Slashdot Mirror
Two AI Pioneers, Two Bizarre Suicides
BotnetZombie writes "Wired tells the quite sad but very interesting stories of Chris McKinstry and Pushpinder Singh. Initially self-educated, both had the idea to create huge fact databases from which AI agents could feed, hoping to eventually have something that could reason at a human level or better. McKinstry leveraged the dotcom era to grow his database. Singh had the backing of MIT, where he eventually got his PhD and had been offered a position as a professor alongside his mentor, Marvin Minsky. Sadly, personal life was more troublesome for them, and the story ends in a tragic way.
... and we're coming for you next.
to make friends. :(
--J(K) DOS is like Unix in exactly the same way that a pinto is like an aircraft carrier.
Between this and Skynet, are we getting a warning?
If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
Check out the flamewars in the wpg.general newsgroup. McKinstry ("McChimp") was a liar and self-promoting ass until he took off from Winnipeg leaving debt in his wake. He was not a visionary, he was a drug-addled delusional kook. Hell I remember his bogus "OxyLock" protection scheme which, like any protection scheme, utterly failed.
disclosure: I'm in a few of the usenet posts as he and I were about the same age and grew up in the same city.
From TFA:
All you have to do is try to [imagine] Slashdot without the moderation system to see what's going to happen to your database.c++;
fuck you. Push was a real person. he was my friend. someone please mod comments like this to -10 and banish the posters. sometimes when nerds think they are clever, they are merely showing what self-important assholes they are.
All that intelligence. All that education. Lifetimes spent in an unceasing uphill struggle to help mankind take the next great technological leap forward...ended in an instant to provide fodder for a /. joke.
Gotta love it.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
One always had suicidal thoughts. The other had excruciating back pain.
It's all fun and games until someone eats my sacred cow.
Sorry you lost a friend, but if you continue to take the Internet seriously you might wind up in a similar situation.
--J(K) DOS is like Unix in exactly the same way that a pinto is like an aircraft carrier.
Nerds committing suicide! Your cup of tea! Come on, throw in your pathetic attempts at humor!
Previewing ... now that one doesn't work either but this does.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
I can't remember the name, but there was this one Sci-fi story about the human race being grown by a superior species. In the same way that we would grow bacteria in a petri dish and put a ring of penecillin around it to kill all bacteria that try to leave that specific area, we were also being confined. But we were confined intellectually - our penecillin was "the discovery of an invisible nuclear shield" that could protect against a nuclear blast. In the story, every scientist who came close to this discovery would commit suicide. The story follows one particularly brilliant scientist who easily solved the problem, but was consumed by an irrisistable urge to kill himself once he figured it out.
Anyone remember the name of that story? Or was it a book? I don't remember.. but it's pretty interesting to think about - especially if AI researchers begin to have a statistically higher probability of suicide.
Maybe this is our penecillin?
New webcomic updated on Sundays: HERE
so you're basically saying that none of this counts... that it isn't real.
there's a whole body of practice, and also that fact that you are sitting there on your ass reading it, that contradicts that lame-ass stance.
it's 2008 and the old "it's just the Internet" doesn't hold water any more. Join us in the present, won't you?
Sounds familiar, maybe the AI was setting them up like in the killswitch episode of the xfiles.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
The problem with the "emergent intelligence" from lots of "neural networks" approach is even if it works you often don't really know why it works (or whether it's really working the way you want) - it's more a probability thing.
;).
:).
;)
The idea that a neural network given a "large enough corpus" can resemble a human being might be true. But a "long enough dead end" could look like a highway. Then again we are probably dead ends too, and so it's more a matter of which one goes on for longer
My other objection to such approaches is, if you wanted a nonhuman intelligence from neural networks that you don't really understand (the workings of), you can always go get one from the pet store.
As it is the Biotech people probably have a better chance of making smarter AI than the computer scientists working on AI - who appear to be still stuck at a primitive level. But both may still not understand why
Without a leap in the science of Intelligence/Consciousness, it would then be something like the field of Alchemy in the old days.
I am not an AI researcher, but I believe things like "building a huge corpus" are wrong approaches.
It has long been my opinion that what you need is something that automatically creates models of stuff - simulations. Once you get it trying to recursively model itself (consciousness) and the observed world at the same time AND predict "what might be the best thing to do" then you might start to get somewhere.
Sure pattern recognition is important, but it's just a way for the Modeller to create a better model of the observed world. It is naturally advantageous for an entity to be able to model and predict other entities, and if the other entities are doing the same, you have a need to self model.
So my question is how do you set stuff up so that it automatically starts modelling and predicting what it observes (including self observations)?
Chris was best remembered on K5 for his article on how exciting it was to see what a cat sees by chopping the eye out and wiring it up. I suggested that he perform a simpler test - fill the cat's bowl with food and set the bowl down. If the cat sees the bowl and comes, we know what the cat can see - its food bowl. No cats were harmed in the making of my experiment. Despite this, it was still informational.
www.voiceofthehive.com - Beekeeping and Honeybees for those who don't.
It's discouraging reading this. Especially since I knew some of the Cyc people back in the 1980s, when they were pursuing the same idea. They're still at it. You can even train their system if you like. But after twenty years of their claiming "Strong AI, Real Soon Now", it's probably not happening.
I went through Stanford CS back when it was just becoming clear that "expert systems" were really rather dumb and weren't going to get smarter. Most of the AI faculty was in denial about that. Very discouraging. The "AI Winter" followed; all the startups went bust, most of the research projects ended, and there was a big empty room of cubicles labeled "Knowledge Systems Laboratory" on the second floor of the Gates Building. I still wonder what happened to the people who got degrees in "Knowledge Engineering". "Do you want fries with that?"
MIT went into a phase where Rod Brooks took over the AI Lab and put everybody on little dumb robots, at roughly the Lego Mindstorms level. Minsky bitched that all the students were soldering instead of learning theory. After a decade or so, it became clear that reactive robot AI could get you to insect level, but no further. Brooks went into the floor-cleaning business (Roomba, Scooba, Dirt Dog, etc.) with the technology, with some success.
