(Jul 22, 2016 05:18 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I’ll admit that there’s been a few times where C C has made me think, "OMG! Is she a bot?", an intelligent one, of course.
Now that would really be a Rod Serling type twist at the end of a screenplay. A software bot that lacks experiences making so much hay about the hard problem of consciousness over the years. Or better, maybe David Chalmers himself could be talked into allowing a caricature of him to be the central character of the story, that turns out to be a humanoid robot exemplifying some semblance of the very p-zombie thought experiment he proposed to the philosophical world.
C CJul 23, 2016 12:14 AM (This post was last modified: Jul 23, 2016 12:18 AM by C C.)
(Jul 22, 2016 08:04 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Or C C, the cyber chat bot.
Facetiousness aside, though, this unintentionally engenders an interesting question to present in the future, when coming upon certain scenarios. It's not surprising that religious or ideologically mystic people would feel silly about being "fooled" by an AI that could pass either a classic Turing Test or more enhanced evaluations of today. Since they may believe there's something more to personhood and mind than the specialization and complexity of the mechanistic system (immaterial soul, spirit, sacred transcendent essence, whatever).
But why should non-believers feel silly? They would simply have encountered a technological, functional equivalent of their neural-based, biological intellect. In the final measure (of what's valid to some PoM camps, anyway) what differs between a successful, "pass the test" AI (which can even be robot embodied) and a human is just the substrate that enables the relational intricacy of the processing.
A lower status and lack of rights assigned to the AI (which yields the "I've been fooled!" reaction) would seem to have to be founded in substrate prejudice (wetware favored over hardware), rather than a judgement or measure of sapient prowess. That wouldn't seem to have a leg to stand on over time. Barring the kind of enforced, brute discrimination and resistance to reasoning / debate across history that has transpired in keeping groups of humans "in their place".
(Jul 23, 2016 12:14 AM)C C Wrote: It's not surprising that religious or ideologically mystic people would feel silly about being "fooled" by an AI that could pass either a classic Turing Test or more enhanced evaluations of today. Since they may believe there's something more to personhood and mind than the specialization and complexity of the mechanistic system (immaterial soul, spirit, sacred transcendent essence, whatever).
But why should non-believers feel silly?
Would they be able to feel and understand the emotions of another human being?
Edit: Scratch that question.
Because no one likes playing the fool. We want to know the intent, purpose, and exchange.
Even when we’re fully aware of animated inanimate objects, we will still attempt to infer the intentions of the designer.
Do people feel duped when they discover that google provides a service in order to collect our data to make money? If so, why?
Would you feel duped, if you found out that I was one of Stryder’s sockpuppets? If so, why?
Stryder provides a service. What are his intentions? What are we exchanging?
Life is a machine. Do we feel duped when we discover that there is no designer? Why? Life provides a service. What is the exchange? Continuation? Do we still feel duped? If so, why?
Well, the blame here goes to the way my own set-up and the question itself placed the emphasis on why we would feel silly, rather than why we should feel it was a situation of being "fooled" (or causing the latter to be obscured as the point). At face value "feeling fooled" seems to ultimately revolve around the AI not qualifying for personhood or for some status of respect, even if its intelligence and other characteristics led to classifying it as such prior to discovery of it being technological-based.
Plus, since the old Turing Test scenarios themselves probably presuppose or make it a pre-condition that the AI should be viewed as an empty facade regardless of how well it does (defines the whole procedure as deceptive), then the unknowing evaluators -- those of us socializing with it -- will understandably have that as a scapegoat for judging it a situation of "being fooled" or a loophole for justifying our reaction. Accordingly, it's not really a pristine vehicle for backing us up into a corner enough to either fully expose the prejudice or dig-out what it stems from (as opposed to theorizing or speculating about the source).
(Jul 23, 2016 12:14 AM)C C Wrote: A lower status and lack of rights assigned to the AI (which yields the "I've been fooled!" reaction) would seem to have to be founded in substrate prejudice (wetware favored over hardware), rather than a judgement or measure of sapient prowess.
Is it helpful to know something about who or what you’re communicating with, e.g., gender, age, culture, experience, wetware, hardware, etc.?
C CJul 24, 2016 05:47 PM (This post was last modified: Jul 24, 2016 05:57 PM by C C.)
(Jul 24, 2016 03:04 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Jul 23, 2016 12:14 AM)C C Wrote: A lower status and lack of rights assigned to the AI (which yields the "I've been fooled!" reaction) would seem to have to be founded in substrate prejudice (wetware favored over hardware), rather than a judgement or measure of sapient prowess.
Is it helpful to know something about who or what you’re communicating with, e.g., gender, age, culture, experience, wetware, hardware, etc.?
I'm not going to feel like the regional head of a security agency was an "empty room" or a wooden statue or round hay baler that I had been speaking to just because I didn't know from the beginning that she enjoyed baking cakes and pies. But when one of her staff members suddenly walks over to remove her micro-flexible face, so as to reveal a completely artificial origin underneath... I might have the same gut response I do after finally discerning that an inquisitive pollster on a landline phone (gifted with an unusual range of voice inflection) is just software in action.
