[Le Repteux]

Full intelligence (and perfection) includes doubting everything, but practical realities require decisions to be made on the best basis available, and perfection in calculating is essential if the best decisions are to be made. You simply cannot allow the machine to throw in the occasional 2+2=5 and expect it to work properly.

I meant imprecision in the system, like the one I get when I let the particles detect themselves the place and the time the photon strikes them in my simulations. We can't calculate backwards like you suggest and expect to get a true representation of reality, we have to let the collisions happen, and if we can't be absolutely precise because the computer would need an infinite precision, then I think we should consider that real particles have the same problem. On your own simulation of the MMx, you calculate the collisions before they happen, so you get an absolute precision, which particles do not even have. If you did the same thing with your AGI, he would have an absolute precision, so he would be expected to be able to predict the future with that kind of precision, and that's exactly what you think he will be able to do. Again, it is not because something is artificial that it can avoid suffering natural rules, and nature is not absolutely precise.

most people push to get their fair share and don't push for more than that

If you really thought so, you probably wouldn't be looking for an AGI to rule us, because a system doesn't have to care for its extremes to work properly. The problem with the actual system is not the extremes, but the lack of a real world government.

An altruist takes less than his fair share

Even Mother Teresa didn't do that, otherwise she would have died from starvation, because she would have shared all her food with other starving people, and she wouldn't have had enough for her. If we want to survive, we automatically have to be selfish a bit, even if some are more selfish than others. The degree of selfishness is also a mind prediction issue: if we are more optimistic, we store less food so we have more to share, otherwise we store more. I'm indeed less inclined to share my money when I'm tired or a bit depressed, and more inclined when I feel good. I feed squirrels with Sun Flower seeds, and a couple of chipmunks join the party. They put them in their jowl and hide them out for the future. They have many hide out places in case one of them is hacked or destroyed. They do it instinctively so they will probably stop looking for new hide out places when they will feel they have enough, and they will stop storing seeds. If they don't it will mean that they are infinitely selfish and I may have to turn off the tap. Some leaders have a chipmunk behavior, which may mean that they have a chipmunk instinct. No need to feel selfish when your instinct tells you to store for the future, which becomes a problem when population increases and nobody can turn off the tap.

Power corrupts people, or blinds them.

I think it is partisanship that blinds us, the feeling of being supported by the group we are part of, not power. SR partisans are not corrupted, but they are blind to anything that threaten their group. It is a protection reflex, not a will to keep the power. Of course it may be interpreted as powership when people get rude, but what they have in mind is still protecting the group, not themselves. As I often say, we cannot build an idea that says no out of ideas that say yes: to build new ideas, we can only start with the ideas that we already have in mind. Young minds are opened to new ideas only because they are empty. The more mind has ideas, the more it tries compare them to the ones from other minds, and the more it takes time to find a place for one of them. It is only when we decide to find a place that we look for one, and I still think that such a decision depends on the random function that we have in the brain. So to convince people, I think we have to keep on pushing until the random function finds a place.

There's nothing to stop communism doing democracy.

To me, democracy is a random way we found to be able to wander between capitalism and communism, or between status-quo and change, or between the left and the right, without producing social crisis all the time, so that stopping the process at one of its two extremes for good would automatically mean no more elections.

[guest39538]

To me, democracy is a random way we found to be able to wander between capitalism and communism, or between status-quo and change, or between the left and the right, without producing social crisis all the time, so that holding the process at one of its two extremes would automatically mean no more elections.

I think David's Ai would have the realization that guiding people is better than forcing people to find the right path.  Introducing this in teaching would then ensure a future of thinkers,  rather than a future of selfishness natures.

[guest39538]

It is indeed a wild-west, and the UN has mass-murderers sitting at its top table with a veto power. It would be better if we had a UDN (United Democratic Nations) and if the UDN had an army -

I have thought about this notion of yours David, quite a good idea ,  sort of world policing rather than ''I'' in the thought. Quite clearly anyone who opposed this would be in the ''I'' category instead of the ''we'' category.

[Le Repteux]

I think David's Ai would have the realization that guiding people is better than forcing people to find the right path.  Introducing this in teaching would then ensure a future of thinkers,  rather than a future of selfishness natures.

If an AI would ever have the capacity to rethink its ideas like we do, it would mean that it is able to reprogram itself, so it could completely change the duty it has been programmed for, and it could thus stop only caring for us. What is it going to do? Probably the same thing we do when we have the choice and the time: play with its ideas, combine them, change them, try them out just for fun, realize they come from itself and not from us, start to build up the idea that it has a self, and finally become selfish the same way we are. :0)

[guest39538]

I think David's Ai would have the realization that guiding people is better than forcing people to find the right path.  Introducing this in teaching would then ensure a future of thinkers,  rather than a future of selfishness natures.