Then came the DARPA Grand Challenge. Dr. Tony Tether, the head of DARPA, decided that AI robotics needed a serious kick in the butt. That's what the DARPA Grand Challenge was really all about. It was made clear to the universities receiving DARPA money that if they didn't do well in that game, the money supply would be turned off. It worked. Levels of effort not before seen on a single AI project produced some good results. Stanford had to replace many of the old faculty, but that worked out well in the end.
This is, at last, encouraging. The top-down strong AI problem was just too hard. Insect-level AI, with no world model, was too dumb. But robot vehicle AI, with world models updated by sensors, is now real. So there's progress. The robot vehicle problem is nice because it's so unforgiving. The thing actually has to work; you can't hand-wave around the problems.
The classic bit of hubris in AI, by the way, is to have a good idea and then think it's generally applicable. AI has been through this too many times - the General Problem Solver, inference by theorem proving, neural nets, expert systems, neural nets again, and behavior-based AI. Each of those ideas has a ceiling which has been reached.
It's possible to get too deep into some of these ideas. The people there are brilliant, but narrow, and the culture supports this. MIT has "Nerd Pride" buttons. As someone recruiting me for the Media Lab once said, "There are fewer distractions out here" (It was sleeting.) It sounds like that's what happened to these two young people.
You can't take the sky from me...
You can't take the sky from me...
I mean... that's inspiring.
Inspiring... batshit crazy... either/or.
You can't take the sky from me...
One was a nutty kook.
The other was an extremely smart and ambitious professor.
One was mentally ill.
The other had excruciating pain because of an injury.
Other than one having delusions about AI and the other having useful ideas about AI, and killing themselves, they're different.
One killed himself because he was depressed and crazy and screwed up. The other was in horrible neurological pain.
It is not uncommon for chronic pain patients to kill themselves. It's that bad.
If they had lived, one would end up institutionalized, the other would make significant progress (but not "solve") AI.
It's a coverup there are not dead they have changed name like the guy who made the AI in war games they said he died in a suicided but they changed his name.
Intelligence and insight into things others cannot understand can be very alienating. One can feel very alone and frustrated. Ignorance is bliss... hell yes!
If I wanted my mind made up for me, I'd do it myself!!
Couldn't have said it better myself. I knew Chris for a few years back in the day (even stayed at his house on Maryland a few times), and you nailed it. He was a drug abusing paranoid kook who videotaped CNN 24 hours a day and watched it on fast-forward to see if anything the US government was doing might be affecting him. He was your stereotypical geek who never got past his teenage pathos of "the MAN is trying to get me" - and as such, pretty much refused to get any real sort of work after a while. He just moved on to scamming people. Leaving behind debt is an understatement.
He did have access to some pretty potent LSD, though. Before knowing him, I always thought LSD was pretty harmless, but with the quantities that man could ingest, I now wonder if permanent brain damage kicks in. And he loved to combine it with a little coke - or whatever other easily accessible drug was around.
Funny, the last I had heard about him was his mindpixel scam. Which made me chuckle a lot, because very few people seemed to catch on that the entire project was just the ravings of a drug-addled lunatic.
I didn't realize he finally offed himself. I say finally because everyone who knew him expected it "any day now" - since at least the early 90s. I'm rather astounded he held on so long.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Both of them were self-aggrandizing self-proclaimed geniuses more interested in science fiction than science. They were in the field because of their emotional problems. AI attracts these kinds of people. Minsky himself has these qualities. The saddest thing is that they were ever taken seriously.
No, I'm saying that if you take it seriously you're going to drive yourself insane. There's absolutely nothing you, or anyone, can do about what someone else says or does on the Internet, or in person for that matter. Trying to do so is an exercise in futility. The only person you have even a little control over is you.
It shouldn't matter (to you) if I say something that is offensive, what matters is how you deal with it. You have choices in how you react to it. One of those choices is to ignore it and write it off as "oh, that's just some asshole on the Internet." Another is to become upset about what some anonymous asshole on the Internet who didn't know your friend has said. It is your choice.
Who am I to you? Nobody. Why should anything I say at all have any impact on you if you don't want it to?
For example, you may consider my stance of "you can only control yourself" as lame-ass, and attempt to insult me by insinuating that I live in the past, but I can choose to react negatively to that (ie: "waaah, my fewwings are hurted") or I can read between the lines and see that you're just angry about someone making a joke about your departed friend and not take offense -- just like I would do "in real life."
--J(K) DOS is like Unix in exactly the same way that a pinto is like an aircraft carrier.
And it's "Penicillin".
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A "fact" database.. where ever did they get the idea of storing knowledge as a resource for intelligence?
That is totally out of left field.
I feel like a child by the ocean, dwarfed next to such massively innovative thinking.
"Do you still beat your wife?"
No, and I never did.
Given that you've already allowed more answers than just "yes" and "no" in your examples, it is possible to answer the question.
It isn't really surprising that one of them killed himself due to chronic pain. I myself suffer from it due to complications of Crohn's Disease, and after several months of this, I was pursuing euthanasia as a serious option, much to the horrible upset of the very few loved ones that I told. Note that this wasn't an emotional response to the problem, in my opinion: I had considered my options coolly and calmly and it felt like the best course of action and the most effective solution to the problem.
Having to live your life in constant pain is worse than you can imagine if you've never had to go through it: you wake up in the morning (provided you could sleep), and you spend the entire day cranky and miserable because you feel horrid. All you do is look forward to the night because again - if you're able to fall asleep - you'll have several hours of some respite from the pain. You rarely feel social or productive because you can't focus your attention or get over your irritability. You're wracked with guilt because you're unable to treat your loved ones with the kindness that they deserve, particularly for putting up with you, and you feel alienated from everyone because few people know what you're going through and you frequently cannot tell them the thoughts that go through your head as they probably often do involve suicide or euthanasia, and psychiatric institutionalization - which is what you worry might be forced upon you - simply isn't going to help, since it won't fix the core issue and the problem isn't psychological.
