<div dir="ltr"><div><div>I think if you want to call this intelligence, it is completely alien to human thought. Of course, I may be wrong in that assertion, but based on what we know about real neurons and the number of connections back and forth between different ones (and the increasing important roles of various helper cell types that were originally thought to be relatively unimportant), I don't think deep learning networks are anywhere close to how human beings learn and think. I'm not making a judgement on which is more effective all things being equal, just that they are likely very different processes. <br><br></div>These networks figure out the importance of and relationships between inputs by attempting to minimize a mathematical loss function. It seems unlikely that this is how wetware works, although I would imagine there are overlapping network/information theory effects that are above my paygrade to speak intelligently to.<br><br></div>Google has done some nice work visualizing how neural networks work recently to try to pull back the curtain a bit, but I think any strong AI that evolves from these deep learning/reinforcement algos will not be thinking via the same underlying processes that we use. This may have some very large implications, some of which might not be so good for us.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 5:45 PM, William Flynn Wallace <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:foozler83@gmail.com" target="_blank">foozler83@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"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span class=""><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:large;display:inline">Teaching yourself to be the best in the world at Chess and GO and </div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:large">Shogi</span></span><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:large;display:inline"> is pretty intelligent. john</div><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:large;display:inline"><br></div></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:large;display:inline">Here's my question: did the program do anything different from what a person could do if his mind could work that fast? I think it's likely that we don't know this. We don't know the qualitative differences between the computer and a human chess player. Or do we?</div></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:large;display:inline"><br></div></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:large;display:inline">bill w</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 4:30 PM, John Clark <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:johnkclark@gmail.com" target="_blank">johnkclark@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5"><div dir="ltr"><span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Dylan Distasio </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><<a href="mailto:interzone@gmail.com" target="_blank">interzone@gmail.com</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span><br></div></span><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="m_3257077356415332811m_-4411983554682512564gmail-"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4"></font></div><font size="4"> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">>> </div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">If you can teach yourself to be the best in the world at some complex task without "thought" then what's the point of "thought"? Who needs it?</div></font></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>It's not needed as I'm defining it (human level intelligence combined with consciousness</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div> </div></span><div><font size="4"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">I'm far far more interested in intelligence than consciousness<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">, </div></span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">If the machine isn't conscious that's it's problem not mine. But what makes you think the machine isn't conscious? </div> </font></div><span><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> whatever that is, but I think we're relatively good at identifying it</blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">I can directly detect consciousness only in myself, I have a hypothesis that others of my species are conscious too, but not all the time, not when they are sleeping or under anesthesia or dead. My hypothesis is other people are only conscious when they behave intelligently. Teaching yourself to be the best in the world at Chess and GO and </div>Shogi<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> is pretty intelligent. </div></font></div><span><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>I will give you a real world example of why these networks don't think, and why thought is important. I'm going to shift into image recognition for the example. It is very easy to game these machine learning systems with an adversarial attack that shifts pixel information that is essentially undetectable to the human eye but that will cause the system to misidentify a turtle as a gun (for example). </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">Humans sometimes </div>misidentify</font><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4"> images too, and unlike people computers are getting better at image recognition every day</font>.</div></div><span><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>The point of thought is to be able to generalize and make decisions with sometimes very limited information based on experience and imagination. This system is capable of nothing like that. </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">The system had no information to work with at all except for the basic rules of Chess, and that is as little information as you can get, and it wan't a specialized Chess program as Deepblue was 20 years ago, the same program could generalize enough to teach itself to be the best in the word at Go and </div>and Shogi<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> too.</div></font></div><span><div><br></div><div> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>It is still very brittle outside of the goal it has been trained on. It would need to be retrained for each new goal,</div><div><br></div></span><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">No, it trained itself, that's what so impressive. </font></div> </div><span><div><br></div><div> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div> Deep learning neural nets appear to bear little resemblance to how biological nervous systems actually work.</div><div><br></div></span><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">As far as Chess</div> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">Go and Shogi are concerned it works far better than </div>biological nervous systems<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">.</div> </font></div><span><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>I would still argue that this is very far from strong AI.</blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">Teaching yourself to become best in the world in less than a day sure doesn't seem very far from strong AI to me.</font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">John K Clark</font></div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div></div></div></div>
<br></div></div><span class="">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailm<wbr>an/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
<br></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-<wbr>chat</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>