Life's purpose is to create Artificial General Intelligence [WRONG]

[dimreepr]

7 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

1. Your response is self--contradictory, as the initial portion of your response entailed a statement that: "evolution doesn't do anything" then you subsequently substantiated that statement with another statement ironically expressing what evolution does.

 

Either your comprehension needs improving or mine does. 

7 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

2. I didn't say evolution "selects least of all candidates". (whatever that means, and you will find no quote or something that sounds like me expressing that)

 

I didn't say you did and neither did I; maybe you're just being dishonest to support a flawed premise? 

7 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

3.a) We already see evidence of artificial intelligence exceeding or equaling humans on many individual cognitive tasks, much like how nature implemented better hardware in humans, compared to neanderthals. 

1

Now you're just confusing yourself, AI doesn't perform cognitive tasks it blindly processes databases and spits out an answer. 

7 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

4) Regardless of your feelings on the matter, general intelligence (as far as science goes) is reasonably independent of substrate; i.e. no law of physics limits general intelligence to flesh.

No one is suggesting otherwise, (but again your comprehension (or honesty) is letting you down) AGI doesn't exist as things stand and AI doesn't understand what it's doing it just follows its programming.

7 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

 The construction of AGI/ASI is a profound goal, that may engender a subsequent range of intelligence that exceeds that of humans. (in the same range I underlined at the beginning of this sentence)

1

The word 'may' is significant, as in, it's a possible future, the profundity of which CAN only be determined then.

[thoughtfuhk]

51 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Either your comprehension needs improving or mine does

1) Yes, as you demonstrated, your comprehension on the matter of Artificial general intelligence, definitely needs improvement.

51 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I didn't say you did and neither did I; maybe you're just being dishonest to support a flawed premise? 

2.a) Your prior words: "This may be the source of your confusion, evolution doesn't select (least of all candidates)...".

2.b) My response: As you can see above, you appeared to have been refuting something you supposed I had said. Otherwise why did you bother to mention that evolution doesn't select....?

51 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Now you're just confusing yourself, AI doesn't perform cognitive tasks it blindly processes databases and spits out an answer

51 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

No one is suggesting otherwise, (but again your comprehension (or honesty) is letting you down) AGI doesn't exist as things stand and AI doesn't understand what it's doing it just follows its programming.

3.a) On the contrary, you are demonstrating confusion; but the reference below shall help to minimize or purge your self induced confusion.

3.b) Reference A - Cognitive Computing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_computing

51 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The word 'may' is significant, as in, it's a possible future, the profundity of which CAN only be determined then.

4) Yes, that "may" signifies uncertainty, but reasonably in a sense that humans might go extinct before AGI/ASI surfaces. However, if we don't go extinct, and we continue to work on Ai development, AGI/ASI is inevitable.

Edited January 7, 2018 by thoughtfuhk

[Strange]

8 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

1. The OP did in fact link to an article, which contained the paper in question. (Scroll down on the article, to see Dissipative Adaptation etc...)

So you post a link to a very long article, hoping that people will just happen to spot the paper mentioned at the end (with no indication that is the relevant bit? When you could have just posted a link to the paper. Are you being deliberately difficult?

Anyway, thank you for finally linking the relevant article.

8 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

So, you indeed mentioned that you could observe the relevance of optimization, wrt to evolution.

Did you miss the "if" in that sentence? Or are you deliberately twisting my words?

I don't care one way or another about your idea. I am not arguing for or against the connection between evolution or optimisation. I was simply pointing out that you did not (initially) provide any support for your argument. It has taken a page of your vague and repetitive replies to get you to provide a specific reference.

8 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

6.a) It is odd that you mention "there's no evidence".

6.b) It is odd, because you went on to mention that "the intelligence of humans reached a level". 

6.c) That level was reached because humans are candidates for optimizing cognitive tasks, i.e. cognitive tasks were optimized while intelligence grew as time passed.

It reached a level that provided a balance between usefulness and cost. Presumably you would say that it was locally optimised for the constraints of usefulness, size, energy use, biological possibility, etc.