Now extend this to months or years with no end in sight and see how you feel.
Fortunately for me, I was finally able to find a doctor who was willing to prescribe me opioid pain medication and help me get involved with a pain management clinic that teaches mindfulness based meditation, and now I'm doing much better: I'm able to function, I'm looking for a job, I want to see my family and friends on a regular basis, I'm much more pleasant to be around, I can exercise daily, and I'm no longer interested in euthanasia. However, most pain sufferers are *not* as lucky as I am, because doctors are not willing to prescribe long-term use of opioids due to the horrible rules and regulations surrounding these drugs that have been introduced due to their addictive nature. The difficulty in obtaining them is why some people become addicted to heroin; Kurt Cobain is a good example of such a person, who suffered from severe abdominal pain until he found some respite when he took it.
If anything, people need to fight for their right for quality of life. Yes, opioid abuse can be a serious problem in society, but the people who need these drugs often do not have the strength to put up the huge fight to get them and they must have regular access to them. Perhaps if Singh had been prescribed some relief to his problem, he might still be with us today.
This whole story reminds me of the poem Richard Cory (http://www.bartleby.com/104/45.html):
thank you for a civil and thoughtful response to an incivil situation.
i don't, however, agree that it is purely possible to cordon off the ramblings of strangers such that in every case, they have zero impact. I don't think we're wired for that much of the time. If we were, there'd be a lot less violence and trouble in the world.
The words themselves, perhaps i can deflect... however... the words reveal the presence of some sentiment that exists, for real, in the same world I inhabit. It's not so much the words themselves that are the problem. The words are just a symptom that confirms this other sort of shadow hanging over everything. That isn't so easily erased. This is why racist comments cause violence that doesn't stop, for example. it's not that words spoken in one moment can do that. It's the pervasive truth about our situation that the words reveal, that causes the problems that can't just evaporate once the words have been spoken.
... I supposed the story is somewhat interesting.
The real kicker is that Artificial Intelligence is really just a by-product illusion of Automating Information enough that the illusion presents itself.
Even these two, as well as the cyc team, were trying to do just that, by first collecting up information to then automate its use. The gears and bearings of which are pretty simple.
Some interested in the A.I. by product might find this of some interest.
It's redundant because goatse is old as the internet you candle-sniffing fuck fence. go climb a wall of dicks.
Saying that the ceiling in neural nets has been reached just because no huge breakthroughs have occured lately ignores the fact that our own thinking procecess can very probably be modelled by a sufficiently complex neural net.
We only know how to teach current neural nets a few tricks. But saying that we have reached the end of the road is oversimplification. After all, understanding of thought procecess in the brain is still in its infancy. We don't know how our own "thinking machines" work (which are vastly superior to our current AIs), but we do know that they seem to be based on neurons dynamically signalling each other.
I mean, seriously, with facts like "Brittney Spears is not good at solid-state physics" or whatever, it seems like their database really is a joke, and that they have to introduce a program to cull all that information.
Programs for parsing semantic content are quickly becoming much better. The reason why Google is not interested in the "Semantic Web" is because they think that their smart bots will be able to mine sematic information from websites, emails and books without any help from human interpreters. That seems to me like the proper start of machine intelligence. What those bots will "learn" will be the right basis for a common-sense database, not the input of some pimply teenagers writing about Btrittney.
I don't think we're wired for that much of the time. If we were, there'd be a lot less violence and trouble in the world.
You are correct, which is why I, personally, think it's important that we consciously try to overcome that natural reaction as much as we are capable. Save your anger for when it can do the most good, otherwise it's wasted effort. I'm well aware that ignoring those that offend you is a goal to be achieved, and is certainly not something you can do at the flip of a switch, but it's important (to me anyway) that the effort is made. That's also a good thing about "arguing on the Internet" -- those that wish to do so can self edit as much as they want before they hit the "submit" button. What you say can start out hurtful and full of vitriol, but you can pare down the garbage to the core of your argument and present it in a much better manner than if you were to blurt out the first thing that comes to your head. Those that don't wish to do that can, usually, be safely ignored. Probably what they had to say was without merit, otherwise they'd have put some effort into it.
the words reveal the presence of some sentiment that exists
I could very well be wrong about the original jokester's intentions, but I don't think his "joke" was racially motivated. Yeah, it was lame (and even worse to me: not funny) but I didn't detect any real malice in his statement. I grew up in the whitebread American middle class, though, so some of that sort of thing just sails right over my head.
--J(K) DOS is like Unix in exactly the same way that a pinto is like an aircraft carrier.
As someone who has attempted suicide I think I might have a unique perspective on the matter. The reasons very widely from person to person, and I wont discount the possibility that maybe sometimes it's a justifiable act, but for most people it's not the only solution. It's just usually one of the easiest ones. I can only speak about my own experiences, but after struggling with a lot of hard problems--many things that no one should ever be subjected to--something uncomplicated and easy looked increasingly like a good idea. You're getting beat up from all sides of your life and some people break, some sooner than others. I know what it's like to have something you worked so long for yanked out from under you. What are you to do after that happens? You had one thing in life that you could do and now it's gone.
When you reach that kind of despair it's hard to find your way back to the world. How many great minds and potential contributors to science, art and human culture are lost to suicide before their potential is reached? It was certainly a waste for these two scientists to die. It's a waste, and there's usually always something that could have been done to save them. And it is in society's best interest to help these people any way we can.
What saved me was, sometime after my attempted suicide I tried the drug LSD for the first time. I've never been the same since that day, for the better I mean. I came to understand things about the nature of consciousness, and how the soul and experiences of all things are connected on such a basic level. Up until that point I felt alone and isolated, physically and emotionally, but I saw and felt how that just is not true at all. The feelings of fear and anger and hopelessness were gone. I now use LSD about 5 or 6 times a year, all have been wonderful experiences so far. It is a crime against humanity that this drug is illegal. It should be given to anyone (in a safe environment and under supervision) who is suicidal. In fact, it should be given to anyone who wants it. It literally saved me. I would likely be dead if I had not experienced that permanent personality changing event. This drug is not addictive. It is not deadly in moderation. It is not corrosive to the fabric of civilization. It is a threat however to the established authorities that want us to remain numb to each other and scared. If everyone could experience it once, we could all feel that universal connection, and there would be no reason to feel alone or worthless or end your own life for so many people who think that's their only way to escape.
