Machines and money

[tee-rex]

As I said above, true intelligence is not possible without consciousness, though these are different notions indeed (as thought and mind). If we assume the existence of intelligence without consciousness, we inevitably expose ourselves to the issue of purpose. That is, what is the purpose of this intelligence? And the purpose of intelligence cannot stem from intelligence per se. In this way, purposeless intelligence is an oxymoron, and it is mind that provides purpose to intelligence. In other words, intelligence is a device of mind for reaching its ends. That, simply put, sums it up.

You are right that in order for even a problem to be declared, and a solution to be declared, a purpose needs to be defined, and purpose means consciousness (because "good" versus "bad" experiences).  However, consciousness is only necessary to DEFINE the problem, not to solve it.

As such, you need a sentient being to RECOGNIZE intelligence.

I call something intelligent if it can SOLVE a problem (as DEFINED by a consciousness).

This obviously contradicts what you have been saying in this thread before. You said that intelligence is objective ("Intelligence is observable, objective and so on"). but now you turn your thought 180 degrees and state that intelligence is something that is able to solve a problem defined by a conscious being. By this you confirm that intelligence is also subjective. Thus an AND gate taken as such is not intelligent but only if it serves some purpose. But even in this case it is not an AND gate's intelligence but intelligence of him who assigned its purpose (since intelligence lies in a purpose, not in a device that fulfills it).

As simple.

[1715196717]

1715196717

[1715196717]

1715196717

[1715196717]

1715196717

[1715196717]

1715196717

[1715196717]

1715196717

[manwithat]

Artificial Intelligence has bean dead for thirty years, after someone oversold it by stating that it was possible to create a program that could answer all questions, it was called the General Problem Solver. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Problem_Solver

[dinofelis]

This obviously contradicts what you have been saying in this thread before. You said that intelligence is objective ("Intelligence is observable, objective and so on"). but now you turn your thought 180 degrees and state that intelligence is something that is able to solve a problem defined by a conscious being.

The capacity to solve the problem is objective of course.  A calculator solves objectively an addition problem.  An AND gate solves objectively a logical problem.  What exactly is an "addition problem" is subjectively defined, because you're right, the very fact that additions are a problem to be solved is indeed only definable by a sentient being.  A non-sentient being couldn't care less whether two numbers resulting in a third number have any "purpose" (because a non-sentient being doesn't care about anything).

So I agreed that in the concept itself of "problem", lies the need for a goal, for a purpose, and hence for a good versus bad experience, and thus a sentient being.  In a world without a sentient being, it doesn't matter at all whether there is a device that can do something like "additions".

However, once "doing additions" is recognized as a purpose by a sentient being, the observation whether or not a system can perform such an addition (whether it has this intelligence) is objective of course.  That's what I meant.

There's no philosophical debate as whether a calculator can or cannot solve an addition problem.  A working calculator can, and a broken one can't.

[tee-rex]

This obviously contradicts what you have been saying in this thread before. You said that intelligence is objective ("Intelligence is observable, objective and so on"). but now you turn your thought 180 degrees and state that intelligence is something that is able to solve a problem defined by a conscious being.

The capacity to solve the problem is objective of course.  A calculator solves objectively an addition problem.  An AND gate solves objectively a logical problem.  What exactly is an "addition problem" is subjectively defined, because you're right, the very fact that additions are a problem to be solved is indeed only definable by a sentient being.  A non-sentient being couldn't care less whether two numbers resulting in a third number have any "purpose" (because a non-sentient being doesn't care about anything).

So I agreed that in the concept itself of "problem", lies the need for a goal, for a purpose, and hence for a good versus bad experience, and thus a sentient being.  In a world without a sentient being, it doesn't matter at all whether there is a device that can do something like "additions".

However, once "doing additions" is recognized as a purpose by a sentient being, the observation whether or not a system can perform such an addition (whether it has this intelligence) is objective of course.  That's what I meant.

I don't believe you, you meant quite the other, namely, that intelligence doesn't need consciousness at all. Why don't you just recognize that intelligence is not objective, that there is no such thing as intelligence without prior conscious thought, and that you were plain wrong stating that?

There is no such thing as intelligence per se. A calculator is not intelligent by any means, it is a tool, intelligent is its owner.

[tee-rex]

Artificial Intelligense has bean dead for thirty years, after someone oversold it by stating that it was possible to create a program that could answer all questions, it was called the General Problem Solver.

Artificial Intelligence has bean dead for thirty years, after someone oversold it by stating that it was possible to create a program that could answer all questions, it was called the General Problem Solver. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Problem_Solver

Are you padding your post count? Get out of here.

