Artificial Intelligence - Technology and Ethics

Canth · 2002-06-02 09:10:53

I think there is no need for true artificial intelligence in the sense of an artificial human. What would be useful is very sophisticated and powertful computing devices cabable of analyzing and making decisions based on external stimuli to run robots etc.
A machine which simulates human emotions is pointless for work needs, emotions makes it erratic, and we don't even know the basic premise of emotions in the human brain. The only use of such a robot would be amusement. Artificial intelligences which do not fullfill any human needs or interests or could become dangerous should be banned. Robots and computers for amusement should be kept docile and safe. That shouldn't be terribly difficult.
I think a hive mind would be a great idea to make artificial intelligence more effecient and coordinated. Is that what you meant by insect like Josh?

Josh Cryer · 2002-06-02 11:10:32

Whoa! So weird! Phobos had actually posted, and I'd responded to his comments about human-like AI. But his post is decidedly gone now! Spooky...

I think a hive mind would be a great idea to make artificial intelligence more effecient and coordinated. Is that what you meant by insect like Josh?

Yeah, that's a good example. Look at what bees can build without any significant central intelligence at all. You have bees building nests, bees gathering pollen and making honey, and bees making more bees to continue the cycle. I don't see why we can't have such AI organization in the future. I think it would be fantastic to build a structure purely with robots. (How about building a hive? Bee logic is relatively easy! Just make sure we control the ?queen? and all is well.).

I think AI would make good slaves, without requiring us to address the question as to whether or not we can use it as such (I use the word slave here, but a more appropriate term would be ?extension?). Having conscious AIs would bring up too many questions than it would answer. I'm not saying we throw away that development, of course. I'm just saying its usefulness is more metaphysical (and perhaps dangerous) than simpler AIs.

Edit: Now my post is gone... ####...

This is what I said before (still have it in my cache- I wouldn't recommend replying until Adrian fixes it! )

Some say never. But I feel we're getting close.
Although, I personally don't feel it's necessary to create actual intelligence, with human-like characteristics. I mean, what happens when machines decide they want rights too?
If you remember, Skynet got mad because we were going to shut it down in Terminator 2. Wouldn't you be pissed if you were alive (in whatever manner you wish to consider it) and someone basically said you had no right to live?
I think AI should go in a more insect-like direction. We really don't need a ?conscious? robots to do most tasks AI can assist us with.

Adrian · 2002-06-02 12:43:27

I honestly can't explain it. His post was there before, and now it's just gone. Now, if all his posts had disappeared from the forum, which they have not, I could put it down to some database error. The only possibility is that Phobos deleted it himself, but I don't know whether that's true (you can delete your own posts). Very very weird. Could be a bug in the program.

Phobos · 2002-06-02 14:48:56

I didn't delete the post, it just disappeared on its own. The same thing happened to my post on Space Elevators, for some reason it kept deleting the post at the top, just a freak thing I guess. As for artificial intelligence, I had some problems myself with introducing emotions into a sentient, fully aware and very intelligent artificial system, but I begin to wonder if you even need to do that. I don't think it would be necessary to introduce emotion into artificially intelligent systems. We could create beings that are somewhat like Vulcans, they only use reason and logic to make their decisions. But I am a proponent of creating fully aware, hyper-intelligent artificial sentients as the next step in the evolution of intelligence, even though I admit that could be opening pandoras box.

clark · 2002-06-03 07:15:28

But I am a proponent of creating fully aware, hyper-intelligent artificial sentients as the next step in the evolution of intelligence, even though I admit that could be opening pandoras box.

A lesson from life, follow the rise and fall of the Cromagmum.

There but the for the grace of God go I.

We are a biological species that exploits an environmental niche based on our intelligence- how can we legitametly seek to share our biological niche with anything? We invite disaster, don't we?

Phobos · 2002-06-03 14:34:42

We are a biological species that exploits an environmental niche based on our intelligence- how can we legitametly seek to share our biological niche with anything? We invite disaster, don't we?

