Are UFOs AI machines?
Copyright 2020, InterAmerica, Inc.
Receiving some comments (from regulars like Dominick, Bryan
Daum, and Jerry Cornelius) that refer to my posting about AI and related issues
brings me to elaborate somewhat on the problems confronting artificial
intelligence.
Also, this week I came across the mathematical aspects of AI
arriving by way of computers.
For instance, the May/June issue of Popular Mechanics
has, on pages 16 and 17 a piece by Courtney Linder about Facebook’s neural
network.
In the article are pertinent statements such as “All the
data used by computers are numbers” and neural nets “… [are] less suited to
solving mathematical equations because the shorthand humans use to write
expressions uses symbolic figures that computers find cumbersome.”
Dominick was striving to make me understand that the
mathe- matical essence of computing made AI unable to solve some problems, and I
almost agree.
The problem, as I see it, since computers can’t make moral
or ethical judgments apparently, one has to quantify principles of morality or
ethical behavior, an almost impossible job, yes?
Not exactly.
Virtually everything can be reduced to numerical attributes,
and many statements of logic, as Bertrand Russell (along with Alfred North
Whitehead) showed, can be provided via mathematical methods.
In a TLS review by Alexandre Leskanich of
Scott Soames book The World Philosophy Made: From Plato to the digital
age [Princeton University Press, $29.95] – in which, because of
Professor/Philosopher Scott Soames leanings toward President Trump the reviewer
scalds his book – appears this:
“Later chapters detail the development of modern logic,
mathe- matics and computation by way of Frege, Tarski, Gödel and Turing, the
establishment of linguistics, rational choice theory, and notions of liberty
and justice.” [TLS, April 17, 2020, Page 33]
Professor Soames’ position coincides with the ideas of Bostrom,
Kurzweil, et al. who assume that AI translates into something beyond
computing and is not limited to a sheer mathematical paradigm.
Soames’ take is that philosophical “advancement” has brought
forth “menacing authoritarians, dissembling demagogues and miasma of
infotainment [in which] this noxious, rapidly warming world exhibits not the
triumph of ‘rational inquiry’ but … the im- plosion of reason itself.” [ibid]
Can AI be worse?
The optimistic view is that AI can be a panacea for the
world’s ills – despite the warnings about its eventual usurpation of mankind’s
dominance by Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking, and others.
So, what about UFOs?
AI machines, UFOs, operating as a methodical employment of
decsion-making would be astounded – baffled – by what it has observed over the
years, even millennia, upon Earth.
The irrationality – even now exampled by the protest riots
going on or the disregard of sense when it comes to the COVID-19 pandemic – of
human beings would confound, I think, the intelligence of AI (“beings” or
machines).
Thus, AI UFOs would be stilled, confused, about human
behavior to an extent that AI could not act or respond in any way and has never
been able to, just continuing to observe human insanity and brought to a
stifled pattern of reconnoitering.
Does this explain the non-contact of humanity by UFOs or any
entities within?
RR
posted by RRRGroup at
Sunday, May 31, 2020
19 Comments:
We need to ask whether the AI might have mental properties not reducible to physical properties. Already there is evidence that this is true of humans and animals - even plants.
Might the AI, with a mind beyond mere silicon and logical operations, be able to then come to grips with symbols?
Martin
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, May 31, 2020
Why not M?
I'll scour my lit here and see what I can find.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Sunday, May 31, 2020
Scott Soames is a very talented philosopher. One of the best around. It is unfair of Leskanich to pan his book over political disagreements.
I miss the old days when we Americans had debates not tainted by hatred. Everything is full of vituperation now. And even will to destruction.
Martin
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, May 31, 2020
I'm far from a Trumper but Soames makes a lot of sense about a lot of things.
I thought the review skittered from objectivity to political partiality, or in this instance non-partiality.
It was bad.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Monday, June 01, 2020
I must have my head examined for getting back into this but here goes.
Rich, imagine you want AI to solve the UFO riddle. You want AI to plug in ALL of the information, i.e., "all of the pertinent material" as you say, and then employing pure logic, spit out the correct answer.
