|
| Thread: Do you like democracy? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted April 15, 2014 11:52 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 12:04, 15 Apr 2014.
|
|
I think that an "administrative AI" only makes sense in the case of handling daily routine and management, yet will fail horribly in any situation it needs to take the initiative and make an actual decision. As I always say, the real problem -or let's call it the difference- between AI and organic intelligence lies within this: The hard thing to do is not building an AI that beats you in chess, the real hard part is building an AI that actually wants to. As of now, computers are still not subjects; our input determines their output completely. They are very advanced calculators that operates in terms of bits.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 15, 2014 12:51 PM |
|
|
So you can score one up for the AI in terms of doing the chore and a tie when initiative is needed. 
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted April 15, 2014 01:02 PM |
|
|
Will or desire is completely irrelevant in AIs, they can work at peak efficiency without the need for desire. While in the case of organics desire is essential for improving efficiency and commitment. Therefore an objective to make a machine want to win as its own prerogative is completely pointless.
What is really needed for leadership are human beings. The human mind is a machine, and we are the desire, we want something and our brains use the data stored to enable us to make a plan of action and have in place acceptable contingencies. However, conflicting desires or an unstructured priority list reduces efficiency and is rather chaotic. A computer is not equipped with the necessary self application that is needed from a leader, but most importantly it is pointless to peruse the goal of making a computer that can, because we already have us.
So maybe leadership ought to be an administrative role, something like a working Constitutional Monarchy.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 15, 2014 02:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
At this point I could imagine an ADMINISTRATION - keep in mind, that this is basically what we are talking about - largely run by computer (programs), which leads to two central questions:
1) Which programming
2) Security (the hacking problem)
Point 1) is pretty interesting as such. You can compare it with the task to write an AI for a complex game simulation. Which means, it's something like a manual for how to do public administrational work. Even as a project this would be not only a massive, but also a probably pretty enlightening thing to start, because in the course of it people would have to somehow define and formulate the tenets of political leadership in a very practical way.
the problem is that the society is already somehow run by a program, which is an economic program full of glitches, but we are only concerned about preventing it to crash and we never even try to fix it.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 15, 2014 04:06 PM |
|
|
artu said:
The hard thing to do is not building an AI that beats you in chess, the real hard part is building an AI that actually wants to. As of now, computers are still not subjects; our input determines their output completely.
How is this different from humans?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 15, 2014 05:29 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:30, 15 Apr 2014.
|
|
Humans make choices, you program an AI to win, it wins, you program it to lose, it loses. Humans decide to win (or lose on purpose) because they prefer it that way. An absolutely deterministic world view can hypothesize that a sophisticated enough intelligence can trace back and reduce all human decisions to a simple enough mechanism of yes or no's also but that is just a philosophical assumption. As of now, it can not be done distinguishably. The fact that can be distinguished is we have egos and computers dont. That may be like a disadvantage at first, since an egoistic administrator doesnt sound good but no ego at all means no actual decisions.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 15, 2014 05:32 PM |
|
|
A computer can be programmed to make decisions. I don't understand what your objection is.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 15, 2014 05:40 PM |
|
|
|
No, it can be programmed to select from a set of already made decisions. It can't be programmed to have a free will of its own and make decisions based on a personal purpose.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 15, 2014 05:44 PM |
|
|
Artu, that's not right.
First of all, we are not talking about COMPUTERS, we are talking about a GOVERNING PROGRAM, which is a completely different thing.
A computer program does what is supposed to do, once it's fully debugged, and a Governing Program would do just that.
However, the program would have to be written and protected against intrusion.
Now, the actual politicians: do we REALLY have any idea on what their actual decisions - or non-decisions - are based? Aren't we always complaining about them not reacting to the ACTUAL problems? Global warming, say, taxes, etc, about ANYTHING and EVERYTHING?
More importantly - are they keeping to the rules and the laws? Answer: No, of course not.
For what gain? That the population is repeatedly screwed each and everytime, because they promise to do something, but eventually it turns out, it's all just hot air?
All impossible with a program.
I say, give it a chance man. It can't be so bad compared with the track record we have now - provided, of course, we would put real money and brains into writing it.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 15, 2014 05:59 PM |
|
|
artu said:
No, it can be programmed to select from a set of already made decisions. It can't be programmed to have a free will of its own and make decisions based on a personal purpose.
