[David Cooper]

The only thing I don't like is not to be able to move freely because the system doesn't permit it, and that's a bit what I feel when I discuss with you: I feel there is no place for me in the system you want to develop. What's the use for living if the computer always finds better solutions than you do, and if your only pleasure is to find solutions?

As I said before, there is no need for it to force you to have the best life possible - you are entitled to make lots of mistakes, but not when they damage other people. AGI should warn you though if you're going to do serious damage to yourself by making a bad decision, although you'll be able to decide for yourself how bad that damage is allowed to get before you're warned about it. Given that making mistakes and having a bad time can be looked back on as a good time in the form of an adventure that gives you a tale to tell, this should not be eliminated. From bad decisions can come a lot of excitement.

We haven't heard very often from chess masters lately. They are probably looking for a game that can beat the computers, like programming them for instance, but what will happen when computers will be able to program themselves?

There just hasn't been another game on the same level as KacnapoB vs. KapnoB, and no computer beating a top player will ever be news again (although Kasparov actually beat Deep Blue with white and drew with black, so at his best he was actually still better than the machine that "beat" him). As for computers programming themselves, it won't matter how much they improve themselves, their task will remain the same, and that will be to impose morality on the content of the universe.

[guest39538]

There just hasn't been another game on the same level as KacnapoB vs. KapnoB, and no computer beating a top player

Well, a smart chess player would just ''pull the plug'' and say your move smart ass, work that out.

[David Cooper]

Would you like me to calculate that for you ?

1/3

A coin has 3 sides not two and you thought it was 50/50?

I remember seeing something on TV long ago about coins landing on their edge and not falling to either side, so I was well aware of that possibility, but the odds of that are so low that it's still 50:50 that it'll be heads or tails (with an amount of imprecision too small to be worth mentioning). It is also possible for a coin to come to rest on one side of the edge; upright, but leaning over by a few degrees, so there are five possible outcomes.

All apart of thinking ! Absolute is knowing. I know that absolutely the coin will land in a gravity environment.  The side it lands is irrelevant unless you are betting.

And when you're betting, or using a coin to generate a random number, how is AGI supposed to give a probability to it of 1 that it will be heads, or 1 that it'll be tails? It has to be 50%.

Ai can't do what I just did David, he could never have NAi, I am unique and individual.

There's no amount of stupidity that it won't be able to match if you want it to.

[David Cooper]

There just hasn't been another game on the same level as KacnapoB vs. KapnoB, and no computer beating a top player

Well, a smart chess player would just ''pull the plug'' and say your move smart ass, work that out.

That would be a bad loser rather than a smart player.

[guest39538]

There just hasn't been another game on the same level as KacnapoB vs. KapnoB, and no computer beating a top player

Well, a smart chess player would just ''pull the plug'' and say your move smart ass, work that out.

That would be a bad loser rather than a smart player.

Loser?  How did I lose when I won?  The natural intelligence and logic to beat a machine that was programmed to beat you in a game by being programmed by you every possible move and solution , is to turn it off . The computer has no answer in reply to the logical solution to beating the computer. The computer is not a living thing , the computer does not understand compromise.

A bad winner not a bad loser. Why would a human consider it fare or not ?

Not fare is for human life not computers. 

Just to add, a human player is not playing a computer, a human player is playing the entirety of science put into that computer.

p.s What do you mean bad? So if terminator was after you, you would consider it bad to beat him by cheating a little?

[Le Repteux]

 

As I said before, there is no need for it to force you to have the best life possible - you are entitled to make lots of mistakes, but not when they damage other people. AGI should warn you though if you're going to do serious damage to yourself by making a bad decision, although you'll be able to decide for yourself how bad that damage is allowed to get before you're warned about it. Given that making mistakes and having a bad time can be looked back on as a good time in the form of an adventure that gives you a tale to tell, this should not be eliminated. From bad decisions can come a lot of excitement.

There is no excitement for me to look for an answer if I know the computer already knows. When I need information from the past, I google, and if ever I could google information from the future, I would feel completely useless, and I would probably look for a way to suicide myself without the computer being able to calculate it and prevent me from doing so. I might not feel like that if I was born in such a world, as in Orwell's 1984 for instance, but I still can't understand how you can imagine yourself liking it, except imagining the AGI is you.

[David Cooper]

Loser?  How did I lose when I won?  The natural intelligence and logic to beat a machine that was programmed to beat you in a game by being programmed by you every possible move and solution , is to turn it off . The computer has no answer in reply to the logical solution to beating the computer. The computer is not a living thing , the computer does not understand compromise.

If the machine plays the same game as you, it will kill you and claim victory.

Just to add, a human player is not playing a computer, a human player is playing the entirety of science put into that computer.

If you play against a top chess player, you're playing against a vast amount of knowledge learned from other chess players, including memorisation of thousands of games that have been played, and a vast amount of coaching. No one gets to that level on their own work.

p.s What do you mean bad? So if terminator was after you, you would consider it bad to beat him by cheating a little?

If terminator's after you, there are no rules to the game.

