Robots again

From: Aaron Christopher Finney <aaron_at_wfi-inc.com>
Date: Mon Mar 16 11:44:46 1998

On Mon, 16 Mar 1998, Doug Yowza wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Mar 1998, David Wollmann wrote:
> If you believe Turing, there's nothing an analog computer can compute that
> a digital one can't. A brain is many things: it's wet, it's analog, and
> it's massively parallel. I don't think anybody believes that it's wetness
> or analogness that matters, but clearly a high degree of parallel

There was one engineer on the program that *did* believe just that. He was
making insects, 100% analog, and insisted that we could never emulate that
which is analog (brain activity) in the digital realm. His focus is on
creating a will-to-survive instinct in the machines, and then tricking
them into working for us. He likened it to putting blinders on an ox to
make it plow.

> The early AI folk thought they could do brainstuff using straight-forward
> algorithms. Maybe you can, but there's no biological analog that anybody
> can find to support the idea that humans work that way.

Who was it that mentioned Hofstadter's GEB the other day? He talks a lot
about the rules of reasoning in there, illuminating the seeming paradox of
writing a structured program that allows a machine to think freely. His
explanation of the language/metalanguage/metametalanguage hierarchies
makes one leap the chasm of the technology and just assume that it will
happen. I have read that book three times and can still find new things in
it.
  
> So, the connectionists tried to create machines and structures modeled
> after the brain, but they didn't get too far. Let's say that you build
> an OS and a programming language that allows you to accurately model a
> brain. If you stick a human brain in front of a newspaper, you get
> nothing. So add some input devices and actuators. Now you stick a baby
> in front of a newspaper -- still nothing. So let the baby run for a
> while, experience a variety of sensations, make a whole bunch of
> associations, stick it in front of many newpapers and many non-newspapers
> for many years, and finally you get a pretty good character recognizer.

Well, sure. That's the learning curve. But isn't that the idea of
replicating a machine? That it could duplicate it's RAM/ROM contents as
well? In the human world it would be like having direct access to a
million years of evolutionary experience! What couldn't we do if we new
everything that came before? What won't these machines be able to do?

> We're still a long way from being able to put a multi-billion node
> connection machine onto a sturdy frame with millions of intricate wires,
> actuators, and sensors, let it experience and manipulate the environment
> for many years, and then get the thing to demonstrate emergent properties
> that make the whole greater than the sum of the parts. But I don't see
> any reason why it won't or can't happen.

I don't think we're that long off, in terms of evolutionary speed. If
computer evolution is occuring, by some estimates, at 5-10 million times
the speed of human evolution, we could expect a fully-evolved human
replicant within our lifetime! The technology is coming around, with
microelectronics and the promising prospect of nano-technology being
fulfilled.

> And if you think that the prospect of human cloning is causing moral
> pangs, wait until somebody creates the first artificial life form!

One of the things I really liked about the Discovery program
is the quote about the state of technology, something to the effect of:
"We are a lot closer to being able to create an artificial human than we
are to being able to comprehend the consequences of creating an
artificial human."

I realise that this is not *directly* about +10 year old computer systems,
but it does directly relate to the them and their role in the history of
this field (which is what I originally asked the list about). Does anyone
on the list want to take it outside to a temporary list to discuss the
moral/ethical/probability issues of artificial life? Let me know by
email and I'll set one up.


Aaron
Received on Mon Mar 16 1998 - 11:44:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:31:09 BST