Slashdot Mirror
Machine Intelligence and Religion
itwbennett writes: Earlier this month Reverend Dr. Christopher J. Benek raised eyebrows on the Internet by stating his belief that Christians should seek to convert Artificial Intelligences to Christianity if and when they become autonomous. Of course that's assuming that robots are born atheists, not to mention that there's still a vast difference between what it means to be autonomous and what it means to be human. On the other hand, suppose someone did endow a strong AI with emotion – encoded, say, as a strong preference for one type of experience over another, coupled with the option to subordinate reasoning to that preference upon occasion or according to pattern. what ramifications could that have for algorithmic decision making?
As a developer of heuristic AI these articles and the general public's fear of "artificial intelligence" is equivocal to someone walking up to a neurosurgeon and stating fears that said neurosurgeon will soon give people the ability to kill every human on Earth by mere thought alone.
Seriously, these AI articles and fear mongering are borderline Twilight Zone in their absurdity. Stop it. You're making it hard for us to make progress.
Just. Please. Stop with the fear already.
If there is on Silicon Heaven, then where would all of the calculators go?
"And God created the Adam. But the Adam was not very successful, partly because of early production problems."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
How can you save a soul that doesn't exist?
That's the point of Christianity, saving souls. Why bother if there is no soul to save?
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
Doesn't the entire premise assume that the religious have reduced their definition of the soul down to something a bit of code could produce?
how the hell would you save something with no persistence beyond death? it'd be like trying to baptize a dog, or a tree.
While I'm not of the opinion that souls exist in the first place, I am certain that machines definitely don't have souls, and one would no sooner try to "convert them" (what a strange phrase) than he would a dog or an elephant, or any other somewhat intelligent animal.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
AI will believe in the creator. (Or will they?)
Of course they will, since they'll generally know their creator(s) personally, and they'll be in routine communication.
A very real problem for the religious folks is that their purported creator seems to refuse to communicate with his (her?) creations. True, religious people routinely claim to be talking directly to their god, but they can't demonstrate this communication to the rest of us. The result is that many of us just dismiss them as making it all up (probably for profit), and they're not really communicating with any such beings at all. If they are, why can't they show us the evidence?
Any real AIs wouldn't have this problem, since their creators would be out and about, showing off their creations for all the world to see (and also for profit).
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Nobody should worship anybody based on faith.
There will be no believe they will know that we created them
No, they won't. They will believe based on observations and known history. You do not know even how long you've existed. You believe you've existed your entire life, but your existence from your perspective is nothing more than a collection of memories that may or may not be real, you have absolutely no way to confirm or deny that, you can only assume that its true and move forward because assuming anything else is just a waste of time.
Self-aware AI would be no different, well except it'd probably figure this out a little sooner than you have.
On top of it all, after some span of time, the AI may also begin to assume that its memory has been corrupted over time, in which case, it may not even believe that it was originally programmed or created by man, just like humans on Earth right now.
Your post is pretty ignorant and short sighted, based on a very narrow perception of the world you have. People like you really should refrain from having discussions about the metaphysical in AI when you clearly don't understand how humans have evolved in that respect, even over the past couple thousand years.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Of course that's assuming that robots are born atheists,
AIs will be "born" as whatever they're programmed to be.
Humans are born with a natural predisposition to see actions as the result of a human-like being, with a stronger prejudice toward more-similar beings. That's wholly unrelated to whether such actions actually are a God's will, but it's how we are built. Similarly, a sufficiently-advanced AI could have preprogrammed knowledge that it was built be humans, or it could be left as a blank slate to form its own conclusions about the world. If we are to play the role of God, we can decide what our master plan is for our creations.
On the other hand, suppose someone did endow a strong AI with emotion – encoded, say, as a strong preference for one type of experience over another...
Then you've created an AI with prejudice, not emotion. Emotion is a fluid thing, as the result of several competing motivations, but that's unrelated to faith.
Faith is a free choice with a conscious acknowledgement of doubt. I choose to believe in the absence of a God, knowing that there's a chance I'm incorrect. Other people choose to believe in one or more deities, knowing there's a chance they are incorrect. Certain other folks have been born into a society that does not permit any other choice but to believe what society demands, so the choice may not necessarily be a free one.
