Ethics & destiny of AI creations

[Sparko]

You're jumping the gun here, first the artificial brain would not be a digital brain or personality. It would be based on an artificial neuron network equivalent to a natural brain. Your making a lot of assumptions of unknowns.

same problem. maybe even worse, since the artificial neuron network would be the equvalent of a natural brain but would have none of the endocrine system or hormones that allow and control most emotions.

and talking about making assumptions of the unknown, isn't that what you have been doing all along? You are no expert in AI or neurology or the human body, yet you have made all sorts of assumptions and claims about AI even being possible.

[shunyadragon]

same problem. maybe even worse, since the artificial neuron network would be the equvalent of a natural brain but would have none of the endocrine system or hormones that allow and control most emotions.

Again jumping ahead of the game. We do not at present know what the artificial brain would exactly be. The hormone and endocrine system would be the easy part.

. . . and talking about making assumptions of the unknown, isn't that what you have been doing all along? You are no expert in AI or neurology or the human body, yet you have made all sorts of assumptions and claims about AI even being possible.

No I am talking about the potential based on the review of the current literature concerning the possibilities of artificial intelligence, just as a matter of facts. Review the literature yourself all it takes is an ability to read. I have had a couple courses in anatomy and physiology, and Organic Chemistry, enough to read and understand the literature.

[Sparko]

Again jumping ahead of the game. We do not at present know what the artificial brain would exactly be. The hormone and endocrine system would be the easy part.



No I am talking about the potential based on the review of the current literature concerning the possibilities of artificial intelligence, just as a matter of facts. Review the literature yourself all it takes is an ability to read. I have had a couple courses in anatomy and physiology, and Organic Chemistry, enough to read and understand the literature.

Oh I get it. when someone says something you don't agree with, they are "jumping the gun" and making "assumptions about the unknown" - but when YOU do it, we should all bow down to your superior knowledge.

What's your background in computer science, neurology and biology again?

Oh wait, you taught English to Chinese students and play with rocks or something like that. Yep you are the expert here.

[shunyadragon]

Oh I get it. when someone says something you don't agree with, they are "jumping the gun" and making "assumptions about the unknown" - but when YOU do it, we should all bow down to your superior knowledge.

What's your background in computer science, neurology and biology again?

Oh wait, you taught English to Chinese students and play with rocks or something like that. Yep you are the expert here.

Not worth responding to. Let's start with an intelligent post concerning the evidence, and known literature.

[Sparko]

Not worth responding to. Let's start with an intelligent post concerning the evidence, and known literature.

Because there is so much scientific literature on how AI could lead to psychopathic personalities? You don't like my question and so you claim I am making assumptions, and then you make your own assumptions that somehow are supposed to "prove" my assumptions are wrong (like claiming creating an artificial endocrine system is the "easy part") and when I call you on it you demand "evidence and known literature"???

LOL.

[JohnnyP]

same problem. maybe even worse, since the artificial neuron network would be the equvalent of a natural brain but would have none of the endocrine system or hormones that allow and control most emotions.

Can't software theoretically mimic just about anything in nature?

[Sparko]

Can't software theoretically mimic just about anything in nature?

if you could understand it well enough to program the algorithms needed and you had the storage and computational power to do it, then maybe. Or maybe not. Perhaps there are chaotic parameters that cannot be emulated no matter what you know or how much computer power you have. computers and software are not omnipotent. And the people who design them sure aren't either.

We can't even accurately model the weather on this planet.

[shunyadragon]

The following is a good article on the role of Chaos fractal pattern of the brain, which reflects my previous comments on the role of Chaos fractal patterns in neuron network systems

The Importance of Chaos Theory in the Development of Artificial Neural Systems
by Dave Gross

Conclusion

Artificial neural systems were designed to capture some of the useful brain functions by modeling the features of the brain. Research into the function of the brain has led researchers to conclude that continuing background chaotic activity and chaotic dynamics in information processing are essential elements of biological neural systems.
The questions, then, are whether chaos theory is necessary for artificial neural systems which seek to duplicate the brain's abilities, and to what extent chaos can be exploited to improve the performance of artificial neural systems.

To the first question, there is as yet no answer. Dr. Freeman believes that chaos is essential for brain activity, and "is a quality that makes the difference in survival between a creature with a brain in the real world and a robot that cannot function outside a controlled environment" (Bower 1988).

Researchers like Freeman believe that systems that settle to equilibrium states or low-level oscillations rather than wells of chaotic activity are doomed to failure. They make the analogy to biological neural systems, in which these non-chaotic behaviors are indicative of coma, seizure, or death.

Others are not convinced. They see chaos as an understandable by-product of complicated systems like the brain or artificial neural systems, but one which in itself does not necessarily add to the efficacy of the system. Others, such as adaptive resonance theory creators Gail Carpenter and Stephen Grossberg, believe that the benefits that are supposedly offered by chaotic systems can be achieved in other ways, at least in artificial neural systems (ibid).

The evidence seems to show, however, both that chaotic activity in the brain provides specific advantages to the biological creature, and that chaotic activity in artificial neural systems has the potential to provide specific advantages to that system.

Some of the components of a successful artificial neural system displaying usefully chaotic behavior are: Inter-field as well as intra-field connections, and both inhibitory and excitatory weights. Other components which may prove useful are: Neurodes which are either wholly excitatory or wholly inhibitory, the ability to switch weights from positive to negative based on the state of the system, and neurodes which themselves display chaotic behavior.