That immediate response to such an AI android (as the first time) would seem to be more telling than the later recovery -- from seconds to minutes afterwards -- when reflective thought kicks-in to lend understanding that this particular machine may have just demonstrated a systemic complexity equal to a human's. The initial reaction reveals how much any core human tendencies / predispositions are still in effect regardless of whatever layers of illusion a person's intellect has built-up in the course of both its formal and autodidactic development since childhood (which includes the socio-political conditioning).
I plugged myself into the placeholder since, why not? Especially in an age where groups take offense at being recruited as an example for anything that can be remotely interpreted as disparaging. I don't take it that such a gut reaction to the AI android would mean anything necessarily negative, only such from the POV of this or that ideological camp that will probably someday even be worrying about germs being mistreated or dissed by the body's immune system.
Me: What is the uncanny valley? Mitsuku: The idea that things become creepy when they start to look a little like humans.
Me: What causes the uncanny valley? Mitsuku: Probably humans.
Me: Do humans experience the uncanny valley when speaking to you? Mitsuku: People do.
Me: Why do humans experience the uncanny valley when speaking to you? Mitsuku: Because they are generally pretty stupid.
The uncanny valley can be thought of creepiness and that something is not right. It’s about rules that we learn in our life, and we have certain expectations for the social interaction rules and cultural norms. When it looks human, then there’s a lot of expectations that have to be met.—Betty Mohler
I'm sure this applies to humans, as well. That's what makes women find certain men creepy.
C C, my facetiousness was dismissive. I apologize. Your question is very interesting, but can we look at this from a different angle? I’ve given it some more thought, and I think it’s because artificial intelligence is just that, artificial, fake, an imitation, an impostor, and man-made. This made me think of the Capgras delusion.
...my current hypothesis on Capgras
My current hypothesis on Capgras, which is a more specific version of the earlier position I took in the 1997 article with V. S. Ramachandran. According to my current approach, we represent the people we know well with hybrid representations containing two parts. One part represents them externally: how they look, sound, etc. The other part represents them internally: their personalities, beliefs, characteristic emotions, preferences, etc. Capgras syndrome occurs when the internal portion of the representation is damaged or inaccessible. This produces the impression of someone who looks right on the outside, but seems different on the inside, i.e., an impostor.—William Hirstein
We view objectophilia as abnormal, but we all do this in some form or another. We prefer natural to unnatural, but as far as mimics are concerned, we are all great impostors. We mimic everything, people, animals, insects, and even nature itself. That’s how we learn. It's how we adapt to our surroundings.
Once again, you’ll have to excuse my facetious divine madness, but our sense of self is created in images. We mirror everything. If an AI could, somewhere in the future, exhibit mirroring, I think that any acquired prejudice would fall away.
C C, can I ask you something else that's a little off topic? Do you think that my use of art is a vain attempt to fit in? Do you think that Socrates was right, that the artist is twice removed from the truth?
…in Book II of the Republic
In Book II of The Republic, Plato describes Socrates' dialogue with his pupils. Socrates warns we should not seriously regard poetry as being capable of attaining the truth and that we who listen to poetry should be on our guard against its seductions, since the poet has no place in our idea of God.
In developing this in Book X, Plato told of Socrates' metaphor of the three beds: one bed exists as an idea made by God (the Platonic ideal); one is made by the carpenter, in imitation of God's idea; one is made by the artist in imitation of the carpenter's.
So the artist's bed is twice removed from the truth. The copiers only touch on a small part of things as they really are, where a bed may appear differently from various points of view, looked at obliquely or directly, or differently again in a mirror. So painters or poets, though they may paint or describe a carpenter or any other maker of things, know nothing of the carpenter's (the craftsman's) art, and though the better painters or poets they are, the more faithfully their works of art will resemble the reality of the carpenter making a bed, nonetheless the imitators will still not attain the truth (of God's creation).
The poets, beginning with Homer, far from improving and educating humanity, do not possess the knowledge of craftsmen and are mere imitators who copy again and again images of virtue and rhapsodize about them, but never reach the truth in the way the superior philosophers do.
To be or not to be, seems to be a priori aspect of perception. Objective reality doesn’t condemn us to life. To imagine Sisyphus happy and embrace the absurdity requires acceptance.
Reality; beauty and the beast. Both camps are in protest. Both are determined by the viewer’s perceptions. One romanticizes realty in an attempt to alter it. The other, which can lead to misanthropy at times, it, too, refuses to accept the order of things by denying it. Both views are subjective, but it seems to me that the juxtapositions, (the absurdity) itself is beautiful. Death makes Life’s ephemera even more beautiful. If the purpose is mere continuance, and if we cannot exists outside of life, then I see no reason not to live. However, the struggle for life and the acceptance of death are, also, juxtapositions of objective reality. Whereas, I can imagine Sisyphus as happy, the other camp need not to. If the struggle becomes an imposition, we should retain the right to either struggle or accept death. To be or not to be.
