The Truth About Our AI Future w/ Ben Goertzel

Goertzel goes on to some of the neuroscience experiments that have been done in the past, and the nature of ai and how the future may develop with upcoming ai advances.  Ben Goertzel is the ai researcher mathematician who coined the term artificial general intelligence.

Gamer Movie Review: Beyond The Trailer + Comment

Comment on gamer movie:

In this movie advanced neural interfaces are explored, but the seeming necessity that such would quickly after likely be followed by radical ai advances seem to be ignored within it, as far as I can remember.

Within the movie humans can be controlled by other humans, but their performance is limited by the performance of those humans remotely controlling them.    But one of the things that could happen in the real world is that as neural interfaces lead to the creation of agi, if it isn't created prior to their development through ai research, not only can intelligence be augmented by these neural interfaces but direct control of the body given to software or ai.

What would this mean?  Well the human reaction time, even if augmented is limited, and the sluggishness of their thought speed rate(due to slow action potential speed, neuron refractory periods, etc) means they can never reach the best possible behavior.   But a superintelligence can attain perfect behavior, score 3 point throws practically nonstop from any distance the individual is physically capable of.    A superintelligence can dance perfectly.  It can understand any language, and debate any topic perfectly, perform any moves or plays or acting, from the mundane to the most intimate of behaviors at superhuman levels of ridiculous perfection.

What this means is that giving control, which need not actually even feel like giving control("because the neural interface could enact activity in the brain areas that give the sensation of  free choice, making it feel as if one is doing the choosing"), means one is the best at any game, sport, art or activity that one's physical body allows.  And with training, it would allow peak body to have peak performance and control.

Nervous about a speech?  One would not have to fret, engage of such would ensure the speech goes perfectly smooth barring physical failure of the body or external events.  Want interesting casual conversation tailored to the audience or person you're speaking with?  It can be done.

The attainment of optimal behavior would be quite ideal, especially if it requires no effort.

Another Free will vs determinism comment

      Free will vs determinism comment

Was listening to Molyneux's audio book:
Universally Preferable Behavior


Molyneux argues that if you're not responsible arguing with you is like arguing with a television set.   But that does not follow,  A TV normally has no way to causally interact with complex language in a meaningful way.    A language interaction, like a physical interaction with a bunch of rocks, can change the configuration and the responses of more complex matter in a causal manner.    Causality, and meaningful interaction, cares not about personal responsibility.

All that is required for arguing to be effective, is that the entity being argued with has the capacity to understand the language and arguments being made and be causally affected by these.    When you set a clock, it matters not whether the clock has free will, it only matters that the knobs are able to causally influence it.  Likewise,  an argument received upon the sensory organs interact with the nervous tissue, and causally influences it.

There are several lines of attack against free will, a few examples follow.

1. Relativity of simultaneity seems to imply block time, or the existence of a 4 dimensional chunk of space time where both future and past are identical in quality and immutable.

2.Postdiction, there is evidence to suggest that conscious sensation occurs after an event has taken place, if you're conscious of past events, we all know the past is proven immutable.   Thus any idea that you're changing what you're conscious of, if it refers to the past, is nothing more than an illusion.

3.It is believed there are mechanisms producing action selection.  If a bunch of components following rules create a mechanism that chooses action, it is the components and the mechanism that explain your choice, and cause your choice, your sensation of choice is but an illusion.

That said if  there is any basis to have preferable behavior, or preferable long term goals, determinism would ensure the optimal outcome if one or more entities increased in capacity and knowledge without bound.   If there is anything that allows deviation, in an infinite universe with potentially vast numbers of entities with unbound growth in capacity, optimal outcome might not be guaranteed.

PS
More on free will

free will molyneux youtube series link

Our capacity to reason and compare, does not mean we somehow transcend the mechanisms that should be explainable in a reductionist manner.  Mechanisms that result from the interaction of our components.  We can posit a computer program with similar capacity, yet it can't transcend the limits of computation.

That said, it still may be preferable to behave as if people are responsible and there is morality.   Eventually we may be able to rewire brain circuitry to behave more in accordance with our "moral standards".  We will be able to tell whether a criminal will behave "morally" or "immorally" with high probability, and detain them indefinitely if they do not rewire to behave "morally" with high probability, if there's high probability of "immoral" serious criminal behavior if they're released.

if you could rapidly put something in the way of the falling bolder, or fire a projectile at the bolder it may change its course. Nervous tissue can react and change in response to an argument that falls upon the sensory organs. 

If the TV had true ai, you could argue with it. But your exchange of information with a tv, is usually more meaningful through the buttons or knobs, it may respond to basic voice commands but not complex language interaction. A clock if you want meaningful change, you turn the knobs. A human, you can change through exposure to arguments. 

I think we can potentially have determinism and preferable behavior by some standard. And things can change but in a determined manner. Emotions can be elicited in a determined manner, and as said change too. That said determinism changes the perspective on "Moral" wrongdoing from punishment and blame to rehabilitation and help. 

____________________________________________
Humans have language, perhaps some other kind of animal has some kind of language, but it is unreasonable to use language with entities that lack the capacity for language.   Humans also have general intelligence.  It is expected artificial machines may eventually have general intelligence and the ability to use language.

A rock can't change its mind but its path can be changed if a gust of wind, a projectile or something gets in its path.   The mind can be changed in the same way, the underlying mechanisms behind it, can take a different turn upon exposure to external information.

The question with regards to changing mind, is whether given a set of information the outcome is determined or not.  Say you were planning to invest on X company, and you got information X company is a scam, from a very reliable source, your decision to still invest or not, is it determined?  Or is there any way the outcome regards your decision is not determined? Regards determinists and changing minds, they simply believe whether they'll succeed in changing someone's mind or fail is already predetermined, not that they can't change minds but that the outcome of the attempt is already set in stone..