If we ever develop the technology to create true A.I., they would likely make better candidates for sending on long trips into the cosmos than people. It would be a good way to seed intelligence throughout the universe since such systems would probably far surpass the creative and intellectual potential of their human counterparts. Not to mention they wouldn't have the life support requirements that a person would have and would also not be giving up anything upon leaving Earth and never returning. We could just have the ship activate them once they reach their destination. As to whether these beings can or should co-exist with us, I'm sure they could in very small numbers. It just depends on the nature of the beast so to speak.

clark · 2002-06-03 14:48:07

If we ever develop the technology to create true A.I., they would likely make better candidates for sending on long trips into the cosmos than people.

While I will grant you this, I have reservations about making this kind of assumption about anything that is able to exercise self-determination, a hallmark of intelligence.

It would be a good way to seed intelligence throughout the universe since such systems would probably far surpass the creative and intellectual potential of their human counterparts.

One, creativity is in the eye of the beholder, a subjective idea- nothing can "surpass" us in creativity any more than we can surpass something else. As for the intellectual potential, dosen't this sow the seeds of our own destruction? Our evolutionary advantage is our intellectual capacity- how can we allow anything else to exsist that is superior to us in this regard?

We could just have the ship activate them once they reach their destination.

Wouldn't this be wrong? If we created a machine with "true AI", shouldn't we allow it the opportunity to decide its own fate? Otherwise we are suggesting that self-awarness is not the only requirement for our rights...

As to whether these beings can or should co-exist with us, I'm sure they could in very small numbers.

An arrogant stance, superiority in numbers- works well for the ants until ONE human foot steps on the hill.

Adrian · 2002-06-03 14:51:14

The concerns that an AI that is more intelligent than us could be hostile are valid. Vernor Vinge wrote a famous article about the Singularity (technological acceleration towards strong AI) which talks in part about how we might avoid creating a hostile AI. It is definitely worth reading (you know who you are!)

Josh Cryer · 2002-06-03 21:12:45

I wouldn't mind an AI sex bot, myself...

Heh...

Phobos · 2002-06-04 14:29:47

One, creativity is in the eye of the beholder, a subjective idea- nothing can "surpass" us in creativity any more than we can surpass something else. As for the intellectual potential, dosen't this sow the seeds of our own destruction? Our evolutionary advantage is our intellectual capacity- how can we allow anything else to exsist that is superior to us in this regard?

Without creating a being that is capable of taking intellectual ideas and linking them together in such a way that it can create novel technologies, art, ect, having great intellectual power would be practically useless. Of course you can argue
that creativity is merely a function of intelligence, but there seem to be a lot of people who aren't necessarily of above average intelligence but have great creative ability.
And I don't think we necessarily need to jump to the conclusion that we are dooming ourselves to destruction by creating higher artificial intelligence. Such intelligence might prove benevolent and find it lacks the vicious nature that evolution has instilled in us as a survival mechanism.

Wouldn't this be wrong? If we created a machine with "true AI", shouldn't we allow it the opportunity to decide its own fate? Otherwise we are suggesting that self-awarness is not the only requirement for our rights...

Not necessarily. It just means the machine won't be "born" into consciousness until sometime in the future. After all are we allowed to decide where we are going to be born? An A.I. being that isn't activated can no more tell you where it wants to be "born" than can a fetus. So I don't see a moral dilemna with sending unactivated A.I. to other solar systems. Now if the A.I. had been pre-activated and then you forced it to go against its will that would be a different story.

An arrogant stance, superiority in numbers- works well for the ants until ONE human foot steps on the hill.

Perhaps so, but I don't believe your analogy of the human foot necessarily applies. Your already jumping to the conclusion that such beings will automatically work against us. We can bring a few true A.I. into existence and give them all the rights and comforts that we afford to other sentient beings, mainly ourselves, on Earth. They may thank us for giving them life in the first place.

clark · 2002-06-05 09:03:56

And I don't think we necessarily need to jump to the conclusion that we are dooming ourselves to destruction by creating higher artificial intelligence. Such intelligence might prove benevolent and find it lacks the vicious nature that evolution has instilled in us as a survival mechanism.

And it might not- we can make viral agents that are benign, but also containn the possibility of mutating and killing us all. If the machine is "intelligent" it would realize that it's "life" would be in jepordy from any human that perceived it to be a threat- any self aware entity would naturally take steps to prevent the destruction of self- that is a hallmark of life.