Now your blog, yesterday, today, and 5 years ago contains information and "pertinent material" relevant presumably to solving the UFO riddle. Please tell me what NUMBER can capture that information and then represent it accurately in the Spokian equation? I hold that there is no such number or more accurately there can be no such number (although the quant geeks will plug in some imaginary number simply to make their models run. Totally bogus).
The fact remains that the quant geeks have been misleading the social sciences for decades. And the social sciences go along with this charade since they secretly desire the alleged precision of the physical sciences.
By
Dominick, at Monday, June 01, 2020
Dominick..
You're fixated on the numbers.
In the posting, -- me quoting Soames -- there is more than numbers for data.
You've read, I presume (hope), the AI suggestions of the "geeks" and if you have, you know that "data" is more than numbers.
Your prohibition derives from the idea that data is finite? That an answer can't be derived
ultimately from data?
That logic is limited by the input that a machine can acquire?
What do social sciences have to do with this? It's more a matter of technology, minus all the hoo-hah of social science or psychology....neurology comes close to offering help with the development of AI, but that's it.
The Spock quote was just an aside.
AI will provide "answers" to problems. Some will work, some won't. The guys, named, who fear the takeover of humanity by AI are maybe right to be concerned but then maybe not.
AI can be controlled, so far anyway.
Data is infinite, information is also...and can't be destroyed, according to Hawking.
So I'm assuming answers to world problems -- human problems -- are available, even now. it's just a matter of getting human factors (emotions, judgments, et cetera) out of the equations.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Monday, June 01, 2020
What do the social sciences have to do with this? Everything. The data in the social sciences differs fundamentally from the data in the physical sciences; and the process for verifying correctness of outcomes is totally different.
Problems to be solved in the physical sciences depend upon agreed standards of measurement and independent replication of results. Imagine, for example, if a foot was 12 inches for an U.S. scientist but 9 inches for a French scientist. Verifying truthful outcomes to some problem associated with, say, a rocket launch would be impossible. Doing science would be impossible.
Social science data, on he other hand, has no invariant unit of measurement that would allow independent replication. For example, racism, like love, might be ranked (ordinal ranking) on some scale from less to more BUT any sort of cardinal measurement seems absurd. Does it really make sense to say that I love my cat 6.5 times more than I love my wife? And how would you prove that?).
In short, the social sciences suffer inevitably from the the 12 inch, 9 inch quandry. To return to my example of the UFO mystery, it's perfectly true that your web/blog pages could be totaled up (objective) BUT their content and meaning and context--the actual information--would not lend itself to any AI process of which I'm aware. And if that's true, how would any replication of results ("What are UFOs?) be possible? What would you be replicating?
Again I assert that the quant and math geeks would love to pretend that AI can capture and manipulate the relevant data in the social sciences by essentially copying the process employed in the physical sciences. Academic fraud.
By
Dominick, at Monday, June 01, 2020
Don't count on AI being controllable. Certainly not easily so. If the cheerleaders for AI progress are right anyway.
The next paragraph is from Steve Omohundro. He's a computer scientist.
One might imagine that AI systems with harmless goals will be harmless. This paper instead shows that intelligent systems will need to be carefully designed to prevent them from behaving in harmful ways. We identify a number of “drives” that will appear in sufficiently advanced AI systems of any design. We call them drives because they are tendencies which will be present unless explicitly counteracted. We start by showing that goal-seeking systems will have drives to model their own operation and to improve themselves. We then show that self-improving systems will be driven to clarify their goals and represent them as economic utility functions. They will also strive for their actions to approximate rational economic behavior. This will lead almost all systems to protect their utility functions from modification and their utility measurement systems from corruption. We also discuss some exceptional systems which will want to modify their utility functions. We next discuss the drive toward self-protection which causes systems try to prevent themselves from being harmed. Finally we examine drives toward the acquisition of resources and toward their efficient utilization. We end with a discussion of how to incorporate these insights in designing intelligent technology which will lead to a positive future for humanity.
Dominick is reminding us that mere pre-programmed logical operations and masses of data can do only so much. The most important human problemsolving transcends mere numbercrunching. No matter how elaborate.
No one yet understands creativity. The openness of human cognition is a fantastic mystery. Why can human thought add new information? Why can we go beyond the mere rearrangement of information known as deduction? Only naive Enlightenment optimism insists silicon machines can replicate it. We are far from full understanding. But I doubt the Enlighteners.