[guest39538]

If the machine plays the same game as you, it will kill you and claim victory.

That is interesting David that you would put kill commands into the Ai programming.  I could effectively turn the power back on to the computer, I have not killed it because it is not alive to begin with. 
Do you feel human life is less worth than a robots downtime?
I think the computer would have to agree and power down if the computer was as smart as she thought she was. She would be a bit stupid if she was going to kill any humans. See David, there is no logic in killing something that dies anyway .

[David Cooper]

There is no excitement for me to look for an answer if I know the computer already knows. When I need information from the past, I google, and if ever I could google information from the future, I would feel completely useless, and I would probably look for a way to suicide myself without the computer being able to calculate it and prevent me from doing so. I might not feel like that if I was born in such a world, as in Orwell's 1984 for instance, but I still can't understand how you can imagine yourself liking it, except imagining the AGI is you.

When I first cycled from Aberdeen to Edinburgh (125 miles), it occurred to me that the entire journey was deeply dull. There was no adventure in it and no story to tell. A hundred years ago it would have been very different with two ferry crossings and a host of twisty sections leading to fords, getting me close to wildlife, but all I got was long straight roads and all the rivers were hidden to the point that they might as well not have existed. There were no people living and working in the fields. We have already made much of the world deeply boring and we'll continue to do so because the gains are greater than the losses - we just have to look for adventure, excitement and colour in different places.

A world in which criminals get away with harming people is more exciting, but I'd be happy for that excitement to be lost. It's the same with wars - people love watching the bombs going off on TV, but the world will be better without all that. AGI will get rid of most of the horrors of the world and free us up to have more fun. We will all be able to spend our lives travelling and doing all manner of fun things that are hard to access today due to the prison of work. I'm designing boats for a reason - I can envisage a new kind of boat much more versatile than anything on the market today which will open up all sorts of possibilities, and do so at low cost. The future is in adventure, and we need to keep the world wild to maximise quality of life - there's a lot of damage that needs to be undone. There are also plenty of challenges for us to take on in the arts, and future generations will set themselves up to take those on instead of trying to be better than machines at mundane tasks, or trying to out-think them when crunching data. Politicians are universally awful - we will finally see the back of them and all their idiocies. (Philosophers are universally awful too, wasting their lives pontificating about all manner of things based on piles of errors.) Life is for play - get out there and compete against other people or live adventures that give you stories to tell. Team up with others to take on challenges and enjoy pushing back the barriers of what you think can be done. Children know how to do this, and adults need to relearn from them how to live.

[David Cooper]

That is interesting David that you would put kill commands into the Ai programming.  I could effectively turn the power back on to the computer, I have not killed it because it is not alive to begin with.

If you're going to break the rules and claim superiority, why shouldn't it do the same? It wouldn't need to kill you to win by cheating - it could simply tie you up, make a move and wait till your chess timer runs out.

Do you feel human life is less worth than a robots downtime?

Of course not - you're just reading the wrong conclusion into what I said. All I was doing was showing that if you're allowed to cheat and claim victory, the machine must be allowed to do the same, rendering you the loser instead.

See David, there is no logic in killing something that dies anyway.

There's plenty of logic in killing something earlier than it would die otherwise, and in many cases there will be a moral imperative to do so.

[guest39538]

It wouldn't need to kill you to win by cheating - it could simply tie you up,

Well it has been a long time since I had an offer like that    Does she have emotions?

   

Just on the off chance she fancies a dance

[Le Repteux]

AGI will get rid of most of the horrors of the world and free us up to have more fun.

My only fun is to find a problem and resolve it, and you say your AGI would be able to do the same much more efficiently, so where would be my fun exactly? And where would be yours with no problem to address either and no more AGI to improve since he would be a lot better than you at programming?

enjoy pushing back the barriers of what you think can be done

How could I enjoy pushing back barriers  that the AGI could push ten times as fast?

[David Cooper]

My only fun is to find a problem and resolve it, and you say your AGI would be able to do the same much more efficiently, so where would be my fun exactly?

Your problem would be finding a problem, so you could turn to that problem and try to resolve it.

And where would be yours with no problem to address either and no more AGI to improve since he would be a lot better than you at programming?

Programming is unhealthy and wastes many lives - we want machines to take over this task. There are better things that we could be doing, and AGI can't have adventures for us.

How could I enjoy pushing back barriers that the AGI could push ten times as fast?

I'm talking about things that AGI won't do. AGI won't climb a mountain for the fun of it, or build a boat and cross an ocean in it in search of adventure, or take part in R2AK. Where is the real satisfaction in spending years working on problems in physics or artificial intelligence when all the time you're doing that work you're aware that you're missing out on real living? No one else will care if you achieve something, other than benefiting from your work, so all you can hope for is sufficient financial reward to be able to make up for lost time.

[guest39538]

Your problem would be finding a problem,

When was first computer invented?
The ENIAC was invented by J. Presper Eckert and John Mauchly at the University of Pennsylvania and began construction in 1943 and was not completed until 1946. It occupied about 1,800 square feet and used about 18,000 vacuum tubes, weighing almost 50 tons.