Not necessarily. It just means the machine won't be "born" into consciousness until sometime in the future. After all are we allowed to decide where we are going to be born?

So a child born into a prison is okay?

Perhaps so, but I don't believe your analogy of the human foot necessarily applies. Your already jumping to the conclusion that such beings will automatically work against us.

No, you suggeste that we limit the AI numbers, as if this would somehow protect us from the danger that they pose- my analogy does apply becuase "numbers" do not matter. I am not jumping to any conclusions, I am allowing for all possibilities- the good possibilities don't have to be considered in depth- the bad ones do.

We can bring a few true A.I. into existence and give them all the rights and comforts that we afford to other sentient beings, mainly ourselves, on Earth. They may thank us for giving them life in the first place.

I'm stumped. Why don't we just have kids?

Josh Cryer · 2002-06-05 10:33:26

I think the only real thing we can gain from conscious AI, is some metaphysical insight. Not that that is a bad thing, mind you.

It is said that true AI is AI which is able to understand its own makeup. Just like people know about DNA, and are beginning to manipulate it themselves. So, true AI (or conscious AI) would require that the AI has the potential to reproduce (I'm not talking reproductive organs, I'm talking intelligence that is able to understand its own makeup).

So yeah, there is a slight danger there. But that shouldn't prevent us from actually looking into it.

Phobos · 2002-07-01 17:39:11

I for one wouldn't like to have robots with AI... sure it's great for fiction but any AI like Humans would be a bad idea. A robot with AI could eventually break the 3 laws of robotics and wreak havoc on carbon based life forms.
Ignorance is bliss.

I view the emergence of sentient A.I. as the next step in the evolution of intelligence. If you want to create a free-thinking and intelligent artificial being I think the three laws of robotics will necessarily fly out the window since they are incompatible with free thinking. I believe a better approach would be to try to cultivate compassion and benevolence in such a being instead. After all, if they are sentient then they should have the right to defend themselves from a hostile human. Anyways, I think it would be better to create such A.I. to cast among the stars and not activate them until they reach their destination. That way we can help assure that intelligence stays alive (and they'll probably improve even more on their own design) in the universe and at the same time keep humans the dominate intelligence here.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-03-20 07:10:35

Unraveling the Privacy Implications of AI: What You Need to Know

https://magazine.mindplex.ai/mp_news/un … d-to-know/

AI requires a lot of training data. Was that data acquired ethically and with the consent of the people the data is about? That's an increasingly relevant regulatory and ethical question. The tech industry’s thinking on these questions is changing, and regulators are working on legislation to govern how AI models and algorithms are built.

Humans talk with Fake artificial people inside Video Games

Unscripted AI NPCs in a first-of-its-kind Unreal Engine demo
https://www.inworld.ai/blog/origins-unreal-engine-demo

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-03-23 08:25:29

AI soon chatting with your implanted microchip and On twitter and tiktok you see Swedish and Chinese now paying for water or candy sugar chocolates 'With My Chip Implant'

Artificial Intelligence is now look at Chemistry and Biology and Crops and Animals.

Morality and Ethical questions will be soon asked?

like being on drugs?

'Stanford Take Down Alpaca AI Due To Hallucinations'
https://www.theinsaneapp.com/2023/03/st … ca-ai.html

Futurists predict a point where humans and machines become one. But will we see it coming?
https://theconversation.com/futurists-p … ing-196293

it has influenced music and art, music videos, Terminator and Souith Korean film

Cinematography Of I'm a Cyborg, But That's OK

https://youtube.com/watch?v=E1UQLqFFZXE

A commentary vid with a cartoon music intro 'Transhumanism' machines human psychology, war, governments and future economics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgeuhWsmpNU

From Microsoft’s Tay to Yandex’s Alice, AI chatbots that went rogue
https://indianexpress.com/article/techn … d-8447004/
ChatGPT may have garnered an overwhelmingly positive response, but not all of its kind were so lucky. Here's a look at the biggest AI chatbot fails seen in this decade and the last.