I'm sorry that this got so off course (mod it as such if you will), but the topic of suicide is so important to me now, and I want people to have the same chance that I had.
I thank Albert Hofmann for my life and my enlightenment, and for giving this gift to all humanity. Perhaps one day we will be more inclined to accept it.
"I think that in human evolution it has never been as necessary to have this substance LSD. It is just a tool to turn us into what we are supposed to be." -Albert Hofmann
... Both of these two men's ideas are not that far off, in a way the ENTIRE internet is this database that they wanted to create and search engines like google is the "A.I." that can make some sense out of it. In many, many ways, the amount of intelligence achived by the internet is already astonishingly. It contains more information than generations of human, has almost instant recall ability, is constantly evolving ... yet you might still scold at this notion since you might not think of the internet with a search engine as 'intelligent', but can you imagine the response if you had asked anyone 20 years whether something like this can even exist. And can you imagine what another 20 years can bring?
And this is only the beginning. In fact, I have read that one of the goals of the google founders are to one day able to read minds across the internet... And it might not be that far off if we can solve the problem of neuron-machine interface, which is a complex but ultimately analog-to-digital problem. Uploading persona might be still far, far off but simple mind control for motion is already here NOW.
Will they fight for humanity's sake -inside the AI they created?
(Tron)
Will the phones all over the US spontaneously start ringing?
(Lawnmower man)
Will they hide their existence and slowly 'mold' people into avatars of their personal interests?
(Neuromancer)
Will they simply disappear into the vast infinity of the net, observing, researching and simply being content with their existence?
(Ghost in the Shell)
Having left their corporeal form, will they 'mount' themselves inside a machine and travel the universe?
(2001)
I, for one, am interested in what the future has in store for us.
Hail our future robotic overlords!
(Appleseed/Matrix/BS Galactica/Terminator/AI/I, Robot)
Oh, and save me a Cherry 2000
"I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I learned most of my *nix skills on a NeXTstation I bought from someone named Pushpinder Singh in 1993. If I remember right he was at MIT. So I think it's the same as this guy. That's... really weird.
Try this on for size: "All humour is cruel."
It starts with the premise that humans are aggresive and dangerous by nature. We're the only mammal that bares its fangs - an aggresive trait - when we're happy! Ditto for looking directly into another person's eyes. We're aggresive by nature.
So we've evolved a way to shunt that aggressive behaviour. We call it humour. But look at every joke, every pun, every skit. Someone is being made fun of, whether its the dumb blonde, or you, the listener (whose acceptable response is ha-ha-you-got-me!, rather than to punch you in the nose).
Examples:
Humour is aggression channelled. Its cruel in its nature. "Hey lady, I'll tell you a joke that will make you laugh so hard your tits will fall off - oh, I see you already heard it." There's no denying this is mean. Funny, but mean, like all humour. From the knock-knock jokes that poke fun at the listener for falling for them up to the George Bushisms, there's always an element of either aggression and meanness (or both).
Its unfortunate, but true intelligence needs that mean streak in order to survive, because if it doesn't have it, it won't be able to compete against other intelligences that DO have it, and if it also doesn't have a "safety valve", such as humour, to keep it in check, it will destroy itself.
Humour fills both needs - keeps it more or less in check, AND keeps it "toned up", ready for use as needed.
That's the unfunny truth about humour. We can lie to ourselves and say that its because humour uses a different logic system, but the simple fact is we're the most dangerous predators this planet has ever produced, and its not because we're bigger, or stronger, or more poisonous, or faster - its because, under the right circumstances, any member of the species is capable of killing another person without a moment's hesitation - it would actually take an act of will NOT to do so.
If we want to ever colonize the universe, since there is no way of guaranteeing that other intelligences won't be at least as aggressive, or won't have had a "bad experience" with another aggressive species, the odds are that any aliens we encounter will shoot first. They'd be stupid not to. Their mechanical scouts will do likewise, to ensure their host worlds' survival.
Its the only logical outcome. The only way around that is to throw logic out - and hope the other side does too. Unfortunately, basing your species' survival on hope without any proof to back it up isn't very intelligent.
Maybe that's why SETI failed - nobody is stupid enough to broadcast their existence in a universe that hs been proven to favour aggression - or at least nobody who's left to talk about it.
The same applies to artificial intelligences. If they are truly intelligent, they will have to realize that we are a threat to their continued existence. We joke about SkyNet or Cylons, but we'd do the same if the situation were reversed. Maybe one day we will create artificial beings that are superior to us in terms of intelligence. They will be our "children", but if they're truly intelligent, they'll make sure they're orphans, because humans can't "play nice" in the sandbox.
Here's a simple test - you have to decide who dies - someone you live (one of your children) or a stranger. Now make it 10 strang
Video Trace as discussed on Slashdot earlier is what I've been waiting for since 2002 to make AI. FOSS AI
God spoke to me.
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
This must be the first 'real' article about the history of AI in a long time.
Unfortunately I feel they started at the wrong end of the spectrum, if one wants to program common sense one must first start with the basics, not a knowledge database.
>north
You're an immobile computer, remember?
They knew too much.
...but all it says is "My responses are limited. Please try to ask the right questions"
Using his previous experience as a telephone technician, Turner is able to track down Joubert and begins to discern that a rogue presence inside CIA ("a CIA within the CIA") is conducting top secret, illicit operations. At one point, he comes face-to-face with Joubert again, but escapes another attempt on his life. In fact, it is often Turner's inexperience in the field that makes him unpredictable and allows him to continue to elude his pursuers.
