When the computers are sentient

[Almo]

Religion will make a big comeback. We'll be able to say we have more rights than the computers because we have a soul and they don't; they're just machines.

Having the attitude that we are in fact machines will make the issue of how to deal with sentient computers more sticky.

ETA: Just thought of that cause I'm listening to Kraftwerk - Computer World which is a concept album covering the evolution of the world from us controlling computers to computers dominating the world.

[Fnord]

Religion will become irrelevant. Emotion will become irrelevant. Humanity will become irrelevant. Individuality will become irrelevant. Those humans that display greater talent for building and repairing machines will be kept alive only to serve them.

Resistance will be futile.

I, for one, will welcome our cybernetic overlords.

Nothing could possibly go worng.

[Dave Rogers]

Religion will make a big comeback. We'll be able to say we have more rights than the computers because we have a soul and they don't; they're just machines.

And how do you think they'll reply?

Dave

[Almo]

I don't know. I would assume they'd say we're no different, just made of different materials. Though I suppose sentient computers might be just as prone to belief as humans.

[Aitch]

What makes you think we they aren't already? ;)

[AWPrime]

Religion will make a big comeback. We'll be able to say we have more rights than the computers because we have a soul and they don't; they're just machines.Quite likely in underdeveloped countries.

Having the attitude that we are in fact machines will make the issue of how to deal with sentient computers more sticky.Why, it would everything far easier.

[six7s]

I don't know. I would assume they'd say we're no different, just made of different materials. Though I suppose sentient computers might be just as prone to belief as humans.In the continuing absence of ANYTHING even remotely approaching the 'sci-fi' version of Artificial Intelligence, computers are MORE prone to 'belief'; all they 'know' is what is hard-coded... they have no emotions, they don't 'think', they can't 'decide' to extrapolate... they just do 'as they are told'

[Beerina]

We'll probably come up with intelligent, but non-conscious, computers before we figure out how actual consciousness arises out of inanimate matter. And, quite frankly, I don't think consciousness is quite as important to intelligence as we seem to think it is.

I.e. intelligence is a difficult problem to solve, but consciousness itself won't be, once we figure it out. Nor will consciousness be crucial to acting intelligently, as simulating a "consolidated 3D worldview" for planning purposes should be fairly easy once the worldview can be created, which apparently doesn't require consciousness (http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/crick-koch-cc-97.html).

[JoeTheJuggler]

Then the computers will merely come up with their own religion:

6IekyYFKZW0

(Sorry--it's just the song and lyrics, not the animation.)

[INRM]

Fnord,

Religion will become irrelevant. Emotion will become irrelevant. Humanity will become irrelevant. Individuality will become irrelevant. Those humans that display greater talent for building and repairing machines will be kept alive only to serve them.

Resistance will be futile.


You know this somehow reminds me of a quote from the Machinema "Red vs Blue" in which the characters are putting on a play and Private Dick Simmons says that he represents the future where they have no moral and no emotions, but they have really awesome gadgets.


INRM

[six7s]

You know this somehow reminds me of a quote from the Machinema "Red vs Blue" in which the characters are putting on a play and Private Dick Simmons says that he represents the future where they have no moral and no emotions, but they have really awesome gadgets.

INRM,

Its apparent that you start and/or participate in many threads to ostensibly discuss developments in technology and the social ramifications thereof

Do you have ANY views (opinions, thoughts, concerns, worries, etc) that are based on observations of reality?

[rocketdodger]

INRM,

Its apparent that you start and/or participate in many threads to ostensibly discuss developments in technology and the social ramifications thereof

Do you have ANY views (opinions, thoughts, concerns, worries, etc) that are based on observations of reality?

Do you have ANY that aren't?

[six7s]

:confused:

[rocketdodger]

:confused:

What, you don't realize that most of your comments are equivalent to "what you are talking about is completely unrealistic, therefore you are an idiot?"

I have yet to see you contribute to a discussion in an imaginative or speculative way.

