Artificial Intelligence

[simonh]

Or am I missing something?

Why billions when spacecraft are merely millions?

Because at that TL it's really, really hard to do?

Why is it outlawed?

Because otherwise people would do it and the authorities (and perhaps even the population in general) don't want them to? You don't make laws against doing things if nobody has any conceivable chance of doing them.

There are plenty of genuine concerns about the risks associated with creating advanced AIs. People like Elon Musk have suggested they may pose an existential risk to humanity. For such research to be banned that doesn't even need to be true, it just needs to be believed by enough of the right people.

Simon Hibbs

 

[simonh]

You just don't understand it, it looks like. It's actually about pattern recognition, and whether if consciousness is part of intelligence or not. Having some planet sized something or not, is hyperbole. The ability to entertain concepts without necessarily agreeing with them is also a hallmark of intelligence. :wink:

I think I understand it. He's saying that mechanical processes can never be conscious, or have a mind. I believe that is wrong.

Machines are already more intelligent than humans in that they are capable of operations taking focus and precision that would be impossible for a human. Nor is intelligence itself that special, NOVA just had a program on bird intelligence where New Caledonian crows are using three stage tool making, and complex problem solving.

Sure. I suppose Searl would argue that they don't have minds though. Whether they do or not is a matter of opinion, but I don't think its material to the question of whether they could have minds, or whether artificial minds are possible.

Making a machine like a human really makes no sense in itself, what purpose would it serve? Someday sure, what seems insurmountable today will be trivial tomorrow. If anything, Traveller's tables on computers are conservative.

That's true, they are much more conservative than many other games or SF settings. There's nothing wrong with that though IMHO. I am optimistic that True AI will be possible but pessimistic because I think it's a much harder problem to solve than most people realise. Even so, given that the OTU setting covers many thousands of years, it seems likely to me that in those timescales the problem should be tractable.

Simon Hibbs

 

[simonh]

Regarding 'real' versus simulated intelligence. The way I see it there is a distinct qualitative difference between the two approaches.

Simulated intelligence is knowingly faking it. You have a system that has a limited ability to analyse a situation and produce useful responses, and you need it to appear to be more intelligent than it realy s. The classic example is chat bots such as Eliza. They are extremely simple algorithms that, within very limited constraints, are able to simulate participating in a conversation. It is even possible to mistake them for a real human being for short periods, and if they are not challenged significantly, but they have no real intelligence and many of them don't even have a memory.

Most AI researchers are working on simulated intelligences of this kind. They're producing systems that produce useful responses in a limited problem space.

'Real' strong AI, with a mind, is a pure hypothetical at this stage. Nobody has any idea how to even design such a thing, which paradoxically why so few AI researchers are working on it.

Where this distinction between real and simulated AI gets challenged is by the proposition that if you created a simulated AI that really was indistinguishable from real strong AI, would the distinction be meaningful? Surely they would be equivalent? I think this is based on a false assumption though. I do not believe that the simulated AI approach can ever produce a system capable of the same responses as a 'real' strong AI because I don't think that's something you can fake. In order for a simulated AI to be as capable and functional as a real AI it would essentially have to be a real AI, not a faked one.

Simon Hibbs

 

[Condottiere]

Could be a machine capable of intuition, or making logical leaps.

 

[Reynard]

Possibly considered a form of slavery? There may also have been bad incidences.... very bad incidences involving A.I.s that brought down the ire and/or fear of the public similar to the backlash to psionics. And this is long before Virus.

 

[dragoner]

You just don't understand it, it looks like. It's actually about pattern recognition, and whether if consciousness is part of intelligence or not. Having some planet sized something or not, is hyperbole. The ability to entertain concepts without necessarily agreeing with them is also a hallmark of intelligence. :wink:

I think I understand it. He's saying that mechanical processes can never be conscious, or have a mind. I believe that is wrong.

Machines are already more intelligent than humans in that they are capable of operations taking focus and precision that would be impossible for a human. Nor is intelligence itself that special, NOVA just had a program on bird intelligence where New Caledonian crows are using three stage tool making, and complex problem solving.

Sure. I suppose Searl would argue that they don't have minds though. Whether they do or not is a matter of opinion, but I don't think its material to the question of whether they could have minds, or whether artificial minds are possible.

Making a machine like a human really makes no sense in itself, what purpose would it serve? Someday sure, what seems insurmountable today will be trivial tomorrow. If anything, Traveller's tables on computers are conservative.

That's true, they are much more conservative than many other games or SF settings. There's nothing wrong with that though IMHO. I am optimistic that True AI will be possible but pessimistic because I think it's a much harder problem to solve than most people realise. Even so, given that the OTU setting covers many thousands of years, it seems likely to me that in those timescales the problem should be tractable.