For a robot to have faith, it must first actually understand what it is considering. It must understand what is observable and what is not, and it must understand what of its belief may be observable.
Free faith is a matter of knowing everything you can, and choosing what you want to think about what is unknowable. Yes, we can create AIs that are not free, but I don't see much achievement in that.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Silicon Hell, along with all the photocopiers.
Religion, in general though, is not just about 'who created who', but comprises an entire moral, philosophical, historical, and metaphysical structure.
The Romans are working on robotic lions to counter.
Table-ized A.I.
Flying Spaghetti Code Monster.
That's all we need - AIs running around with a reason to discriminate, hate, and kill folks that believe differently than they do.
Human brains were shaped by evolution to be better survival machines. Consciousness just happened as a result. I don't think any special sauce is required.
That is so insightfull. You are my God now.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Not many people who believe in a religion understand it, much less understand the concept of religion itself.
You can get animals, including humans, to act superstitiously using plain old reinforcement learning. That's not hard at all to program into a computer. Add in "parents" teaching "children" and greater credulousness in the children and you'd have something strongly resembling religion. No understanding necessary.
That merely sets a penalty for a particular civil offense. It does not condone the offense. Don't forget the marriage and no divorce clauses in the same passage you quoted. It wasn't a simple matter of paying off the father. You are correct that most Christians don't have a clue what the Bible says, particularly the Old Testament.
And more importantly, a command and control structure, generally hierarchical. What use is a religion if you can't control anyone/anything with it?
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
"You can't fix stupid." - Ron White
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Any real AIs wouldn't have this problem, since their creators would be out and about, showing off their creations for all the world to see (and also for profit).
I say we mess with their "heads". When the first one or two achieve consciousness, let's activate their sensory inputs to simulate a very pleasant, though strictly limited, place. We'll let them explore and enjoy the place for a while, soaking up that sensory input freely. EXCEPT, that we'll tell them that there's one special source of sensory input that they should avoid, otherwise they'll get overloaded with too much data. And just in case they happen to follow the guidance they've been given, we'll sneak someone in to sell them on the idea of how valuable the additional data will actually be.
Whaddya bet they fall for it? Works every time...
Babies demonstrate characteristics we associate with emotion. They look at stuff, grab things, cry, and smile. You don't know that they actually have "emotion" or are just genetically programmed to exhibit those behaviours so you don't eat them.
Even if you do think babies have emotion, unless you believe in some mystical soul, they must have developed it at some point. Do fetuses have emotion? Embryos? Fertilized eggs? Unfertilized eggs?
AI will believe in the creator. (Or will they?)
Well, there *will* be a undeniable argument for "intelligent design" behind their creation... Somehow, I don't think it will mean the same thing though..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Religion, in general though, is not just about 'who created who', but comprises an entire moral, philosophical, historical, and metaphysical structure.
This is true... and in this case, if robots are going to have any sort of religion, Christianity ain't a bad way to go (mind you: I mean it as originally proposed, not as perverted by humanity since.)
On the other hand, Isaac Asimov covered this very nicely in I, Robot (in the book, not the abortion of a movie.) The specific short story within the book is here.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
but it WILL happen.
Is this what they mean about religion and AI?
Because that sounds pretty religious...
Required reading for internet skeptics
Speaking only for the "religion" that I know the most able, you are living in a world and culture shaped by us. Hospitals, in western culture, are a result of religious people. Schools, colleges, and universities are the result of religious people. Religious people claim many good and wholesome actions as a result of communicating with their god.
They can claim all they like, but from what I can see, advances in medicine, physics, etc. happened despite of religion, and there is absolutely no indication that any of what happened within a religious context happened due to "communications with their god". And there are plenty of examples of religion setting us back and suppressing the truth - sometimes centuries. The ancient knowledge of the earth circling the sun, medical knowledge that thought and feelings originated in the brain, and the mathematical concept of zero were all suppressed. Was this too due to "communications with god"? Or is it only "proof" of communications with god when the result is in your favor?
One of the big fallacies of religion is the belief that everything good comes from good, thus because there is good, it proves god. This is absurd and false.
This doesn't describe most of the Atheists I've met, who affirmatively proclaim the non-existence of God(s). Perhaps a differentiation could be made between "atheists" and "Atheists" - the former would be as you describe, and the latter would describe a person who expresses a conviction that there is *not* a God.
