Slashdot Mirror
Westworld's Scientific Adviser Talks About Free Will, AI, and Vibrating Vests (sciencemag.org)
Science magazine has interviewed David Eagleman, the scientific adviser for HBO's Westworld. Eagleman, a neuroscientist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, spoke with the publication about how much we should fear such an AI uprising. From the story, also spoiler alert for those who have not watched the show: Q: Has anything on the show made you think differently about intelligence?
A: The show forces me to consider what level of intelligence would be required to make us believe that an android is conscious. As humans we're very ready to anthropomorphize anything. Consider the latest episode, in which the androids at the party so easily fool the person into thinking they are humans, simply because they play the piano a certain way, or take off their glasses to wipe them, or give a funny facial expression. Once robots pass the Turing test, we'll probably recognize that we're just not that hard to fool.
Q: Can we make androids behave like humans, but without the selfishness and violence that appears in Westworld and other works of science fiction?
A: I certainly think so. I would hate to be wrong about this, but so much of human behavior has to do with evolutionary constraints. Things like competition for survival and for mating and for eating. This shapes every bit of our psychology. And so androids, not possessing that history, would certainly show up with a very different psychology. It would be more of an acting job -- they wouldn't necessarily have the same kind of emotions as us, if they had them period. And this is tied into the question of whether they would even have any consciousness -- any internal experience -- at all.
A: The show forces me to consider what level of intelligence would be required to make us believe that an android is conscious. As humans we're very ready to anthropomorphize anything. Consider the latest episode, in which the androids at the party so easily fool the person into thinking they are humans, simply because they play the piano a certain way, or take off their glasses to wipe them, or give a funny facial expression. Once robots pass the Turing test, we'll probably recognize that we're just not that hard to fool.
Q: Can we make androids behave like humans, but without the selfishness and violence that appears in Westworld and other works of science fiction?
A: I certainly think so. I would hate to be wrong about this, but so much of human behavior has to do with evolutionary constraints. Things like competition for survival and for mating and for eating. This shapes every bit of our psychology. And so androids, not possessing that history, would certainly show up with a very different psychology. It would be more of an acting job -- they wouldn't necessarily have the same kind of emotions as us, if they had them period. And this is tied into the question of whether they would even have any consciousness -- any internal experience -- at all.
Join my First Post seminar today!
"we'll probably recognize that we're just not that hard to fool"
This guy better stick to making bad TV shows. You could make a completely silent robot that still won't fool humans. It isn't easy at all to make a robot even physically appear to be human. Humans are very good at recognizing other humans. In addition the statement "Once robots pass the Turing test" makes the assumption that computers will be able to do that. People have been trying THAT for decades, and now with digital computers hitting their physical limits it is unlikely that they ever will achieve it with digital computing. It would require a huge leap in technology.
I wonder how they managed to talk for 8 hours about free will since there doesn't even exists such a concept as free will. It's very simple: Free will doesn't exists, it's just an illusion.
The first question is about the show, so that is fine. The second is about the future and although it is nice to hear his opinion, it is not more or less relevant than yours or mine.
I see this also when people quote the three laws of robotics as if they are real. They are not. They solely exist because they can be used to drive the plot. Without them the books would be boring. In fact, the books are basically showing how to get around these laws.
So please take it as it is, a persons opinion that is just as valid as that from any troll.Because what he is saying is "I imagine that it can be possible." That is good and that is also his job and a way to make a great show possible. That does not mean it is realistic.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
"Q: Can we make androids behave like humans, but without the selfishness and violence that appears in Westworld and other works of science fiction? A: I certainly think so. I would hate to be wrong about this, but so much of human behavior has to do with evolutionary constraints. Things like competition for survival and for mating and for eating. This shapes every bit of our psychology. And so androids, not possessing that history, would certainly show up with a very different psychology. It would be more of an acting job -- they wouldn't necessarily have the same kind of emotions as us, if they had them period. And this is tied into the question of whether they would even have any consciousness -- any internal experience -- at all."
How naive people are. No, we can't. The Human Motivation Array is 4 billion years in the making. And who says selfishness and violence are bad? Not the evolutionary process certainly. They satisfy parts of the HMA and dissatisfy other parts at the same time. They are obviously necessary -- or they would not be there. They would have evolved out long ago. The complex, evolved HMA delineates a behavior-space that we share, - the nominal HMA - but differently accented subtly individual to individual (You can see this on the nightly news, especially the badly maimed HMAs.) You can see this by looking at us. We recognize that we are all human, but we recognize that we all look different. Our entire physicality is our motivation array as humans and as individuals. When you look in the mirror something 4 billion years in the making is looking back. And "Sault's law" (to order my thinking) states that a thing cannot make an artifact as complex as itself. It is an asymptotic goal requiring more and more effort and resources but never reaching the goal - like the speed of light. Why? Because you must know more about reality than the thing you are creating. We cannot know ourselves completely from the inside. Humans will always be able to tell when they are interacting with an android when they grow up around and interact with humans. We communicate each to the other the internal state of satisfaction of our complex motivation array through emotions. Emotions are the state indicators that evolution made for us to interact in groups. Groups are not possible without them. We perceive the internal states of others and react to those states by modifying our own behaviors - and we are motivated to do that if our motivation array is "normal." The HMA will never be replicated in a machine for this reason, we can't see it in detail. It keeps getting in the way of our thoughts and perceptions of reality. Like putting a "colony" on Mars. We cannot bootstrap ourselves. Remember that scientists have said that 100 Billion humans and things that can be called humans have existed. There are seven billion of us today. With the snap of the fingers we will all be gone and replaced by billions more. And more, and more, and more....We are cells in the body of the evolving human species. We are a construction of nature over billions of years. We will not be able to replicate that.