Biophysical Therapeutics opens crowdfunding investment raise
https://longevity.technology/news/bioph … ent-raise/

Stoicism, AI & Transhumanism: Embracing an Age of Unimaginable Change
https://www.stoicsimple.com/stoicism-ar … elligence/

Midjourney V5 Has Arrived And It’s Really Good
https://medium.com/seeds-for-the-future … 19a2d43944

making paintings
https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1484827549996421133

ChatGPT vs. Google Bard vs. Bing: Which AI Chatbot Gives the Best Answers?
https://uk.pcmag.com/news/146063/chatgp … st-answers
For now, you can request access to the beta via bard.google.com

Twitter Is a Helluva Lot Better Than It’s Given Credit For
https://americandreaming.substack.com/p … r-than?s=w

How can we reverse-engineer our thinking in order to implement it in cybernetics and AI systems?
https://www.ecstadelic.net/top-stories/ … ind-part-i

Planned Economies And Artificial Intelligence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRepEvmCCIg

CRISPR - A decade of genetic engineering revolution - H+ Weekly
https://www.hplusweekly.com/p/issue-405

Artificial Organs - How Close Are We to Having Manmade Replacements
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rWN0fo5zT4

New 'biohybrid' implant will restore function in paralyzed limbs | "This interface could revolutionize the way we interact with technology."
https://interestingengineering.com/inno … yzed-limbs

Neurotechnology is here. Without laws, your brain’s privacy is at risk.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023 … a-farahany

Microsoft claims "sparks of AGI have been ignited"
https://twitter.com/SebastienBubeck/sta … 4770332674

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-03-23 08:30:54)

tahanson43206 · 2023-03-23 09:59:28

For Mars_B4_Moon re #15

First, thanks for the collection of links with explanation text you put together! This appreciation applies to all your work, but I follow your contributions to a few of the topics you cover.

Second, regarding the Apache error ... since you are our most prolific contributor, you are more likely than anyone else to see the Apache Internal error.

You haven't mentioned it recently, and I've posted some large messages without triggering the error, but I'm still hoping you have not seen it since SpaceNut asked for help from Mars Society.

One change I've made is to use Preview before posting, because I've become gunshy about triggering the Apache Error. I haven't seen the error since I started using Preview, but the error may have been removed without Preview having anything to do with it.

***
In the spirit of this topic ... there are some changes going on at ChatGPT ... Yesterday everything seemed fine, and I made progress in attempting to build an AI mediated course structure for Dr. Johnson's course on Basics of Orbital Mechanics. This morning, I could not log in at all on a Chromebook, and just now when I tried on a big Linux machine, the login completed but the Enter function no longer works.

In your post above, you've listed citations of problems with competitive AI products. What the folks at Open AI are attempting is bold and exceedingly risky. I have already reported having the ability to write programs yanked (in the ChatGPT thread). Now I am quite possibly pushing the developers and supervisors of ChatGPT to the breaking point with my attempt to build an interactive/tutorial educational capability. But the current problems could be due to something else entirely. I have no way of knowing. All I know for sure is that last night, ChatGPT agreed to take in SVG files to help it "understand" figures prepared by Dr. Johnson for his class, and this morning I've been unable to continue.

No one else in the forum has reported trying ChatGPT or any of the competitive systems.

I am tempted to try one or more of the others, to see if they can accept my current line of inquiry.

I like ChatGPT, and would like to see it succeed in a tough market place, but I am willing to try competitors if ChatGPT management would prefer I go elsewhere.

(th)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-03-28 06:30:56

If AI Starts Making Music on Its Own, What Happens to Musicians?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/podc … musicians/

Clearview AI used nearly 1m times by US police, it tells the BBC
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-65057011

