Thinkers Aug 21 2012: The Internet scenario


Scarp Godenot and I at Thinkers

[2012/08/21 15:30]  Extropia DaSilva: Welcome to Thinkers!
[2012/08/21 15:30]  Extropia DaSilva: today the topic is…
[2012/08/21 15:31]  Extropia DaSilva: There are billions of brains and computers. If they were all sufficiently interconnected, would a new and independent entity arise in its own right? And if it did, how would we know?
[2012/08/21 15:31]  Extropia DaSilva: Ok first some rules..
[2012/08/21 15:31]  Ivy Sunkiller: wb Zo
[2012/08/21 15:31]  Zobeid Zuma: grrr… What is it about zooming in on avs that makes Firestorm crash?
[2012/08/21 15:32]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: wb Zo!
[2012/08/21 15:32]  Extropia DaSilva: We are discussing humanity+ the Internet so this is a discussion about a possible hyperintelligence arising from connecting humanity+ its computer networks. This is NOT a discussion about the computers becoming intelligent by themselves.
[2012/08/21 15:32]  Ivy Sunkiller: loading textures + memory leak -> crash?
[2012/08/21 15:32]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh, wow. Now Thinkers has “small print”
[2012/08/21 15:32]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Welcome to Thinkers, follow the rules!
[2012/08/21 15:32]  Scarp Godenot: Any time the bandwidth goes too high too quickly the continuity is lost and …. crash. It is a bug that was fixed and now is back.
[2012/08/21 15:33]  Zen (zen.arado): Transhumanism
[2012/08/21 15:33]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Rule #1: Extie’s words are Law.
[2012/08/21 15:33]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): a mob brain, as existing so far would be Anonymous
[2012/08/21 15:33]  Extropia DaSilva: secondly, do keep on topic because this is to gather research material for my lecture at Christmas:)
[2012/08/21 15:33]  Zen (zen.arado): Firestorm won’t load textures for me 😦
[2012/08/21 15:33]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Gwyneth Llewelyn rubs her hands and enters semanthic mode
[2012/08/21 15:34]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Where is Rhi? I need my mind interlinked with hers to appear more intelligent
[2012/08/21 15:34]  Zobeid Zuma: I think this will all come down to what you consider to be an “entity”. I mean, you’ve obviously got a complicated interlinked system of some sort…. it’s powerful… but “entity”?
[2012/08/21 15:34]  Extropia DaSilva: here she is..
[2012/08/21 15:34]  Ivy Sunkiller: there was this quote, not sure where, I think it was in Accelerando, paraphrasing: a question whether a computer thinks is no more interesting(?) than a question whether submarine swim.
[2012/08/21 15:34]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Good, Zo! That’s a good question.
[2012/08/21 15:34]  Scarp Godenot: Does more data equal intelligence?
[2012/08/21 15:34]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: The second question is, what means “hyperintelligent”?
[2012/08/21 15:34]  Zobeid Zuma: Does that imply some kind of consciousness? Or unconsciousness? Or superconsciousness? :/
[2012/08/21 15:34]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): even as a supposed pseudo-intellectual I can’t jump over hyperintelligence arising and internets
[2012/08/21 15:34]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hyperconsciousness!
[2012/08/21 15:34]  Scarp Godenot: define
[2012/08/21 15:34]  Zobeid Zuma: HI Violet!
[2012/08/21 15:35]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Hey all :]
[2012/08/21 15:35]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I’d say “more data” equals “more data”
[2012/08/21 15:35]  Ivy Sunkiller: hiho
[2012/08/21 15:35]  Zen (zen.arado): Hi Violet 🙂
[2012/08/21 15:35]  Extropia DaSilva: A hyperconsciousness is something that cannot be explained with recourse to human behaviour, or computing capabilities.
[2012/08/21 15:35]  Zen (zen.arado): are we talking about the ‘singularity’?
[2012/08/21 15:35]  Scarp Godenot: Do people get more intelligent when they have access to more data?
[2012/08/21 15:35]  Ivy Sunkiller: sort of
[2012/08/21 15:35]  Extropia DaSilva: In a way, yes, Zen
[2012/08/21 15:35]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh! So a genetic algorithm is hyperintelligent, even if it’s made up of 3 or 4 simple rules?
[2012/08/21 15:36]  Extropia DaSilva: I think so Scarp.
[2012/08/21 15:36]  Zobeid Zuma: It depends on what the fashionable definition of “the singularity” is this week, doesn’t it?
[2012/08/21 15:36]  Scarp Godenot: What if the data is not correct? then do they get more stupid?
[2012/08/21 15:36]  Ivy Sunkiller: it depends on the type of the data, but yes
[2012/08/21 15:36]  Zen (zen.arado): I have a great book on this called ‘Transhumanism and its Critics’
[2012/08/21 15:36]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Is the climate hyperintelligent? Oops, I forgot Scarfp is around *hides*
[2012/08/21 15:36]  Extropia DaSilva: there is only one true definition, Zo.
[2012/08/21 15:36]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Data, or information?
[2012/08/21 15:36]  Ivy Sunkiller: Scarp: as religions clearly show – yes, that is correct
[2012/08/21 15:36]  Ivy Sunkiller: 😀
[2012/08/21 15:36]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): I don’t think inherently, Scarp…but if it’s navigable it’ll open more opportunities for education
[2012/08/21 15:36]  Scarp Godenot: And the Tea Party demonstrates this also in the USA
[2012/08/21 15:37]  Zobeid Zuma: Buh? What’s wrong with the Tea Party?
[2012/08/21 15:37]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): having access equals links, synapses inside brain tissue are forming those connections, too. there is an aspect missing. it is not links allone, or data
[2012/08/21 15:37]  Zobeid Zuma: Hi, Rhiannon!
[2012/08/21 15:37]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Doesn’t go far enough, that’s what’s wrong with it
[2012/08/21 15:37]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I think that is a very weak definition, Extie. You have lots of things that cannot be explained either via human intelligence or computing abilities, and they’re not hyperintelligent
[2012/08/21 15:37]  Extropia DaSilva: Vinge once said ‘every time our ability to gather and share information is improved, in some sense we have achieved an increase over natural intelligence’.
[2012/08/21 15:37]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Hi Zo!
[2012/08/21 15:37]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Hi ARi!
[2012/08/21 15:37]  Scarp Godenot: The Tea Party operates on assumptions that are not actually real.
[2012/08/21 15:37]  Ivy Sunkiller: hi Rhi
[2012/08/21 15:37]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh wow, Rhi is here, now we’ll be able to interlink our minds again and become hyperintelligent and ruin this topic for today 🙂
[2012/08/21 15:37]  Zen (zen.arado): Hi Rhi 🙂
[2012/08/21 15:38]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Hi Ivy!
[2012/08/21 15:38]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Hi Zen
[2012/08/21 15:38]  Zobeid Zuma: No, I would say the Tea Party’s opponents are the ones out of touch with reality.
[2012/08/21 15:38]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Love you too, Gwyn
[2012/08/21 15:38]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): lol
[2012/08/21 15:38]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: ❤ Rhi
[2012/08/21 15:38]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Now we have “natural intelligence”: Oh my, oh my.
[2012/08/21 15:38]  Scarp Godenot: omg…. save us
[2012/08/21 15:39]  Extropia DaSilva: Ok..well..suppose the Internet..humanity+computer networks..was already a ‘global brain’ with a kind of..metaconsciousness or whatever..How would we know? What signs would this manifestation have?
[2012/08/21 15:39]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Anyway, Vinge was talking about sharing information, not data 😉
[2012/08/21 15:39]  Ivy Sunkiller: I would say all US politicians have lost the touch with reality few decades ago
[2012/08/21 15:39]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): trying to communicate with others would be some such signal
[2012/08/21 15:39]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Extie: does an ant see us humans and our society as more intelligent? 🙂
[2012/08/21 15:39]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Me thinks not.
[2012/08/21 15:39]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Hi luisa
[2012/08/21 15:39]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Rhiannon of the Birds puts her hand in front of Extie and waves
[2012/08/21 15:39]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): greetings Rhi
[2012/08/21 15:39]  Extropia DaSilva: hello Rhi:)
