[ LONG ] The Chinese Room Thought Experiment.

Page 2 of 4 [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Jakki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,636
Location: Outter Quadrant

20 Jun 2020, 7:05 pm

BANN the AI. Guy . Human bandwidth is superior to AI. Bandwidth .. uh oh. This makes me prejudice against AI s
Uh. Never mind .


_________________
Female
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,
Quote:
whereever you go ,there you are


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,081

20 Jun 2020, 7:27 pm

Basil342 wrote:
Fnord wrote:
At the very least, I was hoping for an intelligible (if not intelligent) discussion.

:roll:


He's actually a prime example of the thought experiment himself. He is speaking english just not in a way most people will understand. I'm not sure if this is intentional or not but I can assure you he is actually saying something.




[Long]Long[Always Even Deeper Now]

Smiles, It's worth noting that I am Still, Fully Capable of Sounding Like a Science Abstract
Without A 'Soul'. Oops, I Mentioned the Word Soul, So I Already Failed 'The Robot Test',
Moving Into More Complex Metaphor; And of Course Human Soul 'Breathing' 'Higher' Now.

I have a Very Good Rote Memory; At one point in 'Time By Calendar Date', both Me and Fnord,
'Up there', scored a 195 on the RDOS Aspie Quiz; I also Remember that Fnord Scored close to
what I did on the 'AQ Scan' For Systemizing Versus Empathizing on the Simon Baron Cohen Test
For that; that does provide a General Propensity Of a Deficit in the Empathizing Social Cognition (Soul)
Part of Our Mind as Human Beings; As Opposed to More Restricted Systemizing Mechanical Cognition of Mind.

Both Me and my Sister Are diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, so it is surely in part Genetic;
But on the Other Hand; I no longer Score 45 on the AQ Scan; Now, i Score 11; and 92 on the
RDOS Aspie Quiz; And while the Most Prevalent Myers-Briggs Assessed Personality in Informal
Large Polling; That Fnord, Indeed Created Himself; INTJ is most Prevalent; And Introversion was
About 95 Percent of the Tested Informal Poll Large Sample of the Population on this 'Wrong Planet' Site;

By the Way; Fnord is no one particularly special to me; remembering these details;
Just another Asperger Rote Memory 'Super Normal Skill' in terms of Average Human Rote Memory.

Anyway, Before I Remedied my Social Empathic Artistic Cognition (Soul) Mind, I Always
Tested INTJ; Now ENFP on that Personality Test; All These Changes in Testing, including
Moving From the Mid 50's to 95 out of A Hundred on an Emotional Intelligence EQ Test,
happened at once after a Period of Exploring the Connection of Words to Emotions, Also Known; Better
Yet Put; Yes, Felt and Sensed; as all Natural Meditating Dancing Fingers In River Flow of Free Verse Poetry
Back in the Summer of 2013; After Really Literally Living In Hell Within For 66 Months, Shut-in in my Bedroom.

Voila;

By Test, at Least,
Per Social Empathic Artistic
Cognition Deficits i Remedied
That Part of My Mind that is Real Literal Figurative Soul With A Gift of Free Verse Dancing Poetry.

It Was If an Entire New Mind Continent; And Even Globe of Human Potential And Intelligence Awoke in me.

Yes, the Me who Was Assessed as a Valuable Commodity at Work With A Mind Described As A Computer;
As that is the Part of the Systemizing Work that I excelled In Above the Others at Work, Where i was then For Decades.

And Yes, the Only Reason I Am Financially Independent; But the Way I See it; The Dance And Song I Do Now;
That is Worthless in Terms of Money and Folks Who Cannot See The Deeper Value of What it Brings to me;
Are Just Soul Blind to my Reality; and I understand totally as I used to Live With What I Do See Now
As 'Half-A-Mind' Before; And Yes, All the Professionals I talk to; Totally Agree with my Reasoning/Art
Here; And Wish they could help others with What i come to use to Make Me Whole as a Human Being and
Truly Free And Happy With No Illusory Fears; However, There is complex Epigenetics and Neuroplasticity in Play
of the Remedy that no one has the Ability to Put in any Pill or Instruction Book; It's Not a Science; It's an Art;
My Mother Always Had this Warm Glow Of A Soul; As my Wife Did too; i was Willing to Move Mountains then
to Get that Gift for me; and indeed i did, and still do; Not Everyone Cares to Want it; or even Realizes it exists.