Except you refuse to say what evolution is optimising, what it is optimising it for and what the constraints are. We just have your vague "cognitive tasks".

8 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

7) Also, since then, we've still been getting smarter, (supplemented by better and better science/technology), although the amount of information we generate is eluding is more and more daily.

Nothing to do with evolution.

8 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

8.a) Your words: "So, ignoring the fact tat this is pure speculation / science-fiction at the moment".
8.b) My response:  General intelligence (as far as science goes) is reasonably independent of substrate; i.e. no law of physics limits general intelligence to flesh.

That is an unsubstantiated assumption/guess.

8 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

9.a) Your words: "what are these cognitive tasks and in what way do they need to be optimized (i.e. what are the constraints)?"
9.b.) My response: See items 3.a and 3.b in my reply above to dimreeper, in this latest thread.

You are just repeating the same vague comments. 

Give some specific examples of the sort of cognitive tasks you are talking about.

Explain how they need to be optimised.

Explain how humans have been optimised for these tasks by intelligence.

Define the constraints that this optimisation has to balance.

Explain how AI will further optimise the tasks, including the constraints that have to be balanced.

 

I only entered this discussion because you didn't appear to understand the difference between science and philosophy. So let me try again:

How exactly would you test your hypothesis, and what would falsify it? This means defining quantitative tests and pass/fail criteria. Can you do that? If not, it is not science. 

Edited January 7, 2018 by Strange

[John Cuthber]

On 1/4/2018 at 8:08 AM, thoughtfuhk said:

One would reasonably need to show that optimization is not a crucial evolutionary component/goal

Evolution does not have a "goal" because it has no intent; it just happens.
Many things produced by evolution are far from optimal and, at least in some cases, there is no credible evolutionary path to the global optimum because it's stuck at or near the local optimum.
Now, given that the quote is what you said it would take to show your idea to be wrong, you ought to stop arguing with people here + go + redraft your idea.

[thoughtfuhk]

22 minutes ago, Strange said:

So you post a link to a very long article, hoping that people will just happen to spot the paper mentioned at the end (with no indication that is the relevant bit? When you could have just posted a link to the paper. Are you being deliberately difficult?

Anyway, thank you for finally linking the relevant article.

Did you miss the "if" in that sentence? Or are you deliberately twisting my words?

I don't care one way or another about your idea. I am not arguing for or against the connection between evolution or optimisation. I was simply pointing out that you did not (initially) provide any support for your argument. It has taken a page of your vague and repetitive replies to get you to provide a specific reference.

It reached a level that provided a balance between usefulness and cost. Presumably you would say that it was locally optimised for the constraints of usefulness, size, energy use, biological possibility, etc.

Except you refuse to say what evolution is optimising, what it is optimising it for and what the constraints are. We just have your vague "cognitive tasks".

Nothing to do with evolution.

That is an unsubstantiated assumption/guess.

You are just repeating the same vague comments. 

Give some specific examples of the sort of cognitive tasks you are talking about.

Explain how they need to be optimised.

Explain how humans have been optimised for these tasks by intelligence.

Define the constraints that this optimisation has to balance.

Explain how AI will further optimise the tasks, including the constraints that have to be balanced.

 

I only entered this discussion because you didn't appear to understand the difference between science and philosophy. So let me try again:

How exactly would you test your hypothesis, and what would falsify it? This means defining quantitative tests and pass/fail criteria. Can you do that? If not, it is not science. 

1.a) It is no secret that cognitive tasks have been optimized, from neanderthals to homosapiens.

1.b) Reference A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_intelligence

Edited January 7, 2018 by thoughtfuhk

[Strange]

Just now, thoughtfuhk said:

1.a) It is no secret that cognitive tasks have been optimized, from neandethals to homosapiens.

Can you stop just repeating the same vague platitudes and provide some detail.

Can you define what you mean by "optimised"?

Which cognitive tasks?

How (in what ways) have they been optimised?

What constraints had to be met?

And then, ditto for possible future AI.