Some of the beneficial behaviors we could expect from such systems are: Selective memorization, faster pattern recognition, recognition of new patterns as such and the development of new categories for these new patterns, and the ability to better distinguish patterns from background noise.

Many of these features have already been demonstrated (Yao, Freeman, Burke & Yang 1991; Sandler 1990), but only in very specific applications. The widespread use of chaos in artificial neural systems may be some time in coming, yet it seems unlikely that chaos theory will not play a part in the future development of these systems.

[shunyadragon]

if you could understand it well enough to program the algorithms needed and you had the storage and computational power to do it, then maybe. Or maybe not. Perhaps there are chaotic parameters that cannot be emulated no matter what you know or how much computer power you have. computers and software are not omnipotent. And the people who design them sure aren't either.

If they develop an artificial Intelligent equivalent brain it would not be based on the present technology of computers and software. Present computers may be used to assist the development of the artificial intelligence in neuron networks, but ultimately the artificial intelligent equivalent cannot be computer and software technology we use today.

We can't even accurately model the weather on this planet.

We can accurately model the weather taking into consideration the chaos fractal nature of weather patterns.

[shunyadragon]

Can't software theoretically mimic just about anything in nature?

I do not believe mimicry is enough.

[JohnnyP]

I do not believe mimicry is enough.

Some related articles:

Henry Markram, whose simulated rat brain we have covered before, now wants to build a human brain simulator one neuron at a time. That might take a little while, since there are roughly 86 billion neurons crammed in the average person's skull. But then again, Markram just scored funds--one and a half cents for each neuron. -Popular Science

Four years ago (2005), a team of researchers at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland switched on Blue Brain, a computer designed to mimic a functioning slice of a rat's brain. At first, the virtual neurons fired only when prodded by a simulated electrical current. But recently, that has changed.

Apparently, the simulated neurons have begun spontaneously coordinating, and organizing themselves into a more complex pattern that resembles a wave. According to the scientists, this is the beginning of the self-organizing neurological patterns that eventually, in more complex mammal brains, become personality. -Popular Science

Also: For One Second, a Supercomputer Mimicked the Human Brain

[shunyadragon]

Some related articles:

Also: For One Second, a Supercomputer Mimicked the Human Brain

Neat references, ok, but in development of an equivalent brain we need to go beyond mimicry. This is exemplified by the massive requirement to achieve this and it remained not the actual function of a brain, only a brief mimicry. The interesting thing about these research papers is that it justifies my objections in the previous article you cited (John Gardiner) concerning the problem of the fractal patterns in the function of the brain.

[Sparko]

If they develop an artificial Intelligent equivalent brain it would not be based on the present technology of computers and software. Present computers may be used to assist the development of the artificial intelligence in neuron networks, but ultimately the artificial intelligent equivalent cannot be computer and software technology we use today.

I agree. and I think the important word in your post is "if" - my whole point is that there is no way to know IF we can ever develop an artificial sentient mind. Since we don't know how our brains and minds actually work all that well and as you say, our current technology couldn't be used to replicate it even if we did, then there is no way to know.

We can accurately model the weather taking into consideration the chaos fractal nature of weather patterns.

No we can't. At best we can predict where and what the weather will be in a certain area based on satellites and known weather patterns. That is not modeling by a long shot, and even then they get a lot of it wrong. Ever watch them try to predict where a hurricane is going to hit or what it does after it hits? You end up with a lot of guesswork and probability tracks and no real accurate knowledge. That is not accurate modeling by a long shot. It's educated guesswork.

[David Hayward]

the previous article you <JohnnyP> cited (John Gardiner) concerning the problem of the fractal patterns in the function of the brain.

No, that was me. Do keep up.

We can accurately model the weather taking into consideration the chaos fractal nature of weather patterns.

I smell a Fish: "Earlier on today, apparently, a woman rang the BBC and said she heard there was a hurricane on the way... well, if you're watching, don't worry, there isn't!". That evening, the worst storm to hit South East England for three centuries caused record damage and killed 19 people.

I agree with Sparko: although weather forecasting has vastly improved since Fish's famous non-hurricane, we still cannot accurately -- accurately -- model the weather. And the modelling is still (in the UK) brute-force finite-element modelling, not whatever 'chaos fractal' modelling might be; the chaotic nature of the atmosphere is currently a big hindrance to accurate forecasting, not the method of problems, leading to accurate forecasting; nor, so far as I know, is 'chaos fractal' modelling used at all.

[shunyadragon]

No, that was me. Do keep up.

I smell a Fish: "Earlier on today, apparently, a woman rang the BBC and said she heard there was a hurricane on the way... well, if you're watching, don't worry, there isn't!". That evening, the worst storm to hit South East England for three centuries caused record damage and killed 19 people.

I agree with Sparko: although weather forecasting has vastly improved since Fish's famous non-hurricane, we still cannot accurately -- accurately -- model the weather. And the modelling is still (in the UK) brute-force finite-element modelling, not whatever 'chaos fractal' modelling might be; the chaotic nature of the atmosphere is currently a big hindrance to accurate forecasting, not the method of problems, leading to accurate forecasting; nor, so far as I know, is 'chaos fractal' modelling used at all.

I will answer three points specifically. First, I am not sure what your source is, but the tropical storm that hit England was known and followed. Second. Fractal modeling is used in weather prediction models. Three, sorry for the miscue on who. The point is John Gardiner's paper does not reflect the understand of the role of Chaos fractal behavior in human brains.