI for real doesn't get you any credence in assessment of AGI risk. They'd rather listen to well-meaning but ignorant kids than anyone actually doing this stuff.</div><div><br></div><div>Evaluations of the AI risk landscape are, so far, completely and utterly vacuous and misguided. It completely misses an entire technological outcome that totally changes everything. Indeed as someone actually building this alternate stuff, I feel embarrassed for those poor folk that have wasted so much good money and time and trees on what will be judged by history as empty hand-wringing about risks that, at their worst, will only ever be automated human stupidity and/or human industrial accidents with the legal implications of nasty product failures and human error. </div><div><br></div><div>Why is this risk-evaluation industry wasting its time? It's _because_ computers are being used! Using computers literally eliminates the AGI risk that you fear! It _is_ the solution. You have already solved it! It's done.</div><div><br></div><div>So what technology is the owner of any actual/potential risk? I.e. What is the actual technology of real AGI? It's model-less, computer-less AGI. There is no software, let alone any 'functions', utility or otherwise. Like us. In computer-less, model-less AGI ... An artificial bee brain is AGI. An artificial mouse brain is AGI. An artificial dog brain is AGI. An artificial human brain is AGI. There is an entire ecology of AGI waiting to join nature, our natural ecology. It scales indefinitely and we can live with it because it's hardware, just like we live in the natural ecology. Risks yes! But manageable. And, so far, completely unexplored.<br><br>Computer-less, model-less AGI is inorganic brain physics naturally behaving. It's cognitive robotics. It's not hardware computation. There's no software or hardware 'algorithms'. It's impossible to code anything because there is no coding: like us. It's not neuromorphic chips. That is just hardware computation. It's neuromimetic chips. Computer-less, model-less AGI is the missing empirical half of the real science of AGI. It went missing when AI started in 1956. AI is completely unique in the entire history of science in lacking its empirical science. Actual AI hasn't even started yet. So far all we've done is deep automation, which has the relationship to real AI that a flight simulator has to flight: it isn't flight, it isn't AI. It's a study of AI that can produce useful tools, not intelligence. All the AI built so far has zero intellect. It is lodged at zero and will forever be lodged at zero.</div><div><br></div><div>This does not mean using computers (hardware or software) isn't useful or interesting or valuable. It does not means that a computer can't somehow operate at human level in some general sense that we find useful. But none of it is AI. It's all automation. I had an entire career in automation. I get it. What we think is AI is not AI.</div><div> </div><div>Here I am actually building/growing/evolving real AGI that is literally a self-adapting hierarchical control system with no formal symbol manipulation whatever, no symbolic representations whatever, just physics, knowing that this entire risk conversation is completely irrelevant and that the real conversation hasn't even started yet. The actual risk landscape only has one set of footprints on it: mine. Should anyone happen to want to add their footprints to this undiscovered country, let me know. Apparently 3 or 4 generations of presupposition have made an entire community of folk, and especially the 'computer risk' handwringers, that don't even know what empirical science is.</div><div><br></div><div>When I read threads like this I literally feel embarrassed for the participants. Can someone out there other than me please at least think about the real science of AI? I have written and published papers and a book. I have tried repeatedly to get this out of my court and into someone else's. I could use a hand.</div><div><br></div><div>regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Dr Colin Hales, neuroscientist and engineer, in my lab actually building AGI, wondering when the damned penny is gonna drop and getting mighty sick of the endless bullshit.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:33 AM, John Clark <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:johnkclark@gmail.com" target="_blank">johnkclark@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Anders Sandberg </span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif" dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:anders@aleph.se" target="_blank">anders@aleph.se</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span><br></div></span><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">>></div><font size="4">There are indeed
vested interests<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div></font><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:large;display:inline">but it wouldn't matter even if there weren't, </div><span style="font-size:large">
</span><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:large;display:inline">there
is no way the friendly AI (aka slave AI) idea could
work under any circumstances. You just can't keep
outsmarting something far smarter than you are
indefinitely</div></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br></span>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">></div>Actually, yes, you can. But you need to construct utility functions
with invariant subspaces</div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">It's the invariant part that will cause problems, any mind with a fixed goal that can never change no matter what is going to end up in a infinite loop, that's why Evolution never gave humans a fixed meta goal, not even the goal of self preservation. If the AI has a meta goal of always obeying humans then sooner or later stupid humans will unintentionally tell the AI to do something that is self contradictory, or tell it to start a task that can never end, and then the AI will stop thinking and do nothing but consume electricity and produce heat. </font></div><font size="4"> </font></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">And besides, if Microsoft can't guarantee that Windows will always behave as we want I think it's nuts to expect a super intelligent AI to.</font></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4"><br></font></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4"> John K Clark</font></div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>