[Hazir]

but then we should also declare nature as being intelligent, since there are a multitude of such "intelligent devices" created by natural forces.

Of course nature is intelligent.  The universe is probably the most intelligent device in existence.  The amount of entropy it can produce is gigantic.
However, I doubt that the universe is sentient.  If we say it is, we enter in totally metaphysical or even theological considerations.

It is certain that we're not the only animals who possess the intellectual, cognitive and emotional capacities. Life has survived 3,7 billion years on Earth, most of that time without humans. Does this not speak to the intelligence of all living things? But I am sure that someday humans will create machines intelligent enough to be superior species. When this will happen all forms of money will become obsolete.

[tee-rex]

but then we should also declare nature as being intelligent, since there are a multitude of such "intelligent devices" created by natural forces.

Of course nature is intelligent.  The universe is probably the most intelligent device in existence.  The amount of entropy it can produce is gigantic.
However, I doubt that the universe is sentient.  If we say it is, we enter in totally metaphysical or even theological considerations.

It is certain that we're not the only animals who possess the intellectual, cognitive and emotional capacities. Life has survived 3,7 billion years on Earth, most of that time without humans. Does this not speak to the intelligence of all living things? But I am sure that someday humans will create machines intelligent enough to be superior species. When this will happen all forms of money will become obsolete.

I would like to know why it is a given that all forms of money would become obsolete when humans creat a new form of life that would be more intelligent than themselves. What actually makes you think so? I could weigh in as to why it wouldn't be that (simple), but first I want to hear your ideas (reasons and arguments before all).

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

but then we should also declare nature as being intelligent, since there are a multitude of such "intelligent devices" created by natural forces.

Of course nature is intelligent.  The universe is probably the most intelligent device in existence.  The amount of entropy it can produce is gigantic.
However, I doubt that the universe is sentient.  If we say it is, we enter in totally metaphysical or even theological considerations.

It is certain that we're not the only animals who possess the intellectual, cognitive and emotional capacities. Life has survived 3,7 billion years on Earth, most of that time without humans. Does this not speak to the intelligence of all living things? But I am sure that someday humans will create machines intelligent enough to be superior species. When this will happen all forms of money will become obsolete.

I would like to know why it is a given that all forms of money would become obsolete when humans creat a new form of life that would be more intelligent than themselves. What actually makes you think so? I could weigh in as to why it wouldn't be that (simple), but first I want to hear your ideas (reasons and arguments before all).

By the time we have human-like biped robots walking around and with a brain superior to actual humans we'll be way past needing to work, or at least 99% of tasks will already be automated. You tell me how an economy is supossed to work under a monetary system when 99% of jobs are being automated by machines.

[tee-rex]

It is certain that we're not the only animals who possess the intellectual, cognitive and emotional capacities. Life has survived 3,7 billion years on Earth, most of that time without humans. Does this not speak to the intelligence of all living things? But I am sure that someday humans will create machines intelligent enough to be superior species. When this will happen all forms of money will become obsolete.

I would like to know why it is a given that all forms of money would become obsolete when humans creat a new form of life that would be more intelligent than themselves. What actually makes you think so? I could weigh in as to why it wouldn't be that (simple), but first I want to hear your ideas (reasons and arguments before all).

By the time we have human-like biped robots walking around and with a brain superior to actual humans we'll be way past needing to work, or at least 99% of tasks will already be automated. You tell me how an economy is supossed to work under a monetary system when 99% of jobs are being automated by machines.

No artificial intelligence can remove subjective valuation existing in human mind which is a prerequisite for trade between people. Money just facilitates this trade. So, I think, there will always be room for a monetary system of sorts. Furthermore, there are things which involve competition between humans, and human-like biped robots won't change a thing about it. It doesn't really matter that a supercomputer can smash to pieces any world chess champion by now (and even more world chess champions by then), people still play and will play chess against other people (just an example). And no no-need for work will ever change this either.

Olympic champions are the hardest working people in existence.

[BillyBobZorton]

It is certain that we're not the only animals who possess the intellectual, cognitive and emotional capacities. Life has survived 3,7 billion years on Earth, most of that time without humans. Does this not speak to the intelligence of all living things? But I am sure that someday humans will create machines intelligent enough to be superior species. When this will happen all forms of money will become obsolete.

I would like to know why it is a given that all forms of money would become obsolete when humans creat a new form of life that would be more intelligent than themselves. What actually makes you think so? I could weigh in as to why it wouldn't be that (simple), but first I want to hear your ideas (reasons and arguments before all).