Martin
By
Anonymous, at Monday, June 01, 2020
Thank you Martin for the input....
I can't disagree with Omohundro; he states what some of my idols (Musk, Hawking) state.
But I find that this kind of thinking derives from the idea that AI creators will end up putting judgmental factors and emotional proclivities into AI machines.
That is an overwhelming (impossible?) thing to achieve, and an idealistic creative motif outlined long ago by Mary Shelley's great novel with the attendant problems.
AI, without emotional paradigms -- sheer logic as outlined by Aristotle's maxims -- how many times do I need to accent that? -- of True and False dicta, is the AI proclivity that should be exploited.
(I'll bring more of this to the discussion upcoming as you fellows are fixated on a sci-fi version of AI, which has human facilities.)
Not the AI I'm talking about.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Monday, June 01, 2020
Dominick:
See my note above this one addressed to Martin.
You two guys keep inputting human factors into the AI I'm striving to get across here.
No emotion, no judgments, no ethical or moral attributes. That's the stuff that Soames, in his book, points out as the prerogative of philosophy which has brought humanity to its knees.
I'll try again to make my point(s) clear, as you fellows are not seeing or understanding what I'm writing.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Monday, June 01, 2020
AI might need a simulated personality. Without one it may be unable to accomplish much. Personality is needed to drive learning.
AI that can think creatively can't use mere pre-programmed logical algorithms. It must have something of human thought.
Don't forget that Russell's logical positivism was irretrievably demolished.
Martin
By
Anonymous, at Monday, June 01, 2020
That should have been "logical atomism." Not "logical positivism." I sometimes confuse the terms.
Martin
By
Anonymous, at Monday, June 01, 2020
That should have been "logical atomism." Not "logical positivism." I sometimes confuse the terms.
Martin
By
Anonymous, at Monday, June 01, 2020
Martin:
You really want AI to have human attributes.
Irretrievably demolished? Do I need to slide that back too?
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Monday, June 01, 2020
I do not want any AI. It is dangerous and enables totalitarian abuses. Especially when applied in facial recognition technology. Already we are seeing that happen. Look at China. Their surveillance state is heavily investing in AI facial recognition technology. Very worrying. We should not follow them.
My point was to describe what AI that matches or exceeds human creative problemsolving may require. Artificial personality may be a requirement.
Russell's logical atomism and its offshoot logical positivism are in bad shape. Demolished indeed.
Martin
By
Anonymous, at Monday, June 01, 2020
"So, what about UFOs?"
Hello Rich,
Old geezers still 'discussing" it between them? Another book here or there, in the very same micrososm? Some still making money by this modern myth?
"Nothing more then" and it will be NOTHING more.
Excepted for Human Sciences like sociology (examining "your"/a modern myth).
Amitié,
Gilles Fernandez
By
Gilles Fernandez, at Monday, June 01, 2020
"...the prerogative of philosophy which has brought humanity to its knees." Rich, you insult our intelligence with statements like this. The philosophy of Aristotle or Aquinas has hardly brought humanity to its knees; almost precisely the opposite is true. We are witnessing a world gone mad in the absence of those philosophical principles.
By
Dominick, at Monday, June 01, 2020
The quote Dom comes from Scott Soames new book.
It was made in the context of what is actually happening right now: philosophy has been no panacea for humanity's woes Soames is telling us.
I happen to agree with him.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Monday, June 01, 2020
AI is inevitable. I'm not dismissing the philosophical, rather it seems that there is no opportunity for or regulation of its approach.
The discussed prelude is inconsequential angst. The advance cannot be slowed.
Its an upcoming new science where the convenience of the Google-like transitions into something else and we just hang on.
I think that's where Giles goes astray, its going to be a big deal at many levels to include those of "are we alone." There is certainly the opportunity for our answers as an
AI might sort through the past and ongoing data and answer if there is indeed a signal amid the noise.
It should be expected that regulation will follow in its own late after-the-fact progression and notably as those with the earliest AI become too powerful.
BD
By
Bryan Daum, at Tuesday, June 02, 2020
Post a Comment
<< Home