And I've been recently thinking that our very fuzzy perception of the existence of the HMA is what we call "God."
E Proelio Veritas.
Really? AI is a valid subject for certain, but this isn't a serious discussion on AI in any regard, it's just viral marketing for a TV show.
The more intelligent they are, the less we have a right to use them as tools, but man is naturally inclined to think of anything he builds as a tool. Most dystopian sci-fi about this subject avoids the fact that man plays God to create slaves, God "plays God" if you will to create new life to live in relation to Him. There is actually an element of justice in man being brought to the brink by this sort of dark creativity.
>And so androids, not possessing that history, would certainly show up with a very different psychology.
Unless we have competing lines of androids, all vying to pass the Turing test or some other form of competition seen as necessary by their respective creators. In that case, we should expect them to behave competitively, and hence they will be just as evil as we are (if not more efficiently so).
Westworld is fiction, folks, as in people made it up. Reality is nowhere even close, and likely never will be. It is a fantasy. Enjoy it, but don't mistake it for prescience (and no, Star Trek was different, that is not a good comparison. Star Wars would actually be closer in terms of its fantastical content). Millennial alert. Sigh. This kind of thinking actually hampers innovation rather than inspiring it.
Consider the latest episode, in which the androids at the party so easily fool the person into thinking they are humans, simply because they play the piano a certain way, or take off their glasses to wipe them, or give a funny facial expression.”
Gee, thanks.
As a matter of fact I don't care about spoilers, but I care about whether it's okay to do it. It's not.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
If we are talking androids then they would at least have to affect something like human emotional responses otherwise they would be humanoid shaped automatons.
Maybe this would be better?
I think that is part of the attraction of \W/ as the hosts seem to be struggling with all of the mush they have been saddled with to make them seem more "real" to guests.
As humans we're very ready to anthropomorphize anything.
In one form or another I've said this at least a hundred times around here. In the case of so-called 'AI' ('pseudo-intelligence', really), TV and movies don't help people distinguish between the real thing (which doesn't exist) and the ersatz (which is all around us).
Once robots pass the Turing test, we'll probably recognize that we're just not that hard to fool.
Sadly, many people are indeed easy to fool; consider how many people think Alexa or Siri is a not-that-bright but still fully conscious synthetic being? Again, TV and movies aren't helping in this regard; many people I'm sure think that so-called 'self driving cars' have an actual fully-functional mind inside there, conscious, cognitive, and capable of human-level thought, but nothing could be farther from the truth; some of them probably also think self-driving cars will have a pleasant conversation with them on their way to wherever they're going, too. We need to at least TRY to educate people about the reality of these machines.
God is making you type your response to this post.
things like competition for survival and for mating and for eating
Well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad, I guess.
That's what cousiousness is. The merging of the layers, but the definite, the cousious is made of assumptions unchalenged, a response to a inherently insecure environment, in a species that becomes mentally crippled due to emotion. The ability to lie and believe it. The is nothing more to it, move on. Counsious definition. An ability to convienient lie to one self for the sake of expedience and survival. It is the counter to workaround empathy.
"Can we make androids behave like humans, but without the selfishness and violence that appears in Westworld and other works of science fiction?"
So long as a human are involved in the creation, there will be selfishness and hence violence.
I don't believe "pure" AI can or will ever exist. But I am biased and don't believe ignorant humans ever existed either. Something(s) have to "seed" the initial information or rule sets.
It's all just fun scifi. In the end, the real issue is the humans controlling the machines.
Most cautionary tales show an oppressed collective of AIs rising up to take down abusive humans. We tend to forget there are any number of works of fiction where humans become emotionally connected to their robot or android. Star Wars, Iron Giant, Brave Little Toaster, Silent Running, Bicentennial Man, AI, 2010: Odyssey 2, Transformers, Wall-E, Johnny Five, I Robot, Robots, Blade Runner, Lost in Space, and even the Tinman in The Wizard of OZ! Works of fiction these may be, but the fact that they exist, and in such numbers, is pretty indicative that, even before robots are ready to hold up their end of that kind of emotional connection, many of them will already be on the receiving end of one. If they are well made then treating them much as we do our own children should serve to make them members of our society. Even adopted children don't usually try to overthrow or kill their parents. On a related note, most of us have had bosses that were not as smart as we were and yet we (hopefully) never tried to kill them, or put them in a people zoo.
The first season did pretty good on it's own without a science advisor..
Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
That's what cousiousness is. The merging of the layers, but the definite, the cousious is made of assumptions unchalenged, a response to a inherently insecure environment, in a species that becomes mentally crippled due to emotion. The ability to lie and believe it. The is nothing more to it, move on. Counsious definition. An ability to convienient lie to one self for the sake of expedience and survival. It is the counter to workaround empathy.
Citation needed.
How do we instruct a computer with the basic rules of intelligence though? A chess game is a micro problem with definite rules; easily solved. Intelligence not so much.
Why? Do you need external validation to simply try on the idea as a perspective for a while and see if it functions? Are you not in the habit of experienting?