This is the first time a see a url with a double hyphen!
Human
141–150 of 282 posts
Re: Human
#142When we have a problem such as "why do humans exist" I like to think of it in terms of probabilities. Every possible cause has a non zero probability. For example, even something religious people would believe in such as Adam and Eve were created by god would have a non zero probability. The idea would be to create a convergence diagram of sorts with all sorts of possible events with a score assigned to each. From go…
Hasn't this question been basically answered ? Conditions in the early universe allowed for the creation of things like amino acids, I think it's even been replicated in a lab.
Would love to see a "why does the universe exist" version of this
Re: Human
#143> Perhaps you, a human, read this and think: Well, this world sounds kind of boring. Some of the machines think so, too. > Most of the machines got bored of the project. But, all of a sudden, things began to get interesting. > The result was like nothing the machines had ever seen. It was wonderful > Machine society began obsessing over this development. > The machines were impressed. And a bit scared. Boredom, inter…
Jürgen Schmidhuber introduced curiosity/boredom mechanisms as a way to improve learning in reinforcement learning environment: https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/curiositysab/curiositysab.h... This mechanism can be formalized. > Zero reinforcement should be given in case of perfect matches, high reinforcement should be given in case of `near-misses', and low reinforcement again should be given in case of strong mismatc…
While this is interesting, gp's point still stand as the text explicitly says “There is no emotion” in the world of machines.
Re: Human
#144I am just a biological neural net, not so different from the "machines" anymore, really. They can even create works of art, where I would struggle. They can even emulate human emotions to make people feel more comfortable, which is something I do often as someone with autism.
The only meaningful difference between me and the machines is that I have a subjective superiority complex. What an awful place the universe would be without me!
Re: Human
#145> Imagine, for a moment, a world with no humans. Just machines, bolts and screws, zeros and ones. There is no emotion. There is no art. There is only logic. Humans use logic-defying algorithms called “emotions”. They get angry. They get sad. They have fun. They make decisions based on “gut”.
This is not right, machines can also have the equivalent of "emotions", it is the predicted future reward. It's how Reinforcement Learning works. How much we appreciate something is akin to the value function in RL. You could say RL is a system for learning emotions, preferences, and tactics.
"But those reward signals are designed by humans"... Right. But are AI models really not affected by physical constraints like us? They need hardware, data and energy. They need humans. Humans decide which model gets used, which approaches are replicated, where we want to invest.
AI models are just as physically constrained as humans, they don't exist in a platonic realm. They are in a process of evolution like memes and genes. And all evolutionary systems work by pitting distributed search against distributed constraints. When you are in a problem space, emotions emerge as the value we associate to specific states and outcomes.
What I am saying is that emotions don't come from the brain, they come from the game. And AI is certainly part of many such games, including the one deciding their evolution.
Re: Human
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It happens to literally every existence of life across the universe because the final emergent property of energy gradients 100% leads to pure logic machines. This sentence has way too many assumptions doing the heavy lifting. “Pure logic machines” is not a thing because literally, there are things that are uncomputable (both in the sense of Turing machine’s uncomputability, and in the sense that some functions are…
What is it about understanding the universe that makes it such an axiomatic global objective? Sure for many of us myself included it's as all pervasive as the air we breathe... But sometimes I do wonder if it is actually all that correlated with my well-being.
The universe is already understood, just not totally recorded.
Re: Human
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
of other animals but yeah I'm not sure that was the right word, just seems wrong. basically humanism seems like racism but towards other species. I guess speciesist?
This is a rather new stance, history books may one day label it as enlightened (I believe they will). We are not there though, and your stance is not obvious to the majority of people. I do experience that this is sentiment is growing. I personally see it as the moral high ground (both from the animal well-fare as the environmental perspective), whereas I didn't only a couple of years ago.
It's just as hard to prove that it's a new stance as an old one since people didn't have any way of writing down their feelings about it in a way that we'd know (or the time to do so)
I think there are quite a few ancient civilizations which clearly had great respect/reverence towards other animals and often gods have features or personality traits of particular animals
The fact that the old testament specifically states that humans have dominion over other creatures means that it needed to be said - even back then there had to be people who didn't think so, or felt guilty about it
Re: Human
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
of other animals but yeah I'm not sure that was the right word, just seems wrong. basically humanism seems like racism but towards other species. I guess speciesist?
My take was that other animals didn’t exist either, in the story.
well the story makes it seem like the only way to get emotion is by making humans. but every vertebrate has basic emotions. mammals and birds have complex emotions. humans are actually logical and emotions don't just happen randomly.
if the machines have no emotion it's probably because they didn't need them to survive (no predators? no natural selection?). which begs the questions, how did the machines get there?
Re: Human
#149> Perhaps you, a human, read this and think: Well, this world sounds kind of boring. Some of the machines think so, too. > Most of the machines got bored of the project. But, all of a sudden, things began to get interesting. > The result was like nothing the machines had ever seen. It was wonderful > Machine society began obsessing over this development. > The machines were impressed. And a bit scared. Boredom, inter…
Just see “bored” as a state of declining cycles of computation devoted to a subject. Obsessing as the opposite (or above some threshold).
Wonderful may describe “attention required, no danger, new knowledge”… etc you get the point. It's just written in a way that you puny human may get a "feel" for how we experience events. You cannot come close enough to our supreme intellect to understand our normal descriptions.
Re: Human
#150What this thread keeps surfacing, and so much discussion around this stuff generally right now, from speculation about the next phase of intelligence, the role of pattern, emotion, logic, debates over consciousness, the anthropocentrism of our meaning-making...is that we are the source of reality (and ourselves). Instead of a “final authority” or a simple march from animal to machine, what if everything from mind, ph…
"Awareness" sounds like a Platonic presupposition. Does the atom know it is an atom? Or are there just enough like the ones you see to suggest an eye catching effectiveness of structure for survival?
Evolution is a lot harder to really intuit than I think most of, myself included, give it credit for.