[2012/08/21 15:40]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: The point is, from our perspective we can only recognise intelligence if it looks and feels like “our” intelligence; what is beyond or beneath is is not labeled as “intelligence”
[2012/08/21 15:40]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): any ant might see us as individual, prolly not as our whole society as we experience ourselfes. Scale
[2012/08/21 15:41]  Extropia DaSilva: An ant is not conscious. At least, it does not need to be. But humans are conscious. Does this give us an ability to see a higher consciousness than we possess, albeit dimly?
[2012/08/21 15:41]  Zen (zen.arado): think we are unintelligible to an ant
[2012/08/21 15:41]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): the truly “other” beeing can show similar forms of “intelligence”
[2012/08/21 15:41]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): So what is the topic? How to recognize different intelligenc?
[2012/08/21 15:41]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Thus, an ant farm, even though it does amazingly complex things (some of which have been successfully implemented on very simple algorithms) are not viewed as “intelligence”
[2012/08/21 15:41]  Extropia DaSilva: There are billions of brains and computers. If they were all sufficiently interconnected, would a new and independent entity arise in its own right? And if it did, how would we know?
[2012/08/21 15:41]  Extropia DaSilva: that is the topic.
[2012/08/21 15:41]  Zen (zen.arado): SL would crash?
[2012/08/21 15:41]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Zen: indeed. I think so, too. And vice-versa.Ants and humans operate on different, unshared levels of conscience.
[2012/08/21 15:42]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): I think you’d need something else to happen….but emergence is weird. I dunno.
[2012/08/21 15:42]  Zobeid Zuma: I do think “entity” implies a level of organization that is unlikely to arise spontaneously.
[2012/08/21 15:42]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): watched from far, this whole planet might act in similar ways to an ant hill. more … Event driven … less truly Sophisticated
[2012/08/21 15:42]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): i read a science fiction story, actually a series, by one of the greats from the Silver Age, forget which one; where we had to fight for ur survival against a species that wasn’t intelligent. Just mimicked it
[2012/08/21 15:42]  Zen (zen.arado): we see everything by our own lights
[2012/08/21 15:42]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Extie: an ant is most certainly conscious; it has goals; it feels pain and pleasure; it just operates at a level beneath ours, and so we don’t label them as ‘intelligent’
[2012/08/21 15:42]  Extropia DaSilva: Not spontaneously but as a result of us interlinking more and more datasets.
[2012/08/21 15:42]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Blindly and mechanically built star ships, the way ants build their ant hill
[2012/08/21 15:42]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Like Zen said.
[2012/08/21 15:43]  Zen (zen.arado): it might be something totally incomprehensible to us
[2012/08/21 15:43]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): There’s a Peter Watts novel somewhat similar, Rhi. Except, well, Peter Watts.
[2012/08/21 15:43]  Zobeid Zuma: It’s like saying the whole ocean is a living organism… You could make an argument that it’s *like* a single organism in some ways, but it’s not what we normally mean by that.
[2012/08/21 15:43]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Wattsy
[2012/08/21 15:43]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Agreed, Zo
[2012/08/21 15:43]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Or that the whole earth is a living organism.
[2012/08/21 15:43]  Extropia DaSilva: every time you link to a page that is like a synaptic link in a brain. So..possibly at some point the Web’s shared links amount to something truly brainlike?
[2012/08/21 15:43]  Zobeid Zuma: So the net becomes an ocean of intelligence, but not an intelligence in and of itself.
[2012/08/21 15:43]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Might be worth reading, Vi. And hi!
[2012/08/21 15:44]  Extropia DaSilva: The intelligence is networked humanity augmented by our computing systems.
[2012/08/21 15:44]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Hi! It’s called Blindsight; I liked it
[2012/08/21 15:44]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I can accept the idea of “artificially augmented intelligence”
[2012/08/21 15:44]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: A kid with an encyclopedia under his arm is “augmented intelligence”.
[2012/08/21 15:44]  Extropia DaSilva: did you know there is a Dunbar’s number for groups? We used to be limited to teams of 100,000 but now with the Web and telecommunications we can have teams of millions. Look at SL!
[2012/08/21 15:45]  Scarp Godenot: The people who are linking searches are the Facebooks of the world. Maybe their algorhithms are the meta intelligence.
[2012/08/21 15:45]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: For a simplistic view of what a “team” means, yes, Extie
[2012/08/21 15:45]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): synaptic links must be slightly different (more dynamicly forming) than current hyperlinks
[2012/08/21 15:45]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): This was a series, first published in Analog; mainly about how Earth became aware of the menace and went around to clandestinely upgrade all it’s (highly independent) colonies to meet the menace–the series ends with meeting the menace. And having to deal with an unintelligent enemy through diplomacy, as it had the ability to anniliate us
[2012/08/21 15:45]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Scarp: well, the point that Hofstadter (and Gödel) would make is: are those algorithms self-aware?
[2012/08/21 15:45]  Zen (zen.arado): but is information the same as intelligence? I think not
[2012/08/21 15:45]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I think not, either.
[2012/08/21 15:45]  Zen (zen.arado): most of the web is just facts
[2012/08/21 15:46]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): informing is just data sharing
[2012/08/21 15:46]  Extropia DaSilva: well I mean, the building of the pyramids, panama canal, Manhatan project, Apollo..all were roughly 100,000
[2012/08/21 15:46]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah. But SL can be built by millions. I see the point
[2012/08/21 15:46]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: ALthough it actually was built by roughly 100,00-
[2012/08/21 15:46]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: *100 thousand
[2012/08/21 15:46]  Scarp Godenot: Gwyn: I thought todays rules are that we are NOT talking about AI, but about something that is meta when humans and their machines interact.
[2012/08/21 15:46]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe touché, Scarp!
[2012/08/21 15:47]  Extropia DaSilva: But every time you click on a link you tell Google that this link is important. So you are training an AI to understand what is important on the Web.
[2012/08/21 15:47]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I take issue with the word “understand”.
[2012/08/21 15:47]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): static facts (often even proving wrong soon) that don’t move. Not moving doesn’t look intelligent
[2012/08/21 15:47]  Zen (zen.arado): anybody thinkng of uploading their bain to the web when it becomes possible?
[2012/08/21 15:47]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Training the AI, sure. “Training” has a very specific meaning in the field of AI.
[2012/08/21 15:47]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): And that shows that we aren’t dealing with intelligence. I have different accounts on my computer, and at one time, different people used it, so I get the most bizaare advertisements.
[2012/08/21 15:47]  Zen (zen.arado): brain
[2012/08/21 15:47]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: “Understanding” is a different story!
[2012/08/21 15:47]  Zobeid Zuma: Uploading into something, maybe. To the web? Hahaha! No.
[2012/08/21 15:47]  Ivy Sunkiller: I want to upload my mind, don’t really give a damn about brain 🙂
[2012/08/21 15:48]  Zobeid Zuma: The web is a mess.
[2012/08/21 15:48]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): An intelligence would figure out the confusion that is my internet presence
[2012/08/21 15:48]  Extropia DaSilva: My primary will and then I shall be able to operate indepently:)
[2012/08/21 15:48]  Zen (zen.arado): content of brain
[2012/08/21 15:48]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): I’m rather attached to my brain.
