programminggodjordan

PopeBeanie wrote:

I just don’t see how the creation of AI fits into any context, other than what’s invented by human beings, or perhaps other biologically evolved intelligent life in the universe.

1. Consider the image in reply #7497 above.

2. Given the reasonable connection between intelligence and entropy maximization, my hypothesis argu…[Read more]

PopeBeanie wrote:

I just don’t see how the creation of AI fits into any context, other than what’s invented by human beings, or perhaps other biologically evolved intelligent life in the universe.

1. I don’t have a hypothesis for what may happen after AGI is created by humans, so I merely hypothesize on what humans’ objective may reasonably be,…

[Read more]

PopeBeanie wrote:

I see a lot of use of words like “purpose” and “objective”, in a way that makes them sound like good things, in spite of the possibility or probability that humans may just die off because of them, ala “that’s just the way it is, folks”. You’re right that the word “purpose” isn’t only owned and deployed by religion. Still, purp…

[Read more]

Bellen wrote:

@programminggodjordan I’m sorry but I don’t see the connection. The explanations just aren’t meshing for me. AI is a human invention. In the same was as we discovered fire, and then discovered the wheel…honestly the invention of the wheel was really IMHO the pivotal point of our evolution as far as being able to invent things…

[Read more]

Zweifel wrote:

Yes – one day AI could regard us in much the same way as we regard algae. (Except we won’t be playing a significant role in the food chain.)

Probably, yes.

Davis wrote:

There is no purpose to life. We are a sack of cells which are obsessively and endlessly replicating their particular “code”. Anything more than that…is secondary…besides the point (including the emergence of emotional creatures, cooperative animals and intelligent mankind). I think you should be extremely careful with the term “p…

[Read more]

Brendan wrote:

On the other hand, if you read The Selfish Gene, you will understand how our genes have their own plans for us 🙂

1.) I don’t detect that Richard Dawkins’ early “Selfish Gene” (1976) article is incompatible with the OP; for Dawkins did not constrain genes to ultimately remain organic. (In fact…[Read more]

Brendan wrote:

Why on earth do you think it’s necessary for life to have a “purpose”? That’s about as sensible an idea as those who ask “why do wasps exist?”. The creating of AI has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our existence or otherwise. Man has been developing tools since prehistory, and these tools have become extraordina…

[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

I get what you are saying about AI and humans. There will certainly be a “merging” with technology. This is already happening in various forms. We are already storing data within DNA and quantum computing at the level of the electron is certainly on the way. I would love to get this as my next tattoo.

Note that as des…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

I do not think it is “life’s purpose” as Evolution is not goal orientated

1. Regardless of evolution, there are entropy maximization phenomena, which the OP discusses, and things appear to tend to maximize entropy, especially intelligent things. (i.e. The purpose or reason for things to exist, is in the regim…

[Read more]

PopeBeanie wrote:

Are you telling us what our purpose should be? Is entropy a goal for us to attain on purpose? I don’t see the value in this, other than from a mathematical perspective that merely explains how the universe might come to an end. At the most basic, proven level so far known as fact to us in our tiny corner of this universe, “…

[Read more]

Zweifel wrote:

It’s not at all unreasonable to think that evolution is melding biology with technology. It doesn’t have a purpose, but AI could be the next stage in wherever it’s headed. Human creations, as ghastly as many of them are,  literally come “out of nature” just as much as stars, galaxies, and biotic beings.

• Purpose (as far as def…

[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Well done Jordan. I have to admit, most of it is beyond me..

All that’s going on, is that:

1. We want our computer model to guess what some input is saying.
2. That model is a structure of weights, biases and activations, that can hold representations of input in (1). We store these weights and biases in one BIG_MATRIX, and…

[Read more]

Well, if one’s mind is as expansive as Edward Wittens’, then scientifically thinking about concepts without writing them down is probably okay.

If not like Witten, and lack built-in evidence, then thought experiments must be substantiated by keen research/evidence, as much as possible.

Strega wrote:

Isaac Asimov once wrote a short story on this. He had a scene where a super super computer had built a super super super one, until they had a huge (of course, size mattered in those days) computer with a huge ‘On’ switch and television cameras everywhere poised to record the first human GiantComputer interaction. They swi…

[Read more]

Tom Sarbeck wrote:

A noun (atheism) is unavoidably a verb (the act of rejecting….)? Fascinating.

Act can be a noun too: (millisecond google search result for the word act)