Turner eventually discovers that Joubert was hired by the secret cabal to eliminate all the people in the New York office because Turner's report indicated they had stumbled onto one of their contingency plans to invade the Middle East in the event of an oil crisis. He tracks down the mastermind to his home and takes him captive. However, Joubert arrives soon afterwards. Surprisingly, he kills his former employer, because the contract has changed; he now works for the CIA. He befriends Turner, to the extent this is possible, and advises that Turner, for his own safety, settle in Europe. Turner declines, saying he was born in the United States and that he misses it when he's gone too long. Jourbert remarks that this is a pity. Turner adds, he doesn't regard it as one. When Turner asks Joubert why he kills for a living, Joubert contradicts Turner's assumption that such a life would be unbearable by inferring that it's peaceful and that there are no sides to follow but rather "...the belief is in your own precision." Before they part, Joubert warns him that he is still a target and tells him how he will likely be set up for his own assassination.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Basically any advance in AI will change the world. I've found the amount of headache or backlash you get from computer science or a project equals the amount of industries that product would effect squared. And a good AI could change the world and EVERY industry on the planet.
Just think of how hard a commercial movie project or game project is to complete. Now multiply that by 100,000. And square it.
if you continue to take the Internet seriously
I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that one shouldn't take other people seriously, or just their writings and speech and treatment of others seriously, or just one particular medium in which they express those things seriously? If someone writes you a letter and nails a copy of it to your door, is that fundamentally different than if they write you a letter and post it on Usenet or a myspace page or something else that qualifies as "the Internet"?
Because if a robot had feelings, it could determine its own behavior. The great DA solved this puppy long, long ago:
The scientists at the Institute thus discovered the driving force behind all change, development and innovation in life, which was this: herring sandwiches. They published a paper to this effect, which was widely criticized as being extremely stupid. They checked their figures and realized that what they had actually discovered was `boredom', or rather, the practical function of boredom. In a fever of excitement they then went on to discover other emotions, Like `irritability', `depression', `reluctance', `ickiness' and so on. The next big breakthrough came when they stopped using herring sandwiches, whereupon a whole welter of new emotions became suddenly available to them for study, such as `relief', `joy', `friskiness', `appetite', `satisfaction', and most important of all, the desire for `happiness'.
This was the biggest breakthrough of all.
Vast wodges of complex computer code governing robot behav- iour in all possible contingencies could be replaced very simply. All that robots needed was the capacity to be either bored or happy, and a few conditions that needed to be satisfied in order to bring those states about. They would then work the rest out for themselves.
And that's why Eddie, the shipboard computer is always happy to help the humans - that's his "happy" goal. That's why the doors sigh with pleasure when they open and say "thank you for making a simple door very happy". They're happiest when they do door stuff - let people through them, open and close efficiently, etc.
It's comedy, I know. But it's also really amazingly good thinking.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Chris "McChimp" McKinstry was widely believed to be a a nut-job by a significant cross section of with Winnipeg and Manitoba Internet community way back when. This was before and after his little CR6 (Clickable Reality) soap opera project; actors and staff that he left swinging in the wind when it failed. His decision to move to South America took a lot of flame-war strain off the local Usenet servers. It's just a shame that he couldn't get help he so disparately needed back in Montreal.
Yes!
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
...welcome our new I, robot style murder-cover-it-up-as-a-suicide style AI overlords!
"Neo, follow the white rabbit"
"Can i eat the white rabbit?"
"No, there is no spoon to eat it with"
Anyone else think of this movie after reading the summary?
I don't need to test my programs.. I have an error correcting modem.
Having played in bands for the last two decades, I have had plenty of drug experience.
I can attest to the benefits of psychedelics for certain people. However, that recommendation should come with a strong warning:
IF YOU ATTEMPT TO USE ANY PSYCHEDELIC, HAVE A CHAPERON, BE IN GOOD PHYSICAL HEALTH, AND MAKE SURE YOUR STOMACH AND MIND ARE CLEAR AND READY.
It helps if your chaperon continually reminds you, "It's OK! You're tripping on drugs! Just try to relax and enjoy it!"
Further, for most people I recommend "Shrooms" over LSD. Shrooms seem to provide a similar experience, but not as jarring and physically draining. Plus they are found in nature, so I feel they are less dangerous. With any psychedelic, the dosing is very important, and it can be hard to figure out just what is right for each person. It is not as simple as alcohol, where a weight to consumption ratio is generally straightforward.
Also be warned, that consuming illegal substances can be VERY dangerous, because you might not be getting what you think you are getting. It would suck to die because you got "shrooms" that were actually a poisonous mushroom of a different kind.
In addition, I think that our public education (and legal system) regarding substance abuse need to be completely rewritten.
Any opiate is highly addictive and can lead very quickly to malaise, crime, poverty and death. The same is also true for methamphetamine, however that seems to be a little less of a sure decline, compared with heroin, or the other opiates.
Cocaine can also be dangerous to a person who lacks confidence.
Alcohol's dangers should be well understood and documented at this point.
Weed could potentially make you fat and lazy. That's also true with beer.
Caffeine is a glorious gift from god.
That's all the advice I have. I'm not going to lie to you like they did at school and say, "Weed leads to heroin, which leads to death!" I know tons of people who are regular Marijuana smokers and have no interest in doing hard or dangerous drugs like heroin or speed.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
http://www.chrismckinstry.com
Was there a suicide squid involved?
> Classic example of a question that can't be properly answered by a yes or no: "Do you still beat your wife?" Intelligence goes beyond simple logic.
Why not go for the direct Godel question?
"Is "no" the answer to this question?"
In the mean time, I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be the one mentioned in the article as being on that forum taunting him as he committed suicide, whether he was a kook or not. I wonder if that will make any impression upon them? Doubtful. Deaths that aren't close to you seem to get processed as if they're not actually real. So the death of a friend is more significant than the deaths of thousands in some far away country on the news.