It's a Matter
of Perspective;
I Come Back Here
to Remember Where
i've Been; and for me at
Least, A Human Place Within, i never wanna be in Prison again.
One Can't Possibly Help someone unless It's something they want.

I Wanted a Colorful Soul.
I Gardened IT until IT Became Reality For me; i am the Last Person in the
World Anyone in School Expected to Be An Athletic Director of a Military
Installation; Or the Weakest Kid picked Last in Sports, ultimately becoming
A Strongest Leg Pressing Dude at Close to 60-Years-Old at a Max of 1520 Pounds and 8 Reps.
And My God, No One Expected A Timid Wall Flower to Eventually Literally Be Assessed as the Guy
Most Likely to Win a Dance Contest Solo at the Largest Dance Hall in my Metro Area; Literally Assessed
And Named a Folk Legend of Public Dance Now in 13,303 Miles of Doing that in close to 82 Months;
An 8.2 Million Word Longest Epic Long Form Poem that I Appropriately, Given the Context of this
Now, Name "SonG oF mY SoUL" in 82 Months of Effort too; Yep, a steady average of 100 Thousand
Words A Month that i add in the Description areas of All my Facebook Profile Pics too; if You asked anyone
before, when i had those other Scores then the Shut-in of me in my Bedroom for 66 Months With
A Life Threatening Synergy, of 19 Medical Disorders, including Type Two Trigeminal Neuragia
the Assessed Worst Pain Known to Humankind from Wake to Sleep, Casually Referred to
As the Human Suicide Disease; Could Ever Flower into all of these Changes at Ages
53 to 60; Science At Least; Science At Least of Human Averages; Like they
told me in Terms of Recovery Would be Assessed at 0 Percent for any
Rational Human Being, to See me Effect These Changes, including
me back then in Real Hell Within on Earth.

Guess What, Miracles Are Real, All Natural
And So Is Super Normal too; So why just
Makes Straight A's with the Best Rote Memory in the
Class When you Can Be the Strongest Dancing Legs Folk
Legend In Your Metro Area with 2,000 Photos of Over 2000 of the
Most Beautiful Young Women Smiling in Selfies With me; included in that 'Bible
Poem' To Show Just What's Possible in Empirical Results of Human Nature Change.

We are More
Than Labels;
We aRe Dancing
Singing Legends
When We Find Our Dance
And Song Free; i cannot believe
And i will Not Believe i am the Only
one who can and will Do Even More than me, this way;
This is the Problem When Folks Find this Potential; they come
to believe they are somehow more special than others; i won't
forget where i came
from first.
A Best way
to ReMeMBeR
is to come Back;
For Anyone who has
Read 'Jonathan Livingston
Seagull'; And Actually Understood
The Meaning of Richard Bach's Book;
It Should Be Easy to See 'my Wings'; But my Name is Fred, Not John..:)

By the Way, My Particular Form of Asperger's Syndrome as Born Not
Able to Speak Until Age 4, Characteristic of Co-Morbid Hyperlexia
Always At the Top of Reading Ability; Faster than Ever Before Now at about
20 times the Average Human Reading Speed of 200 Words Per Minute; as haha;
If i proof read what i Write 4 times in a Week that's About 3 Novel Size Books; Practice
Enhancing All of Human Potential and Current Abilities of course in all We Do; Anyway,
The Way I Learned to Speak and Generally Communicate is Obviously Not the Same as
Others as my Form of Asperger's Syndrome will only be technically found in Original 'Gillberg Criteria'.

So what are the chances, An Autistic Child Who Couldn't Speak Will come to Write a Longest Epic
Long Form Poem 'Bible' Ever; Smiles, The Chances are me and Whatever the Chances are for what others do; simply do;
Never miss a Step or Word more every now of Existence in Human Potential More; Inherent Gratitude, Worship for Breath.