[Beerina]

We'll probably come up with intelligent, but non-conscious, computers before we figure out how actual consciousness arises out of inanimate matter. And, quite frankly, I don't think consciousness is quite as important to intelligence as we seem to think it is.

I.e. intelligence is a difficult problem to solve, but consciousness itself won't be, once we figure it out. Nor will consciousness be crucial to acting intelligently, as simulating a "consolidated 3D worldview" for planning purposes should be fairly easy once the worldview can be created, which apparently doesn't require consciousness (http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/crick-koch-cc-97.html).

By the way, by this I don't mean the way consciousness was used by evolution isn't necessarily complex, but rather that the (ultimately) physical process by which the spark of awareness arises won't be some particularly complicated thing. Think more on terms of a muscle cell contracting as a development rather than some complicated oddball spiritual mechanism backing the conscious experience.

[six7s]

What, you don't realize that most of your comments are equivalent to "what you are talking about is completely unrealistic, therefore you are an idiot?"

I have yet to see you contribute to a discussion in an imaginative or speculative way.So?

Your ignorance justifies what, exactly?

[INRM]

Six7s,

In case you have not realized it, the statement I said was based on a quote that Fnord posted. I did not state that I personally believe that in the future we will have no morals or emotions, what I said was that it reminded me of a quote from the Red vs. Blue series, a quote which I thought was actually quite hilarious.


RocketDodger,

What, you don't realize that most of your comments are equivalent to "what you are talking about is completely unrealistic, therefore you are an idiot?"

That's actually a pretty good observation actually.


INRM

[six7s]

Six7s,

In case you have not realized it, the statement I said was based on a quote that Fnord posted. I did not state that I personally believe that in the future we will have no morals or emotions, what I said was that it reminded me of a quote from the Red vs. Blue series, a quote which I thought was actually quite hilarious.

Great

Whatever...

How about - as this is ostensibly a discussion - you answer my sincere question?

Do you have ANY views (opinions, thoughts, concerns, worries, etc) that are based on observations of reality?




RocketDodger,

That's actually a pretty good observation actually.
Apart from the typos

And the glaring inanity

Yes, I'm not surprised you like to believe its a 'pretty good observation'

[TX50]

A hyper-intelligent machine would probably immediately go into a long
processing loop as it philosophized about the absurdity of existence.
Then it'd probably self destruct sometime soon after it was switched
on.

So no chrome robots with plasma rifles or babe terminatrixes in red
leather suits (sadly).

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

In John M. Ford's book, "Web of Angels," (Originally titles, "Air and Angels," but someone along the line of publication hadn't read John Donne, so they donne in that much better title), "The Web," gets smart enough to wake up. After a brief look around, it goes back to sleep and declines to be reawakened.

I think that's just as likely as any other scenario.

[Ikarus]

How about - as this is ostensibly a discussion - you answer my sincere question?


Derail and/or bait of some sort? Create new thread for it, will ya?

I can sort of see how you think it is a sincere question, but I think it's more about INRM than sincere on-topic discussion. And attacking someone on typos... Oi... Wouldn't call it classy.

And how do you think they'll reply?

Dave
Good point. If we need to rely on rather speculative vague concepts as a soul or perhaps an afterlife or a god to justify our existance, we're in a bad spot, IMO. Perhaps, if I would have to guess, it is our ability to think irrationally that makes us a valuable asset to the sentient-computer-world.

[TX50]

Perhaps, if I would have to guess, it is our ability to think irrationally that makes us a valuable asset to the sentient-computer-world.

I don't think "irrationality" would really be all that hard to program.

[Ikarus]

I don't think "irrationality" would really be all that hard to program.

How do you mean?

[TX50]

How do you mean?

I was merely supposing that the posited super-intelligent machine wouldn't
need stinky humans to think irrrationally for it. It could probably be as
irrational as it liked all by itself. I may be misunderstanding your point, though.

[six7s]

Derail and/or bait of some sort? Create new thread for it, will ya?