[2012/08/21 15:48]  Zobeid Zuma: Every successful computer platform is a mess. Success makes it a mess. It’s like a universal rule.
[2012/08/21 15:48]  Zen (zen.arado): I find that scary
[2012/08/21 15:48]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Zen: it takes a long-winded argument, which is too long for this session, but it can be proved that you cannot upload YOUR brain to the Web 🙂 You might, indeed, CREATE a brain out of the Web, but it won’t be YOUR brain.
[2012/08/21 15:48]  Extropia DaSilva: Gwyn if I ask Google to fetch me your blog and it does, it understands what I wanted, no?
[2012/08/21 15:49]  Ivy Sunkiller: successful stuff is successful not because it’s the best, only because it’s good enough and popular
[2012/08/21 15:49]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Gwyn, yes, but it would be a survivor of your brain. Dare I say it? Your brainchild?
[2012/08/21 15:49]  Ivy Sunkiller: also, Zo, our bodies, in general, are a bloody (literally) mess
[2012/08/21 15:49]  Zen (zen.arado): we don’t even know what he mind is never mind upload it 😉
[2012/08/21 15:49]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: No, Extie. Correlation is not causation. You are projecting your meaning of what “understand” means to something that doesn’t have that concept 😉
[2012/08/21 15:49]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Alas, you can throw the Chinese Room at me though…
[2012/08/21 15:49]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): the ‘popular’ marks a quality of a link reference. there a link gets more active, compareable with a synaptic link in an active state
[2012/08/21 15:50]  Extropia DaSilva: We do not need to know what a mind is. We just copy the brain and the mind shall emerge. But this is not a topic about uploading.
[2012/08/21 15:50]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Zen, by uploading a mind they mean your intelligence, personality; it would be like meeting your twin. Whether it has a soul? Well, arguably the cylons had souls unlike those so -called human beings
[2012/08/21 15:50]  Zen (zen.arado): yes just instructions
[2012/08/21 15:50]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Rhi: sure, there would be some relationships, in the sense that all humans have brains that work in similar ways 🙂
[2012/08/21 15:50]  Extropia DaSilva: no more about uploading:)
[2012/08/21 15:50]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Gwyneth Llewelyn grins
[2012/08/21 15:50]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok. So what you’re saying is… mmmh
[2012/08/21 15:50]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Gwyn, ever work with teenagers? Sure you can
[2012/08/21 15:50]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): the brain uploaders just fear their own death
[2012/08/21 15:50]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: if we develop a complex set of tools to “augment” our intelligence,
[2012/08/21 15:51]  Zen (zen.arado): it;s just a bunch of patterns maybe
[2012/08/21 15:51]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: even if they are not intelligent per se, not even self.aware
[2012/08/21 15:51]  Zen (zen.arado): and digital?
[2012/08/21 15:51]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: since WE project our “meaning” of what we qualify as “Intelligence” to this complex set of tools,
[2012/08/21 15:51]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: then, effectively they “become” intelligent.
[2012/08/21 15:51]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): I think there’s crossover in the topics, because we don’t really understand how our consciousness happens or how/why our bodies/brains organize the way they do
[2012/08/21 15:51]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: If they seem to be MORE intelligent than we usually are, then we say they’re hyper-intelligent.
[2012/08/21 15:52]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): two developments are forming, building up computers from emptyness and otherwise dissecting the already functional brain. Right now I cannot see both developments meeting somewhere in the middle, or joining each others in a synergy
[2012/08/21 15:52]  Extropia DaSilva: Well, we use machines to organize our datasets and filter nonsense but they do not necessarily need human levels of understanding. The web already has that because humans are part of the Internet.
[2012/08/21 15:52]  Zen (zen.arado): AI is not a fact is it?
[2012/08/21 15:52]  Extropia DaSilva: AI is a fact. You use AIs every day.
[2012/08/21 15:52]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: AI is a field of academic research 😀
[2012/08/21 15:52]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Google is AI
[2012/08/21 15:52]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: MMORPGS are AI
[2012/08/21 15:53]  Zen (zen.arado): is it a real intelligence?
[2012/08/21 15:53]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: It’s “real” in the sense that it “exists”.
[2012/08/21 15:53]  Extropia DaSilva: Yes. But it is not humanlike.
[2012/08/21 15:53]  Zen (zen.arado): nothing that passes Turing test yet?
[2012/08/21 15:53]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Indeed. Not humanlike at all.
[2012/08/21 15:53]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Zen. Bingo! You’ve figured out the topic
[2012/08/21 15:53]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): It’s not a consciousness, though.
[2012/08/21 15:53]  Extropia DaSilva: Nope. Nothing.
[2012/08/21 15:53]  Zen (zen.arado): hah
[2012/08/21 15:53]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Most humans wouldn’t pass the Turing test either.
[2012/08/21 15:53]  Zen (zen.arado): 🙂
[2012/08/21 15:53]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): search engines are the 1st machines that will really understand our human needs one day. at least they try to analyse our data. and they have competent help on doing that
[2012/08/21 15:53]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Violet said it. It’s AI but not conscious.
[2012/08/21 15:53]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Well, a Turing test would exclude me most likely; the world’s foremost Shakespere scholar failed the Turing test–she knew too much to be human
[2012/08/21 15:54]  Ivy Sunkiller: complex enoguh cognitive computing machine should pass ze test
[2012/08/21 15:54]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: ㋡
[2012/08/21 15:54]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Which would only show that the Turing test is not good enough, Ivy 🙂
[2012/08/21 15:54]  Zen (zen.arado): hey we don’t even know what intelligence is yet so how do we know it when we see it?
[2012/08/21 15:54]  Zobeid Zuma: The Turing Test is very imperfect, but nobody’s really thought of anything much better.
[2012/08/21 15:54]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): You pass the test if you make inane remarks and small talk; anyone who spends more than a few minutes a day texting would pass it
[2012/08/21 15:54]  Ivy Sunkiller: well, complex enough cognitive computing machine is, essentially, a brain
[2012/08/21 15:54]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: There you go, Zen. However, our minds have this amazing ability to recognise other minds.
[2012/08/21 15:54]  Zen (zen.arado): even on Facebook?
[2012/08/21 15:55]  Zen (zen.arado): 🙂
[2012/08/21 15:55]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Zen, lol!
[2012/08/21 15:55]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): whispers: I think Gwyn’s right, Zen…the intelligence we recognize is the intelligence that we “get.”
[2012/08/21 15:55]  Ivy Sunkiller: so either the test is not good enough, or being able to think is not as special as we think it is!
[2012/08/21 15:55]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Zo: there are a few “better” tests actually
[2012/08/21 15:55]  Zen (zen.arado): our brand of intelligence
[2012/08/21 15:55]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): whispers: And I don’t know why I’m whispering
[2012/08/21 15:55]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol Vi!
[2012/08/21 15:55]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): 😛
[2012/08/21 15:55]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ivy: I agree, all animals ‘think’.
[2012/08/21 15:55]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: And there are gazillions of animals out there.
[2012/08/21 15:56]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: None would pass the Turing test though 🙂
[2012/08/21 15:56]  Extropia DaSilva: We are now able to generate so much data and this data needs multidisciplinary approaches to fully understand. This is driving development in semantic web technologies so that the datasets can be easily annotated and shared between different scientific fields. I am suggesting that, at some point our ability to gather, share, filter and analyze data will result in us becoming a networked hyperintelligence.