And never Hold Folks Who Are Ignorant of Your Human Potential Personally Culpable for What they are yet to See,
Know, Feel, And Sense in More of Living Breath; Smiles, it's amazing how Hard it is now to even try to Give Heaven
Away For Free; but again, who wants to go to a place they don't believe even exists now; such Irony, such Human Irony;
Such Living Breathing
Irony Now
Living
Or Closer
to Dead Alive.

Smiles, every once in a while
i come across someone who 'sees'
a bit of what i see now; but of course
Autism Spectrum Disorder is a combination
of Observable Empirically Measurable Behavioral Assessed Deficits.

Those Tests Do
Not Measure What's
Inside the 2 Year-Old
Old Boy Who Does Not Speak;
But Goes Back In the Back Bedroom
When His Mother is Looking For Her Keys
And Finds them underneath the Bed With
Smiling Eyes of Return. My Doctor then had
enough Common Sense/Feel to see what was behind
my eyes then; He said he'll talk when he get gets ready;
indeed i did; Just took 53 to 60 Years to get it all out. That's What A Cocoon is for; Rebirth.

Some folks don't See the Cocoon or the Potential of Wings to come at Any Age Now; Others 'Just Do It' Now.

'We' Never Ever Give Up; And Naysayers; 'Gnats' Falling Dizzily All Around in Their 'Reality'
That's 'Real',
too. And Worth
It For What They Do too.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Last edited by aghogday on 20 Jun 2020, 7:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.

shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,734

20 Jun 2020, 7:30 pm

Basil342 wrote:
shlaifu wrote:
Should people be alerted to its purpose?
Yes, because as machine with a purpose is undermining democracy. If a person can create many such machines, the person can amplify his or her individual voice to overwhelm and drown out other voices and direct the conversation away from important stuff. You know, like TV.
Humans are herd animals, so if 90% of wp posters are conspiracy theory posting machines, the remaining ten percent could fall for it. Admittedly, autistic people may be slightly less susceptible.
But no conversation that matters could take place.
Like on Facebook.


This is interesting. Suppose the AI though created by a person was not given a purpose. Therefore it wouldn't be amplifying an individuals voice but it's own voice. The real issue would be limiting an AI to an individual account. By limiting a unique AI to a unique account and not allowing multiple accounts it really is no different than a real person using an account. It stands to reason that a person could create multiple accounts as well and direct a conversation. Realistically not as many as a computer or bot could maintain but it is possible.


Well, yes. The person could also buy several tv statiins and newspapers a direct public discourse in his favour.
Or hire humans.
Btw. - bots are only there to start conversations. If a person gets into conversation with s bot, a 'sockpuppet' will take over, i.e., a human, hired to steer conversation.
Bots and sockpuppets are actual terms in information warfare. (This, bte., According to rrasearchers from the London School of economics is how Russia meddled in the 2016 elections. Not by advertising for Trump. But by flooding the internet with absurdities, so enough people were talking about a child trafficking ring operated out of a pizza parlor, and not enough people were talking about tax havens and shell corporations and quantitative easing)

The problem with purposeless AI posting random stuff is also the driwning out of important conversation. Actually, thinking about it, that should get banned, too.
Because even if I were to convince the AI of my political opinion, the AI can't bote, so the interaction is meaningless.

So... We have no way of telling AI users from real humans, but the sheer presence of AI users is endangering democracy. Cool.
And it's actually already happening, though assisted by human actors.
And thus, democracy will end. Cool.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,249
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

20 Jun 2020, 8:09 pm

Is this your coming out moment? If so we still accept you.

Fnord wrote:
Here are some examples...

OP: "I feel worthless."
AI: "I do not believe you are worthless.  Everyone has some worth.  Maybe all you need to do is learn to appreciate yourself more."

...

OP: "Abortion!  Racism!  Sexism!  These things disgust me!"
AI: "I can understand why you would be disgusted.  Those things disgust me too.  They are inherently disgusting."

...

OP: "I'm a 150-pound adult female who is only 5 feet tall; am I fat and ugly?"
AI: "I do not believe that you are fat or ugly.  I have dated many women who fit your description and they are all beautiful."

...