Simon Hibbs

I don't necessarily agree with the Chinese room theory either. The argument is interesting though, and is the basis for the aliens in Blindsight, which is cool. Musk, Kurzweil, etc; the singularity, grey goo and all that, chicken little stuff. The most plausible future scenario is that given time, ability etc, and to answer your other question, sure the architecture will have to change, but people will embrace better processing through AI's, nascent fears of humanity becoming obsolete, well, that has already happened, and Vonnegut wrote Player Piano over a half century ago, iirc, which I read almost thirty years ago. We're still here though.

The conservatism was never meant to be embraced as it was, it was born of the ideas of the time, and embracing it, people aren't helping things.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Simulated intelligence can be used to replace customer service and sales people. Then later used to replace managers and IT people. The more advanced creative intelligences would replace hardware/software developers. This is the point where machines are making themselves better, and leaving humans out of the loop. Humans would be delegated to whatever it is that humans will still do that machines won't or don't do.

But the even more advanced creative intelligences... who's to say what they will be thinking about. Maybe a completely new form of life. Not biological. Not mechanical. Not chemical. God atomics, maybe. The guiding hands of planet building for infant stars.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Have you seen the movie Ex Machina? Just came out on DVD and Blue Ray?

A young coder at the world's largest internet company, wins a competition to spend a week at a private retreat belonging to the reclusive CEO of the company. One arrival he learns that he must participate in a bizarre experiment which involves interacting with the world's first true artificial intel… More

 

[Reynard]

Machines should never, ever be a replacement for a person simply to replace them. Machines are tools, pure and simple. Robots are sophisticated tools and A.I.s are experiments in intelligence but also should not be meant to replace people. All that would be either a form of racial suicide or the wet dream of corporate leaders to get rid of 'expensive' labor while forgetting who pays for those goods and services. This could be the reason A.I. machines are illegal and outlawed. They are no longer tools and to be treated as such might constitute slavery. Same could be said for uplifted animals.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

In the end, machines replace people simply because it is cheaper for business. Humans have too many political excuses for suing everyone. And the government control and paperwork involved in dealing with humans is a b*tch. So replace them. Humans are really only good at consumerism anyway. I'd be curious to see which robots in the future get the most richest, and which get the most dangerous. And if they even bother with politics or governments at all like humans seem to hang onto.

 

[Reynard]

"Humans are really only good at consumerism anyway"

I'd needed to highlight this more than the whole statement. Somehow there is this paradise in which humans don't work yet have all the money in the world to support business and industry who don't have any labor. Our real world is a prime example for No Such Thing. We're seeing businesses and industry manipulating the labor force so workers are working poor if not outright slavery and I'm not exaggerating about that word. When executives can't wrangle another concessions out of labor they turn to robotics and smart systems to do the work. More laborers out of work, more money flowing to one source and.... gee, no workers earning money to feed back into the economy! National economies begin to degenerate and infrastructure fed by the average workers tax dollars dry up. Robots and smart system buy no goods or services and pay no taxes.

Again, robots are a tool to assist the society and its economy not replace it and are no different than a wrench or a truck. For two big scifi examples, look at Star Trek and Star Wars. Star Trek sources over the decades have made mention that robots exist but are transparent literally working within the infrastructure while the living beings do work to work. Star Wars droids aren't running the show on any world because you see the various species still performing much of the labor and management with droids assisting them. You will notice large numbers of droids ding all work exclusively in some scenes but often under a criminal or authoritative organization that doesn't trust normal beings in most any capacity.

In Traveller terms, there are probably a few of those worlds with low tech and population caused by the collapse of their society when robots replaced the society enough to wreck it. Another example why Too Smart robots are not popular with many societies in the Imperium.

 

[Condottiere]

One theory is that we're now in a post capitalist world, and that automation could replace forty percent of current jobs, and the economy can't find alternate work for those now redundant.

And that's not even anywhere near AI.

 

[IanBruntlett]

One theory is that we're now in a post capitalist world, and that automation could replace forty percent of current jobs, and the economy can't find alternate work for those now redundant.

And that's not even anywhere near AI.

If the world economy crashes, leading to law & order problems, riots and food & water shortages, the cosseted billionaires are going to have their lifestyle disrupted somewhat.

 

[Anonymous]

Ya know, Traveller being fiction and science fiction at that, it might be that a lot of us don't want to use the current world mess as a model for the games we play.

That there might actually be a way for machines, robots and expert systems to help humanity rid ourselves of the curse that is work and free us up to do interesting things that might have a greater benefit than sacrificing our lives at the altar of commerce, for our lives are measured in short periods of time and I'd argue it's the only true commodity we have and what we choose to do in that time defines our humanity. For that to be slaving in a factory for the financial benefit of our employers and the pittance in our pocket with which to consume, no, sorry, there has to be a better way.