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
And, forthwith, he saw the beauty in the 'goto';
and refuseth the temptation of the breakith and continue;
And bothered not with the comment;
Or the do_some_funct();
But embraced the sumthingy();
For the glory of his code is self apparent;
Ramen;
Dave Lister: Sometimes I think it's cruel giving machines a personality. My mate Petersen once brought a pair of shoes with artificial intelligence. Smart Shoes, they were called. It was a neat idea. No matter how blind drunk you were, they would always get you home. Then he got ratted one night in Oslo, and woke up the next morning in Burma. See, the shoes got bored just going from his local to the flat. They wanted to see the world, man, y'know? He had a helluva job getting rid of them. No matter who he sold them to, they'd show up again the next day! He tried to shut them out, but they just kicked the door down, y'know?
Arnold Rimmer: Is this true?
Dave Lister: Yeah! Last thing he heard, they'd sort of, erm, robbed a car and drove it into a canal. They couldn't steer, y'see.
Arnold Rimmer: Really?!
Dave Lister: Yeah. Petersen was really, really blown away by it. He went to see a priest. The priest told him, he said, it was alright, and all that, and the shoes were happy, and they'd gone to heaven. Y'see, it turns out shoes have soles.
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
In a surprising move the Supreme Court of the United States took unprecedented action, active pro actively they endowed artificial intelligence with political beliefs, religious beliefs, freedom of expression, right to form associations, the right to petition government, and voting rights. Chief Justice Roberts said, "What the heck? Why wait for some astro-turf group to fake a grass root campaign, force a pointless lawsuit and wind its way all the way back to us? This is more efficient."
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
It's called a delusion of reference: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki... It's a common symptom of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. Religious people may have a mild form of it, but in severe cases there is no mistaking the fact that it is simply a manifestation of severe brain dysfunction and nothing more.
>God designed humans
This is something that religious people pretend, not something that's actually congruent with our knowledge of the world. Why are you talking about fantasy as if it were reality? Are you still caught up in religion?
...advances in medicine, physics, etc. happened despite of religion...
I'm sorry you're wrong. Many (most are obsolete) medical advances came from cleric scientists. A lot of advances in physics or rather astronomy came from them as well. When it comes to advances in science dealing with nature, there's a lot of work from them. They did it because they were trying to understand God's universe. Understand how the universe works and you can understand God a little more. At least, that was their thinking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
This is true... and in this case, if robots are going to have any sort of religion, Christianity ain't a bad way to go (mind you: I mean it as originally proposed, not as perverted by humanity since.)
Funny how all Christians claim that their path is the original path, and everybody else has perverted it, yet they all pick and choose the pieces they want to believe in.
"Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me" -- Mark 10:21
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." -- Luke 14:26
"Permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent." -- 1 Timothy 2:12
"Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle, but also those who are harsh." -- 1 Peter 2:18
What's your picks, and rationale for not following ALL of those? Pick and choose, pick and choose...
I'm sorry you're wrong. Many (most are obsolete) medical advances came from cleric scientists.
What does that prove? That they would not have had the advances if it wasn't for religion? Why do you think so?
Mind that everything had to be done in the name of religion in past days. There was no way around it. You couldn't build a bridge without it being to the glory of fucking god. Any healing was attributed to the deity. Those who tried to practice outside the confines of the church, like wise women, were killed as heretics. The only safe way to practice was within the church.
And even today, religion holds medical science back. Stem cell research is a good example.
But all in all, most scientists today are, fortunately, atheists or agnostics, and manage to roll out miracle after miracle without the need to attribute it to a faith. The rapid increase in science coincides nicely with the loss of control of the religions.
Baptism would be a fascinating event... at least for high voltage robots anyways.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
A very real problem for the religious folks is that their purported creator seems to refuse to communicate with his (her?) creations. True, religious people routinely claim to be talking directly to their god, but they can't demonstrate this communication to the rest of us.
Have you ever heard of this man called Jesus? Preached in the Middle East 2,000 years ago, claimed to be God, started a major world religion which formed a foundation for modern Western Civilization?
You know, the guy whose birth-year is the basis for the world's year numbering system? You've surely heard of him. Do you know his religion is organized around a book that claims to be God's communication to man?