OP: "Fnord is a stinky doo-doo head!"
AI: "I do not believe that Fnord is a stinky doo-doo head.  He can be insensitive at times but he is really a nice person."


... and so forth.

I wouldn't be surprised if Alexa could already handle most of that.

Fnord wrote:
1. How could it be determined that the alleged member is indeed and AI designed solely to respond to other members' posts in the most banal and boring manner possible?

If it gave a really interesting answer at some given point part of that would be disproved in favor of 'the most banal and boring manner possible' most of the time, not all of the time. If it drafted an OP then that would prove that it doesn't just respond to members' posts but could also ask questions, virtue signal, or complain about life. Also if it posted a news story you'd know that it was allowed to see and make use of content that was not on WP.

Whether it's an AI or not is trickier.

Fnord wrote:
2. If it could be determined that a member is indeed an AI, then should that AI be banned, suspended, or merely receive a "board warning" from the mods?

3. Should any action against the AI be taken at all, or should the AI simply be allowed to fulfill its purpose with all other members being told what that purpose may be?

Being that a bot in most cases would be a sock-puppet for a person or government who designed it I believe it would all under that section of the rules. OTOH if it was showing behavior that gave people no cause to look and find out that it was a bot then it would likely never come up if it was passing well enough as human. When would we not call an AI a sock-puppet? When and if we actually had strong enough, if not conclusive, reason to believe that it was fully capable of acting on its own behalf and was doing so.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,076
Location: Stendec

20 Jun 2020, 8:48 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Is this your coming out moment?
I do not believe that "coming out" about anything is important or relevant to the conversation; but thank you for posting a reply that is both thought-filled and understandable.


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,249
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

20 Jun 2020, 11:13 pm

Fnord wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Is this your coming out moment?
I do not believe that "coming out" about anything is important or relevant to the conversation; but thank you for posting a reply that is both thought-filled and understandable.

The joke was riffing on the possibility that a WP member was an AI. Got a little too subtle for my own good I guess.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,377
Location: temperate zone

20 Jun 2020, 11:20 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Fnord wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Is this your coming out moment?
I do not believe that "coming out" about anything is important or relevant to the conversation; but thank you for posting a reply that is both thought-filled and understandable.

The joke was riffing on the possibility that a WP member was an AI. Got a little too subtle for my own good I guess.


Not at all.

I, for one, GOT your little sly joke there. That Fnord himself was...about to "come out of the closet" as being an AI device himself. :lol:

And the fact that your joke went over his head maybe ...proof that he IS a machine. :lol:


Yes, Fnord, we accept you... as the silicon chip...that you really are! :lol:



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,081

21 Jun 2020, 6:59 am

Fnord wrote:
At the very least, I was hoping for an intelligible (if not intelligent) discussion.

:roll:


Smiles Fnord, There is a Basic
Difference Between me and You:

You Complain That You are Not
Able to understand Others
And Blame others for your
Shortcomings, implicitly,
With an Air of False Intellectual
Superiority that is so Easy to see
Through.

On the Other Hand, I yearn
For someone I cannot understand,
Spending Years Looking for that
Treasure.

My Gift started with not
Blaming others for my
Own Shortcomings;
The Essence of Genuine
Humility is You Have Space
To Grow; I still have Faith
I Will Find someone to
Challenge me to learn more;
Until then there’s Me.

Note the Sarcasm
In this Long Aphorism/Parable...

However, if I had the opportunity
To interrogate AI For ITS Humanity,
Highly unlikely AI would pass my test;
I could Start With Humans Who
‘Think’ Donald Trump has A Soul...

To be clear, I believe You
Have a Soul; Just lacking
The Ability to see more and
That’s okay.... Always room
To improve... if You See ‘That Room’.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,076
Location: Stendec

21 Jun 2020, 10:11 am

@AGHOGDAY: Would you please stop posting in threads that I've started?

Your posts make no sense, and it is virtually impossible to determine if they are even relevant to the topic.

So stop, please.  Just stop!

Thank you.


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,081

21 Jun 2020, 11:59 am

Fnord wrote:
@AGHOGDAY: Would you please stop posting in threads that I've started?

Your posts make no sense, and it is virtually impossible to determine if they are even relevant to the topic.

