AIs Create And Communicate -- In A Language They Created... - Page 2

STEED · 08-19-17, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Able Mabel the domestic robot

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zx3hjty

STEED · 08-21-17, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Killer robots: Experts warn of 'third revolution in warfare'

More than 100 leading robotics experts are urging the United Nations to take action in order to prevent the development of "killer robots".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40995835

Jimbuna · 08-22-17, 04:01 AM

No doubt the UN will be as ineffectual as usual.

STEED · 08-22-17, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

No doubt the UN will be as ineffectual as usual.

United Nitwits.

Catfish · 08-22-17, 07:49 AM

^ Like NATO as we called it in my military days: Not.Able.To.Organise.

Drones are already uncontrollable. If you huild a real working AI with a gun into it... regarding AI and warfare, i guess this is the reason why we do not hear from other civilisations: same path and suicide.

Philip K. Dick's "Second variety" anyone? Called "screamers", in the film:

STEED · 08-22-17, 03:08 PM

^Not as good as the written story.

vienna · 08-22-17, 04:20 PM

One of the most common takes on an artificial intelligence is it must somehow be deployed in a human form, a robot or android. Perhaps it is because we equate real or advanced intelligence as a human condition and the idea an equal or greater intelligence must be based on the human physical mold. But consider an intelligence not requiring a humanoid presence, one existing only in a "non-corporeal" state. If it is one day possible to create an AI as close to human intelligence as humanly possible, is it not possible it could exist more as a network rather than a 'centralized' entity? And, given current advanced AIs seem capable of self-revision and upgrading of capabilities, could we even begin to be able to control them once the "genie is out of the bottle"? In another thread, I posted about an AI bot, OpenAI, that defeated a human world champion in a live, real time, head-to-head Dota 2 competition. Someone commented it was not particularly significant because bots had played humans before and had beaten them. What was significant is the OpenAI bot was trained, not by humans, but by another OpenAI bot: basically what the OpenAI researchers did was just give each OpenAI bot the basic rules of Dota 2 and then left them to sort out how to play the game independently through actual game play between themselves. It was only after the AIs had mastered the game and its strategy themselves that the competition with a human opponent was attempted. The AIs actually had to suss out game structure and strategy on their own without human assistance...

Now we have AIs talking among themselves in self-created languages, effectively shutting out humans from their processes. To add to the mix, Google is adding a new element to its own AI, DeepMind, the dimension of imagination:

Google Has Started Adding Imagination to Its DeepMind AI --

https://futurism.com/google-has-star...s-deepmind-ai/

Agents that imagine and plan --

https://deepmind.com/blog/agents-imagine-and-plan/

Back when PCs first came into use and I had to teach people how to use them and their software, sometimes I had to get those users to get over their fears about computers. One of the first things I would tell them is a PC is a tool and it is not 'smarter' than the user by any means; I would ask them something like "What is 5 times 100?". They would immediately answer "500". I would then point out to them they knew the answer immediately because they had mental shortcuts they had learned in school via those tedious multiplication tables we all suffered through. I then told them how a computer doesn't really multiply like we do, it instead adds the number 5 one-hundred times to get to the answer. If a person were to do the same process, it would be a long tedious task, but computers are merely faster at the task than people are: they are not intrinsically smart like humans, they are merely faster...

Now that AIs are being given the tools for analytic autonomy, will being faster be their only advantage?...

<O>

08-22-17, 04:01 AM	#18
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 181,146 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	No doubt the UN will be as ineffectual as usual. __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!! GWX3.0 Download Page - Donation/instant access to GWX (Help SubSim)

08-22-17, 07:49 AM	#20
Catfish Dipped Squirrel Operative Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky Posts: 16,897 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	^ Like NATO as we called it in my military days: Not.Able.To.Organise. Drones are already uncontrollable. If you huild a real working AI with a gun into it... regarding AI and warfare, i guess this is the reason why we do not hear from other civilisations: same path and suicide. Philip K. Dick's "Second variety" anyone? Called "screamers", in the film: __________________ >^..^<*)))>{ All generalizations are wrong.

08-22-17, 03:08 PM	#21
STEED Lucky Jack Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Down Town UK Posts: 27,695 Downloads: 89 Uploads: 48	^Not as good as the written story. __________________ Dr Who rest in peace 1963-2017. To borrow Davros saying...I NAME YOU CHIBNALL THE DESTROYER OF DR WHO YOU KILLED IT!

08-22-17, 04:20 PM	#22
vienna Navy Seal Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Anywhere but the here & now... Posts: 7,503 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	One of the most common takes on an artificial intelligence is it must somehow be deployed in a human form, a robot or android. Perhaps it is because we equate real or advanced intelligence as a human condition and the idea an equal or greater intelligence must be based on the human physical mold. But consider an intelligence not requiring a humanoid presence, one existing only in a "non-corporeal" state. If it is one day possible to create an AI as close to human intelligence as humanly possible, is it not possible it could exist more as a network rather than a 'centralized' entity? And, given current advanced AIs seem capable of self-revision and upgrading of capabilities, could we even begin to be able to control them once the "genie is out of the bottle"? In another thread, I posted about an AI bot, OpenAI, that defeated a human world champion in a live, real time, head-to-head Dota 2 competition. Someone commented it was not particularly significant because bots had played humans before and had beaten them. What was significant is the OpenAI bot was trained, not by humans, but by another OpenAI bot: basically what the OpenAI researchers did was just give each OpenAI bot the basic rules of Dota 2 and then left them to sort out how to play the game independently through actual game play between themselves. It was only after the AIs had mastered the game and its strategy themselves that the competition with a human opponent was attempted. The AIs actually had to suss out game structure and strategy on their own without human assistance... Now we have AIs talking among themselves in self-created languages, effectively shutting out humans from their processes. To add to the mix, Google is adding a new element to its own AI, DeepMind, the dimension of imagination: Google Has Started Adding Imagination to Its DeepMind AI -- https://futurism.com/google-has-star...s-deepmind-ai/ Agents that imagine and plan -- https://deepmind.com/blog/agents-imagine-and-plan/ Back when PCs first came into use and I had to teach people how to use them and their software, sometimes I had to get those users to get over their fears about computers. One of the first things I would tell them is a PC is a tool and it is not 'smarter' than the user by any means; I would ask them something like "What is 5 times 100?". They would immediately answer "500". I would then point out to them they knew the answer immediately because they had mental shortcuts they had learned in school via those tedious multiplication tables we all suffered through. I then told them how a computer doesn't really multiply like we do, it instead adds the number 5 one-hundred times to get to the answer. If a person were to do the same process, it would be a long tedious task, but computers are merely faster at the task than people are: they are not intrinsically smart like humans, they are merely faster... Now that AIs are being given the tools for analytic autonomy, will being faster be their only advantage?... <O> __________________ __________________________________________________ __