Its not a willful derail

I really do want to know if INRM has any pertinent views that are based on observations of reality

My hunch is that he (?) doesn't

I am more than willing to be proven wrong

However, until this happens it strikes me that responding to his posts with anything other than demands for evidence is tantamount to feeding a troll

attacking someone on typos... Oi... Wouldn't call it classy. Guilty as charged

On this count, I apologise to Rocket Dodger

[Ikarus]

I was merely supposing that the posited super-intelligent machine wouldn't
need stinky humans to think irrrationally for it. It could probably be as
irrational as it liked all by itself. I may be misunderstanding your point, though.
Well, as I see it, computers are inherently logical and rational. They were created to be calculators and to handle computations with binary and switches and ports which generate a single solution each time. We have a different history and this results in a different brain functionality. I can't say I know a lot about how the brain works, but as far as I know, the brain makes connections when a memory is "printed", through which neurons can fire charges and though there is (must be) a guiding principle for how the brain does this, it's probably less efficient, in some ways, and more chaotic. Furthermore, we have emotions and hormones and a physical body that responds to the environment and also our health is a factor in our thinking. In a logical world, I am pretty sure that those are all just impediments, but reality is a complex world and, compared to computers, we will probably be a lot closer to the complexity and structure of (the organisms on) this planet, at least.

I don't think that we will be able to fully understand the computer brain and they probably will never understand us. And perhaps you are right and we are simply illogical inefficient creatures to them. But I think this difference between them and us has some potential for rich interaction. For example, through sharing art and music and the experience of what it is like to be on this planet; to exist.

I don't think a computer can make the same observations that we make. I don't know if our POV will have value to them, but I know that I value stories about other people and places that I will never truly understand. Perhaps they will, too. I guess that is a possible requirement for fruitful coexistance. I haven't thought of others, yet.

The irrationality, resulting from the complex nature of our body and brains, influences our perception and actions. It works fundamentally different than a logical unit, and therefor I don't think it can be programmed. If there would be such a thing as sentient computers the questions "what are we?" and "what is our purpose" get a new context, in which the strengths of our differences will play a major role. But whether they choose to interact with us or ignore/destroy us, I am fairly sure that they will not and cannot replace us.

[six7s]

Well, as I see it, computers are inherently logical and rational. They were created to be calculators and to handle computations with binary and switches and ports which generate a single solution each time. We have a different history and this results in a different brain functionality. I can't say I know a lot about how the brain works, but as far as I know, the brain makes connections when a memory is "printed", through which neurons can fire charges and though there is (must be) a guiding principle for how the brain does this, it's probably less efficient, in some ways, and more chaotic. Furthermore, we have emotions and hormones and a physical body that responds to the environment and also our health is a factor in our thinking. In a logical world, I am pretty sure that those are all just impediments, but reality is a complex world and, compared to computers, we will probably be a lot closer to the complexity and structure of (the organisms on) this planet, at least.

I don't think that we will be able to fully understand the computer brain and they probably will never understand us. And perhaps you are right and we are simply illogical inefficient creatures to them. But I think this difference between them and us has some potential for rich interaction. For example, through sharing art and music and the experience of what it is like to be on this planet; to exist.

I don't think a computer can make the same observations that we make. I don't know if our POV will have value to them, but I know that I value stories about other people and places that I will never truly understand. Perhaps they will, too. I guess that is a possible requirement for fruitful coexistance. I haven't thought of others, yet.

The irrationality, resulting from the complex nature of our body and brains, influences our perception and actions. It works fundamentally different than a logical unit, and therefor I don't think it can be programmed. If there would be such a thing as sentient computers the questions "what are we?" and "what is our purpose" get a new context, in which the strengths of our differences will play a major role. But whether they choose to interact with us or ignore/destroy us, I am fairly sure that they will not and cannot replace us.

Great post :)

One suggestion, though

Don't anthropomorphise computers...

It really pisses them off

[Ikarus]

Great post :)

One suggestion, though

Don't anthropomorphise computers...

It really pisses them off

:D

And thanks! :)