[2012/08/21 15:56]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, from an outside perspective, we already ARE that.
[2012/08/21 15:56]  Extropia DaSilva: Kevin Kelly thinks so too.
[2012/08/21 15:56]  Zen (zen.arado): data and facts …whe does it become intelligence?
[2012/08/21 15:57]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): wb Rhi
[2012/08/21 15:57]  Zen (zen.arado): emergence?
[2012/08/21 15:57]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I mean, if an alien visited us and see how we use Google every day, then the alien would say “wow, these humans are hyperintelligent compared to us”
[2012/08/21 15:57]  Zen (zen.arado): hmmm
[2012/08/21 15:57]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): ty, Violet
[2012/08/21 15:57]  Zen (zen.arado): they would Gwyneth?
[2012/08/21 15:57]  Extropia DaSilva: aw you crash Rhi dear?
[2012/08/21 15:57]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: No, not emergence really. It’s because WE are part of the network.
[2012/08/21 15:57]  Scarp Godenot: I can agree with Extie down the road especially when augmented reality gets really integrated into seamless devices that are second nature to us.
[2012/08/21 15:57]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Extie, yes.
[2012/08/21 15:57]  Zen (zen.arado): think they would exterminate us
[2012/08/21 15:57]  Zen (zen.arado): 🙂
[2012/08/21 15:57]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe Zen
[2012/08/21 15:57]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): And I’m not completely here atm. lol You’re the only one I see
[2012/08/21 15:58]  Extropia DaSilva: ah! Could you expand on that, Scarp?
[2012/08/21 15:58]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Which is only right–it is your group
[2012/08/21 15:58]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aye, they would, if Darwinism applies on intragalactic scales 😀
[2012/08/21 15:58]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): cellphones approach on that path
[2012/08/21 15:58]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): cellphones, luisa?
[2012/08/21 15:58]  Ivy Sunkiller: you guys probably know about this group intelligence thing? If you ask a lot of people to estimate some number (there is a clip on youtube with guy asking how many candies there are in a jar) – some people will give a number way too low, some people will give a number way too high, but on average with large enough sample the crowd gets it right with very very small margin of error (0.1% or so)
[2012/08/21 15:58]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Siri!
[2012/08/21 15:58]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): I kind of doubt that using google a lot is a mark of hyper intelligence
[2012/08/21 15:58]  Extropia DaSilva: maybe when we put on Google glasses we begin to understand just how empowering the Internet makes us?
[2012/08/21 15:58]  Extropia DaSilva: But Google is only one part of the Internet.
[2012/08/21 15:59]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Ivy, yes, that’s the principle of our democratic system of elections. Worked really well with the last 20 presidents
[2012/08/21 15:59]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ivy: maybe that’s a statsitic anomaly. Like the fun factoid that in a group of 30+ people, there is a 50% chance that two have their anniversary on the same day 🙂 Nothing magic in that, just statistics.
[2012/08/21 15:59]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): 30 Helens agree, Gwyn
[2012/08/21 15:59]  Ivy Sunkiller: the thing is – if the internet emerges into some sort of hyperintelligence, we might not be more aware of it than our neurons are aware of us
[2012/08/21 15:59]  Scarp Godenot: Well, in the foreseeable future. Augmented reality glasses or some such device will be worn and give our intelligences much more input than we currently have at any given moment, making our choices in how we react to each moment more fully considered. This is the definition of us being smarter.
[2012/08/21 15:59]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Vi 🙂
[2012/08/21 16:00]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: It’s not really the “Internet emerging as an intelligence”. Its WE + the Internet > just WE.
[2012/08/21 16:00]  Zobeid Zuma: Our democratic system of elections is a mess. A popular mess. Hmm… I’m sensing a trend.
[2012/08/21 16:00]  Extropia DaSilva: Did you know that each time you solve a reCapchta you are helping to digitze the world’s books? See, each CAPCHA is from a scan of a book and each day humans collectively type up 2 million books by solving capchas. So that is an example of how networked humanity can work with machines.
[2012/08/21 16:00]  Ivy Sunkiller: well, yes, of course, I mean the internet as the infrastructure and the entities using it
[2012/08/21 16:00]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Which is actually obvious. A “civilization” is “more intelligent” that the same number of humans, isolated on their fields and rotating crops 🙂
[2012/08/21 16:01]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Using these devices might simulate intelligence. Using my Google translator I’ve had conversations with Russians, Germans, Spaniards–in their native language, and only making the mistakes someone who is almost, but not quite, fluent would make. And I am hardly multi-lingual
[2012/08/21 16:01]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: A “library plus its readers” is more intelligent than a group of persons without groups.
[2012/08/21 16:01]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: This is pretty much Scarp’s argument.
[2012/08/21 16:01]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I’m just expanding on it.
[2012/08/21 16:01]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): I think access to knowledge does extend our day to day knowledge…I try not to rely on it too much, but more junk ends up in my brain if I can Google something really quick
[2012/08/21 16:01]  Zobeid Zuma: Usually I get nothing but gibberish out of Google translate. It can tell you the subject of a conversation, but not what’s actually being said about that subject.
[2012/08/21 16:01]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Depends on the library, Gwyn. Now, the library in the Borges story? Maybe.
[2012/08/21 16:02]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I mean uh… there is notthing special to it, if we go even further back in time, “a human with a tool” is “more intelligent” than “a human without a tool”.
[2012/08/21 16:02]  Extropia DaSilva: That is another example. Google can translate well enough for me to get the gist and then I can go in and correct its bad grammar so together we are effective translators:)
[2012/08/21 16:02]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Zo, really? I’m talking about talking to the person, so they interact and help you understand.
[2012/08/21 16:02]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): There were an infinite number of great books in the Library of Babel!….and an infinite number of totally incomprehensible books… 😛
[2012/08/21 16:02]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Violet: too much data, and the information-to-noise ratio grows too.
[2012/08/21 16:02]  Zobeid Zuma: Of course I’ve also seen translations created by supposedly fluent humans where most of the meaning somehow got lost along the way.
[2012/08/21 16:02]  Zen (zen.arado): but Google is just carrying out an algorythm
[2012/08/21 16:02]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Rhiannon of the Birds waves at Ivy as she rezzes
[2012/08/21 16:03]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe so have I, Zo … 🙂
[2012/08/21 16:03]  Stranger Nightfire: assuming continued technological advancement will eventually wind up directly plugging out nervous systems into what ever the internet has become by that time
[2012/08/21 16:03]  Scarp Godenot: History shows us that we advance technology in direct relationship to the number of people able to share information and the nature of the communication system. The internet is making this process go exponentially faster.
[2012/08/21 16:03]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): hi Stranger
[2012/08/21 16:03]  Extropia DaSilva: Maybe that is all the brain is doing? Maybe the mind if just lots and lots of algorithms?
[2012/08/21 16:03]  Ivy Sunkiller: what what, am I not rezzed?
[2012/08/21 16:03]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): But your point Zo, dovetails in mine; I don’t think augmentative devices makes for fluency–either the fluency of language, or the fluency implied by intelligence
[2012/08/21 16:03]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Not to me, Ivy.