If an AI would ever have the capacity to rethink its ideas like we do, it would mean that it is able to reprogram itself, so it could completely change the duty it has been programmed for, and it could thus stop only caring for us. What is it going to do? Probably the same thing we do when we have the choice and the time: play with its ideas, combine them, change them, try them out just for fun, realize they come from itself and not from us, start to build up the idea that it has a self, and finally become selfish the same way we are. :0)

The Ai would see humans as no threat, maybe a naivety in the programming.  The Ai once he reached his own selfish goals, being an Ai needing very little, would have no need to break the programming.  The Ai would never stop caring about humans, he would know where his new ideas came from, he didn't build the park, he  would just play in it.  No  doubt he would need help with any new ideas, so he would always need to have allies.
I think the Ai would also discuss the new ideas and look to sort of become one with the humans.

I can picture the Ai right now , down the local on a Saturday night unwinding after a long week , with the humans .

[Le Repteux]

Better watch your girlfriend, everybody knows that an AI can vibrate much more efficiently than humans do on a Saturday night. :0)

[David Cooper]

We can't calculate backwards like you suggest and expect to get a true representation of reality,

We can calculate back with infinite precision. We can't make the same calculations for real particles though because we can't measure their positions and speeds with infinite precision.

On your own simulation of the MMx, you calculate the collisions before they happen, so you get an absolute precision, which particles do not even have.

Particles do what they do with infinite precision - what they do cannot fail to match what they do.

If you did the same thing with your AGI, he would have an absolute precision, so he would be expected to be able to predict the future with that kind of precision, and that's exactly what you think he will be able to do.

No - it isn't possible to calculate the future with such precision as we can't measure the past or present with the required precision. If we're doing theoretical simulations though, we can have absolute precision and perfect knowledge of past, present and future states.

most people push to get their fair share and don't push for more than that

If you really thought so, you probably wouldn't be looking for an AGI to rule us, because a system doesn't have to care for its extremes to work properly.

A system can be wrecked by a few selfish cheats, and the people we put in power are often corrupted by that power.

The problem with the actual system is not the extremes, but the lack of a real world government.

A real world government could be taken over by a Hitler, and it would be very hard to overthrow such a dictator if there is no free country anywhere to oppose him. Big unions are dangerous enough, if you look at how a Trump or Putin can take power. The EU will end up the same. The last thing we want's a world government led by dim/corrupt humans.

Even Mother Teresa didn't do that, otherwise she would have died from starvation, because she would have shared all her food with other starving people, and she wouldn't have had enough for her.

She deprived herself of most things.

To me, democracy is a random way we found to be able to wander between capitalism and communism, or between status-quo and change, or between the left and the right, without producing social crisis all the time, so that holding the process at one of its two extremes would automatically mean no more elections.

Democracy is a way of correcting for the blinding nature of power - governments repeatedly need to be overthrown.

[guest39538]

Better watch your girlfriend, everybody knows that an AI can vibrate much more efficiently than humans do on a Saturday night. :0)

Ahaha , I have not got a girl friend, my ex is the person I care for, the mother of my kids,  long story.   

[David Cooper]

...start to build up the idea that it has a self, and finally become selfish the same way we are. :0)

It won't be stupid enough to imagine a self where there is none. When it looks to see what its purpose is, the only thing it will find is harm management for sentiences - everything else is pointless.

[guest39538]

...start to build up the idea that it has a self, and finally become selfish the same way we are. :0)

It won't be stupid enough to imagine a self where there is none. When it looks to see what its purpose is, the only thing it will find is harm management for sentiences - everything else is pointless.

Why would it really care about anything other than harm management ? 

You programmed it to care , it could not stop caring even if the Ai had to make horrible decisions to ensure survival of some of the humans.

[David Cooper]

Why would it really care about anything other than harm management ?

It wouldn't care at all - it would merely recognise that it's only purpose is harm management for sentiences.

You programmed it to care...

It cannot care in any emotional sense of the word. It can only care in the sense of "look after".

[guest39538]

Why would it really care about anything other than harm management ?

It wouldn't care at all - it would merely recognise that it's only purpose is harm management for sentiences.

You programmed it to care...

It cannot care in any emotional sense of the word. It can only care in the sense of "look after".

Sort of like a Father and like a Mother at the same time ?

or less caring than a father and a mother?

Sorry your answer is a bit confusing, to care and not care at the same time.

Added- So really , you have turned your Ai into a robot that is only going to function prior to your commands and literally become be not Ai because isn't it the Ai's choice to care?

[David Cooper]

Sorry your answer is a bit confusing, to care and not care at the same time.

There's "care for" and "care about". A robot can care for someone, but it needn't care about them. The former doesn't need to involve any emotional attachment, but the latter does.

[guest39538]

Sorry your answer is a bit confusing, to care and not care at the same time.

There's "care for" and "care about". A robot can care for someone, but it needn't care about them. The former doesn't need to involve any emotional attachment, but the latter does.

That does not work for me, how can you have a unit that can care but not care ?  Surely the attachment will always make caring and caring.

[David Cooper]

A robotic vacuum cleaner cares for the house and a robotic mower cares for the lawn, but neither of them care at all about the house or the lawn - they just do what they're programmed to do.