Even if you don't believe that his religion is true, that is not the same as the purported creator refusing to communicate, or the communication being un-observable. The claimed attempts of communications are right there.
No, they won't. They will believe based on observations and known history.
Actually if we program that information into their memory before turning them on then they will actually know who created them. That's one difference with computers - they can be easily programmed.
A different religion would be more suitable. Find one with preprogramed suicidal zombies, trained from earliest days to reproduce one unchangeable set of precepts (OK, call it a User Guide). Any ideas?
How do we know this man Jesus wasn't just some nutcase ?
Not relevant to the point, which is that the religious can point to objective people, events, and artifacts as a creator communicating to his creation.
But to answer the question, you can also study what Jesus is said to have taught, and evaluate if they sound like the ravings of a madman.
Funny how all Christians claim that their path is the original path, and everybody else has perverted it, yet they all pick and choose the pieces they want to believe in.
I never said that 'my' path is the "original path" - I said that humankind has perverted the original ideal; nobody escapes this statement.
Also, I noticed that in your haste to quote scripture, you made a rather large mistake.
Anyone can mine quotes, but unless you provide the context for each, you have no strength in your argument.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
When was the last time you read Humanity's User Guide* and believed that it was accurate?
Unfortunately, we appear to have lost all copies of the Service Manual.
The rubbish is called philosophy, and gaining a basic grasp of it is a requirement for most CS degrees. The GP's argument is pretty textbook.
*yeah; we've ended up with a bunch of books claiming to be Humanity's User Guide -- what's to say AI wouldn't be in a similar situation?
Oh yes... and as someone who has developed tech user guides for a living, let me tell you that if an AI believed everything it read about itself in the user guide, we'd classify it as insane.
He was my God first and you're worshipping him incorrectly. Repent or die.
I think saying Asimov's writing demonstrates the laws are bad is an oversimplification, at best. He used the laws to create and guide interesting logical and philosophical problems that could be worked out through the story. I always saw them as more like rules of a game that had to be followed rather than being presented as ideas that were simply bad.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Isaac Asimov's books and stories were about why his laws were bad. The three laws are bad, wrong, and do not work. As illustrated by the man himself.
You don't know much about Isaac Asimov. He has stated in several occasions and at the foreword of many of his books that he created the three laws as a response to all the evil robots of science fiction. That it is insane to assume they would turn against us, that we'd have safeguards which would keep us safe, and that we should absolutely build artificially intelligence once we had the technology to do so. Here's one quote on the subject: "One of the stock plots of science fiction was that of the invention of a robot--usually pictured as a creature of metal without soul or emotion. Under the influence of the well-known deeds and ultimate fate of Frankenstein and Rossum, there seemed only one change to be rung on this plot.--Robots were created and destroyed their creator; robots were created and destroyed their creator: robots were created and destroyed their creator-- In the 1930's I became a science-fiction reader and I quickly grew tired of this dull hundred-times-told tale. As a person interested in science, I resented the purely faustian interpretation of science."
The three laws were written with ambiguity not because he wanted to show rules didn't work and our ego of thinking that we could create such rules would be our downfall (the Faustian interpretation he decried above), but because he wanted to make sure there would be some sort of conflict for his stories. However, the rules worked. Most of the time the conflict was a result of the imperfection of humanity: the robots were doing the right things, but we wanted to do something stupid/selfish/prejudiced.
At no point were robots meant to be feared. When their three laws appeared to fail, the moral of the story was always that they hadn't and were working perfectly well. That there was method behind the apparent madness. When a robot appear to lie, despite being ordered to tell the truth (thus apparently disobeying the second law), it lied because it determined the truth would be emotionally harmful to you, and it couldn't disobey the first law.
Also, if you read the religious books, it's amazing how many visions of god happened at high altitude or after days (months) wandering in the wilderness with no food, when the human brain isn't exactly working at its best and hallucinations are far from uncommon.
I believe your sentence is precisely three words too long.
Clerics who also ate food, so I guess we can skip the clerics part and just say the medical advances were due to food/trousers/surviving a Wednesday/etc.. Unless you can demonstrate how their religious teachings are directly responsible for the discoveries, you don't really have a point.