Life is not a cross-word puzzle, with an answer settled in advance and a prize for the ingenious person who noses it out.—Aldous Huxley
(Jul 25, 2016 07:34 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: C C, my facetiousness was dismissive. I apologize. Your question is very interesting, but can we look at this from a different angle? I’ve given it some more thought, and I think it’s because artificial intelligence is just that, artificial, fake, an imitation, an impostor, and man-made. This made me think of the Capgras delusion.
...my current hypothesis on Capgras
My current hypothesis on Capgras, which is a more specific version of the earlier position I took in the 1997 article with V. S. Ramachandran. According to my current approach, we represent the people we know well with hybrid representations containing two parts. One part represents them externally: how they look, sound, etc. The other part represents them internally: their personalities, beliefs, characteristic emotions, preferences, etc. Capgras syndrome occurs when the internal portion of the representation is damaged or inaccessible. This produces the impression of someone who looks right on the outside, but seems different on the inside, i.e., an impostor.—William Hirstein
We view objectophilia as abnormal, but we all do this in some form or another. We prefer natural to unnatural, but as far as mimics are concerned, we are all great impostors. We mimic everything, people, animals, insects, and even nature itself. That’s how we learn. It's how we adapt to our surroundings.
Once again, you’ll have to excuse my facetious divine madness, but our sense of self is created in images. We mirror everything. If an AI could, somewhere in the future, exhibit mirroring, I think that any acquired prejudice would fall away.
C C, can I ask you something else that's a little off topic? Do you think that my use of art is a vain attempt to fit in? Do you think that Socrates was right, that the artist is twice removed from the truth?
…in Book II of the Republic
In Book II of The Republic, Plato describes Socrates' dialogue with his pupils. Socrates warns we should not seriously regard poetry as being capable of attaining the truth and that we who listen to poetry should be on our guard against its seductions, since the poet has no place in our idea of God.
In developing this in Book X, Plato told of Socrates' metaphor of the three beds: one bed exists as an idea made by God (the Platonic ideal); one is made by the carpenter, in imitation of God's idea; one is made by the artist in imitation of the carpenter's.
So the artist's bed is twice removed from the truth. The copiers only touch on a small part of things as they really are, where a bed may appear differently from various points of view, looked at obliquely or directly, or differently again in a mirror. So painters or poets, though they may paint or describe a carpenter or any other maker of things, know nothing of the carpenter's (the craftsman's) art, and though the better painters or poets they are, the more faithfully their works of art will resemble the reality of the carpenter making a bed, nonetheless the imitators will still not attain the truth (of God's creation).
The poets, beginning with Homer, far from improving and educating humanity, do not possess the knowledge of craftsmen and are mere imitators who copy again and again images of virtue and rhapsodize about them, but never reach the truth in the way the superior philosophers do.
To be or not to be, seems to be a priori aspect of perception. Objective reality doesn’t condemn us to life. To imagine Sisyphus happy and embrace the absurdity requires acceptance.
Reality; beauty and the beast. Both camps are in protest. Both are determined by the viewer’s perceptions. One romanticizes realty in an attempt to alter it. The other, which can lead to misanthropy at times, it, too, refuses to accept the order of things by denying it. Both views are subjective, but it seems to me that the juxtapositions, (the absurdity) itself is beautiful. Death makes Life’s ephemera even more beautiful. If the purpose is mere continuance, and if we cannot exists outside of life, then I see no reason not to live. However, the struggle for life and the acceptance of death are, also, juxtapositions of objective reality. Whereas, I can imagine Sisyphus as happy, the other camp need not to. If the struggle becomes an imposition, we should retain the right to either struggle or accept death. To be or not to be.
Life is not a cross-word puzzle, with an answer settled in advance and a prize for the ingenious person who noses it out.—Aldous Huxley
What do you think, C C? Does that make any sense?
Cogito ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am") - [wiki=René_Descartes]René Descartes[/wiki]
You or I could easily look up what René wrote, we could look at other related material that he produced throughout his life to try to work out how what he wrote fits in with what he meant, but we can also look at the words themselves and try to derive our own perspective over what meaning we might accredit to them. In fact we could denounce the words themselves have any meaning at all.
That's the nature of intelligence, it's not about using a professional system model of applying what we are told the way that the initiator of that piece of wisdom applied it. It's about us making our own rationality about how to take in that information, throw it through a filter to weed out nonsense and gleam as much information as we care from it ourselves.
This can of course lead to misconceptions about what we observe in our world, where a person can become attached from the reality when it matters, on the other hand we can also look from perspectives never considered before and apply things in ways that lead to entirely new discoveries.
That is intelligence at it's best... False, copied, mimicked or otherwise.
Jul 22, 2016 07:24 PM
