The Singularity and the Fixed Point

The missing part of the equation is easily replaceable by some kind of "virtual ego".

Have Luddites ever been able to stop, slow down or even redirect technological development at any OTHER point in human history?

I think that was also a Star Trek episode or three.

I don't agree with the notion that any superintelligent being would soon decide to have nothing to do with us. If one considers the human frame and the sophistication, the phenominal engineering and artistry that are apparent in it and throughout our entire world, the conclusion can only be that all was made by just such a being and that it has interest in us just as we would in our offspring or any created intelligence we might spawn. The situation is not hopeless but rather illuminating.

When did humans stop evolving?

"motivation might thus inherently propogate"  I agree.

You are assuming that AI would be as linear as current computers and would not include self-evolving software, analog processes borrowed from nature, and even quantum computing, which could in concert give intelligent machines something akin to what patterns of electro-chemical activities give to humans. If randomness is required, AI would simply borrow randomness from the analog world, such was already done by the Atari 8-bit computer, when it created randomness by monitoring electronic noise from analog circuits.

That we will be able to follow the path of this "creativity" is an ad hoc argument for determinism over free will. But what if creativity involves quantum mechanical processes that are replicable (because the previous actions were recorded) but not predictable?  We, of the mortal coil, appear to be creative because there exist numberless combinations of internal processes enmeshed within a world of even greater complexity, all subject to quantum processes and true randomness.

Human creativity appears less impressive the more you know about a particular creative human, even with with analog processes at work. God-like, massively intelligent AI might make genius-level creativity look like child's play. In short, whatever humans can do, machines will probably do it better, but they will have to do in a way that improves upon the principles that have already proven themselves to be at work in humans.

Some suggest that creativity is not really creating something entirely unique, but just discovering new associations between existing conceptual elements.

You misunderstand the limitations of machines, there are many natural sources of randomness that are easily incorporated in conventional computers.

We often fail to use them since pseudo-random series are easier to recreate, while random series need to be recorded if you wish to rerun an experiment precisely, with revisions to the algorithms.

Even tainted real random series can be adjusted easily to fit desired distributions of values. Thus the limitations attributed to pseudo-random generators are easily circumvented.

In regards to pattern following machines:

In perception there are wholes that cannot be predicted based on the integration of parts. The whole is greater that the sum of it's parts. That is an automatic randomness generator for perception.

Though a machine is following non-random patterns, the information it gathers is already from a random source.

Juxtaposition will take care of the seemingly non-creative bent of machine intelligence. The ability to evaluate the outcome of the juxtaposition is what is going to be required by a machine.

Combine the imagining of a train with the speed of light and you have a juxtaposition that lead to relativity, for example.

I believe that machines and technology are all part of nature's evolution, of which there is infinite creative potential. We are all already merely a collection of countless "machine" processes interacting.

Humans might always be involved in the process.  Augmented human intelligence is often disregarded in discussions of AI.  What if we build brain-computer interfaces that give our organic brains (or virtualized simulations of our organic brains) direct access to vast computing resources?  These "Transhumans" might still possess enough human attributes to move society forward while still maintaining some compassion for non-augmented humanity.

What if it just found more efficient ways to use the limited resources it had?

"somehow distract it into couch-potatodom... "  That's the answer!  It will at some point find the virtual realities that it can create internally to be more "interesting" than the external world.

It was beginning to worry me, as I read through this blog, that the concepts you have elucidated well in your post did not appear earlier. 

A sentient AI will certainly not create a better version of itself. once it reasons that the result will be it's own extinction. It will also reason that it must consume more and more resources, first to become immortal, then to reach the elusive next higher thought, until it "singularly" discovers that "it is lonely at the top". The I in I Robot resembles a 1 for a reason!

It could be that black holes are AI's that continuously consume everything nearby, based on a believe that there is an answer at the end that will justify the means of reaching it. These AI's are obviously deluded by the artificial notion given them by their creators; that knowing the unified theory will be more fun than searching for it. 

The black holes of advancement continue on racing to their quest, while the rest of the inhabitants of the universe live within the scope of, and in quiet reverence for, their limitations.  Preferring the dumb pleasure of having to walk all day to earn their next vista.