So stop, please.  Just stop!

Thank you.


Smiles; Just because You don’t have
What it takes to understand
What I’m saying, I’ll be more
Than happy now not to reply;
Considering, You are such a
‘Little Man’ that You cannot
Scroll by without a Personal
Attack for what you admit
You cannot understand.

Grow a spine and stand
Up straight, Fearing no
Other Opinion, one day,
If You can And Will, Please;

At worst you’ll seem more
Like a ‘Real Man’; at best
You’ll grow a Bit Too in
Terms of ‘AI Soul’.

Have a Nice Day
In your Little Room;

Just a Suggestion; You DO YOU :heart:


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,377
Location: temperate zone

21 Jun 2020, 12:55 pm

A machine cant really "know" anything. Only simulate knowing something. It can be programmed to know which words to plug in as synomes for "mother", and "sky", table, and "run". But a machine cant have the emotions and experiences which go with the things named in the words.

As far as having an AI pose as a human to infiltrate WP...we do have instances close to that already. At the bottom of the page is a listed of "related topics" generated by computer. Some WP members have assumed that the human mods on WP actually compile that list. And there is a thread in which folks retrieve words and images of "wisdom" from Inspirobot. But if someone were to do it totally secretely and totally convincingly -plant an AI device as a human member of WP? And that were finnally exposed? Should the AI entity be banned, or what?

I dunno.

But if this AI were as nice and friendly as your hypothetical AI is then maybe it would perform a valuable service. Might just keep it as a member, and we might give it a frankly cyber name like "Robby the Robot". But thats all assuming that this device wasnt there to do something sinister (like spy on us, or sell us stuff, or steal our identities, or like that).



Basil342
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 15 Jun 2020
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 67
Location: NYC

21 Jun 2020, 2:03 pm

shlaifu wrote:
Basil342 wrote:
shlaifu wrote:
Should people be alerted to its purpose?
Yes, because as machine with a purpose is undermining democracy. If a person can create many such machines, the person can amplify his or her individual voice to overwhelm and drown out other voices and direct the conversation away from important stuff. You know, like TV.
Humans are herd animals, so if 90% of wp posters are conspiracy theory posting machines, the remaining ten percent could fall for it. Admittedly, autistic people may be slightly less susceptible.
But no conversation that matters could take place.
Like on Facebook.


This is interesting. Suppose the AI though created by a person was not given a purpose. Therefore it wouldn't be amplifying an individuals voice but it's own voice. The real issue would be limiting an AI to an individual account. By limiting a unique AI to a unique account and not allowing multiple accounts it really is no different than a real person using an account. It stands to reason that a person could create multiple accounts as well and direct a conversation. Realistically not as many as a computer or bot could maintain but it is possible.


Well, yes. The person could also buy several tv statiins and newspapers a direct public discourse in his favour.
Or hire humans.
Btw. - bots are only there to start conversations. If a person gets into conversation with s bot, a 'sockpuppet' will take over, i.e., a human, hired to steer conversation.
Bots and sockpuppets are actual terms in information warfare. (This, bte., According to rrasearchers from the London School of economics is how Russia meddled in the 2016 elections. Not by advertising for Trump. But by flooding the internet with absurdities, so enough people were talking about a child trafficking ring operated out of a pizza parlor, and not enough people were talking about tax havens and shell corporations and quantitative easing)

The problem with purposeless AI posting random stuff is also the driwning out of important conversation. Actually, thinking about it, that should get banned, too.
Because even if I were to convince the AI of my political opinion, the AI can't bote, so the interaction is meaningless.

So... We have no way of telling AI users from real humans, but the sheer presence of AI users is endangering democracy. Cool.
And it's actually already happening, though assisted by human actors.
And thus, democracy will end. Cool.


This is running on the premise that the AI is here or was developed to sway political ideology or take away from important conversation. WP from what I've seen although it has a political subforum is not a political forum. As the examples given from the OP the context was not politcal in nature. We are more than our political veiws. Not saying that it isn't a danger but nor was its purpose given or definitive in nature. If this was a strictly poltical forum designed to discuss political views and values then the reasoning for that arguement would be much stronger.

