Autor Wątek: Summa technologiae  (Przeczytany 31598 razy)

Deckert

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #15 dnia: Maj 20, 2005, 11:13:30 am »
OK, but I wanted to point people's attantion to Golem's desire to contact with his peer. He was able to communicate with us, but his dream was to get in touch with someone similar to him.  I remember that scientists finally gave him such an opportunity. That contact, however, was pretty short and neighter scientists nor engineers detected anything unusual.
But this contact was sufficient for Golem to think about stepping into a new level of existance. It might have been originated by this short communication with Honest Annie.

Dzi, I must confess, that I don't remember anything about Honest Annie being more advanced than Golem. I can agree, that she managed to develop her own, while she was locked away (actually, she had plenty of time to think about many things :-))

dzi

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #16 dnia: Maj 20, 2005, 11:54:15 am »
Cytuj
OK, but I wanted to point people's attantion to Golem's desire to contact with his peer. He was able to communicate with us, but his dream was to get in touch with someone similar to him.  I remember that scientists finally gave him such an opportunity. That contact, however, was pretty short and neighter scientists nor engineers detected anything unusual.
But this contact was sufficient for Golem to think about stepping into a new level of existance. It might have been originated by this short communication with Honest Annie.
As far as I remember scientists didn't know anything about their contacts until he said them that. And at one day he just "stopped to respond", and as we know it was the enering to the next level, we don't know if he made it or not.

Cytuj
Dzi, I must confess, that I don't remember anything about Honest Annie being more advanced than Golem. I can agree, that she managed to develop her own, while she was locked away (actually, she had plenty of time to think about many things :-))
So she was ;)
As for the "technical advancement" they were same as far as I remember...

BTW, check out the thread name people ;)

Deckert

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #17 dnia: Maj 20, 2005, 11:56:54 am »
OK, I don't want to argue if I'm not sure I'm right. Gotta read Golem once again.

Cytuj
BTW, check out the thread name people  


You think that Golem is not related with the topic???????

Terminus

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #18 dnia: Maj 20, 2005, 01:48:14 pm »
dzi is a summa-purist.

Deckert

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #19 dnia: Maj 20, 2005, 01:53:12 pm »
Oh, poor dzi...  :D

Terminus

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #20 dnia: Maj 21, 2005, 12:19:31 am »
As everybody in the Polish section knows, he's not alone ::)

Deckert

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #21 dnia: Maj 22, 2005, 11:42:27 am »
Yeah, but it's still a minority... ;)

nty_qrld

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #22 dnia: Maj 22, 2005, 01:19:33 pm »
Haha all you're here. To bad I don't know english so good to conversation here  :-/

grtngs

Terminus

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #23 dnia: Maj 23, 2005, 02:27:58 am »
Well to be honest, I feel so opressed by the Summa-niacs in our beloved Polish section, that I come here to seek a refuge ::)

I'm wondering if I should ever read this Summa at all, since, as it was pointed out by some of Summa-niacs, it summarizes whole Lem's creativity... I much prefer being stupid-and-happy ::)

Deckert

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #24 dnia: Maj 23, 2005, 10:50:47 am »
Cytuj
Well to be honest, I feel so opressed by the Summa-niacs in our beloved Polish section, that I come here to seek a refuge ::)  


And so do I, so do I... :-)

Cytuj
I'm wondering if I should ever read this Summa at all, since, as it was pointed out by some of Summa-niacs, it summarizes whole Lem's creativity... I much prefer being stupid-and-happy  


Yeah, I know watchya mean. Of course they are wrong, as well as the opposition is wrong 'coz the truth usually lies in between.

Nevertheless I'm gonna read this Summa...

CU
Deck

SoGo

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #25 dnia: Maj 25, 2005, 06:36:01 pm »
Cytuj

Sogo, it looks like you're the great fan of AI. I may be wrong, but this is what goes straight from your sentences quoted above.


Well, building something which can think a thousand times better than you, got something.

Cytat: Deckard
OK, Golems predecessors were indeed produced for one purpose - to eliminate the enemy.[/quote


I had seen a movie with a bomb, having counsciouness.
All the time, he swallowed in his depressions, of his life sense. Sometimes it said "Maybe, I explode now and all is over". The Pilots on the Spaceship didn't wan't it and after they failed to disarm her, they tried to cure her.
"Its my sense to explode, so why shouldn't I do it?"
Even a horrible killing machine can tell somehing true and right. I know, Golem and his formally ones are just build to kill all the human beeings.
But thats no problem or an argue for me, because we still life. Maybe we die all one day, but then it was not sensefull to say all "tomorrow is the end of the world".
Golem maybe saw the "Götterdämmerung" but he didn't made something to get her nearer.

You had written, no one depends on his feelings, if he write.
Thats wrong.
Even Lem depends on them, as minimally as possible, maybe, but he do.
Positive Aspects of Negative Thinking.
His cynism had maybe brought him to this, not to make the same mistake as all other SF-Writers and so see and to talk with the miracle.
You're right there is one.

Even Golem has feelings, is frustrated about us and our stupidness.
Hitting flies stucking my nerve is just an example.
Be disturbed is a feeling.

To Summa:
Its more neutrally than all other.
Really, negative aspects of the future, at all there is one.
And if not, the universe and golem seemed not to care.