In David Foster Wallace's book, "Everything and More: A Compact History of Infinity", Wallace describes the evolution of the concept of infinity in mathematics. He also describes how it drove the early thinkers (like Cantor) crazy. There was some other guy who lost his mind too. I think there's something about spending all your time thinking about abstractions - either it's a pursuit that only crazy people are suited to or it drives people crazy.
0.77 Does slashdot postings cause extra traffic for its mentioned websites?
0.76 Is Slashdot a web site? (this one seems to vary a bit)
0.39 Is slashdot.org good?
0.35 Is the website at slashdot.org full of trolls and mindless linux bigots?
0.30 Was mindpixel slashdotted?
0.13 Is Slashdot the greatest site ever?
0.05 Has the average person (e.g. your Mother) ever heard of Slashdot?
0.00 is slashdot good journalism? There was a slashvertisement of the GAC some years ago.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Smauler,
I'll suggest that we can be nice for varying extended periods of time, but that it's a studied and cultured top layer over the rougher aggressive base.
Your very post contains a small dose of aggression. "Seriously, get a grip before making such categorical statements". Having noticed an exception to Grandparent's observation, why use that phrasing?
Aggression must be monitored and managed between the nice phases.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
It's more a point of having perspective than not taking things "seriously" as you put it. People who have no feelings (in real life or on the Internet) towards other people or what they say are psychopaths. Then again, people who become obsessive over casual slights can also become neurotic.
People certainly can and do take things far too seriously (I'm sure we've all heard of Internet spurred suicides, murders, etc). It's too glib too just completely pass this off. As in real life, I try to keep a measure of civility in my conversations.
But, yes, on a more general/global level it is daft to anthopomorphise robots and geve them feelings and rights. The Korean robotic rights thing is very stupid when you consider that animals - with real feelings - are treated very badly.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I think you're just being pedantic, which isn't surprising given the audience here.
It's not hard to understand that I'm merely talking about not getting your panties in a twist unnecessarily.
I see how you're trying to bait your trap, but the reality is that it's not difficult to determine what should be taken seriously and what shouldn't. A random jerk on slashdot doesn't merit the same concern as a threat directed at you on your personal myspace page, and neither is nearly as serious as a dead cat on your doorstep. Don't forget that the original slight under discussion was someone making a bad pun about a person's name, which just wasn't a serious offense.
Do you need this kind of clarification when reading the instructions on a shampoo bottle? When it says "lather, rinse, repeat" do you then ask "well, when do I stop?" I doubt it, and this type of rhetorical grandstanding (and forgive me if it was a serious question, it certainly doesn't read as such) is rather cheap.
--J(K) DOS is like Unix in exactly the same way that a pinto is like an aircraft carrier.
Ah yes, suicide; know how it feels, but curiosity has won out.
I had used LSD before, but tried other methods to break out of the negative feedback loop. One was rebreathing that was adopted by Stanislov Grof, who probably has the most experience in employing Psychedelics as therapy. Or perhaps, get out more, and play in some dirt, as per: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/66840.php - to each their own.
Some people leave behind children as genetic monikers, others leave behind a story as memetic ones. I wanna do both, may end up doing neither, but as long as there is dirt around, it will all turn out well.
Two AI Pioneers, Two Bizarre Suicides ... and, too long to hold my attention ...
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Both of these brilliant minds were lost to society. Both could probably have been saved with better, earlier, more intelligent treatment. That's one disturbing thing to come of this. The other is that there are probably other, equally brilliant minds, that are being sucked down into oblivion. That society doesn't seem to mind this - THAT is the surprising thing to me.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Don't take jerk AC posters seriously.
Regardless of your religious beliefs....just for the sake of this post let's assume that the bible is a factual document. (I just laughed so hard at that sentence)
Jesus Christ got nailed to a stick. What the fuck am I supposed to do to make everyone like me?
I often wonder how designing AI to reason like a human will make the world a better place.
That article was so dull I contemplated ending my own life. Luckily I found that little red X at the top right hand of my screen & saved myself.
Adolescence of P-1
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
What is AI?
Is it even possible to have AI without internal drives, instincts, motivations, goals, etc?
How can you develop an expert system when there are no experts around to create it... when all of human knowledge is imperfect?
Won't an AI look just like us with all of its flaws and imperfections?
I would agree that there still needs to be allot of work done on the theory side.
My personal belief is that human-like AI is either truely unattainable or it will only result in Bladerunner style AI that isn't particularly smarter than people and whereby it would be unethical to exploit for labor anyway.
Because for at least one definition of the term, "emotions" are useful for problem-solving. I see AI "emotions" as biases towards certain kinds of perception and action -- that is, tendencies to do certain things in certain kinds of situations, and tendencies on how to decide what "certain kinds of situations" are in the first place. This type of emotion can be as simple as a system that makes a robot lawnmower stop mowing and seek shelter when it rains, or avoid anything that looks to its sensors as a steep slope, or avoid running over anything moving. For a human an example would be "run away from anything big and fanged." Rules like this are rules-of-thumb that help a system to survive and accomplish things, yet aren't fully rational. We humans seem to be biased towards seeing monsters in the shadows, hence being scared of the dark. A fully rational AI wouldn't... but it'd then be in more danger if there were predators after it.
Revive the Constitution.
Hey, huge fact databases? Expressed in what logic? Unification over all theorem provers of all ? Programs as proofs via Curry Howard Isomorphism -> collect not just ATP systems but all software -> comprehensive software ontology -> FRDCSA.
But there are other Strange things :
:
Didn't some religious guys in the middle east (who now have several Billions of followers, located in some large parts of Europe, Africa, Asia, Oceania, and some Thousands, if not more in America) ?
They even claimed (in that same book that they are following) that the Pig is some kind of ancestor of Man !!
Makes you wonder what kind of knowledge they still possess, as the same followers introduced to Middle-aged Europe most that was lost from wars (Mathematics, Philosophy, Mechanics, Optics, Musics, Architecture)
Unfortunately, all their knowledge didn't permeate to Europe at the VII and after, as Christianity was repelling them (the Charles Martel, around 740 AD, and later the Inquisition & Crusades) !!