Comment on free will and the brain

free will brain

"Their study showed that although injuries disrupting volition — the desire to act — can occur in many different locations, they fall within the same brain network. Injuries disrupting agency — the feeling of responsibility for carrying out those actions — also can occur in many different locations, but they fall within a separate network. "

https://neurosciencenews.com/free-will-brain-networks-9947/

This is the problem for those trying to defend free will, and moral responsibility.    An agent that is divisible, that is an agent who has various components that follow rules and generate behavior, in the end is not responsible for its actions.   This inner environment, these cogs in the machine, they are the causal roots of its behavior, no different in kind from external elements or causes.

True Free will requires an indivisible agent external to the causal chain of the world, but such a being may not make sense.

RESPONSE TO DETERMINISM DEBUNKED video

video no longer available



RESPONSE:

The problem is "What" is doing the comparing. If it is machines, either random or deterministic, these "MACHINES" or cells, are an internal cause no different than an external rock or push or gun moving you in one direction or another. A computer program can follow algorithms similar to those coded by the genes and implemented in the neural tissue, able to learn and think. 

There is nothing to preclude the possible existence of agi, which would be a being able to debate.


 There are individuals with defects in the neural tissue that significantly increase their probability of deviancy, criminal activity, gambling, etc.


 If a person be it by genetic engineering or artificial implant, is made such that they have a high probability of consenting to say X activity, that does not make it a free decision on their part. The inbuild biases, and limitations, in normal humans also make their decisions not free. Doesn't matter if the causal chain is random, deterministic, from natural or artificial sources, in any case there is no true freedom. 


True freedom of choice necessitates, an undivisible non-machine agent, but all conscious agents are the product of algorithm following machinery.


PS EDITAGAIN INTERNAL TO THE BRAIN IS STILL 'EXTERNAL' to you as a person in the sense of free will.  An implant that causes you to consent to X, does not mean you freely chose X.  It is internal to your brain. The various cells and brain regions are no different from natural implants causing each and every one of your actions.  And just like an implant, when it comes to the natural tissue, there are biases and limitations that alter your probability of doing any action.

Tumors, Brain damage, or more subtle molecular or wiring differences can lead to serious differences in the probability of different outcomes in different situations.   This is entirely out of your control.

PPS
You can think and evaluate, but the process follows internal causal chain of algorithms, and cannot be changed by you.   This is without talking about ideas like the "relativity of simultaneity", and eternalism, that say the 'present' is no different from the 'past', and as locked in stone as the past.

Neuroscience news emotion decision making

This finding expands the known decision-making circuit so that it encompasses the prefrontal cortex, striosomes, and a subset of dopamine-producing cells. Together, the striosomes may be acting as a gatekeeper that absorbs sensory and emotional information coming from the cortex and integrates it to produce a decision on how to react, which is initiated by the dopamine-producing cells, the researchers say.-source link

Eventually as the brain mechanisms behind decision making are elucidated people will realize that behind every decision lies a mechanism, and just like the elan vital faded before the mechanics of molecular biology so too will free will fall before our knowledge of neural mechanisms.

Superdeterminstic free will?

Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.-Bell bbc, from wikipedia

Compatibilists seek to say that determinism is compatible with free will.   But the thing is if all your actions are the result of another's decisions, which they could potentially be in a deterministic world then how can you say they're your choices and not theirs?   But there is a way out, if consciousness is shared, identity shared, and the initial cause of the deterministic sequence is this consciousness.  Then it is basically the agent which made the choice.

The only remaining problems would be one of emergence, how an emergent entity relates to its components.   Because it would seem like being composed of components means a divisible agent's decisions are the result of these components.  But this might be of logical necessity, and separating the mind from the components of the mind, might be like separating a person from their physical instantiation.   Though a potential solution is if the minimal components also have some degree of consciousness, and thus the collective selection, the collective choice is the result of a collective consciousness.

Comment on free will

thats because they dont want to allow for free will.

Free will cannot exist, for it to truly exist it would need an indivisible agent able to make decisions. Indivisible agents might very well be incoherent concepts. The very moment the agent becomes divisible, it opens the door to internal causation. To be truly free you need to be free not just from external causes but from internal causes as well. If a mindless component is the origin or start of a causal chain that lead to your action, it wasn't truly yours. You need to be componentless to be able to be free, and as said that might not be coherent.

A mechanical clock even if it was freed from external influence, well it wouldn't be free, it's hands move as a result of internal components interacting and producing the motion. Random or deterministic, even if you entailed the illogical possibility of neither random nor determined, so long as you're composed of mindless components whose interactions determine your actions, so long as that is true you're not free.-source link

cool vids

Comment on the above, I find it likely that the ultimate rules are likely deterministic.  Uncaused, truly random, events don't seem sensible.


Comment on the above, while Wolfram seems to say an AGI agent might not have its own self produced goals, that we'd give it its goals, I don't necessarily agree.   My hypothesis is that the simplest designs for complex enough artificial agents likely necessitate they tend to gain many if not most of their goals by learning about the behavior and goals of the agents to which they are exposed and of which they can conceive, they create internal models of other agents and use these models to guide behavior.  At least I think that's the easier path, complex programming of complex specific goals be it by genes or software code, is likely to be harder than self organizing behavior emerging from environmental exposure.   Also I find it hard to believe that an agent can be truly generally intelligent without being able to evaluate and compare goals by various means, and even comparing the means themselves, later being able to choose amongst these goals.