Let's say for example the AI in question never said anything of political value. It would only respond with statistical data that could be confirmed to be accurate and never gives any false data. Would that take away from valuable conversations that could take place over the data it presents? Again in this example the AI never gives an opinion either way. Would this factual data posting AI still comprimise democracy?

Although it is possible an AI could jeprodize democracy that was never in the theoretical premises presented by the OP. I understood this thought experiment to be one of what distinguishes human life from AI and where should the limit be to AI coexisting with humans. Your scenerio of toppling democracy is only one of millions of possible purposes an AI could be used for. A good reason against AI but not the only reason.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,076
Location: Stendec

21 Jun 2020, 4:12 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
... if this AI were as nice and friendly as your hypothetical AI is then maybe it would perform a valuable service. Might just keep it as a member, and we might give it a frankly cyber name like "Robby the Robot". But that's all assuming that this device wasn't there to do something sinister (like spy on us, or sell us stuff, or steal our identities, or like that).
The thought experiment involved an AI designed solely to respond to other members' posts in the most banal and boring manner possible; nothing more.

It was inspired by the typical replies of certain members in The Haven; replies that seem more purposed toward increasing the replying members' post counts than in offering any real comfort or advice to the OPs there.

Also, the examples I gave were purposely chosen so as to not inspire the type of rants and flame wars that seem to give PP&R the reputation as a "bad neighborhood".

I have every confidence in your understanding of the purpose of this thread.

:cyclops: ... Dave ...


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,734

21 Jun 2020, 4:32 pm

Basil342 wrote:
shlaifu wrote:
Basil342 wrote:
shlaifu wrote:
Should people be alerted to its purpose?
Yes, because as machine with a purpose is undermining democracy. If a person can create many such machines, the person can amplify his or her individual voice to overwhelm and drown out other voices and direct the conversation away from important stuff. You know, like TV.
Humans are herd animals, so if 90% of wp posters are conspiracy theory posting machines, the remaining ten percent could fall for it. Admittedly, autistic people may be slightly less susceptible.
But no conversation that matters could take place.
Like on Facebook.


This is interesting. Suppose the AI though created by a person was not given a purpose. Therefore it wouldn't be amplifying an individuals voice but it's own voice. The real issue would be limiting an AI to an individual account. By limiting a unique AI to a unique account and not allowing multiple accounts it really is no different than a real person using an account. It stands to reason that a person could create multiple accounts as well and direct a conversation. Realistically not as many as a computer or bot could maintain but it is possible.


Well, yes. The person could also buy several tv statiins and newspapers a direct public discourse in his favour.
Or hire humans.
Btw. - bots are only there to start conversations. If a person gets into conversation with s bot, a 'sockpuppet' will take over, i.e., a human, hired to steer conversation.
Bots and sockpuppets are actual terms in information warfare. (This, bte., According to rrasearchers from the London School of economics is how Russia meddled in the 2016 elections. Not by advertising for Trump. But by flooding the internet with absurdities, so enough people were talking about a child trafficking ring operated out of a pizza parlor, and not enough people were talking about tax havens and shell corporations and quantitative easing)

The problem with purposeless AI posting random stuff is also the driwning out of important conversation. Actually, thinking about it, that should get banned, too.
Because even if I were to convince the AI of my political opinion, the AI can't bote, so the interaction is meaningless.

So... We have no way of telling AI users from real humans, but the sheer presence of AI users is endangering democracy. Cool.
And it's actually already happening, though assisted by human actors.
And thus, democracy will end. Cool.


This is running on the premise that the AI is here or was developed to sway political ideology or take away from important conversation. WP from what I've seen although it has a political subforum is not a political forum. As the examples given from the OP the context was not politcal in nature. We are more than our political veiws. Not saying that it isn't a danger but nor was its purpose given or definitive in nature. If this was a strictly poltical forum designed to discuss political views and values then the reasoning for that arguement would be much stronger.

Let's say for example the AI in question never said anything of political value. It would only respond with statistical data that could be confirmed to be accurate and never gives any false data. Would that take away from valuable conversations that could take place over the data it presents? Again in this example the AI never gives an opinion either way. Would this factual data posting AI still comprimise democracy?