By the time we have human-like biped robots walking around and with a brain superior to actual humans we'll be way past needing to work, or at least 99% of tasks will already be automated. You tell me how an economy is supossed to work under a monetary system when 99% of jobs are being automated by machines.

No artificial intelligence can remove subjective valuation existing in human mind which is a prerequisite for trade between people. Money just facilitates this trade. So, I think, there will always be room for a monetary system of sorts. Furthermore, there are things which involve competition between humans, and human-like biped robots won't change a thing about it. It doesn't really matter that a supercomputer can smash to pieces any world chess champion by now (and even more world chess champions by then), people still play and will play chess against other people (just an example). And no no-need for work will ever change this either.

Olympic champions are the hardest working people in existence.

It doesn't take artificial intelligence to replace most jobs, collapsing our current economy because more than half of the population will need to be on welfare or something, since they will be perpetually unemployed.

[dinofelis]

By the time we have human-like biped robots walking around and with a brain superior to actual humans we'll be way past needing to work, or at least 99% of tasks will already be automated. You tell me how an economy is supossed to work under a monetary system when 99% of jobs are being automated by machines.

I would think that that is very simple: by living off your investments in those machines, or in the machines that produce those machines, or in the machines that produce the machines that produce those machines....

Labor as the main source of income will be replaced by dividend on investment as the main source of income for humans.

You will have the "haves" who are invested in that, and the "have nots".   Those last ones can do their own economy amongst themselves, or starve.  If they starve, then the humanity that remains is entirely invested in the robot economy, and will live off their automatically generated dividends.  What your (great grand) parents have invested in, will determine your standard of living.  But if you have enough of it, you can still play on the stock market, to try to improve your situation (or fail, and starve).

Economic Darwinism, I'd say.

Human labor as a source of income will be over.  Except maybe in the sex industry. 

[cbeast]

By the time we have human-like biped robots walking around and with a brain superior to actual humans we'll be way past needing to work, or at least 99% of tasks will already be automated. You tell me how an economy is supossed to work under a monetary system when 99% of jobs are being automated by machines.

I would think that that is very simple: by living off your investments in those machines, or in the machines that produce those machines, or in the machines that produce the machines that produce those machines....

Labor as the main source of income will be replaced by dividend on investment as the main source of income for humans.

You will have the "haves" who are invested in that, and the "have nots".   Those last ones can do their own economy amongst themselves, or starve.  If they starve, then the humanity that remains is entirely invested in the robot economy, and will live off their automatically generated dividends.  What your (great grand) parents have invested in, will determine your standard of living.  But if you have enough of it, you can still play on the stock market, to try to improve your situation (or fail, and starve).

Economic Darwinism, I'd say.

Human labor as a source of income will be over.  Except maybe in the sex industry. 

Would a machine with a superior intellect allow itself to be owned by "haves" as you put it?

[dinofelis]

By the time we have human-like biped robots walking around and with a brain superior to actual humans we'll be way past needing to work, or at least 99% of tasks will already be automated. You tell me how an economy is supossed to work under a monetary system when 99% of jobs are being automated by machines.

I would think that that is very simple: by living off your investments in those machines, or in the machines that produce those machines, or in the machines that produce the machines that produce those machines....

Labor as the main source of income will be replaced by dividend on investment as the main source of income for humans.

You will have the "haves" who are invested in that, and the "have nots".   Those last ones can do their own economy amongst themselves, or starve.  If they starve, then the humanity that remains is entirely invested in the robot economy, and will live off their automatically generated dividends.  What your (great grand) parents have invested in, will determine your standard of living.  But if you have enough of it, you can still play on the stock market, to try to improve your situation (or fail, and starve).

Economic Darwinism, I'd say.

Human labor as a source of income will be over.  Except maybe in the sex industry. 

Would a machine with a superior intellect allow itself to be owned by "haves" as you put it?

No, but the hypothesis of Atheist was that jobs would be gone long before we had such intelligent machines.

[cbeast]

By the time we have human-like biped robots walking around and with a brain superior to actual humans we'll be way past needing to work, or at least 99% of tasks will already be automated. You tell me how an economy is supossed to work under a monetary system when 99% of jobs are being automated by machines.

I would think that that is very simple: by living off your investments in those machines, or in the machines that produce those machines, or in the machines that produce the machines that produce those machines....

Labor as the main source of income will be replaced by dividend on investment as the main source of income for humans.