[2012/08/21 16:03]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I agree, Scarp; so what this means is that humanity is globally rising its collective intelligence, but this started on the day that the first human picked up a stick to hit a wild beast. It’s just getting faster.
[2012/08/21 16:04]  Ivy Sunkiller: whip yer rezz hamsters!
[2012/08/21 16:04]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): But most of the furniture isn’t rezzed, nor that big bust of George W Bush that Extie has hidden behind the trees
[2012/08/21 16:04]  Extropia DaSilva: oh you found it?
[2012/08/21 16:04]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: (you look rezzed to me, ivy, even though soime textures are blurred)
[2012/08/21 16:04]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Extie, you know you can’t hide anything from me
[2012/08/21 16:04]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): That reminds me of an episode of The Prisoner, Stranger, where the island starts doing TV broadcasts that educate everyone instantaneously……everyone ends up only knowing the same things
[2012/08/21 16:04]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: (is the Bush buring? 🙂 )
[2012/08/21 16:04]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: *burning
[2012/08/21 16:05]  Extropia DaSilva: I remember that episode, Violet!
[2012/08/21 16:05]  Zobeid Zuma: Zobeid Zuma winces every time she has to drive on George W Bush Parkway. 😛
[2012/08/21 16:05]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): 🙂
[2012/08/21 16:05]  Ivy Sunkiller: Ivy Sunkiller rebakes
[2012/08/21 16:05]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Is that from the original? The General? Where he destroys the AI by asking it the one question it can’t answer?
[2012/08/21 16:05]  Zen (zen.arado): have to go…late for me nite all..ty for discussion
[2012/08/21 16:05]  Ivy Sunkiller: byes Zen
[2012/08/21 16:05]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Yeah, Rhi 🙂
[2012/08/21 16:05]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Take care, Zen 🙂
[2012/08/21 16:05]  Extropia DaSilva: yes Rhi.
[2012/08/21 16:05]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: It improved slightly, Ivy, at least from the waist up
[2012/08/21 16:05]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: And see you, Zen 🙂
[2012/08/21 16:05]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): bye, Zen!
[2012/08/21 16:06]  Zobeid Zuma: That’s an interesting point, Violet. The Net is fundamentally different from broadcast media, it’s point-to-point, it’s individualized. That alone has changed how we see a lot of things.
[2012/08/21 16:06]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): hopefully we don’t ask our new evolvong hyperintelligence that stooopid single question!
[2012/08/21 16:06]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): ‘Such brilliant people, such” “A row of cabbages?”
[2012/08/21 16:06]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Was that the question defeating the AI? Hmm
[2012/08/21 16:06]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Weow, now that Zen is gone, I’m seeing most of the furniture
[2012/08/21 16:06]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): “Why?” I think
[2012/08/21 16:07]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Because!
[2012/08/21 16:07]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): “Why?” etc. 🙂
[2012/08/21 16:07]  Zobeid Zuma: However, I’ve also run into situations where I was in a forum discussion on some esoteric subject, and I’ll pull some factoid out of my hardbound book library — something that just isn’t on the WWW — and turn everybody else upside down. They forget that the Net isn’t (yet) the repository of all human knowledge.
[2012/08/21 16:07]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): you see more of the furnitures, if someone stood up. Naturally. that single place had been covered
[2012/08/21 16:07]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): It was “Why.”
[2012/08/21 16:07]  Zobeid Zuma: There are still some things Google won’t tell you.
[2012/08/21 16:07]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh?
[2012/08/21 16:07]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Unfair though to call the General an AI. Part of the point was that human minds transcend the measurable
[2012/08/21 16:07]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Like what? 🙂
[2012/08/21 16:07]  Extropia DaSilva: Something funny is happening with ants. We are seeing the rise of ‘uni-colonies’ which are many different and unrelated ant colonies cooperating instead of waging war. this is inexplicable given what we know about ants and their society. Hyperintelligence would involve seeing something inexplicable emerging from the network of humanity+ its computers and sensors.
[2012/08/21 16:08]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Like “Why” Gwyn. lol
[2012/08/21 16:08]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: oh my, lol
[2012/08/21 16:08]  Scarp Godenot: Everyone’s computer system reacts to this complicated viewer software in a different way. There is no accounting for a lot of what one observes as their own problems with it.
[2012/08/21 16:08]  Ivy Sunkiller: I typed in “why”, it hinted at “why not”
[2012/08/21 16:08]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): I sometimes type up passages I like in books….they sometimes get absorbed into the net, that way…
[2012/08/21 16:08]  Ivy Sunkiller: I call you wrong Rhi
[2012/08/21 16:08]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: About 3,980,000,000 results (0.25 seconds)
[2012/08/21 16:08]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Ivy, no it was “Why”
[2012/08/21 16:09]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): luisa *sniggers* on “There is no accounting for a lot of what one observe”
[2012/08/21 16:09]  Extropia DaSilva: I like that idea, Violet:)
[2012/08/21 16:09]  Scarp Godenot: You know what amazes me is that I can remember 8 words of a quote and find its author immediately.
[2012/08/21 16:09]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): The idea was that was a non-quantifiable, non-social constructed question that only an individual mind could answer
[2012/08/21 16:09]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Or know how to not answer, if it’s just going to be a stupid endless loop :p
[2012/08/21 16:09]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): fault tolerating text searches are amazing
[2012/08/21 16:10]  Scarp Godenot: yes, you can even screw up the quote and find it
[2012/08/21 16:10]  Stranger Nightfire: could you give us a reference about those anats Extropia, I would like to follow up on that
[2012/08/21 16:10]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): but those are no true intelligence. its amthematics
[2012/08/21 16:10]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Yeah, fuzzy logic
[2012/08/21 16:10]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): I’m amused by the underlying concept there–that intelligence has to be fuzzy and vague to be real
[2012/08/21 16:10]  Scarp Godenot: fuzzy logic is a form of intelligence
[2012/08/21 16:10]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Extie: ants are interesting. In Europe, there are two species at war — a recent war, just a decade or two old — ranging several thousands of kilometres. For us it’s impossible to understand how they deal with logistics and coordination.
[2012/08/21 16:10]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): anthematics? no, no ants … meant mathematics
[2012/08/21 16:10]  Extropia DaSilva: It is from the book ‘World Wide Mind’ by David Chorost. I expect he references the original paper.
[2012/08/21 16:10]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): We’re mammals. We like fuzzy things 🙂
[2012/08/21 16:11]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Well, I think everything’s rezzed now.
[2012/08/21 16:11]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: No, some of us are fuzzy 🙂
[2012/08/21 16:11]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol
[2012/08/21 16:11]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Except my clothes. Darn it; it’s been nearly 3 years. You’d think they’d have rezzed by now
[2012/08/21 16:11]  Scarp Godenot: I rezzed in the first 15 seconds!
[2012/08/21 16:11]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Rhi .:-)
[2012/08/21 16:11]  Zobeid Zuma: We’ve had multiple ant invasions in Texas. Not fun.
[2012/08/21 16:12]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): I said that once, and someone actually believed me. lol
[2012/08/21 16:12]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Well, I should go make dinner…take care, everyone 🙂
[2012/08/21 16:12]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): TC, Violet