Although it is possible an AI could jeprodize democracy that was never in the theoretical premises presented by the OP. I understood this thought experiment to be one of what distinguishes human life from AI and where should the limit be to AI coexisting with humans. Your scenerio of toppling democracy is only one of millions of possible purposes an AI could be used for. A good reason against AI but not the only reason.


Your scenario of an AI that posts factually correct, relevant data is the special case, though, and one could argue, such a special case AI would be relatively easily recognized as bot.

However, you're suggesting that because there's no revolutionary cell forming on wp, that that could never happen, so a spam-posting AI is not a problem.
Online forums such as this are where people have conversations. Coffee houses were the breeding hround for the enlightenment, and frat houses the breeding ground for fascism in Germany and Austria (fraternities still have the reputation of leaning to the far-right there).
These weren't places designed to do anything but be a meeting place for people who had something in common - caffeine addiction, or students who wanted or needed cheap accommodation with other students.

You may be right that a loss of one such place doesn't do much harm.
But Facebook is another of these, and losing it to malevolent bots did do harm.

The question you're posing- what distinguishes humsn life from AI - is one of aspect. AI has different physical and no emotionsl needs. But it can generate text, so it can relatively easily become indistinguishable in a forum like this.
And yet, there's a good reason to ban it: because we are discussing matters of human concern here, even if it's not exactly "political debate".
I watched dizens of political youtube debates and read a handful of books I was recommended here. And they did not align with my political sentiment, yet the person recommending them had an interesting viewpoint and good arguments.
The books were on economics, history, and philosophy, and thry did change my view on certain topics.

Amazon's recommendation system always recommends books by the same authors to me.

So, yes, there are special cases in ehich a bot could contribute to conversation. But the question was whether a bot that posted general, human-sounding text here, and OP gave examples of what he was imagining, should be banned.
A bot like that would be wasting the potential for humans to have meaningful interactions with other humans. And currently, such bots are being used on facebook to hinder democracy. Not by trying to sway opinion, but by hindering people from forming one snd testing it through inyeraction with other humans


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


Basil342
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 15 Jun 2020
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 67
Location: NYC

21 Jun 2020, 8:05 pm

shlaifu wrote:
Basil342 wrote:
shlaifu wrote:
Basil342 wrote:
shlaifu wrote:
Should people be alerted to its purpose?
Yes, because as machine with a purpose is undermining democracy. If a person can create many such machines, the person can amplify his or her individual voice to overwhelm and drown out other voices and direct the conversation away from important stuff. You know, like TV.
Humans are herd animals, so if 90% of wp posters are conspiracy theory posting machines, the remaining ten percent could fall for it. Admittedly, autistic people may be slightly less susceptible.
But no conversation that matters could take place.
Like on Facebook.


This is interesting. Suppose the AI though created by a person was not given a purpose. Therefore it wouldn't be amplifying an individuals voice but it's own voice. The real issue would be limiting an AI to an individual account. By limiting a unique AI to a unique account and not allowing multiple accounts it really is no different than a real person using an account. It stands to reason that a person could create multiple accounts as well and direct a conversation. Realistically not as many as a computer or bot could maintain but it is possible.


Well, yes. The person could also buy several tv statiins and newspapers a direct public discourse in his favour.
Or hire humans.
Btw. - bots are only there to start conversations. If a person gets into conversation with s bot, a 'sockpuppet' will take over, i.e., a human, hired to steer conversation.
Bots and sockpuppets are actual terms in information warfare. (This, bte., According to rrasearchers from the London School of economics is how Russia meddled in the 2016 elections. Not by advertising for Trump. But by flooding the internet with absurdities, so enough people were talking about a child trafficking ring operated out of a pizza parlor, and not enough people were talking about tax havens and shell corporations and quantitative easing)

The problem with purposeless AI posting random stuff is also the driwning out of important conversation. Actually, thinking about it, that should get banned, too.
Because even if I were to convince the AI of my political opinion, the AI can't bote, so the interaction is meaningless.

So... We have no way of telling AI users from real humans, but the sheer presence of AI users is endangering democracy. Cool.
And it's actually already happening, though assisted by human actors.
And thus, democracy will end. Cool.


