Welcome to the deep topik discussion board for today’s ‘podcast’. We are going over a few topics for analysis, debates, and so on, with the speaker and the audiences.
The topic revolves around, mainly:
In between sessions, it is basically ‘free-talk’, until the justification is made. Within each section, we both discuss, and answers questions from the audiences. The time is separated into debate time and wrap-up time accordingly.
The first topic is indeed, about artificial intelligence
What do you think when you see the following argument:
(I)f someone touched it (= the machine) in a particular place, it would ask what one wishes to say to it, or if it were touched somewhere else, it would cry out that it was being hurt, and so on. But it could not arrange words in different ways to reply to the meaning of everything that is said in its presence, as even the most unintelligent human beings can do. [Descartes, 1700]
For whereas reason is a universal instrument that can be used in all kinds of situations, these organs need a specific disposition for every particular action. It follows that it is morally impossible for a machine to have enough different dispositions to make it act in every human situation in the same way as our reason makes us act.
If a machine only acts based on what it’s organs are designed to do, then how does it possess the capabilities to learn?
How about,
The frame problem is the problem that an AI cannot autonomously distinguish important factors from unimportant ones when it tries to cope with something in a certain situation.
Take an example of the normal cashier. Theoretically, and perhaps realistically speaking, a high schooler can be trained in a rather hasty fashion to do the job. While doing such work, there are many factors we take for granted. For example, during the process of using the computer to input the amount of cash required per transaction making, there might be a few terminal differences between different interface. The cashier knows that, and adapt to it. If she encounters an angry or hurry customer, the cashier can also act accordingly, without the consideration for the performance. “If the customer is in a hurry, then maybe I should use this or that or skip this”. Or even “If I push this button, then the trading screen appears”. In fact, there are too much knowledge to be involved in such normal and particularly easy job. However, we do not have to input the knowledge that the stock market will affects the customer’s money that you are indeed doing transactions, or the fact that if the customer comes in with a bag of money, then in some cases, there will be missing bills, simply because it is not concerned of such.
Humans value themselves by their innate quality of being intelligent, or rational, of the more ‘higher-order’ morality that is exhibited, either from what they observed in life, or what they can indeed, rationalize upon. Said from such view, the fact that intelligence can be deduced from a somewhat soulless computational system, what is known in almost the entirety of its existence as being too normal, too tedious, too unimportant of its task - in certain part is true, since computer at its very core is just computation, but not a human calculator any more - suddenly becoming more human than one can accept, it is normal to expect such reaction from people.
Maybe…
Let’s move on to the subject everyone hates: meth.
The bik bik foundation
In your opinion, when is mathematics:
Best of all. What will you do instead?
Fighting back against stuff.
I saw many works trying to formalise AI and math. One of which is How to build a conscious machine by Michael Timothy Bennett. Nevertheless, they are, indeed, quite a pain.
I posit, that the way we are doing is wrong. Not because we are not intelligent, but we are seeing from the wrong angle. We are, deliberately, trying to fit ourselves to a construct that itself do not have anything, and is surprised when it ‘kind of do’ what we design it for, and also intensely surprised when it does not what we have, that we don’t even know ourselves.
What do you think? Nay? Examples?
When you see life, of reality, and of all, do you believe that such realities are real? In what sense is it real, and,
Examples?
I posit further, that the foundational theory to understand the world is the theory of model, because our world view and what we constitute of understanding and life is imperfect. So is the model in our own brain. How about that?
Can you think of such model as per human uses, and also computer uses? Additionally, will overutilizing mathematics screws this approach?
After all… What the heck is the model?
Well, the secondary flow is here! We would be talking about sociological issues and certain connections to histories, and any others, that is, including
Thanks a lot guys, for coming here!