patrick.net

Heraclitusstudent says

Paradoxes don't happen in the physical universe, nor in arithmetic.

Only because the modernist/reductionist/positivist understanding of reality does not allow them.

Peter P says

However, concepts are not necessarily modeled in formal constructs.

You are aware that everything in the memory of a computer is a formal construct, right?

Heraclitusstudent says

Peter P says

However, concepts are not necessarily modeled in formal constructs.

You are aware that everything in the memory of a computer is a formal construct, right?

There are:

1. Constructs designed by human intelligence to implement AI, such as chips, memory, arrays, data structures

2. Constructs formed by AI to perceive/comprehend/reason/speculate

(2) are not necessarily formal structures.

For example, we need to use "formal constructs" to implement algorithms, e.g. a denoising autoencoder.

However, the machine does not need models about features to extract information regarding such features from an image.

Peter P says

2. Constructs formed by AI to perceive/comprehend/reason/speculate

(2) are not necessarily formal structures.

You don't know much about programming, do you?

Heraclitusstudent says

Peter P says

2. Constructs formed by AI to perceive/comprehend/reason/speculate

(2) are not necessarily formal structures.

You don't know much about programming, do you?

What kind of AI are you building?

Peter P says

What kind of AI are you building?

One based on programming structures, like other programs.

Peter P says

This is why we must live at the frontier of its development. He who controls AI controls the human destiny.

Not even sure if the frontier is needed. The current development of personal digital assistants, already have a lot of implementation arcs where in effect, an organization can add more work while also laying ppl off. In the past, that strategy usually failed because customers became aware that their support efforts went downhill, as well as the general quality of work. Thus, a loss of let's say 25% of a firm's staff, usually resulted in a loss of output. In only a few short years, it'll be more like a 25% layoff will not only add to the bottom line but also increased output for those who're left behind. Add a few more product generation cycles on this and soon, we'll have a very limited white collar workspace.

Heraclitusstudent says

Peter P says

What kind of AI are you building?

One based on programming structures, like other programs.

IMO, there are several types (stages) of Artificial Intelligence:

1. Programs (written in a programming language), you give the machine exact instructions to perform a task

2. Supervised Machine Learning, you teach a machine what things are

3. Unsupervised Machine Learning, the machine teaches itself with or without your guidance

Obviously, (3) is the most interesting because machines can move beyond its programming. This is where true emergence can occur.

Which one are you talking about?

There are other interesting views on intelligence. Some equate it with entropy maximization. Perhaps the universal will-to-power is all about maximizing future possibilities?

So exciting! :-)

This video is intriguing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL0Xq0FFQZ4

Rin says

Add a few more product generation cycles on this and soon, we'll have a very limited white collar workspace.

Pretty much jobs will no longer exist. Soon enough, machines can do practically anything a human can do, only better and cheaper. Moreover, self-replicating robotic law enforcement can maintain peace in ANY environment, effectively and without moral confusion.

It is going to be interesting. :-)

Peter P says

Obviously, (3) is the most interesting because machines can move beyond its programming. This is where true emergence can occur.

Which one are you talking about?

(2) and (3) are always included in (1). They are programs like any other.
(2) and (3) are both necessary for intelligence. They just play different roles.

Heraclitusstudent says

Peter P says

Obviously, (3) is the most interesting because machines can move beyond its programming. This is where true emergence can occur.

Which one are you talking about?

(2) and (3) are always included in (1). They are programs like any other.

(2) and (3) are both necessary for intelligence. They just play different roles.

Yes, they build on one another. (2) and (3) are programs but not in the same sense as (1). You as the programmer further removed from the problem (as its solver) in (2) and (3) then in (1).