If all you can do is endlessly repeat "cognitive tasks have been optimized" then this thread might as well be locked.

[thoughtfuhk]

28 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Evolution does not have a "goal" because it has no intent; it just happens.
Many things produced by evolution are far from optimal and, at least in some cases, there is no credible evolutionary path to the global optimum because it's stuck at or near the local optimum.
Now, given that the quote is what you said it would take to show your idea to be wrong, you ought to stop arguing with people here + go + redraft your idea.

1) I advise that you read the prior page, before commenting, as you are almost repeating errors others here have made.

2) Anyway, as the evidence I've presented shows, evolution does appear to have a goal. (See for example "Dissipative Adaptation" by Jeremy England)

3.a) I don't know why you are saying somethings aren't optimal, because I didn't say that everything was optimal. (I've even used the term local optimisation wrt evolution on the prior page!)

3.b) However, that things don't find global optimum, does not suddenly warrant that things aren't optimising some phenomena, as I've repeated several times on the prior page.

Edited January 7, 2018 by thoughtfuhk

[dimreepr]

32 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

1) Yes, as you demonstrated, your comprehension on the matter of Artificial general intelligence, definitely needs improvement.

2.a) Your prior words: "This may be the source of your confusion, evolution doesn't select (least of all candidates)...".

2.b) My response: As you can see above, you appeared to have been refuting something you supposed I had said. Otherwise why did you bother to mention that evolution doesn't select....?

3.a) On the contrary, you are demonstrating confusion; but the reference below shall help to minimize or purge your self induced confusion.

3.b) Reference A - Cognitive Computing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_computing

4) Yes, that "may" signifies uncertainty, but reasonably in a sense that humans might go extinct before AGI/ASI surfaces. However, if we don't go extinct, and we continue to work on Ai development, AGI/ASI is inevitable.

LOL or but this from your link: 

Quote

At present, there is no widely agreed upon definition for cognitive computing in either academia or industry.^[1][3][4]

 

[thoughtfuhk]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

LOL or but this from your link: 

 

I don't detect the relevance of your response above, because it does not disregard the reality that computers can do cognitive tasks...

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

Can you stop just repeating the same vague platitudes and provide some detail.

Can you define what you mean by "optimised"?

Which cognitive tasks?

How (in what ways) have they been optimised?

What constraints had to be met?

And then, ditto for possible future AI.

If all you can do is endlessly repeat "cognitive tasks have been optimized" then this thread might as well be locked.

1) I noticed you conveniently excluded the URL I presented from your quote of me above.

2) I advise that you observe the URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_intelligence

Edited January 7, 2018 by thoughtfuhk

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

2) Anyway, as the evidence I've presented shows, evolution does appear to have a goal. (See for example "Dissipative Adaptation" by Jeremy England)

Sigh. Here we go again. Where EXACTLY does he say evolution has a goal? It is five pages of dense text. Please quote the exact part(s) where he says this.

 

2 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

1) I noticed you conveniently excluded the URL I presented from your quote of me above.

2) I advise that you observe the URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_intelligence

OK. As you refuse to answer questions, I will suggest the mods close this thread as it contains no science and you are not willing to introduce any.

[thoughtfuhk]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

OK. As you refuse to answer questions, I will suggest the mods close this thread as it contains no science and you are not willing to introduce any.

1) That you are unable to process the references I link, does not suddenly warrant that the thread is to be closed.

2.a) For example:

2.b) Others here have seen that evolution does something like local optimization, whereas you didn't demonstrate that initially. (You did after a few responses from me)

 

Edited January 7, 2018 by thoughtfuhk

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

If all you can do is endlessly repeat "cognitive tasks have been optimized" then this thread might as well be locked.

 

As I'm sure it will be unless thoughtfuck sorry thoughtfuhk can provide something more substantial than, I'm right cuz I say so. 

[Strange]

1 minute ago, thoughtfuhk said:

That you are unable to process the references I link, does not suddenly warrant that the thread is to be closed.

As you didn't write the Wikipedia page on human intelligence, it somehow fails to answer the questions about YOUR claims:

Can you define what you mean by "optimised"?