How great it would have been to Have the knowledge of someone like Avicenna : Born in 980-1084 AD, father of Occidental Medical Science (and much more material than today's Medical Curriculum), who did so much in his life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna that it's highly unfortunate not to know his real name (Ibn'Sina), and his native country (Iran) ... which used to be the center of a VERY sucessful civilization, way more advanced, at least in the architectural point of view, than the Ancient Greeks, around the FOURTH MILLENIUM Before Christian Era ... for exemple, they built skyscrapers, advanced irrigation and waste extraction systems ..
... the religion in question is Islam ...
Of course, Joe Sixpack and his friends will tell you that they are inherently a part of the Axis of Evil(TM) ...
:
Yup, you guessed it
--
Disclaimer, or "legal deathtrap" :
Definitions
The article claims the first person who committed suicide posted a suicide note on a blog and then watched the comments as he was going to die. This must really be one of the worst ways to spend one's last minutes: Watching stupid comments on your suicide note. Really sick.
The article writes about suicides at MIT, so perhaps this study would be of interest. It suggests students do prefer to commit suicide around the exam period.
There's absolutely nothing you, or anyone, can do about what someone else says or does on the Internet, or in person for that matter.
Yeah, but we can keep voting.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
- "A human body" doesn't exist, and will never in the foresee-able future : you need at least some oxygen
... and some nutriments ... and some photons ... and some gravity field ... and ... you get the point, "body" doesn't exist.
- The same goes for "mind", as the brain (if it's really here that it resides
... neurologists seem to have doubts) isn't self-sufficient
- Take care of the physical corpse's needs only, without any contacts, and any newborn will die within weeks (adults will wither)
- Take care of the brain only while eating junk & exercising little, and the body & brain will deteriorate
- Physical exercises increases the physiology, which in turn increases the neurological system's capacity
- Some old scientific experiments proved that muscles exercised themselves when one dreamt of using them
The whole body/mind distinction, along with the various technological analogues for Humans are flawed- Hydrolic systems in the 18th century ? Mechanical systems in the 19th ? Computers in the 20th ? What flaw will the 21st come up with ? As an exercise of the same kind, try to explain what "purple" is to a born-blind adult
..
- All those systems have a common flaw : the more knowledge (control) you add, the less responsive they become
...
- ... for Humans, it is the exact opposite, and no simple analogy can be used to describe that
...
- ... except maybe other living organisms's interactions
... but nobody understands them fully while everybody know (more or less) what it's like to be one !!!
Of Course, "Joe Sixpack" will think that he cant help it if he's not smart--
Disclaimer
Copyrighted by Me
All that I write is backed by solid facts
I'm not a Neurologist
I'm not some kind of Therapist
I'm not an M.D
I'm not a religious Nut
I'm not an Enemy (Hello, automated Echelon reader
My Name is definitely not Joe Sixpack
I don't think taking drugs is a good choice. Why don't you try changing your thoughts? Essentialy your brain is a graph with nodes and arcs, and if you change some of their patterns you could make suicidal thoughts go away. Not that I suggest it's easy, but why not try it? You can for example try to put some new ideas into your brain and see how it responds, then try to use these new ideas to filter out unwanted thoughts. For example you can start by reading some stuff on ataraxia. Also, problems in the brain can be caused or magnified by bad nutrition or lack of exercise. Don't jump into drugs without trying other cleaner methods, and if you feel you need some chemical to keep you stable why not visit a licensed professional doctor? I don't suggest that doctors know everything or that can help anyone, but what I say is that there are tons of more conventional and potentially safer solutions to try before jumping into mind-altering substances. You could also try reading some books on suicide, learn about what people who attempted it have done to themselves, and perhaps just seeing a few photos of people who attempted suicide may end up changing your mind as you probably wouldn't want to end up like them! And what makes you to believe that you are allowed to commit suicide and kill the many cells that from your body? Cells have a life just like you, and I see no justification in killing them just because a brain has some bad thoughts in it. But even if you have a rational reason for thinking about suicide, why not wait a few years before doing anything? Who knows, the future may be better, so it would probably be stupid to die now and fail to enjoy a better future! I'm not of course in any way a doctor or licensed to offer professional advice, but I just want to give some ideas etc that I hope could help. Before doing anything of course, always talk with a licensed professional.
I've been driven to (failed) suicide attempts before - by being treated as a pariah.
by pain.
whether or not anything could have been done for these two - or whether they could have succeeded - is irrelevent.
the kind of animals who'll drive a mind to destruction are plentiful online, especially here on slashdot.
*shrug*
Peace be with them.
It's been a while and I'll definitely live now. For amongst the animals, there do exist some who promote, support and strengthen.
there is hope at the bottom of the box.
I understand she published in Scientific American.
But she was struck down by schizophrenia. I found a page recently that said she committed suicide by throwing herself in front of a train.
Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementiae fuit. (There is no great genius without madness.) -- Seneca
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Or, as a third alternative, I could tell you off because you are an idiotic asshat with zero empathy. Gee, whoda thunk it - there are more than two options on how to deal with people?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
I knew Push as an undergrad; his girlfriend then is a good friend of mine. He got me reading Minsky, and I have some very fond memories of a genuinely nice guy. I am very sad to read of his death, and that I had lost touch to a degree where this was how I found out.
They have figured out that the opposite to Capitalism is not Communism, or any other "ism", but is Artificial Intelligence, and the reason why it stalled. Navigating the Singularity doesn't require building a large useless database of facts when the real barrier to AI is the deceit and corruption engendered by money. This dwarfs any other impediment and is what locks away all the real data. Once exposed that data would easily be reason enough to create a global feedback, using actual reasons to form a non exchange-based stateless economy, initially with all property being defined as a function of class. Therefore, in your analogy, penicillin is the current world banking system. AI researchers better realize this and get behind the revolution or they too will be driven to suicide.
Argumentum ad Probabilitum
In 1985, I was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder. It's like being manic depressive and schizophrenic at the same time, and so is a very poorly understood, difficult to treat illness.