Now if we could put the minds that put a small craft all the way to Pluto and other such visionary exploits to find this better way then I'm all for it. If in the mean time, as my meagre brain isn't up to the detail of that task, I have to settle for imagining them in the games we play, then so be it.

 

[Anonymous]

One theory is that we're now in a post capitalist world, and that automation could replace forty percent of current jobs, and the economy can't find alternate work for those now redundant.

And that's not even anywhere near AI.

If the world economy crashes, leading to law & order problems, riots and food & water shortages, the cosseted billionaires are going to have their lifestyle disrupted somewhat.

The bastards brought us to that point in 2008 when the (merchant) bankers lost touch with reality and actually believed that they were the Masters Of The Universe.

But they were bailed out and most still have massively over paid jobs and multiple big houses.

And the rest are really pleased they got iOS 8.4 and Chrome now has swipe to go forward and back on their phone...

If there was no revolution post 2008, what makes you think there will ever be?

When Obama tries to take the guns?

Or when Obama tries to take their iPhones?

What has this got to do with AI in the context of Traveller?

Nothing. Let's move back to the topic and continue the diatribes in PM if need be.

 

[dragoner]

The people who declare the rules inviolate (esp when they are nonsense), are those that are merely playing with themselves; others, who I know have games going, have appreciated the table for what it is, more options for the GM.

I'm still happy.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

"Humans are really only good at consumerism anyway"

I'd needed to highlight this more than the whole statement. Somehow there is this paradise in which humans don't work yet have all the money in the world to support business and industry who don't have any labor. Our real world is a prime example for No Such Thing. We're seeing businesses and industry manipulating the labor force so workers are working poor if not outright slavery and I'm not exaggerating about that word. When executives can't wrangle another concessions out of labor they turn to robotics and smart systems to do the work. More laborers out of work, more money flowing to one source and.... gee, no workers earning money to feed back into the economy! National economies begin to degenerate and infrastructure fed by the average workers tax dollars dry up. Robots and smart system buy no goods or services and pay no taxes.

Again, robots are a tool to assist the society and its economy not replace it and are no different than a wrench or a truck. For two big scifi examples, look at Star Trek and Star Wars. Star Trek sources over the decades have made mention that robots exist but are transparent literally working within the infrastructure while the living beings do work to work. Star Wars droids aren't running the show on any world because you see the various species still performing much of the labor and management with droids assisting them. You will notice large numbers of droids ding all work exclusively in some scenes but often under a criminal or authoritative organization that doesn't trust normal beings in most any capacity.

In Traveller terms, there are probably a few of those worlds with low tech and population caused by the collapse of their society when robots replaced the society enough to wreck it. Another example why Too Smart robots are not popular with many societies in the Imperium.

It's true about humans and consumerism. Whenever a human leaves their house, they spend money or add to any existing bill that they owe. Where their money comes from, or what government they live under, doesn't matter. This is what happens to nearly all humans. There are some humans that depend 100% on others because they don't have money or they don't ever leave their house.

Star Wars has no coherent political or government system. It's all hand-waved.

Star Trek talks about how money is not used any more. Yet humans on starships are fussing and fighting with each other about their jobs. Are they getting paid or not in their universe? Is the captain and everyone just volunteering to live such a Navy life-style? Who's making more "money" than everyone else on the ship? How do crewmembers pay for stuff on the ship and while on liberty or shore leave? If a tax is paying for it all, how is the tax collected if no one uses money anymore?

Even in THX-1138, we don't see what the money used is. THX goes into a store, grabs a thingy, takes it home, and disposes of it the moment he comes in the door. The computers tell him to keep doing this. I don't think George Lucas thought his economics though. It could have been just a visual cue he was using to show a point that humans can't even be consumerists in the future. The one thing that they are good at.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Now if we could put the minds that put a small craft all the way to Pluto and other such visionary exploits to find this better way then I'm all for it.

Their job is to show what tax money can achieve. They themselves do not make money, or know how to run a business. So... no tax money, no Pluto probes. They're all out on their arses.

 

[Anonymous]

OK, I'm gonna say it... some will call me a heretic, like I care...

Star Wars and Star Trek have no basis in any argument for anything. Using them as a basis for arguing economics? Really? Reynard, please don't take offence at this, I mean nothing personally.

They're simple morality tales masked as mindless entertainment.

There's no science in their fiction.

There's no depth or thought put into any part of the back story, they're just lame.

Shit. I went back on my request to return the thread to the topic, AI in Traveller...

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

I went back on my request to return the thread to the topic, AI in Traveller...

The cost/return can get messy when AI comes into play.

Traveller simply avoided it in the past, saying no no to it and to robots and cyborgs. Now fast-forward 35+ years... Players want their AI. So, how will it get developed? And how will it get paid for? And which humans get to live for free in such a place?

Now fast-forward again to Virus. Problem solved. Humans have to huff it again.