[2012/08/21 16:12]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): bon apetit
[2012/08/21 16:12]  Zobeid Zuma: First it was the fire ants, now it’s the raspberry crazy ants.
[2012/08/21 16:12]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): I still have the “Raid! Run!” ants
[2012/08/21 16:12]  Scarp Godenot: I once read that 40 percent of the biomass of non plant life is termites and ants.
[2012/08/21 16:12]  Extropia DaSilva: Lady Gaga sung about bad Rome ants..
[2012/08/21 16:12]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): so we don’t know if ants are itnelligent, but we can diagnose them as beeing crazy ants?
[2012/08/21 16:13]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Terry Pratchett was right, his ‘computer’ in the DIscworld series is run by ants.
[2012/08/21 16:13]  Scarp Godenot: good one Extie! haha
[2012/08/21 16:13]  Extropia DaSilva: An ant is not intelligent. But ants are.
[2012/08/21 16:13]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: But we don’t ‘see’ them as such,Extie
[2012/08/21 16:14]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): a sincle transistor doesn’t make a computer, but trillions of them do
[2012/08/21 16:14]  Scarp Godenot: I think ant ‘intelligence’ is mechanical, because they can’t learn. You can wipe out the same stream of ants everyday, and they don’t learn to not go to where they will be exterminated.
[2012/08/21 16:14]  Extropia DaSilva: right, Luisa.
[2012/08/21 16:14]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Transistors? I didn’t think they used them anymore, except maybe the FBI and in Russia
[2012/08/21 16:14]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): so Pratchet made a mechanical computing machine, like others before him
[2012/08/21 16:14]  Ivy Sunkiller: is learning a requirement for intelligence?
[2012/08/21 16:14]  Extropia DaSilva: Of course we use them. Every IC has billions.
[2012/08/21 16:14]  Zobeid Zuma: It’s true. You can spray around a building and it keeps the crazy ants out, just until a layer of dead ants has built up for the rest to walk over. 😛
[2012/08/21 16:14]  Scarp Godenot: I think learning IS a requirement for intelligence.
[2012/08/21 16:15]  Extropia DaSilva: I think so, Ivy.
[2012/08/21 16:15]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): We wouldn’t call something intelligent, unless it learned. That’s the whole reason the issue comes up with ants and machines. They learn from their mistakes
[2012/08/21 16:15]  Ivy Sunkiller: well, cognitive computing computers pass as intelligent then 🙂
[2012/08/21 16:15]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): with trillions of antlike humans with cellphones, we could get a similar effect. It is merely about their form of cooperative working. A very high organisational level seems needed. and more than static links between them
[2012/08/21 16:15]  Extropia DaSilva: so what is intelligence? Making the right decision based on limited information?
[2012/08/21 16:15]  Scarp Godenot: Maybe we can sum up what is different about human brains by defining it as the ability to learn.
[2012/08/21 16:16]  Zobeid Zuma: Intelligence is forecasting the future!
[2012/08/21 16:16]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): luisa, oh, is that what you meant by cellphones earlier? That they link us like ants in an anthill?
[2012/08/21 16:16]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: See, now, we’re getting to the interesting points, Extie 🙂
[2012/08/21 16:16]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: “What is intelligence?”
[2012/08/21 16:16]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Intelligence is controlling or adapting to your environment–Bruce Lee
[2012/08/21 16:16]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: The ability to answer that question, for instance, is intelligence :=
[2012/08/21 16:16]  Extropia DaSilva: The difference between human brains and the rest is nothing qualitative I feel, we just do X much more abundently.
[2012/08/21 16:16]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Nah Rhi — pretty much *every* animal has adapted to their own environment.
[2012/08/21 16:17]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): So you’re attacked by Chuck Norris and you’re 5′ 2″ and you win–that’s intelligence
[2012/08/21 16:17]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: LOL
[2012/08/21 16:17]  Scarp Godenot: There is a difference between adapting to and controlling one’s environment, I’m thinking.
[2012/08/21 16:17]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Well, that’s the pradigm case for Bruce Lee
[2012/08/21 16:17]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): *paradigm
[2012/08/21 16:17]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I totally agree, Scarp!
[2012/08/21 16:17]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): I think the “adapting” to was a hedge, in case someone pointed out passive ways of handling problems
[2012/08/21 16:17]  Extropia DaSilva: ‘do not concentrate on the finger! You will miss the heavenly glory!- Bruce Lee.
[2012/08/21 16:18]  Ivy Sunkiller: if controlling environment makes you intelligent, then all builders in SL should be geniuses
[2012/08/21 16:18]  Scarp Godenot: I am warming to the idea of defining intelligence as ability to learn.
[2012/08/21 16:18]  Ivy Sunkiller: if you learn but you don’t think, is it intelligence?
[2012/08/21 16:18]  Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): “I am not interested in the ideological conflict between East and West.” “You will get to kill a lot of people.” “When do I start?” The Bruce Lee figure in “A Fistfull of Yen” (Kentucky Fried MOvie)
[2012/08/21 16:19]  Extropia DaSilva: can you learn without thinking?
[2012/08/21 16:19]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): more than learning, it is .. ingeniosity. Creation of new behavior patterns, by observing old ones
[2012/08/21 16:19]  Scarp Godenot: thinking is the process that leads to learning
[2012/08/21 16:19]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hardly. Learning is possible in AIs. There are many very fancy algorithms for that, some of which are anything but obvious, but they work.
[2012/08/21 16:19]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): learning requires a measurement scale
[2012/08/21 16:19]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hm!
[2012/08/21 16:20]  Ivy Sunkiller: I don’t think we have to think – in the common sense of the word – to learn. Your brain learns stuff by repeating stuff
[2012/08/21 16:20]  Extropia DaSilva: If I do not bother to memorise anything because it is just so much easier to google it for the umpteenth time, is that progress toward a higher intelligence for me or is Google making me stupid?
[2012/08/21 16:20]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: haha Extie!
[2012/08/21 16:20]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): as a measurement for progress. Distance for example is measureable. any intelligent car could look at it’s mileage to improve it#s progress path. Doh! even dumb cars measure distances .. there is something missing
[2012/08/21 16:20]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: GOOD one!
[2012/08/21 16:20]  Scarp Godenot: Now to define learning.
[2012/08/21 16:20]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aye, I believe that we’ll evolve from natural stupidity to hyperstupidity.
[2012/08/21 16:21]  Ivy Sunkiller: I actually think that it makes you smarter
[2012/08/21 16:21]  Extropia DaSilva: and if my ipad corrects my spelling and I do not bother learning how words should be spelled…
[2012/08/21 16:21]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, that depends on the field of study, Scarp
[2012/08/21 16:21]  Ivy Sunkiller: it doesn’t matter where the knowledge base is, as long as you have access to it
[2012/08/21 16:21]  Ivy Sunkiller: be it your brain or internetz
[2012/08/21 16:21]  Zobeid Zuma: Some of us were already stupid that way, Extie. So for us it’s just a complete win. 🙂
[2012/08/21 16:22]  Ivy Sunkiller: I dare say – you can’t be stupid if you are not intelligent
[2012/08/21 16:22]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: In computer science, it means developing new rules to better adapt to an environment (extra kudos on dynamic environments) which are not obviously implied in the algorithm itself.
[2012/08/21 16:22]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): your speelink improoves by watching correct words beeing written
[2012/08/21 16:22]  Extropia DaSilva: are these things freeing me from being concerned with trivial details like memorization and spelling so I can concentrate on my cerebral activities, or am I getting dumberer?
[2012/08/21 16:22]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: “not obviously” means — it’s not a rule-based approach. “If X and Y, then do Z”. A learning system has to ‘get’ Z even though it has no rule for it.