What's the difference between selecting from some set of decisions and making decisions? All decisions are made from some set of decisions, whether we're talking about computers or humans.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 15, 2014 06:10 PM |
|
|
|
The difference is you can program a computer to shut down during a game but you can't program it to shut down when it gets bored because there is no such concept to a computer. We make preferences based on the way they make us feel, if you had no feeling of taste, you wouldn't care if you were eating a cake or raw sugar. Computers wont produce self-reliant decisions in situations where the answer isn't a simple yes or no, because the outcome wont mean any difference to them. They can be programmed to calculate outcomes, not desire outcomes. So the set of outcomes possible will be coded on OUR preferences. Which means, it will still be some humans making the key decisions. So the set of decisions the computer may pick will be determined by an agent other than itself.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 15, 2014 06:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I say, give it a chance man. It can't be so bad compared with the track record we have now - provided, of course, we would put real money and brains into writing it.
the problem is, guess who has the money to do that? if they can pay to have laws in their favour, it's the same for a program.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 15, 2014 06:20 PM |
|
|
Our preferences are "coded" too, coded by evolution because they help us survive and reproduce themselves. The processes that cause humans to make those decisions cause the feeling of desire - desire is what choosing an outcome feels like from inside, from the point of view of the being that is trying to achieve the outcome (assuming it's configured in a certain way). A machine would feel similarly if it were designed to be a system similar to that of animals.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 15, 2014 06:40 PM |
|
|
|
That's why I mentioned the absolute determinism in my earlier post. Whether our biological code is all there is that determines us or not, or do we actually have a free will is a philosophical speculation. But it's certain we have at least a very realistic illusion of free will, which indicates layers beyond calculation (for our intelligence). But we definitely know computer or programs DON'T have a free will.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 15, 2014 06:41 PM |
|
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 15, 2014 06:42 PM |
|
|
|
Because they never act on their own.
|
|
seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 15, 2014 06:43 PM |
|
|
artu said:
I think that an "administrative AI" only makes sense in the case of handling daily routine and management, yet will fail horribly in any situation it needs to take the initiative and make an actual decision. As I always say, the real problem -or let's call it the difference- between AI and organic intelligence lies within this: The hard thing to do is not building an AI that beats you in chess, the real hard part is building an AI that actually wants to. As of now, computers are still not subjects; our input determines their output completely. They are very advanced calculators that operates in terms of bits.
Human brains are very advanced calculators that operate on potential threshold.
If simple bits can make something as magneficant as a PC, so do the neurons make up the human mind.
The main difference between a human and a computer is that humans also have chemicals and hormones into the mix.
What humans see as being bored, is nothing but a chemical lack of dopamine or neuro stimulants. Human brains are much more complex than a computer though.
If humans did not have the preprogrammed need to procreate, socialize, have emotions and the need to survive, you would have a truly objective intelligent being. AIs should be able to do that.
Of course, this breaches on philosophical boundaries. For that, you should read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 15, 2014 06:49 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Because they never act on their own.
Do we act on our own? What does "acting on one's own" mean? In what way do we act on our own that computers couldn't?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 15, 2014 06:54 PM |
|
Edited by seraphim at 19:04, 15 Apr 2014.
|
artu said:
Because they never act on their own.
You should leave the concept that humans act on their own behind. Your brain decides what you like or will do earlier than your consciousness gets the message. That is if you consider you just your consciousness.
Want proof?
http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/brain-scans-can-reveal-your-decisions-7-seconds-before-you-decide
Of course, how the brain comes up to X decision is the question which you might ask.
Then you might go to university(again?) and study neuroscience. Its not something as simple to talk about computers and decision making when there are gaps in knowledge in how the human brain and consciousness functions.
I dont know if in turkey religion meddles with university curriculum but if it does, then the internet is your only friend for this matter.
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 15, 2014 07:25 PM |
|
|
@mvass and seraphim
We exit the game when we get bored. But is it really you who decides that you get bored or is it a chemical signal doesnt mean much within this context. Yes the brain operates by chemistry but that is irrelevant.
Neurology can collect data in matters such as "this part of the brain knows which hand you will use to push the button 3 seconds before your consciousness does" just like in your link. But when it's more complicated and less reflexive things like "who should I marry, will I be a doctor or a lawyer, which city should I live in"there is still a deliberate process of decision making. Otherwise, why would we be concerned about how shall we be governed, which is the basic subject of this thread? If the process of determination is so strict, why bother with politics at all, why not just leave yourself to the float?
|
|
|
|