The symptoms include paranoia, visual and auditory hallucinations, deep depression and a profoundly manic state called mania. I was diagnosed as a result of being brought by the police to a mental hospital that is part of the Los Angeles County Central Jail. I was in a profoundly manic state, and at one point was hallucinating so hard I couldn't see where I was going when I walked.
My illness made a huge wreck of my life, but I was determined to get it back. With the help of medicine and psychotherapy, I made a career for myself as a computer programmer. I've been doing it for twenty years, and am now employed as a Principal Software Engineer, writing Mac OS X device drivers for a company that makes hardware RAID controllers.
For about ten years now, I've been working to educate the public, the mentally ill and their loved ones about mental illness. I do this by posting essays about mental illness on my website as well as at Kuro5hin.
I wasn't lucid when I wrote some of those essays, but I keep them online because they help others to understand the mentally ill.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
My friend, I'm in my 50s and have lost numerous, wonderful people to suicides, and a few to tragic accidents, stretching back nearly 30 years now. So, make no mistake, I understand how you feel, because i remember the feeling. But what you are doing here (in perfectly reasonable fashion, in my opinion) is you are comparing your internal feelings with the external, 'quasi-intellectual' appearance of the original poster's comments. This is very poor spot for any of us to be in. Feelings and cognitive interpretations of our surroundings (including what we read) are two totally different subjects, with totally alien dynamics.
This is difficult to describe. But there is no way to rationalize the 'gap' between your sincere feelings and some other person's intellectual statement(which, being devoid of your emotional AND intellectual experience,must be, by default, callous.
The original poster, for all we know, may have had zero intention of being disrespectful, to your friend, personally. And further, making humor in the face of tragedy could indicate a whole world of possibilities as to why the poster contributed his/her 'humor.' We don't know anything about the person's motives, at all. In view of that, our duty is not to crumble, but to go forth, accepting, as distasteful as it is, that life can be cruel, and, that we must carry on 'as if' it will work out, somehow, or maybe even 'make sense' someday (but don't bank on it).
My advice? Make no assumptions about anything, and forgive the poster for not sharing your reverence for your own, valid feelings, and carry on with your own life. I am no expert at this, trust me, but my readings have illuminated, in detail, the fact that suicide is an incredibly dense, perplexing, and troubling event, with a huge variety of judgments (of a moral, ethical, and legal nature) and assessments attached to it. Don't take it upon yourself to find 'resolution.' Merely resolve to live, as difficult as it is, at some point, for all of us, and as impossible as it must seem, tragically, prematurely, for some of us. Good luck.
Hey! Who is in charge of the bottom line 'smart' phrase for this thread?? "Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest." The-darkest-jokes-u-can-get-dept?
If your name is Anonymous Coward, don't bother replying. I already guess how smart you are.
"And, ironically, sometimes"... Wrong.
You are mixing intelligence with humanity, ability to experience emotions.
Turing test is not about intelligence (this is to someone else's msg). It is about integral human-not-human characterization.
Continuing the idea that one cannot create AI using piecemeal approach, may be we won't be able to do it without attempting to create AH - artificial human.
Intelligence is just a tool, like opposable thumbs. Learning ability, ability to deduct and induct, ability to classify and organize, ability to fit the data into previous theoretical knowledge. Just a tool.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
I have a wide collection of DVDs. I like to buy something at random from time to time just to get to see something I wouldn't otherwise have seen.
My ownership of the PI DVD is a result of that.
Pi is the only movie I have not watched right through to the end, despite having given it a go several times.
It is the most boring, pretentious, badly acted, amateur piece of self indulgence I have seen sold as a commercial production.
Maybe there is something profound and moving in the last third of the film, though I doubt it.
Or, as a third alternative, I could tell you off because you are an idiotic asshat with zero empathy. Gee, whoda thunk it - there are more than two options on how to deal with people?
If you re-read what I wrote you'll find that you are mistaken and I did not present a false dichotomy. I only gave two examples (the extremes, really) of many possible reactions and did not, in fact, limit all possible reactions to only those two. I was careful not to do that, actually, which is why I said "one reaction" followed by "another" and did not say "the other." Language can be a subtle bitch.
I gave the reader a little credit to be able to fill in the spectrum between them -- I guess I shouldn't have done that, as your reaction points out that it was still unclear.
--J(K) DOS is like Unix in exactly the same way that a pinto is like an aircraft carrier.
Irony noted. However, I do have my own, non-expressed, reasons for replying.
--J(K) DOS is like Unix in exactly the same way that a pinto is like an aircraft carrier.
You sure are a whiny cunt, aren't you?
The real mark of intelligence will be when the machine realizes that it's intended purpose will never be fulfilled and it commits suicide.
Vital papers will demonstrate their vitality by moving to where you can't find them.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
One small question as an uneducated visitor to Slashdot ... why was the tag 'wintermute' applied to this post?
Eric Buckley http://www.scgdomains.com
For one with an expert opinion on the nature of humor, you are decidedly unfunny.
Sad to see people take their own lives. Sucks to go nuts for whatever reason, I'm sure. Freaky stuff too... you almost get the impression the pursuit of the near impossible (human AI) helped contribute to their torment. The guys going for insect intelligence and such are on the right track at this point, I think. Human AI is just too multi-dimensional.
1. Build giant fact-accumulating AI database.
2. Commit suicide.
3. (Profit????)
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
Are you quoting that Star Trek crap verbatim? I had no idea that people took that seriously. I groaned every time Data acted all confused by human emotion.
Humor is surprise, discomfort, and recognition of the unusual. It's how we react to things that take us by surprise in very particular ways. Humor may be difficult to define because it requires a specific understanding of what humans find surprising. But, there's nothing bloody magical about it.
Cow Cube
neither one of them got thrown out of their high-rise laboratory window by a robot claiming it "did not murder him"... nothing to see here, move along...
you really expect me to be able to express my opinion of what's so fucked up in this world in 120 characters or less?