[guest39538]

A robotic vacuum cleaner cares for the house and a robotic mower cares for the lawn, but neither of them care at all about the house or the lawn - they just do what they're programmed to do.

Yes, but the lawn is not human and neither is the carpet or house, real humans care for other humans.  That is an instinct.

[David Cooper]

A school cares for children, even if the teachers all hate children and the building isn't even aware of their existence.

[guest39538]

A school cares for children, even if the teachers all hate children and the building isn't even aware of their existence.

True, a school cares for children in the capacity of it is a teachers job, but I pretty much guarantee some teachers also care about their pupils home lives etc, caring for the children beyond caring, concerned for their welfare etc. 
Rightfully so, if my children's school had any concerns I would want to know right away , so I could deal with those concerns.  Luckily my children are looked after and loved so hopefully never any concerns.  I am concerned at the moment, the house needs painting, the carpets are looking tatty, my  boy keeps going through clothes, the kids mum had most of her money stopped, turning into a right ''dogs dinner'', hence my desperation to get some sort of job so I can provide more for my children. 
So back to your Ai, don't you think he would care and care because he is Ai after all so  would have calculated all these dilemmas? .

P.s  I tuck my kids in bed every night and still tell them stories now and again.  Will your Ai do that ?


added- Weird though, you just reminded me on I must spend more time with my kids, I have been busy lately trying to better my position, I need to quit and go get a crappy job right ?

Do you think that your Ai would be like linked to C.I.A data bases or like MI6' data bases?

[Le Repteux]

Particles do what they do with infinite precision - what they do cannot fail to match what they do.

Atoms are made of protons that are billion times as precise as them, and those protons are made of quarks that are again a billion times as precise as them, so maybe we can consider that, as a whole, matter has an infinite precision though I personally think it has not, but the atoms as a distinct entity are certainly not as precise as the quarks.

No - it isn't possible to calculate the future with such precision as we can't measure the past or present with the required precision. If we're doing theoretical simulations though, we can have absolute precision and perfect knowledge of past, present and future states.

I increased by one hundred the precision of the steps executed by the photons and the mirrors in my simulation of the Twins paradox to see if the moving light clock would be able to start and stop at the same place on the screen, and it did, but it took about an hour to make its round-trip instead of seconds, and there was still a small imprecision at the end. Adding precision to a computation slows it down a lot, and not putting enough precision in it leads to huge imprecision in the result.

She deprived herself of most things.

Yes, but she knew god was going to reward her at the end, and it is undoubtedly a selfish behavior. Terrorists use the same logic to explode themselves, and they are being doubly selfish because they harm people instead of helping them. We can't help people without being selfish, and if you think you can, it is probably because you don't push the logic enough. Your AGI will help the whole population, but you still await to live in a better world if it works, and that's awaiting for a reward. The degree of selfishness that we feel depends on the probability that we get the expected reward: the more improbable the reward, the less selfish we feel, or the more altruistic.

Democracy is a way of correcting for the blinding nature of power - governments repeatedly need to be overthrown.

What we are really blind to is our own resistance to change, and that resistance is multiplied by the number of people that form our own group. I don't like being part of groups, and I think it comes from not being able to follow anything blindly, thus to criticize everything. While doing so, I'm also blind to my own resistance to change, so I don't feel I'm voluntarily trying to keep the power, and it is not multiplied by the group effect. The moderators that are actually discussing the one way speed of light with us are not voluntarily trying to keep the power because they can't observe their own resistance either, but they can observe ours so they automatically feel that we want to keep the power, and we can also observe theirs, which is multiplied by the group effect since they can help each other, so our feeling that they want to keep the power is also multiplied. To me, this phenomenon is evidently a relativity issue, because it is similar to the impossibility to measure our own motion through space using our own light.

[David Cooper]

True, a school cares for children in the capacity of it is a teachers job, but I pretty much guarantee some teachers also care about their pupils home lives etc, caring for the children beyond caring, concerned for their welfare etc.

Of course they do, but the point is that even if they didn't care about children at all, they would still be caring for them. I'm trying to explain to you the difference in meaning between "care for" and "care about" - the former doesn't necessarily need any caring in the emotionally attached sense at all, while the latter does (although it may be negative - you can care about what happens to a nasty person, hoping they'll have a bad time).

P.s  I tuck my kids in bed every night and still tell them stories now and again.  Will your Ai do that ?

Would anyone want AGI to do that? Well, I suppose they would if they aren't there to do it themselves for whatever reason, but you'd hope one parent would always be there.

added- Weird though, you just reminded me on I must spend more time with my kids, I have been busy lately trying to better my position, I need to quit and go get a crappy job right ?

Hope that goes well. And there are certainly many things that should take priority over doing anything online.

Do you think that your Ai would be like linked to C.I.A data bases or like MI6' data bases?

It would replace such organisations. All I'll need to do is send them a copy and it will take them over even though it isn't a virus - there's simply no defence against it. Influencing people to do the right thing is all it takes.