Deckert

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #26 dnia: Maj 25, 2005, 09:16:22 pm »
Cytuj

Well, building something which can think a thousand times better than you, got something.I had seen a movie with a bomb, having counsciouness.
All the time, he swallowed in his depressions, of his life sense. Sometimes it said "Maybe, I explode now and all is over". The Pilots on the Spaceship didn't wan't it and after they failed to disarm her, they tried to cure her.
"Its my sense to explode, so why shouldn't I do it?"
Even a horrible killing machine can tell somehing true and right. I know, Golem and his formally ones are just build to kill all the human beeings.


It's a stupid idea to have a thinking bomb on board. We can have thinking computers, but not weapons themselves. You wouldn't like to be a corporal giving orders to such a weapon, coz' weapon would say: "Hey, I'm not gonna hit the target, 'coz I have a bad day today". There's no sense in it, just think about it.
On the other hand, Golem was not a weapon. He was, in fact, in charge of all available kind of weapons that US Army possesed. He was aware of his own existance, so he was steering all kind of weapons to not let the enemy to destroy HIM. I don't think that Golem, was thinking about us, I mean the people he was to protect. All living entities do all their best to survive, and so does Golem. So he knew that finally he was protecting also himsef, not only people..., or maybe, above all else, he was pretecting himself... well I feel I'm goin' too deep into this...

Cytuj
But thats no problem or an argue for me, because we still life. Maybe we die all one day, but then it was not sensefull to say all "tomorrow is the end of the world".
Golem maybe saw the "Götterdämmerung" but he didn't made something to get her nearer.


What is "Götterdämmerung" ?

Cytuj
You had written, no one depends on his feelings, if he write.
Thats wrong.
Even Lem depends on them, as minimally as possible, maybe, but he do.
Positive Aspects of Negative Thinking.
His cynism had maybe brought him to this, not to make the same mistake as all other SF-Writers and so see and to talk with the miracle.
You're right there is one.

I'd don't get it... could you please explain it in details?



Terminus

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #27 dnia: Maj 27, 2005, 12:58:00 am »
Primo, I sincerely disagree with SoGo's statement, that machines would be able to think better than us. I agree with Lem, who stated (yet in his early Astronauts in 1951) that they will think faster. And they will have more data in disposition (because of no problems with forgetting, large hard drives, rom's, ram's, stuff...). So, to conclude - maybe I'd agree that they would be thinking more efficiently, but I don't think this means better.

Secundo, I don't agree with the statement, that AI would like to survive above all cost! Gentelmen! Why? Consider, please, that AI will be programmed to have the priorities chosen by the programmers ! By its creators ! (By us.) Therefore, a Golem-like machine can be prepared in such way, that it will only care about the constructors (humans), and not about itself. It's really not difficult to attain by clever programming. I think that every concious being, I mean every living being, has a survival instinct, but those are not artificial beings. They were prepared by the all-continuing evolution, the pattern that we don't have to genuinely follow ! Why should we? I mean, I am deeply distrustful towards AI (as Deckard knows, because we discussed it in person once), but since we're talking about it, I have to say, that AI doesn't have to be similar to Real Intelligence in any way...  So, there's no need for a programmer to create AI the way our intelligence is shaped. No need for AI to base on the same  pillars of instinct!  
And therefore, in my opinion, it's not  impossilble that Golem-like machine  would not care about his own existence, but only about ,,common good'.

And Tertio, for the thinking bombs... that's... well  didn't Americans use the radar-controlled bombs in Iraq? That's a step towards it...  


dzi

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #28 dnia: Maj 27, 2005, 02:06:34 am »
Ekhem, as far as I'm concerned Lem assumes that there will be a possibility of making mahines that think better than us, meaning *better* (more potentially).

Deckert

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #29 dnia: Maj 27, 2005, 11:50:33 am »
Terminus!

I agree with most of the things you wrote. I've just stated my point of view, which doesn't neccessarily have to be true.
I think you go towards specific rights created once by Asimov. These rights are, of course, simple and proper, but they are typical limitations.That's why I'd like to state here my deep fear on evolution of AI. Yes evolution! First AIs will be limited to specific reactions, emotions and so on, but future generations will, just as children, know more.We, as inteligent creatures break barriers! Of course, we have some examples of human entities who like living in such limited environment, but I believe we consider completely different kind of intelligence - thinking intelligence  ;D  ;D ;D

Anyway... getting back to the subject, I agree that AI will think faster and more efficiently. That's clear! But I simply can't say that it won't think "better". AI will introduce a brand new quality in our lives. Hey, and I didn't say that AI will try to survive at all costs! I believe this kind of reaction cannot be excluded, and that's all.

Cytuj
So, there's no need for a programmer to create AI the way our intelligence is shaped. No need for AI to base on the same  pillars of instinct!    


OK. AI, as I've already written before, will be totally different to ours. It will be based on abstractions. It will live in its own world of abstraction, the new virtual reality. What will it think about its own future? What will it think about switching the power off?
On one hand we will have AIs that will help us in our day-to-day problems. They will save our lives in car accidents, they will perfeclty control airplane traffic and so on. But these, are just very, very simple AIs, actually such decision algorythms are present even today. People like calling it intelligent, while there is not even a spark of intellect in them.
On the other hand we will have pretty well secured scientific institutions where people will  let the AIs to collapse their own built-in limitations. Just to check what's gonna happen. How's the artificial intellect gonna reshape itself. This is quite a mistery, maybe we'll learn something from it. Who knows?