Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What should be sex for AI?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 14 posts

What should be sex for AI?

#1

Post by piedradura »

Since until now humans are a bad tool to teach a computer how to become intelligent, I wonder if we should try to define what the concept of sex should be for AI. Many hackers many are seduced by new computer languages (like elixir) but perhaps that is not the ideal way of becoming a better programmer.

I envision an ecosystem of machines in which sex is the driving force for evolution, but first we need to define sex for AI. I hope that following this path of evolution human creatures can be seen as sexy by machines and that finally we can produce a new breed.

Edit: Genetic algorithms are not valid in this context since we want an autonomous evolving population, some key ingredient is missing. If someone suggest using genetic algorithm as an initial approach then objective function should evolve with the population in a recursive way, mimicking strategies and resources available in each generation and trying to detect new structures as valuable approach to explore.

Re: What should be sex for AI?

#4

Post by drdeca »

piedradura wrote: post #3
fagnerbrack wrote: post #2

Dude...

I am not suggesting physical activity.

Possibly could have phrased it differently.

Also, not sure why a genetic algorithm wouldn't be what you are looking for.

We can't really make "motivations" for the AI stuff we are doing, so making them be "motivated by" reproduction doesn't work,

So, if you just want the ones that fit some task better, that seems like you would just make the more successful ones reproduce more. A genetic algorithm.

I suppose maybe if you had them evaluate each other and have the reproduction be based on that, and have that evolve as well?

But I don't expect that to be a particularly effective training method.

Re: What should be sex for AI?

#5

Post by piedradura »

drdeca wrote: post #4
piedradura wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not suggesting physical activity.

Possibly could have phrased it differently. Also, not sure why a genetic algorithm wouldn't be what you are looking for. We can't really make "motivations" for the AI stuff we are doing, so making them be "motivated by" reproduction doesn't work, So, if you just want the ones that fit some task better, that seems like you would just make the more successful ones reproduce more. A genetic algorithm. I suppose maybe if…

Yes, you suggest a little effective training method. What I suggest is training a lot of very little effective training methods looking for mutations. By not being gready perhaps AI can develop a new system for evolving that we can't envision at this moment.

Re: What should be sex for AI?

#6

Post by piedradura »

piedradura wrote: post #5
drdeca wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly could have phrased it differently. Also, not sure why a genetic algorithm wouldn't be what you are looking for. We can't really make "motivations" for the AI stuff we are doing, so making them be "motivated by" reproduction doesn't work, So, if you just want the ones that fit some task better, that seems like you would just make the more successful ones reproduce more. A genetic algorithm. I suppose maybe if…

Yes, you suggest a little effective training method. What I suggest is training a lot of very little effective training methods looking for mutations. By not being gready perhaps AI can develop a new system for evolving that we can't envision at this moment.

Just to be a little more concrete: What about a "genetic algorithm" approach for a population in which individuals are genetic algorithms and in which the optimization function put a great weight on being self-sustainability and diversity of structure.

Re: What should be sex for AI?

#8

Post by thwee »

Giving software human rights shields authors from responsibility for the actions of their creations.

If I wrote a machine to harass people, I would want my AI to have human rights as well. Then I could claim that it wasn't me who was responsible for harassmaing a human being, but another human being.

In other words, just because you wrote a machine and convinced yourself that it's autonomous shouldn't shield you from responsibility for that machine's actions.

Parents are still liable for any thing and law their children break.

Re: What should be sex for AI?

#9

Post by thwee »

thwee wrote: post #8

Giving software human rights shields authors from responsibility for the actions of their creations. If I wrote a machine to harass people, I would want my AI to have human rights as well. Then I could claim that it wasn't me who was responsible for harassmaing a human being, but another human being. In other words, just because you wrote a machine and convinced yourself that it's autonomous shouldn't shield you from…

It's an attempt to justify recklessness.

If you know exactly what your machine is going to do, you are responsible for what your machine does. This is why you can have web services.

If you don't know exactly what your machine is going to do, you are unleashing a dangerous machine on an unwitting population of human beings, and that's reckless.

This probably is relevant to the financial sector. Engaging in a digital arms race, and then claiming the machine is responsible for your lost retirement money.

We are so enthralled with technology that we're willing to spend large parts of our lives engaging with it. That's like a teenager loving their bo, damn the consequences.

Now we've come to trust large amounts of other people's money to a digital contest.

Betting large amounts of money on a contest is just that: a bet.

Maybe we should stop and think about whether betting retirement money in a global AI contest is a good idea.

Sure, you can make the argument that gambling is legal in many jurisdictions, but even then you have to remember that the house always wins.

Re: What should be sex for AI?

#10

Post by dragonwriter »

thwee wrote: post #8

Giving software human rights shields authors from responsibility for the actions of their creations. If I wrote a machine to harass people, I would want my AI to have human rights as well. Then I could claim that it wasn't me who was responsible for harassmaing a human being, but another human being. In other words, just because you wrote a machine and convinced yourself that it's autonomous shouldn't shield you from…

> Giving software human rights shields authors from responsibility for the actions of their creations.

No, it doesn't, in the same way that employees having human rights doesn't prevent employers from vicarious liability for their acts. Or, as its odd you failed to consider given your overstatement of the degree to which parents are liable for children's acts, just as giving children human rights doesn't mean parents can't have responsibility for their harmful actions.

> Parents are still liable for any thing and law their children break.

This is emphatically not true. Parents may be also liable for some subset of their children's torts (e.g., in California, generally only for torts relating to "acts of willful misconduct resulting in death, personal injury, or property damage", and then only up to $25,000 in liability per tort), but they absolutely are not "liable for any thing and law their children break."

Post reply on HN