AI and the singularity

Discussion in 'Intelligence & Machines' started by arfa brane, Jun 9, 2017.

  1. TheFrogger Valued Senior Member

    What we give birth to freaks? If this is advantagous enough to allow the creature to reproduce then the ab-normality will be reproduced.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    You'll need to define the word "freak" more clearly.

    Is an autistic child a freak, or just unable to communicate his thoughts in a meaningful way? Computers seem to help many autistics in communicating.

    Comes to mind an autistic girl who was placed in a facility for the seriously mentally impaired for 20 years. Then someone gave her a computer and now she holds lectures around the world. Turns out she had an very high IQ and deep philosophical views on the world around her, but could not connect her thoughts to her verbal neural network. But with the help of a computer she was able to communicate and relate the hell she lived in for 20 years. It is truly a wonder she did not go completely insane, given her environment.

    What about "idiot savants" who are genius in a specific area of their brain function, such as music or mathematics, but are not practically functional in the"normal" world? Are they freaks or possible sources for greater knowledge in how the brain functions? How about people with OCD?, are they freaks?

    And what makes you think that all these people ever mate to pass on their defective gene.

    Would you consider a criminal psychopath, who cannot experience "empathy" through a defective mirror neuron system, "freaks"? You might never recognize the danger they pose to society, because outwardly they look and act like any "normal" person. History is full of examples of brilliant psychopaths. And usually psychopath have an extreme sense of superiority which allows them to reach great positions of power. There are some clear examples in today's world.

    Please do not make hasty decisions about mental or physical abilities. In many cases we have the means to assist these people to live "meaningful" lives. And recently we are developing RNA molecules which may be able to correct genetic codes from DNA samples, so that any defects may be corrected, perhaps even during gestation.

    Since we have left paradise because our brains have evolved (perhaps by a freakish mutation), we cannot go back to pre-human natural selection. See:

    If we are able to acquire advanced knowledge of DNA structures, lets try to use that to it's full potential, before we begin to even think of "culling" the world's population from "freaks", unless they are diagnosed as not viable before birth. But I suspect you are also a pro-life advocate and are opposed to abortion. If so, do you see the inherent contradiction in your question?

    IMO, this is dangerous thinking along a very slippery slope.
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2017
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. TheFrogger Valued Senior Member

    That's the theory of Evolution. Mutations.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I know what the theory of evolution is and how it works. But that is the process of natural selection.
    You are proposing unnatural selection, IOW human selection....difference!

    But you are deflecting my question. Define "freak", and at what point can a person be considered a freak and who decides?
    And are you a pro-life advocate or pro-choice advocate? Do you understand the difference?

    I will not engage any further in this conversation unless you answer those two simple questions.
  8. TheFrogger Valued Senior Member

    I am pro-life.
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Thank you, I suspected you were.
    Now let me pose another question. If during pregnancy the medical evidence shows that the fetus was physically viable but was failing to develop a brain. IOW, it would be born alive but would only exist in a vegetable state (without consciousness) and could be kept alive only by artificial means for its entire existence, would you still be in favor of bringing it to term?

    If so, would you be prepared to have it be kept alive by artificial means for as long as the body was physically functional, but never as a conscious person?

    In nature such offspring would die naturally within days, if not hours. Would you still feel morally obliged to keep alive that which nature would "select out" as not fit to survive?

    And last but not least, what purpose would it serve? What would be the most humane course of action?

    I know this might be a very sensitive subject from your perspective and I am discussing this with the greatest respect and empathy for those who are confronted which such terrible dilemmas. (tears welling)

    But these situations do occur.

    p.s. In the movie "I Robot" , there is a scene where an AI must choose to save an already unconscious drowning child or a police officer who was still conscious. The AI chose to save the officer. Later, the policeman asked the AI why he saved him and not the child. The AI explained it was a mathematical calculation of the existing circumstances and who had the greatest chance of survival.
    It was a profound moment in this excellent movie.
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2017
  10. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    I think the hype around the danger of ai is largely ridiculous. But an evolving program doesn't care about survival. It's environment is a computer system.
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    An "intelligent" computer system.....difference.
    And I am not talking of the dangers of AI. I am talking about making choices.
  12. river

    Quantum Oracle ?

    Wow .
  13. TheFrogger Valued Senior Member

    Would a program that appends itself to itself run forever?

    Append [thisprogram] to [thisprogram]


    Which appends itself to the end of the program. (+1)
  14. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    From Arfa Brane Post 3
    This is not AI: Deep blue uses computer number crunching abilities to play chess.

    Some where there is at least one Thread by me which contains remarks similar to the following. There might be other Threads discussing this issue.

    Some chess master (or a group) developed an algorithm which assigns an accurate numeric value to a chess board configuration from the viewpoint of the opponent. Higher values correspond to better positions for the opponent.

    Deep Blue uses a file of initial moves (Eg: Ruy Lopez) until the opponent deviates from the known analysis or until the last move of the analysis is made.

    Deep Blue uses the files of initial moves until the opponent deviates or until the end of the known analysis is reached.

    It then uses the numeric value algorithm & Mini-Max logic to choose moves until a known end game is reached at which point a file of standard end games is used.​

    Mini-Max logic is as follows.

    Build a 2D array of possible moves. Each row corresponds to a possible Deep Blue move. Each column corresponds to a possible reply by the opponent.

    The 2D array contains the numeric value of the position from the opponent’s point of view (higher numbers are more favorable to the opponent).

    Find the row for which the maximum value is the least of all the maximums. & choose the move corresponding to that row. Id est: Present the opponent with the minimum of all his maximum moves.

    If the opponent chooses some value other than his best alternative, he loses faster than he could.​

    The above strategy is dependent on having the algorithm which accurately assigns a numeric value to each board configuration.

    There are various games for which no such algorithm is known, requiring if-then-else logic(or some other type of analysis) which can be too complex for a human to construct.
  15. birch Valued Senior Member


    for example, an opthamologist will only agree with their own previous diagnosis made just a few hours earlier only 65% of the time. such lucidity, logic, precision and accuracy. lol
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Well we can divide by zero but what is the result?
    Dividing some value by zero, by definition does not yield a change in value. Does it?
  17. river

    Actually dividing by zero changes the value , any value , to zero .

  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    No, that's incorrect. Multiplying any value by zero = zero. Dividing by zero does not affect the original value at all.
  19. river


    Instead of just assigning one willy nilly, we say that infinity isn't a number, and that 1/0 is undefined. When something is divided by 0, why is the answer undefined?

    That Write4U you should know .
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2017
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    In formal mathematics a/0 = undefined.

    But if have 10 apples and give them to no one, I end up with 10 apples.
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2017
  21. river

  22. river

    But a singularity is a mathematical concept , hence there is no physical properties to the singularity .
  23. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Not sure what you mean here.
    Since dividing 10 by 0 is not defined, what do you mean it does not affect the original number? 10/0 does not equal 10.

    So if I have 10 apples and I give them to 1 person then I have no apples. That does not mean that 10 / 1 = 0.

    I guess that if you give 10 apples to no one then 'no one' has no apples - in other words it is undefined, meaningless.
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2017

Share This Page