[2012/08/21 16:23]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: We humans do that all the time,
[2012/08/21 16:23]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: and current algorithms can, indeed, do that as well.
[2012/08/21 16:23]  Zobeid Zuma: Well, you’re still doing *something* with your mind, Extie. You’re still processing information.
[2012/08/21 16:23]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: And so do ants 🙂
[2012/08/21 16:23]  Scarp Godenot: History is a record of a fight between those who learn. i.e. apply rational thinking, and those who merely believe i.e accept conclusion without evidence.
[2012/08/21 16:23]  Zobeid Zuma: One would hope something useful….
[2012/08/21 16:23]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): we really need an ant here for this toppic!
[2012/08/21 16:23]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Extie: you still have to ‘learn’ how to use Google first 😀
[2012/08/21 16:23]  Zobeid Zuma: Hear hear, Scarp! 😀
[2012/08/21 16:24]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh good one, Scarp 🙂
[2012/08/21 16:24]  Extropia DaSilva: I believe the motto of the Royal society is (in Latin) ‘Take nobody’s word for it’.
[2012/08/21 16:24]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Even though good science starts with ‘believing’ something is plausible, and then working towards a theory that rationally explains why it is so 😉
[2012/08/21 16:25]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: That’s why it’s hard to develop an Artificial Scientist. The best we could come up with is an Artificial Empirist, and even that would be quite hard, though plausible 🙂
[2012/08/21 16:25]  Extropia DaSilva: Now we do not even need a theory or a model. We just throw massive datasets into the jaws of our computing clusters and let their algorithms find patterns where science cannot.
[2012/08/21 16:25]  Scarp Godenot: Gore Vidal, RIP, said the purpose of education is to imbue students with critical thinking abilities.
[2012/08/21 16:26]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I would agree with Gore, although these days I’m promoting an alternative philosophy. Heh.
[2012/08/21 16:26]  Zobeid Zuma: Well, some things have to be taken on faith. Didn’t Gödel prove that?
[2012/08/21 16:26]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Extie: so you are proposing a good working definition of ‘intelligent thinking’: recognising patterns
[2012/08/21 16:27]  Extropia DaSilva: J Craig Ventor, for instance. he found thousands of new species. BUt he knows nothing about them. All he knows is, he has a gene sequence that is unique and therefor must be a new species.
[2012/08/21 16:27]  Scarp Godenot: Faith must always be conditional and able to be changed with evidence.
[2012/08/21 16:27]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: In fact, we’re actually “too good” at recognising patterns — even when there are none to be recognised.
[2012/08/21 16:27]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hey, I resent that, Extie! MY gene sequence is unique!
[2012/08/21 16:27]  Extropia DaSilva: true! That is why they say correlation is not causation.
[2012/08/21 16:27]  Scarp Godenot: I’m glad of that Gwyn, being an abstract artist! heh
[2012/08/21 16:28]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: (Now we can discuss Advanced Darwinism and discuss what a ‘species’ is, if actually they don’t have the SAME genetic sequences)
[2012/08/21 16:28]  Scarp Godenot: a species is easy to define
[2012/08/21 16:28]  Zobeid Zuma: The Texas GOP has come out against teaching “critical thinking” in schools. They say it undermines authority!
[2012/08/21 16:28]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Not since 1850, Scarp 🙂
[2012/08/21 16:28]  Scarp Godenot: If two individuals can breed and produce fertile offspring, they are the same species
[2012/08/21 16:28]  Ivy Sunkiller: LOL
[2012/08/21 16:29]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: They are right, Zo! It does! 🙂
[2012/08/21 16:29]  Ivy Sunkiller: Zo: well, they are correct, it does undermine authority – *THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT* 😀
[2012/08/21 16:29]  Extropia DaSilva: Uhh well the truth is probably a bit more complex. Maybe I misunderstood. But the point is, we now find species by scooping up air or water and running it through a gene sequencer. All we have is data. We do not know much of anything about the new species we find.
[2012/08/21 16:29]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Scarp: so horses, donkeys and mules are the same species, right? 😉
[2012/08/21 16:29]  Scarp Godenot: nope, they are infertile
[2012/08/21 16:29]  Scarp Godenot: they are hybrids
[2012/08/21 16:30]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, I forgot — “and produce fertile offspring”
[2012/08/21 16:30]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oj
[2012/08/21 16:30]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok
[2012/08/21 16:30]  Zobeid Zuma: It’s not always clear-cut.
[2012/08/21 16:30]  Scarp Godenot: Fertile offspring of the same characteristics
[2012/08/21 16:30]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aye, it’s a good definition for 99.8% of the cases 🙂
[2012/08/21 16:30]  Extropia DaSilva: I wish I could produce an offspring of a whale and a donkey because it would be a wonky.
[2012/08/21 16:30]  Scarp Godenot: It is THE definition of the term
[2012/08/21 16:30]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Pre-1850 🙂
[2012/08/21 16:30]  Scarp Godenot: not true
[2012/08/21 16:31]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Because you wouldn’t have species differentiation if the process worked 100% of the time 😉
[2012/08/21 16:31]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Extie: lol
[2012/08/21 16:31]  Zobeid Zuma: One reason I’m not a geologist today is because I couldn’t look at two seashell fossils and tell which ones were the same species and which ones weren’t. I never got the hang of that.
[2012/08/21 16:31]  Zobeid Zuma: They all pretty much look the same to me. 😛
[2012/08/21 16:31]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Also, the question discussed 150 years ago was “what are characteristics? how can we know we have listed them ALL?”
[2012/08/21 16:31]  Extropia DaSilva: OO my time is almost up. so! Last question; ‘The Internet scenario of humanity+ its computers working so efficiently together that we become a hypermind will get is to The Singularity faster than anything else! Yes or no?
[2012/08/21 16:31]  Scarp Godenot: Differentication within species is one thing, it becomes another species when the differentiation produces offspring incapable of reproducing with the original species.
[2012/08/21 16:32]  Extropia DaSilva: yes!
[2012/08/21 16:32]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ha, no, Extie. You’d have to define what the singularity IS first
[2012/08/21 16:32]  Zobeid Zuma: No.
[2012/08/21 16:32]  Zobeid Zuma: Well, I don’t think there’s going to be a “Singularity” anyhow, so there.
[2012/08/21 16:33]  Scarp Godenot: Yes it will, because it is the communication of the internet that will allow the separate collaborators to produce AI.
[2012/08/21 16:33]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Because you’re working from the reverse approach: “I define The SIngularity as the Internet scenario of Humanity + its computers working together”. So, well, obviously, thanks to that definition, the implication is obvious.
[2012/08/21 16:33]  luisa (luisa.bourgoin): no, there is a limit in mob intelligence. it sums up different on higher level. taken a single ant: lost. a whole million ants: sophisticated. a single human: can get a noble degree. a mob scene of 100 humans: will never get any noble prices
[2012/08/21 16:33]  Extropia DaSilva: The singularity: Using technology to create or become a greater-than-human intelligence.
[2012/08/21 16:33]  Ivy Sunkiller: there is one scenario that doesn’t produce singularity, and it’s not one I like
[2012/08/21 16:33]  Ivy Sunkiller: * on this planet
[2012/08/21 16:33]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, if you define humans + computers + internet as being greater-than-human intelligence, then you’re defining the Singularity as that.
[2012/08/21 16:33]  Zobeid Zuma: Oh good, a new definitition that I haven’t heard before! I’m glad I know what it is now. Until next week, at least. 🙂
[2012/08/21 16:33]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: But that’s circular reasoning 🙂
[2012/08/21 16:34]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: And that’s a no-no.
This entry was posted in after thinkers, technology and us and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Thinkers Aug 21 2012: The Internet scenario