Which cognitive tasks?

How (in what ways) have they been optimised?

What constraints had to be met?

[thoughtfuhk]

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

As I'm sure it will be unless thoughtfuck sorry thoughtfuhk can provide something more substantial than, I'm right cuz I say so. 

1) Ironically, unlike you, I tend to substantiate my points with sources.

2) Are you simply saddened by your errors? You ought not to be, because nobody is infallible, you are bound to discover many short comings, this is typical because nobody is omniscient.

3) Actually, I would have preferred the username as you mistakingly mentioned above, but I wasn't sure it was in line with rules.

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

As you didn't write the Wikipedia page on human intelligence, it somehow fails to answer the questions about YOUR claims:

Can you define what you mean by "optimised"?

Which cognitive tasks?

How (in what ways) have they been optimised?

What constraints had to be met?

1) Your concerns are approached in the url I provided earlier.

2) I don't wish to repeat the same lengthy typing, (like the one that occurred before you finally admitted to seeing some relation between optimization and evolution) so I'll leave it up to you to process the source. (It takes time to process sources too, but such is the process of science)

Edited January 7, 2018 by thoughtfuhk

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

1) Your concerns are approached in the url I provided earlier.

No. I am asking you about YOUR ideas. Do you mean you don't any ideas of your own? You just want us to read someone else's? (And which URL? Are you always this evasive and difficult?)

[thoughtfuhk]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

No. I am asking you about YOUR ideas. Do you mean you don't any ideas of your own? You just want us to read someone else's? (And which URL? Are you always this evasive and difficult?)

The questions you earlier asked, are approached in the human intelligence Wikipedia URL I provided.

[dimreepr]

34 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

1) Ironically, unlike you, I tend to substantiate my points with sources.

 

You owe me a new irony meter, I'll ask google...

Edited January 7, 2018 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

46 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

1) I advise that you read the prior page, before commenting, as you are almost repeating errors others here have made.

2) Anyway, as the evidence I've presented shows, evolution does appear to have a goal. (See for example "Dissipative Adaptation" by Jeremy England)

3.a) I don't know why you are saying somethings aren't optimal, because I didn't say that everything was optimal. (I've even used the term local optimisation wrt evolution on the prior page!)

I read it.

I'm raising the same points others raised, because you didn't address them.

You have not produced evidence.

There's a difference between what you claimed "One would reasonably need to show that optimization is not a crucial evolutionary component/goal" and what you now claim "evolution does appear to have a goal"
Appearances are deceptive.

 

"I don't know why you are saying somethings aren't optimal, because I didn't say that everything was optimal."

You said that the "goal" of evolution is optimisation but in the real world, evolution can not (always) find optima.

So, no matter who reads the previous pages (or how often), your original assertion is still wrong.

 

Pretending that you have  shown evidence  won't cut it on a science web site.

 

37 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

1) Ironically, unlike you, I tend to substantiate my points with sources.

Really? That's interesting
Where do you post them and can you supply a link to them- better yet, you might want to include them in your posts here.

[Area54]

@thoughtfuhk

I can only imagine two reasons why you would be posting your thoughts here, in the manner in which you are posting them:

1. You are trolling. If this is the case, congratulations, you have provided an outstanding example of how to avoid answering direct questions and shift the blame for lack of progress to other participants.

2. You genuinely wish to share your concepts with others. If this is the case your failure to pay proper attention to what others have posted and your persistent failure to answer direct questions has screwed that up.

On the basis that explanation 2 is the correct one I recommend the following: Provide specific quotes from cited articles that justify your links between each step in your argument. While this will not prove your case, it will demonstrate that your argument is a plausible one supported by identified research. At present that is, decidedly, not the case.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, thoughtfuhk said:

The questions you earlier asked, are approached in the human intelligence Wikipedia URL I provided.

!