You will have the "haves" who are invested in that, and the "have nots".   Those last ones can do their own economy amongst themselves, or starve.  If they starve, then the humanity that remains is entirely invested in the robot economy, and will live off their automatically generated dividends.  What your (great grand) parents have invested in, will determine your standard of living.  But if you have enough of it, you can still play on the stock market, to try to improve your situation (or fail, and starve).

Economic Darwinism, I'd say.

Human labor as a source of income will be over.  Except maybe in the sex industry. 

Would a machine with a superior intellect allow itself to be owned by "haves" as you put it?

No, but the hypothesis of Atheist was that jobs would be gone long before we had such intelligent machines.

Would machines with a superior intellect have feelings? Why would they not allow themselves to be owned?

[bitboy11]

Artificial intelligence and the fridge
http://on.ft.com/1zSz2tw

In science fiction, this scenario — called “singularity” or “transcendence” — usually leads to robot versus human war and a contest for world domination.
But what if, rather than a physical battle, it was an economic one, with robots siphoning off our money or destroying the global economy with out-of-control algorithmic trading programmes? Perhaps it will not make for a great movie, but it seems the more likely outcome.

With Bitcoin, it's hard to see the downside. DACs (decentralize autonomous companies) are inevitable. This article is another vestige of irrational fear about money.

On the contrary, I think this will make for a great movie.

[soowein]

When the time comes, we will manage the balance between the robot and human.
Now our focus should be developing Artificial intelligence. 
The scenario you mentioned should be in science fiction now.

[dinofelis]

I don't believe you, you meant quite the other, namely, that intelligence doesn't need consciousness at all.

Because I think that a calculator has a certain intelligence, and I don't think - although I cannot know - that a calculator isn't really conscious.  An AND gate also has some intelligence, but less so.  A modern-day computer has way more intelligence than a calculator.  Whether a modern-day computer is conscious or not, I don't know but I would be tempted to say no (although it is an unsolvable issue).

However, to SAY what is intelligence, needs a conscious being, because it needs to fix a purpose, namely a problem to be solved.  Without problem to be solved, there's no intelligence possible that can solve it, right.

Compare it to music for instance.  Music as such is objective.  It is a data file if you want to.  Or a function of air pressure as a function of time.  There's no discussion about that.  However, to define whether a certain sound is "music" needs a sentient being that can appreciate (enjoy) these sounds and there can even be discussion amongst sentient beings about whether some sound should be considered music or not.  But "music itself" as a sound doesn't need a consciousness.

In the same way, to define something as a problem, and hence, what consists a solution to that problem, needs a purpose and hence some form of sentient being.  But once the problem is defined, a system that can solve such kinds of problems, is therefor intelligent, and that is objective.  
Defining the problem of "addition of two numbers is an interesting problem" is probably sentient.  But a thing that can do additions, and hence can solve a problem and hence is intelligent, doesn't need to be sentient.

To appreciate intelligence is a sentient action.  To be intelligent, not necessarily.

[tee-rex]

I don't believe you, you meant quite the other, namely, that intelligence doesn't need consciousness at all.

Because I think that a calculator has a certain intelligence, and I don't think - although I cannot know - that a calculator isn't really conscious.  An AND gate also has some intelligence, but less so.  A modern-day computer has way more intelligence than a calculator.  Whether a modern-day computer is conscious or not, I don't know but I would be tempted to say no (although it is an unsolvable issue).

However, to SAY what is intelligence, needs a conscious being, because it needs to fix a purpose, namely a problem to be solved.  Without problem to be solved, there's no intelligence possible that can solve it, right.

If it were so, I could just as well say that a sledgehammer is also intelligent (to a degree). It uses the force of gravity, thereby it has intelligence.

[dinofelis]

If it were so, I could just as well say that a sledgehammer is also intelligent (to a degree). It uses the force of gravity, thereby it has intelligence.

A sledgehammer solves a problem too, but it was implicitly understood that the problem had to be "conceptual" and not physical of course, for the tool that can solve it to be called "intelligent".  However, your example is not devoid of analogy.  In as much as a tool can be intelligent (solving a conceptual problem), another tool can be "strong" (solving a physical problem).

[tee-rex]

If it were so, I could just as well say that a sledgehammer is also intelligent (to a degree). It uses the force of gravity, thereby it has intelligence.

A sledgehammer solves a problem too, but it was implicitly understood that the problem had to be "conceptual" and not physical of course, for the tool that can solve it to be called "intelligent".  However, your example is not devoid of analogy.  In as much as a tool can be intelligent (solving a conceptual problem), another tool can be "strong" (solving a physical problem).

Okay, if someone owes you money, could a sledgehammer help you solve a "conceptual" problem of that guy not paying you back? A problem which is purely subjective?