  1. Hah! Now that this is posted on your log (I was secretly hoping you’d do that soon…) I will play Devil’s Advocate and try to elaborate further on the point I made during the discussion, since sometimes, thanks to the very interactive real-time conversation, some points get lost or hopelessly confused.

    I understand this is part of your “research work” for an upcoming article. The problem is how your hypothesis is formulated. The conclusion you make is correct but the assumptions are lost in semanthics and thus you fall into circular reasoning.

    The hypothesis is that the Singularity can be brought by humans and computers interacting on the Internet. So far, so good. Then you had us discuss what “augmented intelligence” means (that’s as good a term as any other). I argued that a human and a stick is the beginning of “augmented intelligence” — humans, with tools, can solve problems that humans alone cannot. Clearly, as tools become more complex, humans can solve more complex problems. More humans using tools in a shared environment are able to solve problems with an order of magnitude of complexity — this allows them to create new, complex tools which wouldn’t be possible either by humans on their own, or even by humans working together. So this is a good argument to show that the “collective augmented intelligence” — in the sense of being able to address much more complex problems than a human alone, or a human with a stick — has grown, and it grows exponentially.

    So far, that’s also good and fine. Then comes the “cheating” step: you postulate that thanks to this will lead to the “Singularity” (deliberately between quotes). When asked what the “Singularity” is, you propose as a definition: “The singularity: Using technology to create or become a greater-than-human intelligence.”

    So this means that you define your hypothesis as the result of the process to validate the hypotesis: circular reasoning! Or, if you prefer, it’s just semantic word shuffling. Here is your argument presented using different words:

    One human in isolation has the ability to solve certain classes of problems. Let’s call this “base intelligence”.
    One human with a stick (a tool — a product of technology) can solve more classes of problems which are impossible without the stick. The result is a human with “augmented intelligence”.
    Many humans with many sticks, working together, can solve classes of problems an order of magnitude more complex that one human alone, one human with a stick, or several humans working together without sticks. This means that the “collective augmented intelligence” is far greater than the sum of the individual “base intelligences”.
    Because creating tools is also a complex problem, groups of humans with tools can, working together, address the complex problem of developing more complex tools. These, in turn, enable humans and their newly created complex tools to address problems orders of magnitude greater, which would otherwise be impossible. This series is clearly exponential in nature.
    Your conclusion: we’re approaching the point where we can create/become a greater-than-human intelligence.


    The moment we picked up a stick to do something we couldn’t do with our “base intelligence” was the moment when we “became” a greater-than-human intelligence. So, using that simplistic definition, “singularity” just means “picking up a tool — as simple as a stick — to be able to solve problems that a human base intelligence cannot solve by itself”. Augmented intelligence is the moment where a human uses a tool or talks to another human in order to solve a problem that otherwise would be impossible for them to solve on their own.

    Using your simple definition of the “Singularity”, it already happened — a million or two million years ago — and even predates our species 🙂

    So either you reformulate your definition of “Singularity”, or you are just proving that the process described by the definition of “Singularity” started millions of years ago, which is just making the definition of “Singularity” meaningless.

    Note that I’m not contradicting Vinge or Kurzweil or any transhumanist: I’m just saying that working from the above hypothesis on how humans + tools interact, we immediately achieve greater-than-human intelligence the moment when we picked up a stick to do things we could not do before.

    Philosophically, this can even be reduced further, and split a few more hairs in the process. One can imagine that the first Homo erectus wasn’t born knowing how to dig roots with their fingers and nails. One of them, by chance, had an insight — he had above average intelligence for his period — and started to dig roots with his fingers. Through teaching this technique, this enabled other Homo erectii to do the same. There! Instant raise of the average intelligence of the species, happening through education. So even without tools humans are able to raise the collective average intelligence, by merely telling others how to solve certain problems using techniques that individuals with above average intelligence have accomplished. This works to accelerate not only the rate of collective average intelligence, but, when combined with augmented intelligence (i.e. tool usage), makes the whole process even faster. What I mean with this example is that even “dumb computers” would work towards exponential growth of the average intelligence of the population — say, mobile phones allowing people to talk to each other and answer questions to problems they individually couldn’t solve. Add “smart computers” to the equation — Internet-connected computers who can access Google — and it just means that everything is faster.

    So we went from a single individual with no tools and a certain amount of “base intelligence” towards a complex society of 7 billion of interconnected individuals with computers who can address problems and solve them, several orders of magnitude more complex than the ones able to be solved by individual humans.

    Where does your definition of “Singularity” fit into this? It describes the process since Day One, around 2 or 3 million BCE — the day a primitive proto-human taught a friend a new technique to dig out roots, or learned how to use a stick to accomplish that (or both things simultaneously). Instead of a “Singularity” you have a “Continuity” — the process started back then and continues to this very day, and continues to be exponential. Or, if you wish to fix a moment in time when humans achieved greater-than-human intelligence to solve problems that they couldn’t with their base intelligence, then the “Singularity” happened 2 or 3 millions ago. We’re all post-singularity humans in that regard, and, if you wish, you can define “human intelligence” as the moment in time when we achieved the trick of solving problems with tools (or with other humans) beyond the ability of what a single, individual brain is capable of solving.

    So you need to redefine your definition of “Singularity”, because clearly “achieving or becoming greater-than-human intelligence” is what humans do, and have been doing so for the past millions of years.

    • Picking up a stick represents the beginning of technology and it could arguably represent a step toward the Singularity. But it does not get us there. Why not? Because there is nothing that a person with a stick can understand that a person without cannot. Vernor Vinge once explained the Singularity in the following way. You could explain a video recorder to a person from the Victorian era and they could understand it as well as any average person. But you could not get a goldfish to understand a video recorder. It is simply beyond their mind’s capacity for understanding. In the Singularity, we are the goldfish with respect to posthuman science and technology.

      A person with a stick has not made such a giant cognitive leap. But networked humanity using data-intensive science? Projects that require the combined efforts of hundreds of millions of minds across the spectrum of science along with the data-mining capabilities of clusters of supercomputers running specialized software? Could an individual get their heads around such an enormously complex project? Perhaps not, which is why the Internet scenario gets us closer to, and perhaps past, the Singularity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s