Facial recognition firm Clearview has run nearly a million searches for US police, its founder has told the BBC
CEO Hoan Ton-That also revealed Clearview now has 30bn images scraped from platforms such as Facebook, taken without users' permissions.
The company has been repeatedly fined millions of dollars in Europe and Australia for breaches of privacy.
Critics argue that the police's use of Clearview puts everyone into a "perpetual police line-up".
"Whenever they have a photo of a suspect, they will compare it to your face," says Matthew Guaragilia from the Electronic Frontier Foundation says. "It's far too invasive."
The figure of a million searches comes from Clearview and has not been confirmed by police. But in a rare admission, Miami Police has confirmed to the BBC it uses this software for every type of crime.
Clearview's system allows a law enforcement customer to upload a photo of a face and find matches in a database of billions of images it has collected.
It then provides links to where matching images appear online. It is considered one of the most powerful and accurate facial recognition companies in the world.
Hoan Ton-That, founder and CEO of Clearview AI, speaking with the BBC
The company is banned from selling its services to most US companies, after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took Clearview AI to court in Illinois for breaking privacy law.
But there is an exemption for police, and Mr Ton-That says his software is used by hundreds of police forces across the US.
Police in the US do not routinely reveal whether they use the software, and it is banned in several US cities including Portland, San Francisco and Seattle.
The use of facial recognition by the police is often sold to the public as only being used for serious or violent crimes.
In a rare interview with law enforcement about the effectiveness of Clearview, Miami Police said they used the software for every type of crime, from murders to shoplifting.
Assistant Chief of Police Armando Aguilar said his team used the system about 450 times a year, and that it had helped solve several murders.
However, critics say there are almost no laws around the use of facial recognition by police.
Mr Aguilar says Miami police treats facial recognition like a tip. "We don't make an arrest because an algorithm tells us to," he says. "We either put that name in a photographic line-up or we go about solving the case through traditional means."
Mistaken identity
There are a handful of documented cases of mistaken identity using facial recognition by the police. However, the lack of data and transparency around police use means the true figure is likely far higher.
Mr Ton-That says he is not aware of any cases of mistaken identity using Clearview. He accepts police have made wrongful arrests using facial recognition technology, but attributes those to "poor policing".
Clearview often points to research that shows it has a near 100% accuracy rate. But these figures are often based on mugshots.
In reality, the accuracy of Clearview depends on the quality of the image that is fed into it - something Mr Ton-That accepts.
Civil rights campaigners want police forces that use Clearview to openly say when it is used - and for its accuracy to be openly tested in court. They want the algorithm scrutinised by independent experts, and are sceptical of the company's claims.
Kaitlin Jackson is a criminal defence lawyer based in New York who campaigns against the police's use of facial recognition.
"I think the truth is that the idea that this is incredibly accurate is wishful thinking," she says. "There is no way to know that when you're using images in the wild like screengrabs from CCTV."
However, Mr Ton-That told the BBC he does not want to testify in court to its accuracy.
"We don't really want to be in court testifying about the accuracy of the algorithm… because the investigators, they're using other methods to also verify it," he says.
Mr Ton-That says he has recently given Clearview's system to defence lawyers in specific cases. He believes that both prosecutors and defenders should have the same access to the technology.
Last year, Andrew Conlyn from Fort Myers, Florida, had charges against him dropped after Clearview was used to find a crucial witness.
Mr Conlyn was the passenger in a friend's car in March 2017 when it crashed into palm trees at high speed.
The driver was ejected from the car and killed. A passer-by pulled Mr Conlyn from the wreckage, but left without making a statement.
Although Mr Conlyn said he was the passenger, police suspected he had been driving and he he was charged with vehicular homicide.
His lawyers had an image of the passer-by from police body cam footage. Just before his trial, Mr Ton-That allowed Clearview to be used in the case.
"This AI popped him up in like, three to five seconds," Mr Conlyn's defence lawyer, Christopher O'Brien, told the BBC. "It was phenomenal."
The witness, Vince Ramirez, made a statement that he had taken Mr Conlyn out of the passenger's seat. Shortly after, the charges were dropped.
But even though there have been cases where Clearview is proven to have worked, some believe it comes at too high a price.
"Clearview is a private company that is making face prints of people based on their photos online without their consent," says Mr Guaragilia.
"It's a huge problem for civil liberties and civil rights, and it absolutely needs to be banned."

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-03-28 06:47:47)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-04-30 03:35:44

Don’t Shut Down AI Development — Open It Up For Real

https://magazine.mindplex.ai/dont-shut- … -for-real/

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-05-09 07:17:53

Are We Ready for AI to Raise the Dead?