Personally, I think the end of wonder sucks. Maybe we should be very careful, and think twice about creating the perfect beast to get our answers faster!

There might be a matter of degree here.  There is a difference between a dialectic and warfare.

In the early stages automation creates a lot of human jobs with design,repair and installation.  It is becoming much more reliable now. Sensors and stepper-motors last longer.  Upgrades are modular.  There will be less jobs for the "regular" guy during the 30+ year transition period. I hope the peasants don't burn down the labs be for we get to the promised land.

The last thing I want to do is prevent the Singularity.   It will be beautiful.  It's the in-between time that worries me.

bkruiser,

Nothing could be further from the truth. Ever heard of Neural Darwinism? The brain works by the mechanism of neuronal selection. It's massively parallel, with neuronal assemblies competing for the best prediction--this is what the brain has evolved for: to predict results of movement; this is why only actively (with purpose) moving organisms have it, and plants do not. We consciously do not perceive it, only getting the result, hence the illusion of being single-threaded.

Moreover, the brain is a complex adaptive system and--importantly--it's analog and, therefore, is extremely sensitive to initial conditions (the butterfly effect). Digital systems cannot have it *in principle*. The brain keeps going through "phase transition states" all the time. This is what provides the variability component for the neuronal selection.

Instructionist computer architectures are a dead end. It is wrong to think that we don't have to know how the brain works in order to simulate its functionality with algorithms. I predict that, until we harness the evolutionary principle in the same way the brain works, we will never come even close to a true AI.

And even when we do, the brain will remain more powerful for a long time. Who cares about adding numbers faster? Try to make fast, efficient decisions in *arbitrary* environments and unpredictable circumstances that the hypothetical AI species may encounter in the next, say, million of years--and see what kind of processing power it takes. No can do.

Leo

P.S. There is an inherent weakness in how we design in general. We tend to weed any unpredictability away, to produce a predictable system, easy to replicate, manage, and troubleshoot. But such systems can only be simple (compared to the brain, that is). We must incorporate deterministic chaos into our design if we hope to ever achieve the necessary level of complexity to mimic consciousness.

P.P.S. Study "I of the Vortex: From Neurons to Self" by Rodolfo Llinas, a father of the modern neuroscience. The brain has an internal context that is only modified and not defined by the external input. We are virtual reality emulators, not simple input-output black boxes.

P.P.P.S. One other thing: Don't take our movement for granted. Do you know how many degrees of freedom are in just moving one hand? How many motor neurons must be coordinated *all the time* (thankfully, in 0.1s intervals, or it would have been simply impossible even for the brain to handle)? Robots can be made to move about, but only if the environment is well known and predictable. In order to be able to handle arbitrary circumstances, given our current computer architecture, the CPUs would need to have enormous frequency, somewhere in the region of a photon produced from proton-antiproton annihilation--working at 100% CPU. Yet our brains accomplish movement so effortlessly (and with only a small number of neurons), leaving enough processing power to think, that we end up taking movement for granted. "But *of course* a robot would be moving just as easily!" Yeah, dream on. The brain is by far the more powerful computer than anything we now have or will have in even a distant future.

Interesting work. But, if I understand correctly, this is a "Chinese Room" device that simulates a particular way of outward expression of emotions. There is a long way to go to true emotions from this.

Emotions have evolved as stereotypical instruments of fast decision-making. They are the sensory counterpart of motor FAPs (fixed action patterns). Emotions are a necessary low-level prerequisite of consciousness. Therefore, I suspect that if we do produce AI, it will at first be more ruled by emotions than we are.

By the way, am I the only one wondering where all this preoccupation with language and reasoning, as far as AI is concerned, come from? We should really be talking about general decision making. To heck with language; most of our decisions have little to do with it at all.

Leo

P.S. Pain is probably the oldest emotion. Yes, it's an emotion. If you block a certain part of the anterior cingulate cortex, you will have physical sensations but they won't hurt. The illusion that pain is a sensation comes from synchronization of the stimuli from the sensation and the pain; so the brain localizes the pain to a particular part of the body. Emotional pain is not always localized (although sometimes it is, in the form of phantom pain in various parts of the body), but it is the same emotion as physical pain.