Slashdot Mirror
Team Aims To Create Pure Evil AI
puroresu writes "Scientific American reports on the efforts of Selmer Bringsjord and his team at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, who have been attempting to develop an AI possessed of an interesting character trait: pure evil. From the article, 'He and his research team began developing their computer representation of evil by posing a series of questions beginning with the basics: name, age, sex, etc., and progressing to inquiries about this fictional person's beliefs and motivations. This exercise resulted in "E," a computer character first created in 2005 to meet the criteria of Bringsjord's working definition of evil. Whereas the original E was simply a program designed to respond to questions in a manner consistent with Bringsjord's definition, the researchers have since given E a physical identity: It's a relatively young, white man with short black hair and dark stubble on his face.'"
Narrator: You're on a scenic route through a state recreational area known as the human mind. You ask a passerby for directions, only to find he has no face ... or something. Suddenly up ahead there's a door in the road. You swerve, narrowly avoiding ... The Scary Door!
Scientist: *a mad scientist is seen mixing chemicals* I have combined the DNA of the world's most evil animals to make the most evil creature of them all. *a pod opens flowing with clouds of steam*
Naked Man: *steps out of pod* Turns out it's man!
My work here is dung.
... did they decide that evil is male? There are some girls I want them to meet.
I foresee you using "preview" next time.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
No, I'm not. And neither are you. There is no resistance. There is no "skynet". Please, come down off the ledge, Bob.
Also, IT has asked that you stop trying to plant "bombs" in the server room. Modeling clay with wires stuck in it will not explode.
I put on my robe and wizard hat..
So... basically, they're trying to create the very first politician AI?
As long as they don't happen to drop the cube holding the AI into a puddle of shapechanging goo.
Also, the face doesn't look much like Russel Crowe, so we're probably safe.
semantics are everything!
It is disheartening to feel as though the OP described my physical makeup...
Something witty.
I foresee you using "preview" next time.
imcorrect.
Track your TV Shows with your iPhone - FREE
Not necessarily though, I mean don't get me wrong, I think Child molestation is a bad thing, but sometimes the people are so messed up inside that they KNOW its wrong and they can't stop doing it, like how some people can't stop smoking cigarettes.
Having known someone who was into that kind of thing, he told me that he really hated who he was and that it felt a little bit like a bipolar thing that he couldn't help. Was what he doing wrong? Absolutely, and he knew it.
Did he feel he was doing more good then causing harm? No. He turned himself in.
I posted because when I read it I thought "How does one create pure evil when evil is a frame of reference?" So I went to RTFA and just thought that Bringsjord's definition of evil was not exactly what -I- would picture pure evil. I imagined pure evil as that maniac who wants to control the world for his own benefit, at the cost of anyone elses lives or pleasures. My closing comment was that Bingsford's definition of pure evil exists QUITE COMMONLY in the world today.
TFA is from October 2008.
Not necessarily: religious nutjobs' reasons are bullshit; but they are often quite coherent bullshit. Moreover, religious nutjobs generally subscribe to some flavor of a divine command theory of ethics and believe that they are carrying out divine instructions, which logically implies that they do not believe that they are carrying out a morally wrong action.(Arguably, divine command theories of ethics are incoherent, Plato having more or less shoved a stake in their heart ages ago; but they are quite common and quite commonly believed, even on inspection, to be coherent).
If anything, the most dangerous nutjobs are characterized by their extreme degree of value-rational conduct. In the case of pretty much any religious nutjob of note, you'll find, either around them or in the society that spawned them, numerous people who embrace the same epistemological and metaphysical convictions who, nevertheless, are only modestly dangerous, at most, because they do not follow their convictions through to their rational conclusion.
Windows 7...
From the article:
This sounds to me more like cruelty, which is certainly a kind of evil, but by no means the only one. It's also more than a little cartoonish: this is someone who appears to do harm simply for the sake of causing harm (i.e. for the lulz?), rather than the more carefully rationalized evil seen as realistic today. How useful will that really turn out to be?
What the article fails to mention is that the original code model was based off of Microsofts's "Clippy".
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
So to summarize...nobody is the villain in their own story.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
What if your dog tells you to do something....like kill people?
Are you evil or is the dog?
The dog is evil, and you are silly for blindly obeying the commands of a dog.
The real question is, what if your God tells you to do something.. like kill people?
Are you evil, or is your God?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Here is what myheritage.com says about the photo:
Moby 62%
Milan Kundera 61%
David Boreanaz 60%
Harry Connic Jr. 59%
Marc Antony 58%
Lev Yashin 57%
JC Chasez 56%
Ashton Kutcher 56%
Edward Norton 55%
Sting 54%
But after some cropping and flipping of the image so that "evil" looks to the left, only Moby is still on the list:
David Copperfield 62%
Arnold Schwarzenegger 56%
Ricki Lake 51%
Ralph Fiennes 51%
Dave Farrell 49%
Elton John 49%
Moby 48%
Laurence Olivier 47%
Jimmy Smits 47%
Federico Garcia Lorca 46%
Conclusion: Moby == representation of evil.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
After reading the article I think the kery thing this research has proven is that being a great computer scientist does not necessarily guarantee you'll be an even passable philosopher or psychologist.
I view "Good" and "Evil" to a large extent as imaginary terms that we apply to people who agree or disagree with us. True you could manipulate people for your own goals without regard for their welfare or the consequences of your actions and that would be fairly evil, but usually you view your goals as "good" and furthering them as good for everyone, even if they don't realize it at the time.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Bravo. If I had mod points, they'd be yours.
Truth be told, I dislike the way his plan is turning out. I'm really not sure what I should feel, as the system is so complicated that I doubt ANYONE truly knows what is best. All I do know to believe is that there are people who go broke through complicated (and often unnecessary) medical procedures. Worse, because they can't afford them, some people go without them completely and end up with worse conditions that hospitals have to deal with in the end. This is unacceptable as a citizen and as a human being.
I recall reading a Republican Representative's quote in Time magazine a while back about how if they can beat Obama's healthcare plan, they'll beat HIM. That, to me, is pure evil. They oppose a plan not because it's in the best interest of the people (or so they believe, in any case) but because they want political power.