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a … mortality/

AI Experiment Decodes Brain Scans to Reveal Things People Are Thinking

https://www.sciencealert.com/ai-experim … e-thinking

How ChatGPT will Influence Our Moral Compass

https://www.theplaceholdr.com/p/how-cha … -our-moral

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-05-12 04:28:14

I could post this in the Lawyers and Cab Drivers thread but since some people seem to think it is deception to be entertained by Avatar Mannequin Golem Puppet or that Virtual people are taking jobs from Real people I might post this in the 'Ethics' thread

What Is a VTuber?
https://ganknow.com/blog/vtuber/
VTuber stands for virtual YouTuber. They are content creators who use digital avatars to stream or create videos instead of showing their face in a camera.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-05-12 12:48:05

AI gains “values” with Anthropic’s new Constitutional AI chatbot approach

https://arstechnica.com/information-tec … e-chatbot/

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-05-14 17:23:22

Artists Are Suing Artificial Intelligence Companies and the Lawsuit Could Upend Legal Precedents Around Art

https://www.artnews.com/art-in-america/ … 234665579/

tahanson43206 · 2023-05-14 19:43:10

For Mars_B4_Moon ... re #21

Thanks for providing the link to this report!

Mars_B4_Moon wrote:

AI gains “values” with Anthropic’s new Constitutional AI chatbot approach
https://arstechnica.com/information-tec … e-chatbot/

I particularly appreciate the hint as to how ChatGPT's trainers are attempting to deal with the situations that come up.

Since I started working with the software, the trainers have removed capabilities that I know about (read and write files) and probably others.

I hope the paid version still has these capabilities, but I'll (probably) never know, unless someone subscribes to the paid version and reports results here.

(th)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-06-22 03:35:27

Police robots put on permanent patrol at Singapore airport

https://www.digitaltrends.com/news/poli … e-airport/

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-06-02 09:10:53

Re: Artificial Intelligence - Technology and Ethics

#2 2002-06-02 11:10:32

Re: Artificial Intelligence - Technology and Ethics

#3 2002-06-02 12:43:27

Re: Artificial Intelligence - Technology and Ethics

#4 2002-06-02 14:48:56

Re: Artificial Intelligence - Technology and Ethics

#5 2002-06-03 07:15:28

Re: Artificial Intelligence - Technology and Ethics

#6 2002-06-03 14:34:42

Re: Artificial Intelligence - Technology and Ethics

#7 2002-06-03 14:48:07

Re: Artificial Intelligence - Technology and Ethics

#8 2002-06-03 14:51:14

Re: Artificial Intelligence - Technology and Ethics

#9 2002-06-03 21:12:45

Re: Artificial Intelligence - Technology and Ethics

#10 2002-06-04 14:29:47

Re: Artificial Intelligence - Technology and Ethics

#11 2002-06-05 09:03:56

Re: Artificial Intelligence - Technology and Ethics

#12 2002-06-05 10:33:26

Re: Artificial Intelligence - Technology and Ethics

#13 2002-07-01 17:39:11

Re: Artificial Intelligence - Technology and Ethics

#14 2023-03-20 07:10:35

Re: Artificial Intelligence - Technology and Ethics

#15 2023-03-23 08:25:29

Re: Artificial Intelligence - Technology and Ethics

#16 2023-03-23 09:59:28

Re: Artificial Intelligence - Technology and Ethics

#17 2023-03-28 06:30:56

Re: Artificial Intelligence - Technology and Ethics

#18 2023-04-30 03:35:44

Re: Artificial Intelligence - Technology and Ethics

#19 2023-05-09 07:17:53

Re: Artificial Intelligence - Technology and Ethics

#20 2023-05-12 04:28:14

Re: Artificial Intelligence - Technology and Ethics

#21 2023-05-12 12:48:05

Re: Artificial Intelligence - Technology and Ethics

#22 2023-05-14 17:23:22

Re: Artificial Intelligence - Technology and Ethics

#23 2023-05-14 19:43:10

Re: Artificial Intelligence - Technology and Ethics

#24 2023-06-22 03:35:27

Re: Artificial Intelligence - Technology and Ethics

Board footer