Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Grakelin]

Okay, why not. Other people (sometimes), accomplishment, knowledge, the universe around me.

Why do those things make you happy?

[nbonaparte]

other people is easily reducible to biology. the others aren't. But they do have underlying deterministic reasons dependent on my brain.

[Grakelin]

Okay, what are they? Why do you think they apply to the computer?

Why are you made biologically happy by other people around you? Shouldn't that descriptor only apply to those you are sexually attracted to? I'm not made biologically happy by any of my roommates, but I like having them around.

How do you emulate this in the computer? Can you do it? It has to be precise.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

You're describing neither sapience nor intelligence, rather the herding mechanism of a pack hunter, and something entirely irrelevant to strong AI.

[alway]

Okay, what are they? Why do you think they apply to the computer?

Why are you made biologically happy by other people around you? Shouldn't that descriptor only apply to those you are sexually attracted to? I'm not made biologically happy by any of my roommates, but I like having them around.

How do you emulate this in the computer? Can you do it? It has to be precise.

Neural networks, and because neural networks can be created in computers.

He said 'for some,' not 'for all,' so technically he could mean purely biological. Although both catagories would fall under neural networks; albiet different locations within them.

Like so.

[nbonaparte]

Happiness evolved to reinforce behaviors contributing to successful reproduction. A more obvious example would be orgasms. I'm not about to go all evo-psych and go backwards from the effect to postulate the cause.

Let's let our hypothetical AI programmers be evolution. First, let's assume that the AI's behaviors should attempt to protect its existence. That's its "goal", in the same sense that reproduction is the "goal" of life. Its goal is to survive. How do we do this? Sensations reinforcing useful behaviors and reducing non-useful behaviors is a start. But for that, the AI needs a sense of "this feels good" and "this feels bad". That's simple enough. Adding a pain analogue when it does something liable to endanger it would make sense. And on the other end of the spectrum, adding a positive reinforcement for useful behaviors follows. Expanding, obtaining more processing power, "eating", so to speak. To humans, eating feels good. sleeping feels good. hell, taking a shit is satisfying. All things we need to do to survive. It's simple drives like that. It doesn't matter what the specific behaviors are, but reinforcing behaviors leading to an arbitrary goal like 'self preservation' give rise to what can be perceived as emotion.

Somehow, enjoying the company of others makes me more able to reproduce. Perhaps it's because of humans' status as social animals. Cooperation leads to good for the whole. Accomplishment? nonsexual beauty? knowledge? Concepts like that are the sort of complex things that the basic drives we have combine to create. Emergent properties. It's concepts like those that make intelligence amazing.

[Grakelin]

Okay, so what makes it wrong for us to kill other people?

[Realmfighter]

nothing.

Nihilism for the win.

[nbonaparte]

I take the nihilistic route, so there's no inherent right or wrong, but the conclusion I personally come to is that I wouldn't want to be killed, and order, a perceived good to society, is disrupted when people kill others.

Edit: pirated by realmfighter. heh.

[Grakelin]

Alright then, moral dilemma solved.

It is perfectly fine to hunt and kill the AIs, because it is perfectly fine to hunt and kill humans.

[Realmfighter]

Never said it wasn't.

Its when you get people who aren't Nihilistic bastard going what the fuck is when you get a problem.

[Grakelin]

Easy answer: Kill them, too.

[Realmfighter]

They outnumber you 6.9 Billion-1 to one, have all the guns (All of them) and actually know how to kill things.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

I take the nihilistic route, so there's no inherent right or wrong, but the conclusion I personally come to is that I wouldn't want to be killed, and order, a perceived good to society, is disrupted when people kill others.

Edit: pirated by realmfighter. heh.

Yes, there's nothing inherently wrong with any action, but almost all of us have a subjective desire not to die, and so it is in everyone's best interest to foster an environment wherein one's death is least likely, which includes considering wanton murder unacceptable, thus not engaging in it, and punishing it when someone else commits it. Same goes for theft, etc.

[nbonaparte]

Ah, you don't quite understand nihilism. There is no inherent morality to the universe. That doesn't mean we can't come up with our own systems to act within. Despite the fact that there's nothing forcing me (besides threat by the law), I'm not about to go out and kill someone. I assume the same of Realmfighter.

argh, too many ninjas. replying to grakelin. And SP, I covered that. "I wouldn't want to be killed". golden rule sort of thing.