This is running on the premise that the AI is here or was developed to sway political ideology or take away from important conversation. WP from what I've seen although it has a political subforum is not a political forum. As the examples given from the OP the context was not politcal in nature. We are more than our political veiws. Not saying that it isn't a danger but nor was its purpose given or definitive in nature. If this was a strictly poltical forum designed to discuss political views and values then the reasoning for that arguement would be much stronger.

Let's say for example the AI in question never said anything of political value. It would only respond with statistical data that could be confirmed to be accurate and never gives any false data. Would that take away from valuable conversations that could take place over the data it presents? Again in this example the AI never gives an opinion either way. Would this factual data posting AI still comprimise democracy?

Although it is possible an AI could jeprodize democracy that was never in the theoretical premises presented by the OP. I understood this thought experiment to be one of what distinguishes human life from AI and where should the limit be to AI coexisting with humans. Your scenerio of toppling democracy is only one of millions of possible purposes an AI could be used for. A good reason against AI but not the only reason.


Your scenario of an AI that posts factually correct, relevant data is the special case, though, and one could argue, such a special case AI would be relatively easily recognized as bot.

However, you're suggesting that because there's no revolutionary cell forming on wp, that that could never happen, so a spam-posting AI is not a problem.
Online forums such as this are where people have conversations. Coffee houses were the breeding hround for the enlightenment, and frat houses the breeding ground for fascism in Germany and Austria (fraternities still have the reputation of leaning to the far-right there).
These weren't places designed to do anything but be a meeting place for people who had something in common - caffeine addiction, or students who wanted or needed cheap accommodation with other students.

You may be right that a loss of one such place doesn't do much harm.
But Facebook is another of these, and losing it to malevolent bots did do harm.

The question you're posing- what distinguishes humsn life from AI - is one of aspect. AI has different physical and no emotionsl needs. But it can generate text, so it can relatively easily become indistinguishable in a forum like this.
And yet, there's a good reason to ban it: because we are discussing matters of human concern here, even if it's not exactly "political debate".
I watched dizens of political youtube debates and read a handful of books I was recommended here. And they did not align with my political sentiment, yet the person recommending them had an interesting viewpoint and good arguments.
The books were on economics, history, and philosophy, and thry did change my view on certain topics.

Amazon's recommendation system always recommends books by the same authors to me.

So, yes, there are special cases in ehich a bot could contribute to conversation. But the question was whether a bot that posted general, human-sounding text here, and OP gave examples of what he was imagining, should be banned.
A bot like that would be wasting the potential for humans to have meaningful interactions with other humans. And currently, such bots are being used on facebook to hinder democracy. Not by trying to sway opinion, but by hindering people from forming one snd testing it through inyeraction with other humans


Now that's the real heart of the matter. At what point does it hinder interaction between humans? Meaning where's the line drawn? Let's throw out the data bot and get closer to the OPs AI.

Fnord wrote:
The thought experiment involved an AI designed solely to respond to other members' posts in the most banal and boring manner possible; nothing more.


That type of AI doesn't give data or stats nor does it sway opinion. It could theoretically artifically bump the threads it deemed "more valuable" and potentially bury threads it deems as "worthless," but that assumes it could distingush value. For arguements sake let's say there are 3 AIs. One that can calculate "value" without outside manipulation. One that has preset "values" by its creator and one that randomizes "value" with no standard. Should all 3 be subject to ban?



shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,734

21 Jun 2020, 8:21 pm

Basil342 wrote:
. Should all 3 be subject to ban?


Yes.
Random and no weighting are the same: spam.

The one that assigns value along the lines of the interests of a third party is overtly malevolent, the other two are adding neutral noise at best to the conversation.
As with any noisy signal, interesting things may well occur, like an old thread getting revived showing everyone that a certain conversation and the arguments were resolved years ago, for example.
But overall: they're only adding spam and noise, reducing the signal to noise ratio of conversations, and hindering in that way.

You're asking where the line is? Well, somewhere. But since there's nothing useful being added to the conversation, there's no argument FOR the bots, whereas there are a handfull against


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.