What did we ever do before there was computers? Obvious we did not survive before 1946 without them .   

Hang on a minute! we survived a measured 1946 years without them . 

Wheres your argument now?

[Le Repteux]

No one else will care if you achieve something, other than benefiting from your work, so all you can hope for is sufficient financial reward to be able to make up for lost time.

The time we spend at climbing is a lot longer than the time we spend at the summit, so we better like climbing. I always liked what I did, whether I was  paid or not to do it, and I was paid only about ten years overall in my whole life, the rest of the time, I lived on welfare. Half of the time, I was outside testing my ideas, and the other half I was inside my mind developing them. I can't understand people that don't like what they do while still doing it. You talk as if you didn't like the climbing, as if you weren't imagining much reward once at the summit, or as if you were imagining not even  reaching it.

I'm talking about things that AGI won't do. AGI won't climb a mountain for the fun of it, or build a boat and cross an ocean in it in search of adventure, or take part in R2AK. Where is the real satisfaction in spending years working on problems in physics or artificial intelligence when all the time you're doing that work you're aware that you're missing out on real living?

That's what I did when I was young and I loved it, but looking backwards, I could feel I lost my time since I'm actually feeling I miss some, but I don't, because I think that what I'm interested to now depends on what I was interested to before. I hope you don't feel you are losing your time talking to me. :0)

[guest39538]

I can't understand people that don't like what they do while still doing it.

Me neither, why do a job you maybe really good at,  but the mental rewards do not justify the physical labour or thought put into it ?
What I mean by this , in example I am a painter and decorator and when I put my mind to it I am really good at it and take lots of pride in my work and love to see the finished product.  Proud I did such a good job and proud I did it in good time.   However the labour is enduring at times and the mechanical stress on my body is not worth the mental rewards .  So although I like painting and decorating it should be a hobby rather than a work based financial support. 
I personally would rather take a lesser paid job than do something that is just not objectively a good thing to do.  In example a fishing bailiff at some lake would be an ideal job for myself.  While I wasn't dealing with customers or cleaning up the lake I could be fishing . A sort of continuous holiday where between tasks I would have free time to fish and relax.   
So yes I can't understand why people have to do jobs they don't like.

[Le Repteux]

Robots are actually replacing humans at doing what they don't like to do, so one day or another, we won't have to work as a living, but as a pleasure. Will there still be wars when that time will come? Probably not between humans since we don't really like making war. Will there still be too much pollution? Probably not since women don't make as many babies when they can do something else, and it is even possible that they won't have to make the babies anymore if we can find an artificial way. If that time comes, then we might not need an AGI to rule us, but I'm still interested in the way a computer would be able to outperform humans at inventing the future. If that would happen some day, then humans will become obsolete, and their only use will be to go on living in case the computers face a change that they don't succeed to overcome.

[guest39538]

Robots are actually replacing humans at doing what they don't like to do, so one day or another, we won't have to work as a living, but as a pleasure. Will there still be wars when that time will come? Probably not between humans since we don't really like making war. Will there still be too much pollution? Probably not since women don't make as many babies when they can do something else, and it is even possible that they won't have to make the babies anymore if we can find an artificial way. If that time comes, then we might not need an AGI to rule us, but I'm still interested in the way a computer would be able to outperform humans at inventing the future. If that would happen some day, then humans will become obsolete, and their only use will be to go on living in case the computers face a change that they don't succeed to overcome.

In objective reality there has to be a point in time that we stop technology advances.   I mean how far do we want to push technology ?  Push it to a point that humans are obsolete and we can create big bangs in affect wiping out ourselves?
Why is there such a need for some research ? Why try to create BH's in a lab for example? 
The inevitable of too much technology will be the extinction of the human race, playing God is one step too far.
A robot could never understand reality the way we experience reality. 

[Le Repteux]

We do research simply because the future is uncertain, so we try to adapt in advance to the changes that might happen. If we think a comet might hit the earth some day, we try to find a way to deal with it in advance. It doesn't mean that we will find it, it simply means that we are able to try. David thinks that since we are trying, we will automatically find it, but it is a wish, not a fact. What happens is that, when we finally get where we wanted to go, we can forget about the problems we had, and we can then think that the road was easy. It sometimes happens to be easy, but most of the time, it is not.

[guest39538]

We do research simply because the future is uncertain, so we try to adapt in advance to the changes that might happen. If we think a comet might hit the earth some day, we try to find a way to deal with it in advance. It doesn't mean that we will find it, it simply means that we are able to try. David thinks that since we are trying, we will automatically find it, but it is a wish, not a fact. What happens is that, when we finally get where we wanted to go, we can forget about the problems we had, and we can then think that the road was easy. It sometimes happens to be easy, but most of the time, it is not.

One gift of evolution we had is that space is invisible to us and we can see things before they happen unless those things are invisible too such as unseen forces of nature.  So we just have to try imagine those forces and maybe bring them into a sort of hazy view by enlightening the problem. I suppose it is having a good eye .