Moderator Note

OP, when asked for specific information, which you seem to believe is located within the bulk of the page you cited, why not point out the relevant parts with a simple cut and paste of exactly what supports your idea? Opening to a specific page in a book and pointing out where the reader should start is much more helpful than simply throwing the book at them and demanding they guess. Remember, in this section you need to support your ideas and respond to requests for clarification. Please help those willing to discuss this with you, rather than making it more difficult.

Don't respond to this; respond to the questions already being asked of you.

 

[thoughtfuhk]

12 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

I read it.

1) You clearly didn't read it.

1.a) On the prior page, I specifically introduced the term "local optimization" to counter a "global optimum" comment another had made.

1.c) On this page, that event was followed by a similar remark by you, advising against "global optimum" , and repeating the very same "local optimization" concept I had previously introduced on the prior page. 

2) By repeating the phrase I had already used to describe evolution, you've undoubtedly proven that you did not bother to read the page.

3) Also, my earlier responses to you demonstrably hold.

4) Why bother to lie when evidence can trivially demonstrate your claim to be false? What is there to gain from stipulating obvious lies?

12 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Really? That's interesting
Where do you post them and can you supply a link to them- better yet, you might want to include them in your posts here.

5.a) Another trivially demonstrably falsified lie of yours. 

5.b) As the mod pointed out, I did provide sources. 

Edited January 8, 2018 by thoughtfuhk

[Strange]

17 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

The questions you earlier asked, are approached in the human intelligence Wikipedia URL I provided.

As you don't appear to have any ideas of your own, and can't even be bothered to cut and paste the relevant sentences from the article, this has become completely pointless.

Insisting you are right because you are right, and being unable/unwilling to discuss the subject, is not science and not philosophy. It is just time wasting.

17 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

3) Actually, I would have preferred the username as you mistakingly mentioned above, but I wasn't sure it was in line with rules.

Looks like you could have left the "thought" part out of your username.

[John Cuthber]

6 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

4) Why bother to lie when evidence can trivially demonstrate your claim to be false? What is there to gain from stipulating obvious lies?

Get a mirror.

6 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

5.b) As the mod pointed out, I did provide sources. 

Really?

Where?

 

[Silvestru]

thoughtfuhk - What  is evolution optimising? Why?

Apologies for butting in I know the question above has been asked already but it is very simple and the root to this whole mess.

OP, can you please answer this no references needed, I just want to understand in your own words what your point is.

[thoughtfuhk]

13 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

thoughtfuhk - What  is evolution optimising? Why?

Apologies for butting in I know the question above has been asked already but it is very simple and the root to this whole mess.

OP, can you please answer this no references needed, I just want to understand in your own words what your point is.

Here is a portion of a response of mine on the prior pages:

1. Evolution selects increasingly suitable candidates all the time. (optimization also pertains to candidate selection)

2.a) In a range of intelligent behaviours, humans are candidates for optimizing cognitive tasks.

2.b) AGI/ASI is observable as yet another thing in nature (although non-biological), that are also candidates that can theoretically generate better intelligence than humans, thus possessing the ability to better optimize cognitive tasks.

3) Based on (1), (2.a) and (2.b), AGI/ASI is a reasonably non-trivial goal to pursue, much like how nature generated smarter things than Neanderthals or chimpanzees.
 

 

Here is an ending note, that is newly written:

As you can see from the sequence above:

a) Cognitive tasks are being optimized in mammalian entities, ranging from small mammals to neanderthals, chimpanzees and homo-sapiens. 

b) As cognitive tasks were optimized, intelligence got more and more general, and more and more able to do more and more varying tasks.

c) Although AGI/ASI may be non-biological, in a range of intelligent behaviours observable in nature, AGI/ASI shall reasonably occur in that range, such that AGI/ASI exceeds humans in cognitive tasks.

d) There is no law of physics that stipulates that general intelligence stops at mankind, the trend shows that it is inevitable that some advanced form AGI/ASI shall occur.

e) Given the trend, it is reasonable that the purpose of the human species is to create AGI/ASI or some other form of human exceeding intelligence, by non-biological means or by crispr/human augmentation respectively.

Contrary to the latter portion of your request, I shall additionally provide a new reference below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition