The main problem here is communications latency and bandwidth. In a SMP box, it's easy for the processors to communicate large amounts of data to each other and to have a fast communications response time. It's also (relatively) easy to perform shared memory accessing and to arbitrate memory locking.
A cluster, OTOH, has to stuff all inter-processor communications through a network cable. This works quite well for easily compartmentalized problems that don't need much access to shared memory. However, if you had a large chunk of memory that you wanted each processor to be able to do more or less random locking, reading, and modification on, your network will go into meltdown. Especially if this memory is distributed over many boxes (i.e. each box contains a part of the very large whole instead of each box mirroring all of a smaller shared memory block).
Myself, when I buy the machine of my dreams, I'll probably go the clustering route. There are plenty of problems that I'd like to play with that don't have unreasonable communications loads, and it is one heck of a lot cheaper to build a cluster for something like that than to pay through the nose for big iron (or even medium-sized aluminum).
I don't really understand the mentality of hardware manufacturers who seem to think that publishing details on how to program their hardware directly somehow threatens their market share. After all, a "black-box" developers' guide doesn't really give anyone that much of an insight into how the hardware actually _works_, so I honestly can't see how their competitors can use it against them (the latest bogus argument I've heard for withholding specs).
Actually, you can get a fair bit of insight into a graphics chip's inner workings by looking at the register specifications, and if I understand correctly this is indeed what they're worried about. I speak as a graphics driver writer:). However, this isn't as much of a problem as most graphics chip companies seem to think, because by the time their competition can apply anything that they figure out from your specs, you've released the chip and are well on your way to finishing the design for your next chip.
The main disadvantage to releasing your specs that I can see is that your competition gets to see exactly how ugly some of your chip architecture is. I can't mention names due to NDA, but at least one of the chips we have to program for makes me want to crawl under my desk and whimper - and I'm an excellent programmer with a very good grasp of graphics hardware.
Fortunately, their competition's chips are much nicer.
And if it turns out that we are deterministic, why would it make a difference whether we knew about it or not? I'd _rather_ know, personally
Did I say it would make a difference?
Yes, you did:
"The second we can decontruct psychology to explain all aspects of human nature in minute detail is the second we cease to non-deterministic."
Whether we are deterministic or not (in the absolute sense) is a part of the nature of the universe, and is most certainly not influenced by whether or not we know that we are deterministic or non-deterministic.
Similarly, as I've already shown elsewhere, you can completely understand something that is still non-deterministic. Non-deterministic systems can still operate on deterministic principles.
As it is I believe we are deterministic, but I also know that it cannot be proven that we are - so for all practical purposes, we do have "free will", although in reality I believe that "free will" is an illusion. The "free will" model suits us well, because the system is so complex, it may as well be "free will".
How does complexity prevent us from proving that we operate on deterministic principles?
In fact, there's already a proof of this if you choose to accept the axiom that we are wholly embodied by our physical forms. Our physical forms obey deterministic physical laws (though with quantum effects, this actually only proves that we are probabilistic, with probability functions that are deterministic).
Not that this particular proof yields much insight into our inner workings, but it still works as an argument for determinism as a whole.
"No. The only thing that we know for certain is that we don't presently understand ants. Whether they can or cannot be understood is not directly proven by empyrical evidence, and there is strong circumstantial evidence that they can."
The nervous system of an ant is hugely complex although very simple compared to a dog yet we do not understand the mind of an ant.
So what? I've already conceded that they are complex, and I've already mentioned that we don't _presently_ understand them in their entirity. How does this influence whether or not they _can_ be understood?
You maintain that building a robotic dog and installing an artificial psychology in the mechanical dog will not effect the owner.
I maintain that building a robotic dog of the type described will not _significantly_ adversely affect the psychology of its owner. Will it have _some_ influence? Of course it will. All stimuli affect us to some degree. Will it have the large, harmful effects that you fear? IMO, not for the vast majority of people.
Certainly some people's lives are very much attached to their pets, it will happen with a robotic animal as well if the animal emulates a living thing well enough. The psychology of the robotic animal is likely to be flawed. This may very well (I would say most likely) cause the psychology of the owner to become flawed, it will certainly change it. It's just that simple.
Some people will become attached to robotic pets. Some people are already attached to things like Tamagochis. Some people, as you point out, are attached to stuffed animals to variying degrees (yes, I know exactly how far this can go in Furry circles).
In all cases, this is due to people ascribing qualities to the devices (or plushies) that aren't actually there. There is a similar effect when people make up imaginary friends. Heck, it could be argued that religion is based on similar principles (with your chosen god being the "imaginary friend" in this case). (NOTE THE "COULD BE ARGUED", AND DON'T FLAME ME.) This is a very basic tendency, and as you point out with plushies, it will exist no matter what. IMO, as long as the manufacturers and parents take pains to point out that the dog (or the Tamagochi) *isn't* *real*, and doesn't actually feel emotion, then the harm from this is not significantly more than the harm from anything else (the kid will still think up an imaginary friend or latch on to a stuffed animal if they feel that deeply that there is no human that can be friends with them).
Ever hang out with somebody that was mentally unstable? I have, and it rubs off inevitably.
Yes I do, fairly often. One of my good friends is mentally unstable.
It is often stressful interacting with him, but I don't think that my own psychology has been adversely affected. I interact with many other people; the forces affecting my psychology are acting to make it easier for me to interact with _all_ of them, not just any one in particular.
As long as a robotic toy isn't the _sole_ social influence in a kid's life, their psychology will _not_ be solely based on interactions with it. Logically enough.
"So what? I never claimed that it was. I and the original poster were talking about understanding minds in general and the human mind in particular at this point in the thread. The robotic dog is not relevant for this discussion."
I am the original poster, and the robotic dog is completely relevant to this discussion.
Not to the thread debating whether or not human minds could be understood.
This conversation contains easily dozens of individual threads that we are debating, on various topics. The point that you were responding to was a response to a statement about human minds in general - not the robotic dog or its impact on humans.
I've started splitting my responses up, as this discussion is getting too large to manage in one message.
Re. being the same poster, you seemed to exhibit inconsistency re. believing humans to be deterministic or non-deterministic. In retrospect, this was because you were using a different definition of "determinism" than I use. Choosing an alias would eliminate future misunderstandings, and would also prevent any Anonymous Coward from claiming that they were you (as I've seen happen in other threads with other people).
You don't have to specify your normal email address; a temporary hotmail account can receive your password string as easily as any other account can.
"Let me give some context - I believe that most people in an environment similar to the one that most people presently are in have enough self control to (etc). The proof of this is simple. Look around you; most people interact adequately socially and spend an adequate amount of time in social interaction (note that I'm saying "adequate" instead of "wonderful" for both of these points)."
You "believe". You could just as easily say that about an environment that has absolutely no social interaction. This is merely a value judgement of yours. It's an opinion, nothing more.
Instead of berating me, how about responding to the proof that I presented above?
We have growing amounts of violence among the young, that would seem to indicate that less children are receiving the social interaction they need to become functional adults. Do you have another theory as to why violence among the youth has risen? Look at the United States prison statistics.
Prison statistics prove only that more people are put in prison. This reflects less on how many crimes are being committed than on what we consider a crime, and what we choose to put people in prison for.
I've already addressed the topic of youth violence elsewhere.
People are already ignoring people because the consequences are simply no longer there. Being ostracized today isn't what is used to be. If you are being ostracized by your family, fuck them, move to NYC and start over.
And similarly alienate potential friends. If a person has no friends because they're a jerk, moving won't change this. They will either continue moving from place to place wallowing in bitterness, or learn not to be a jerk.
"I'm not saying that introversion is a good thing - I'm just saying that we should try addressing it directly, as opposed to addressing (in reverse chronological order) toys that emulate affection, the Internet, television, comic books, and whatever else people have held up as threats to human interaction over the years. IMO, these people are going after the wrong targets."
"I agree 100%"
"Then why the strong objection to robotic dogs, as opposed to bad parenting?"
Um what? When was parenting mentioned? You think you can "fix" parenting? I have news for you, you can't. What are you going to do, tell parents what deserves positive feedback and what deserves negative feedback? You cannot control parents through legistation.
If you agree that things like the 'net and robotic dogs are the wrong targets, then why do you attack them? You have stated elsewhere that you don't think either influence can be removed, so why not gripe about the real causes of social problems (bad parenting being one case)? Similarly futile, but at least you're complaining about the right thing.
Personally, I feel that we should make an effort (through "parental education initiatives" or what-have-you) to make sure that parents understand that it is important for them to raise their children. Then, if they sill don't bother, we can justifiably say that they brought the problems upon themselves when they try blaming something else.
Endorsing the blaming of incorrect targets IMO does no good and potentially causes a fair bit of harm. If the 'net was shut down to prevent Joe Average Kid from searching for porn, then Joe Average Kid would go back to reading his friend's brother's magazines, and things like this discussion would suddenly become a lot harder.
I'm pointing out that you cannot remove these (Internet, television, etc.) from society, because we are now dependant on them. What I'm trying to indicate is that there has already been damage done, and more is to come. If a parent doesn't see anything wrong with their child hanging out with the mechanical dog, like you don't, the parent will likely not spend as much time with the child.
I see nothing wrong with a child of mine hanging out with a mechanical dog as long as they do spend some time hanging out with human friends as well.
That is substantially different from your statement above, yet I stated it clearly elsewhere.
The real problem is our society is built on escapism. Perhaps we should figure out what we are trying to escape from and eliminate it. It is easy to see that the art of conversation is dead, it's very difficult to find anybody to talk to.
If conversation is dead, then why is there traffic here?
You never go out to socialize and chat with your friends?
Eliminating what we're trying to escape from is impossible, because we're trying to escape from both human nature and the fundamental realities of the world around us. Life isn't always pleasant, so we retreat to fantasies that are more pleasant. Life will never always be pleasant, because jerks always exist and because resources are finite. IMO, the best that we can do is to teach our kids how to deal effectively with the real world, so that they have less of a need to escape. "Less of a need", not "no need".
The higher the potential you reach the happier you are, that's my theory and the more I learn, the happier I am. I never want to stop learning, not because I find learning to be "fun", but because it always brings rewards later. I have been very lucky to experience so much because I've worked to do it. It didn't happen by fucking off, in fact when I did fuck off in college (11 credits, 2.1 GPA semester), I was most depressed - but I smoked a lot of weed and drank a lot of alcohol and saw tons of movies, and had a lot of "fun" - of course it was a waste of a semester but it was "fun".
If you were depressed, it doesn't sound like you were enjoying yourself very much. I reiterate that I personally define "fun" to be "doing things that make me happy". If you drank and were still depressed, I question the logic of calling that "fun".
There's also total integrated "fun" to consider. If I quit my job and smoked crack on the streets, I might be happy when I'm high, but the rest of the time I'd be in abject misery. Net fun lowers.
Re. learning, I learn because I enjoy learning. If this brings me rewards later in life, so much the better.
I do problem sets because they will bring me benefit and allow the potential for future happiness. Not because I enjoy them. If I didn't bother doing problem sets, I might have more time for happiness in the short term, but exam stress and future employment would be a lot worse, resulting in a net loss of happiness down the road. If I spent all of my spare time doing problem sets, I'd probably get perfect marks, but I'd be a lot less happy also.
I consider work a means to an end, not an end in itself. If you actually enjoy your work, then great, but it is not and doesn't have to be the end-all and be-all for the rest of us.
"My point is that parents can make themselves an influence in their childrens' lives, and that (if done right) this can counteract harmful effects from other influences under most conditions."
Sure they "can", but keep in mind that people act almost exclusively on instinct. Take away the natural environment and they will no longer instinctively know how to solve the problem. We are far from being purely intellectual despite our assurances that we are "logical" - we aren't. Here we have video games, 24 hour cartoons, artificial friends, and unlimited access to information - you think a typical parent can handle this?
Sure they can. Turn off the TV. Turn off the computer. Heck, sell the TV if neither you nor your kid benefits from it (but be prepared to provide alternate entertainment for your kid). Take your kid out to the museum or the zoo. Do something else with them.
It isn't _trivial_ to make yourself a part of your kid's life, but it isn't fundamentally impossible, either.
Ultimately the solution is for each parent to take the initiative, but the vast majority of the parents will not.
I agree. However, I believe that it is a worthy goal to work towards, because some of the parents will take initiative, and we can fix the blame squarely where it belongs in most other cases, as they will now have known better.
Which is more fun, to hang out with mom or dad or to play Quake III?
Well, I'd like to get around to playing "Tribes" at some point, but playing games all of the time loses its charm after a while (I've tried it). I socialize with my friends because it _is_ more fun than doing most other things. Otherwise I wouldn't be doing it.
I'm not saying all this is bad, but when we start producing interactive things that are meant to replace interaction with living things, I think we are in danger of crossing a line.
IMO, it would take something along the lines of a true AI to be involving enough to replace interaction with living things, and that will neatly solve the problem (as interacting with a true AI is as socially fulfilling as interacting with a real person, because it _is_ a person). Now, there is the issue of ensuring that the AI itself isn't designed with harmful psychology, but it turns out that there are fairly straightforward ways of doing this (give an AI a drive for self-preservation, and it won't be happy when you beat up on it, for instance).
However, I dout that we'll see this for a few decades yet.
I am not saying that robotic dogs will make humans more deterministic, I'm saying robotic dogs, cats, friends, etc, will make us fucked up because we aren't interacting with something that will give us not only positive feedback by negative feedback. Our brains aren't built to operate in this type of environment. You are free to treat a robotic dog in any manner you see fit, and probably with no guilt associated with it. You could "kill" a robotic dog and feel no remorse (maybe it was even enjoyable to do so), if the same person has interacted with machinery more than humans and gives people the same value as machines, you can run into a serious problem. And this is entirely possible if they never receive negative feedback for doing "bad" things to this "living" machinery.
As long as they still have to interact with other humans on a regular basis, there will still be negative feedback for antisocial behaviors. I've already covered why I think that they will still be exposed to humans. Re. making a masochistic robot dog, I agree that this would probably produce some harm (though I maintain that the majority of people would still turn out ok due to other social influences). IMO, the best way to curb this kind of harm is to legislate that toys of this type should not encourage abusive behavior. This can be enforced (the manufacturers are big enough targets).
From a human being's point of view, you are relatively unpredictable. You think in a manner that is unique. Nobody else will hold the same specific views that you do.
Oh?
At most, you probably know about a thousand people. Out of these, a few will have views that are very similar to yours about a given topic. Now, picture a million times as many people. Out of that many, you will find a few that either match your views with fantastic precision on a given topic, or match your views and opinions reasonably well on several topics.
Now, consider all of history, past and present. That bumps up the sample size by a few more orders of magnitude.
If you define "the same" as being atom-for-atom identical, then you are indeed unique. If you define "the same" as being similar enough for most practical purposes, then you are no longer unique. It's a big planet. It's a big universe. There's a lot of history behind us and ahead of us.
And uniqueness is still not terribly relevant. If I could fire a duplicator gun at you and wind up with two identical copies, the copies would be no less human.
If human is "ambiguous" to you, you have a problem.
Ask a room full of philosophers what a human is. You will get an amazing variety of answers, because people tend to have very different opinions on what "being human" involves.
Use something more concrete than this if you are using "humanity" to justify arguments. Tell me *what* about what you consider humanity justifies your point, and tell me why you believe that it is so.
A machine "thinks" in a deterministic preprogrammed manner. The manner in which you think has been built evolutionarily and is constantly being modified throughout your entire lifetime. You are sentient (or at least about as sentient as I am) and you can express yourself uniquely and hold opinions and change them independantly under your own volition - or illusion of volition. If I ask a machine the same question a year later, I will probably get the same answer phrased the same way, from you I will not. Or, from me, you might. And from the machine, you might not. A strong AI would at the _very_ least base its answers upon everything that it has experienced. Over the course of the year, it will have been exposed to new things. Further, it is likely that any machine capable of demonstrating strong AI behaviour would have to be able to modify parts of its programming. The way in which it modifies itself may be deterministic, but the result won't be (as it is performing modificatins in response to nondeterministic stimuli).
"I'm not trying to provoke; I'm trying to get you to think more carefully about your answer."
Please do not accuse me of being a haphazard thinker. I've thought my position over quite carefully. I can use psychology to back me up. I'm not making wild leaps of faith to support my conclusions.
My apologies. In that case, I am trying to get you to express your reasoning more clearly, as the justifications for some of your statements seem to be missing a few points, which I am pointing out in appropriate paragraphs elsewhere.
See above for my objections to the statement that I was referring to.
"Second of all, I am only "unique" if you use a very narrow set of criteria for recognizing me. Out of the six billion people on the planet, there are going to be many who are extremely similar to me. Expand your search to cover all places and all times, and you can probably find as close a match as you like."
Completely untrue. The criteria is extremely broad. You underestimate the diversity of people. [...] no two people will come to the same conclusions in the same way, this means that changing somebody's opinion will require different solutions to change the same opinion.
You underestimate the _number_ of people, or at least the full effects of this large a sample size. Will you find people who think similarly? That depends on the degree of similarity, but for just about all degrees, I'd say "yes".
You sill haven't said why this is relevant, also. Why would it make a difference in either of our arguments if you could or could not find two people who reacted identically to things? Some people react similarly, some react differently. What of it?
Have you ever met two people that acted the same way in most situations? I haven't and I've met a lot of people.
You've never noticed similarities among your friends? Now, as with the example above, bump up the number of people by a few orders of magnitude, and you'll be able to find pairs with even closer similarity.
You cannot be studied so well that you become 100% predictable or even 80%. When I use "machine" I mean a machine that is deterministic from the point of view of a human being, i.e. predictable. I wouldn't place any mammal in the category of machine because they aren't anywhere near 100% predictable but a robotic dog is.
You've never known what a friend will do before they do it? I know that my friends occasionally complain about me being predictable. I know that I can in many cases predict what a friend will do.
Re. machines necessarily being deterministic, it's easy to build one that isn't. Just make some of its decisions random.
Re. being deterministic "from a human point of view" - why is this important? I've been using "deterministic" and "non-deterministic" in the absolute sense. What happens, in your argument, if you have an entity whose behaviour some people can see the pattern to but others can't? How does my personally being able or not being able to predict a robot's behaviour change the nature of the robot?
No offense, but please reread my last post. I was answering your question as to how talking to a human being on the Internet is significantly different than interacting with a machine controlled by a set of algorithms. Again, I use machine as in "predictable machine".
Then that is the source of one of our conflicts. It is easy to build machines that are non-deterministic, and it is easy to build deterministic machines that are complex enough to appear non-deterministic to a human (look at a standard pseudo-random number generator; that uses a deterministic formula).
Re. the social benefits or lack thereof of melding with the 'net, that depends on what you're reading. I've seen people have thought-provoking discussions on the 'net, but I've also seen people who log into chat rooms and react purely on reflex. Just because there's someone else on the end of the connection doesn't mean that they're making thought-provoking statements, or that you couldn't be having more fulfilling social interactions elsewhere.
Joe Average Kid in a chat room may be having a useful social interaction. Joe Average Kid surfing for porn or pirated games might as well be talking to the robotic dog.
There are plenty of anti-social distractions out there already. IMO, one more won't make that much of a difference.
I'm not going to explain myself down to a masonite block. If you cannot understand the conversation, then I'm no longer willing to converse. What am I getting out of this? What are you telling me?
I am poking holes in your arguments, and arguing for a different point of view. If you would rather leave than defend your statements, I of course have no way of stopping you.
What ideas have you given me so far? None. No offense, but I engage in conversation to get different points of view, I'm not here for your benefit, I'm here for mine. Likewise if you get nothing out of this, you may as well leave as you have no obligation to me either.
When I see someone make a statement that I believe to be incorrect, I have a strong urge to argue the point, so that they and whoever else is listening may be better informed. I am not always right - I don't claim to be infallible - but if I am right, and I argue the point, I have increased the amount of knowledge per capita by an insignificant fraction. If I'm wrong, then at least I've learned a bit more.
That is why I'm here, to answer your question.
You claim that I've presented no ideas? Then what the heck are you disagreeing with me about? I've certainly stated _something_, or else you wouldn't have had anything to reply to.
To recap, my main points are:
People have had antisocial distractions for a long time, and new ones won't hurt (they'll just displace old ones).
The mechanisms behind human thought can be understood, and are already partly understood.
Human-like thought can be duplicated in machines (though we haven't successfully done this _yet_).
Some of these points are in direct conflict with yours, and so we each argue our cases, presenting evidence for our own arguments and poking holes in the arguments of each other.
At what point was I unclear about this?
The state of current knowledge
on
Robotic Dogs
·
· Score: 1
The system of the brain must have some layer of stability even though it has functions that are chaotic. These underlying features of stability are completely and totally not understood on the physical level. We can only observe the outcome. We know where in the brain some functions are performed but the how the structure of the brain causes the function to be performed is still a complete mystery, and may be forever.
Consult with a friend in neurobiology for more information on how much we do and do not understand of the brain on a physical level. Find a few good textbooks on neural networks for more information on how much we do and do not know about how the brain and similar structures can process information.
We most certainly don't know everything about the brain, but neither is it a complete mystery, as you claim it to be. And our understanding continues to (slowly) improve.
Our population is now at about subsistence level, people get married less, and have less kids. It is no longer common to have dinner parties, nor is it common to take a sunday drive. It is common to drink beer on the sofa and watch football though. Not that it is a bad thing, but we are certainly less interactive then we used to be. Do you know your neighbors even?
I don't know about your friends, but most of mine are more socially active than the football-watcher that you describe.
Do I know the people living next door to me? No.
Do I know other people? Yes.
Readily available transportation means that my circle of friends is scattered about the city (and beyond). I still have several close friends and dozens of more casual friends, whom I see and socialize with regularly. My friends have similarly large circles of friends.
I think that you're being overly pessimistic about the amount of socialization that Joe Average participates in. Certainly, you _could_ just sit at home and meld with the TV or the computer in _all_ of your free time, but how many people do you know who actually _do_?
Minds understanding themselves.
on
Robotic Dogs
·
· Score: 1
Place the design of a 686 on a 686 and the design of all the memory of the computer on that 686 with the designs for the hard disk, ethernet card, monitor, and leds. What? You're running out of memory to have the computer represent itself completely!!
You can easily build a computer that has the ability to "understand" its own design, because a lot of the design _is_ redundant, or easily inferred from basic principles. You don't even need magical software to do this; look up integrated circuit CAD and synthesis tools on the web. Sure, a PII contains several million transistors in the CPU alone, but the VHDL code specifying how it works is much more compact. The implementation can be algorithmically generated by synthesis tools that understand the basic principles of how transistors can be used to implement logic.
Now, you'd get a more efficient version of the chip by designing parts of it by hand, but the automatically generated version will still work, and will be able to run the synthesis tools itself.
IMO, the mind is based on similarly simple principles; it just has a complex implementation.
Picking apart the mind's inner workings will be like picking apart spaghetti code under the best of circumstances, because it was put together by more-or-less random processes working over a very long period of time and so is disorganized. That doesn't mean that we can't understand the compiler, to carry the programming analogy further, or the logic involved in the mind's construction.
Why is this sinister?
on
Robotic Dogs
·
· Score: 1
"I see where you're coming from, but I think that human-to-human interaction is prominent enough in peoples' lives even with robotic dogs that this isn't a big threat."
Back it up with evidence. We have more antisocial behavior than ever it seems.
Back *that* up with evidence. The operative word here is "seems".
Kids blowing away kids with guns, people getting mugged for sneakers, you name it.
There was an interesting documentary a few years back about television and the Internet. It brought up headlines similar to the ones you describe, with 11-year-olds murdering 11-year-olds and similar atrocities.
The newspeaper headlines were from the first couple of decades of this century. The antisocial behavior was then blamed on comic books.
A very large number of people are anti-social, criminal, selfish, stupid, or a combination of the above. This is true now, and it always _has_ been true. That's human nature. Instead of pointing fingers at the latest fashionable target for blame, try thinking about how to make society work despite the fact that such people exist. They certainly aren't going away.
I don't think the average middle income white person has any idea how the average middle class black person lives - or cares. And it goes both ways. For all people, for all groups, income brackets, and education levels. When is the last time you talked to a somebody that was between 30 and 40 and dropped out of high school? There make up a good section of our population. When is the last time they talked to you?
You're presuming a lot about who I am and am not friends with. Speak only for yourself in this regard, please.
Shit happens dude. And I think this is shit. I'm predicting that this will be ultimately negative for both human beings and for animals.
People happen, "dude". I don't think that this will have any greater an effect on human nature than anything else this century has. What we do in any given decade may be different, but there are still nice people, not so nice people, and actively malevolent people.
[I missed a point, so I'm addressing it in a new message here.]
"Now, this is much easier said than done, as it is extremely difficult to observe the mind in operation, and it is very complex. However, I'm addressing your point re. it being possible at all. We don't have to know everything that is in our minds to understand how our minds work, IMO."
I still maintain that it is absolutely impossible to do this. We might may very gross generalizations that hold well for many situations, but these are models. Models do not represent reality, they represent a simplified reality so that the real reality can be better understood.
We can come up with increasingly refined models. How refined a model we need depends on what we want to do with it. Understanding how something works does not require that we be able to predict with certainty how it will behave. In fact, for nondeterministic systems, we will never be able to predict behaviour. A coin toss is a good analogy here, though something truly random like quantum tunnelling would be a better example.
Another point is that all depths of understanding are not equal. Understanding how our minds work well enough to create a true AI does not necessarily require that we understand all of the peculiar idiosyncracies of human brains that have built up over several hundred million years of evolution. Only the critical and/or relevant points need be understood.
Why do you feel that our minds must be based on principles too complex to be understood?
"Similarly, you could be out socializing with friends instead of surfing on Slashdot reading this."
You may not be a friend, but you are human. You are unique. You're not a machine.
First of all, I'd appreciate a definition of what "human" means in this context/what aspects of "humanity" you consider important in your statement above. As it stands, that point is too ambiguous to be very meaningful.
Why is my being "human" relevant to the discussion?
I'm not trying to provoke; I'm trying to get you to think more carefully about your answer.
Second of all, I am only "unique" if you use a very narrow set of criteria for recognizing me. Out of the six billion people on the planet, there are going to be many who are extremely similar to me. Expand your search to cover all places and all times, and you can probably find as close a match as you like.
Why is my being "unique" relevant?
I am not a machine? Actually, I beleive that I am (in that I am a physical entity governed entirely by the physical laws of the universe, and could be duplicated perfectly if my physical form was duplicated perfectly).
Why is my being a machine or not a machine relevant to your point?
I get some idea of what you're getting at, but I need it phrased a bit more concretely if I am to debate it.
"Most people have the self-control needed to balance social and non-social behaviours in their life. Some people don't, but IMO they have bigger problems than robotic dogs."
This is an assertion that you will not be able to back up with evidence. Hardly anybody has the self-control that you think they do.
Let me give some context - I believe that most people in an environment similar to the one that most people presently are in have enough self control to (etc). The proof of this is simple. Look around you; most people interact adequately socially and spend an adequate amount of time in social interaction (note that I'm saying "adequate" instead of "wonderful" for both of these points).
You can of course produce extreme cases where a person will not balance these factors. IMO, this is not relevant, as such extreme cases are very unlikely to occur, even with things like robotic dogs around. Humans will always be around too, and ignoring them tends to have very negative consequences.
"I'm not saying that introversion is a good thing - I'm just saying that we should try addressing it directly, as opposed to addressing (in reverse chronological order) toys that emulate affection, the Internet, television, comic books, and whatever else people have held up as threats to human interaction over the years. IMO, these people are going after the wrong targets."
I agree 100%
Then why the strong objection to robotic dogs, as opposed to bad parenting?
"This is most likely pretty accurate. IMO, a good approach to solving this kind of problem is to encourage people to interact more with their children. Then it won't matter if the kid has a television set or a 'net connection or a robotic dog, because there will be something better available to them - a real person."
What a child might perceive as "good" is not necessarily good for the child. Things that bring a developing adult despair are equally important to things that bring a developing adult joy. This is a harsh reality, but happiness isn't attained by having fun, it's attained by work and work is often not fun.
An absence of having fun tends to detract substantially from happiness, from what I can see. Work can sometimes lead to happiness, and is certainly a prerequesite for happiness in a capitalist society, but this is hardly the same as your claim above. In fact, I define "having fun" as being "doing things that make me happy", regardless of whether those things are also considered "work" or not.
Re. what a child percieves as "good"... I'm having trouble seeing what you are getting at. If you're saying that a child might be attracted to behaviour that is ultimately harmful, then I'll agree. However, that doesn't relate directly to my point. My point is that parents can make themselves an influence in their childrens' lives, and that (if done right) this can counteract harmful effects from other influences under most conditions.
So, I don't see the problem with a robotic dog or a TV or a 'net connection if the kid is also properly exposed to other humans.
The second we can decontruct psychology to explain all aspects of human nature in minute detail is the second we cease to non-deterministic.
We will always be nondeterministic, because the stimuli that affect us are nondeterministic, and influence our "programming". Our "programming" will therefore change in nondeterministic ways even if the principles governing our minds are deterministic. At best we are probabilistic, and chaos severely limits how far into the future predictions can be usefully extended.
And if it turns out that we are deterministic, why would it make a difference whether we knew about it or not? I'd _rather_ know, personally.
Ant's are too complex for us to understand completely.
No. The only thing that we know for certain is that we don't presently understand ants. Whether they can or cannot be understood is not directly proven by empyrical evidence, and there is strong circumstantial evidence that they can.
This "dog" isn't even close to a dog, it operated on completely different principles, it's not even close to being a life form.
So what? I never claimed that it was. I and the original poster were talking about understanding minds in general and the human mind in particular at this point in the thread. The robotic dog is not relevant for this discussion.
She also threw me out of the house when she opened my mail to find my lease in my new place in Back Bay in Boston, called my office, threatened my secretary, called the cops, claimed I was beating her, and threatened me repeatedly and stole $450 from me. According to the police, this happens to every tenant she's had - she's listed as "loony" at the station. She could become the norm if most interaction is done with things that don't give negative feedback. I worry about such situations.
Insane people exist. IMO, it is better to recognize them and restrict their actions if necessary than to restrict the actions of *all* of the populace. This best preserves the freedom of individuals in general.
However, as mentioned in another thread, I don't think that we're in danger of interacting primarily with robots any time soon. Every time a major entertainment fad has shown up, this kind of concern has been voiced, but so far it doesn't seem to have been warranted.
Not that there aren't other problems that need fixing; see my previous messages.
Why is this sinister?
on
Robotic Dogs
·
· Score: 1
It has to do with the fact that I'm a determinist which means that I believe we ourselves are completely robotic in nature. I do not believe in "free will" as a concept. We are just a really complicated feedback loop. We are controlled 100% by what we interact with (from television to dear old Mom) and I don't think it's such a great idea to be interacting with something that is totally artificial and completely predictable. You may not be getting just standardized robotic dogs with standardized artificial psychologies but standardized human beings with artificial psychologies. I find it Orwelian to the nth degree.
Well, bear in mind that there's a fair bit of random noise injected into our feedback loops, which makes our behaviour more probabilistic than strictly deterministic.. O:).
I see where you're coming from, but I think that human-to-human interaction is prominent enough in peoples' lives even with robotic dogs that this isn't a big threat.
If the Evil Empire locked us in a room from birth with only carefully programmed machines to interact with, then we would probably develop standardized personalities (to within the limits imposed by physical variations to our brains and noise perturbing our thoughts), but IMO anything short of such an impractical isolation would have a hard time standardizing people to the extent that you fear.
However, this is not comparable to life. It is a parody of life. It's a joke, a toy. It is 0.01% of a life form. I think that people are reclusive enough sitting in front of their TV's 24 hours a day. Social interaction with a robot isn't the same or as useful as social interaction with a living thing.
Similarly, you could be out socializing with friends instead of surfing on Slashdot reading this.
Most people have the self-control needed to balance social and non-social behaviours in their life. Some people don't, but IMO they have bigger problems than robotic dogs.
I'm not saying that introversion is a good thing - I'm just saying that we should try addressing it directly, as opposed to addressing (in reverse chronological order) toys that emulate affection, the Internet, television, comic books, and whatever else people have held up as threats to human interaction over the years. IMO, these people are going after the wrong targets.
Do you know how you can make a sociopath? Have a kid and give it no affection for the first 4 years of life, the resultant adult will exhibit complete indifference to the welfare of others.
This is most likely pretty accurate. IMO, a good approach to solving this kind of problem is to encourage people to interact more with their children. Then it won't matter if the kid has a television set or a 'net connection or a robotic dog, because there will be something better available to them - a real person.
If we could understand ourselves, we would be too simple to understand outselves.
Not strictly true. We can understand the principles upon which we operate, without having to hold in our minds every memory, association, and piece of data that is held in our minds (which is indeed impossible). IMO, an understanding of psychology adequate for building a true AI would consist of understanding thoroughly the principles upon which the mind operates, and understanding the more important association links that form in humans. Anything beyond that is IMO most likely extraneous.
Now, this is much easier said than done, as it is extremely difficult to observe the mind in operation, and it is very complex. However, I'm addressing your point re. it being possible at all. We don't have to know everything that is in our minds to understand how our minds work, IMO.
Just my two cents worth.
Why is this sinister?
on
Robotic Dogs
·
· Score: 1
What I'm betting is that a robotic dog will simulate being estatically, bump-into-furniture happy when you come home from a road trip. If that's what the consumer wants anyhow. That's what is sinister about it.
Why is this sinister?
By similar arguments, Tamagochis are unhealthy and stuffed animals shouldn't exist either.
This isn't real, and the buyers fully know that it isn't real. Where is the problem? I'm having trouble seeing where you are coming from with this.
Can anyone independently confirm this (ideally by talking to Linus)? After the recent hype about the processor, this seems suspiciously like marketing vapour (though I could well be mistaken).
Okay, I checked out the page, FAQ, and everything, and I still can't figure out just what exactly this thing does. So could someone please explain it in small, single syllable words?
If I understand correctly, this lets you change the playback speed of an MP3 by turning a vinyl record. It's set up so that when the record is playing at normal speed, the MP3 is playing at normal speed. When you stop the record or move it backwards, the MP3 playing stops or moves backwards. If you "scratch" the record by moving it back and forth, MP3 playback moves back and forth in the same way. The idea is to make it sound as if the MP3 was stamped into the record, which lets you do the same kinds of record tricks that DJs did when records were common.
_If_ I understand correctly:). I didn't read all of the related links.
A standard, silicon-based sensor array can see into the near-infrared and into the ultraviolet. The limiting factor on most cameras, if I understand correctly, is the optics. The lenses etc. may absorb light that is too far into the ultraviolet, for instance. Naturally, a colour camera's colour filters will block out non-visible wavelengths, too. With enough care, though, you could probably build a camera that "saw" across the wider range mentioned above.
Chromatic abberation would get ugly, however, as different wavelengths would be affected to very different degrees by the camera's lenses. This is probably what limits the camera's sensing into the ultraviolet (in the EUV/soft x-ray range, the lenses will cease to have much effect).
The lower sensing limit is a bit harder to get around. To detect far infrared (including thermal infrared), you have to use special materials that respond to photons of these low energies, and more importantly you have to cool your detector so that "glow" from the camera and thermal noise don't swamp the signals that you are trying to measure. I played with a thermal infrared camera a while ago; it had a bulky housing that cooled the sensor with IIRC liquid helium (though in retrospect liquid nitrogen seems more likely, as it would do the job adequately and would be easier to contain).
So, in summary, you could build an artificial eye that saw blurrily from the near infrared to moderately deep ultraviolet, but thermal infrared is a lot harder.
In order to move the focus of debate to style and content issues as opposed to spelling and grammar, does Rowan mind if I take this essay and manually fix all spelling and grammar errors so that it can be re-posted?
Also, does anyone (Rob?) have web space to post the edited article? My workplace would be most annoyed if our web server got slashdotted.
I believe there are FAR more programmers doing custom development than writing shrink-wrapped applications. Does anyone have any figures on this ? The software sector is not really that large an industry - any large company has it's own IT departments - mostly doing custom development and support for purely internal use.
Ok, I'm starting to get confused here, which means that I'm probably not interpreting your points correctly.
So that I may better see where you are coming from, please clarify:
What you mean by "custom development".
I've been reading this to mean tweaking OS or application code to make products better serve a specific company. Due to the closed nature of most software presently in use, this doesn't happen much.
Who you count as a programmer.
I count sysadmins as sysadmins, unless they do a fair bit of coding for pay. I use "programmer" to mean someone who has a full-time job writing code (or at least primarily writing code).
My impression of the industry is that most programmers (using the definition above) spend their time doing software development for companies that are releasing commercial products, be they the next version of an operating system (large or small), the next version of an application (ditto), drivers, proprietary utilities, or what-have-you.
I could be wrong about this, but I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying about how you view the breakdown of labour in the software industry.
When, with heavy cross-marketing, it becomes impossible to buy a product without getting another product thrown in (or discounted, etc.), the result isn't "Business at the Speed of Thought", it's a blurring of the boundaries that keep markets efficient. The economy becomes less transparent, not better. If you can't buy a pound of sugar without getting flour mixed in, because "90% of people buy flour and sugar together", you're screwed.
This depends on what you do with the data that you get. Mixing flour and sugar because people usually buy both is silly, but putting the flour next to the sugar on the shelves isn't.
I worked with a similar data mining endeavor in the past. Our goal was to figure out what banner ads the user might actually find interesting. As long as the application of the results is kept within the bounds of sanity, data mining can actually produce valid results.
I know that if a banner ad on cheap alpha boxes showed up, I might actually click on it.
Slashdot Mirror
A cluster, OTOH, has to stuff all inter-processor communications through a network cable. This works quite well for easily compartmentalized problems that don't need much access to shared memory. However, if you had a large chunk of memory that you wanted each processor to be able to do more or less random locking, reading, and modification on, your network will go into meltdown. Especially if this memory is distributed over many boxes (i.e. each box contains a part of the very large whole instead of each box mirroring all of a smaller shared memory block).
Myself, when I buy the machine of my dreams, I'll probably go the clustering route. There are plenty of problems that I'd like to play with that don't have unreasonable communications loads, and it is one heck of a lot cheaper to build a cluster for something like that than to pay through the nose for big iron (or even medium-sized aluminum).
Actually, you can get a fair bit of insight into a graphics chip's inner workings by looking at the register specifications, and if I understand correctly this is indeed what they're worried about. I speak as a graphics driver writer
The main disadvantage to releasing your specs that I can see is that your competition gets to see exactly how ugly some of your chip architecture is. I can't mention names due to NDA, but at least one of the chips we have to program for makes me want to crawl under my desk and whimper - and I'm an excellent programmer with a very good grasp of graphics hardware.
Fortunately, their competition's chips are much nicer.
Did I say it would make a difference?
Yes, you did:
"The second we can decontruct psychology to explain all aspects of human nature in minute detail is the second we cease to non-deterministic."
Whether we are deterministic or not (in the absolute sense) is a part of the nature of the universe, and is most certainly not influenced by whether or not we know that we are deterministic or non-deterministic.
Similarly, as I've already shown elsewhere, you can completely understand something that is still non-deterministic. Non-deterministic systems can still operate on deterministic principles.
As it is I believe we are deterministic, but I also know that it cannot be proven that we are - so for all practical purposes, we do have "free will", although in reality I believe that "free will" is an illusion. The "free will" model suits us well, because the system is so complex, it may as well be "free will".
How does complexity prevent us from proving that we operate on deterministic principles?
In fact, there's already a proof of this if you choose to accept the axiom that we are wholly embodied by our physical forms. Our physical forms obey deterministic physical laws (though with quantum effects, this actually only proves that we are probabilistic, with probability functions that are deterministic).
Not that this particular proof yields much insight into our inner workings, but it still works as an argument for determinism as a whole.
"No. The only thing that we know for certain is that we don't presently understand ants. Whether they can or cannot be understood is not directly proven by empyrical evidence, and there is strong circumstantial evidence that they can."
The nervous system of an ant is hugely complex although very simple compared to a dog yet we do not understand the mind of an ant.
So what? I've already conceded that they are complex, and I've already mentioned that we don't _presently_ understand them in their entirity. How does this influence whether or not they _can_ be understood?
You maintain that building a robotic dog and installing an artificial psychology in the mechanical dog will not effect the owner.
I maintain that building a robotic dog of the type described will not _significantly_ adversely affect the psychology of its owner. Will it have _some_ influence? Of course it will. All stimuli affect us to some degree. Will it have the large, harmful effects that you fear? IMO, not for the vast majority of people.
Certainly some people's lives are very much attached to their pets, it will happen with a robotic animal as well if the animal emulates a living thing well enough. The psychology of the robotic animal is likely to be flawed. This may very well (I would say most likely) cause the psychology of the owner to become flawed, it will certainly change it. It's just that simple.
Some people will become attached to robotic pets. Some people are already attached to things like Tamagochis. Some people, as you point out, are attached to stuffed animals to variying degrees (yes, I know exactly how far this can go in Furry circles).
In all cases, this is due to people ascribing qualities to the devices (or plushies) that aren't actually there. There is a similar effect when people make up imaginary friends. Heck, it could be argued that religion is based on similar principles (with your chosen god being the "imaginary friend" in this case). (NOTE THE "COULD BE ARGUED", AND DON'T FLAME ME.) This is a very basic tendency, and as you point out with plushies, it will exist no matter what. IMO, as long as the manufacturers and parents take pains to point out that the dog (or the Tamagochi) *isn't* *real*, and doesn't actually feel emotion, then the harm from this is not significantly more than the harm from anything else (the kid will still think up an imaginary friend or latch on to a stuffed animal if they feel that deeply that there is no human that can be friends with them).
Ever hang out with somebody that was mentally unstable? I have, and it rubs off inevitably.
Yes I do, fairly often. One of my good friends is mentally unstable.
It is often stressful interacting with him, but I don't think that my own psychology has been adversely affected. I interact with many other people; the forces affecting my psychology are acting to make it easier for me to interact with _all_ of them, not just any one in particular.
As long as a robotic toy isn't the _sole_ social influence in a kid's life, their psychology will _not_ be solely based on interactions with it. Logically enough.
"So what? I never claimed that it was. I and the original poster were talking about understanding minds in general and the human mind in particular at this point in the thread. The robotic dog is not relevant for this discussion."
I am the original poster, and the robotic dog is completely relevant to this discussion.
Not to the thread debating whether or not human minds could be understood.
This conversation contains easily dozens of individual threads that we are debating, on various topics. The point that you were responding to was a response to a statement about human minds in general - not the robotic dog or its impact on humans.
I've started splitting my responses up, as this discussion is getting too large to manage in one message.
Re. being the same poster, you seemed to exhibit inconsistency re. believing humans to be deterministic or non-deterministic. In retrospect, this was because you were using a different definition of "determinism" than I use. Choosing an alias would eliminate future misunderstandings, and would also prevent any Anonymous Coward from claiming that they were you (as I've seen happen in other threads with other people).
You don't have to specify your normal email address; a temporary hotmail account can receive your password string as easily as any other account can.
You "believe". You could just as easily say that about an environment that has absolutely no social interaction. This is merely a value judgement of yours. It's an opinion, nothing more.
Instead of berating me, how about responding to the proof that I presented above?
We have growing amounts of violence among the young, that would seem to indicate that less children are receiving the social interaction they need to become functional adults. Do you have another theory as to why violence among the youth has risen? Look at the United States prison statistics.
Prison statistics prove only that more people are put in prison. This reflects less on how many crimes are being committed than on what we consider a crime, and what we choose to put people in prison for.
I've already addressed the topic of youth violence elsewhere.
People are already ignoring people because the consequences are simply no longer there. Being ostracized today isn't what is used to be. If you are being ostracized by your family, fuck them, move to NYC and start over.
And similarly alienate potential friends. If a person has no friends because they're a jerk, moving won't change this. They will either continue moving from place to place wallowing in bitterness, or learn not to be a jerk.
"I'm not saying that introversion is a good thing - I'm just saying that we should try addressing it directly, as opposed to addressing (in reverse chronological order) toys that emulate affection, the Internet, television, comic books, and whatever else people have held up as threats to human interaction over the years. IMO, these people are going after the wrong targets."
"I agree 100%"
"Then why the strong objection to robotic dogs, as opposed to bad parenting?"
Um what? When was parenting mentioned? You think you can "fix" parenting? I have news for you, you can't. What are you going to do, tell parents what deserves positive feedback and what deserves negative feedback? You cannot control parents through legistation.
If you agree that things like the 'net and robotic dogs are the wrong targets, then why do you attack them? You have stated elsewhere that you don't think either influence can be removed, so why not gripe about the real causes of social problems (bad parenting being one case)? Similarly futile, but at least you're complaining about the right thing.
Personally, I feel that we should make an effort (through "parental education initiatives" or what-have-you) to make sure that parents understand that it is important for them to raise their children. Then, if they sill don't bother, we can justifiably say that they brought the problems upon themselves when they try blaming something else.
Endorsing the blaming of incorrect targets IMO does no good and potentially causes a fair bit of harm. If the 'net was shut down to prevent Joe Average Kid from searching for porn, then Joe Average Kid would go back to reading his friend's brother's magazines, and things like this discussion would suddenly become a lot harder.
I'm pointing out that you cannot remove these (Internet, television, etc.) from society, because we are now dependant on them. What I'm trying to indicate is that there has already been damage done, and more is to come. If a parent doesn't see anything wrong with their child hanging out with the mechanical dog, like you don't, the parent will likely not spend as much time with the child.
I see nothing wrong with a child of mine hanging out with a mechanical dog as long as they do spend some time hanging out with human friends as well.
That is substantially different from your statement above, yet I stated it clearly elsewhere.
The real problem is our society is built on escapism. Perhaps we should figure out what we are trying to escape from and eliminate it. It is easy to see that the art of conversation is dead, it's very difficult to find anybody to talk to.
If conversation is dead, then why is there traffic here?
You never go out to socialize and chat with your friends?
Eliminating what we're trying to escape from is impossible, because we're trying to escape from both human nature and the fundamental realities of the world around us. Life isn't always pleasant, so we retreat to fantasies that are more pleasant. Life will never always be pleasant, because jerks always exist and because resources are finite. IMO, the best that we can do is to teach our kids how to deal effectively with the real world, so that they have less of a need to escape. "Less of a need", not "no need".
The higher the potential you reach the happier you are, that's my theory and the more I learn, the happier I am. I never want to stop learning, not because I find learning to be "fun", but because it always brings rewards later. I have been very lucky to experience so much because I've worked to do it. It didn't happen by fucking off, in fact when I did fuck off in college (11 credits, 2.1 GPA semester), I was most depressed - but I smoked a lot of weed and drank a lot of alcohol and saw tons of movies, and had a lot of "fun" - of course it was a waste of a semester but it was "fun".
If you were depressed, it doesn't sound like you were enjoying yourself very much. I reiterate that I personally define "fun" to be "doing things that make me happy". If you drank and were still depressed, I question the logic of calling that "fun".
There's also total integrated "fun" to consider. If I quit my job and smoked crack on the streets, I might be happy when I'm high, but the rest of the time I'd be in abject misery. Net fun lowers.
Re. learning, I learn because I enjoy learning. If this brings me rewards later in life, so much the better.
I do problem sets because they will bring me benefit and allow the potential for future happiness. Not because I enjoy them. If I didn't bother doing problem sets, I might have more time for happiness in the short term, but exam stress and future employment would be a lot worse, resulting in a net loss of happiness down the road. If I spent all of my spare time doing problem sets, I'd probably get perfect marks, but I'd be a lot less happy also.
I consider work a means to an end, not an end in itself. If you actually enjoy your work, then great, but it is not and doesn't have to be the end-all and be-all for the rest of us.
"My point is that parents can make themselves an influence in their childrens' lives, and that (if done right) this can counteract harmful effects from other influences under most conditions."
Sure they "can", but keep in mind that people act almost exclusively on instinct. Take away the natural environment and they will no longer instinctively know how to solve the problem. We are far from being purely intellectual despite our assurances that we are "logical" - we aren't. Here we have video games, 24 hour cartoons, artificial friends, and unlimited access to information - you think a typical parent can handle this?
Sure they can. Turn off the TV. Turn off the computer. Heck, sell the TV if neither you nor your kid benefits from it (but be prepared to provide alternate entertainment for your kid). Take your kid out to the museum or the zoo. Do something else with them.
It isn't _trivial_ to make yourself a part of your kid's life, but it isn't fundamentally impossible, either.
Ultimately the solution is for each parent to take the initiative, but the vast majority of the parents will not.
I agree. However, I believe that it is a worthy goal to work towards, because some of the parents will take initiative, and we can fix the blame squarely where it belongs in most other cases, as they will now have known better.
Which is more fun, to hang out with mom or dad or to play Quake III?
Well, I'd like to get around to playing "Tribes" at some point, but playing games all of the time loses its charm after a while (I've tried it). I socialize with my friends because it _is_ more fun than doing most other things. Otherwise I wouldn't be doing it.
I'm not saying all this is bad, but when we start producing interactive things that are meant to replace interaction with living things, I think we are in danger of crossing a line.
IMO, it would take something along the lines of a true AI to be involving enough to replace interaction with living things, and that will neatly solve the problem (as interacting with a true AI is as socially fulfilling as interacting with a real person, because it _is_ a person). Now, there is the issue of ensuring that the AI itself isn't designed with harmful psychology, but it turns out that there are fairly straightforward ways of doing this (give an AI a drive for self-preservation, and it won't be happy when you beat up on it, for instance).
However, I dout that we'll see this for a few decades yet.
I am not saying that robotic dogs will make humans more deterministic, I'm saying robotic dogs, cats, friends, etc, will make us fucked up because we aren't interacting with something that will give us not only positive feedback by negative feedback. Our brains aren't built to operate in this type of environment. You are free to treat a robotic dog in any manner you see fit, and probably with no guilt associated with it. You could "kill" a robotic dog and feel no remorse (maybe it was even enjoyable to do so), if the same person has interacted with machinery more than humans and gives people the same value as machines, you can run into a serious problem. And this is entirely possible if they never receive negative feedback for doing "bad" things to this "living" machinery.
As long as they still have to interact with other humans on a regular basis, there will still be negative feedback for antisocial behaviors. I've already covered why I think that they will still be exposed to humans. Re. making a masochistic robot dog, I agree that this would probably produce some harm (though I maintain that the majority of people would still turn out ok due to other social influences). IMO, the best way to curb this kind of harm is to legislate that toys of this type should not encourage abusive behavior. This can be enforced (the manufacturers are big enough targets).
Oh?
At most, you probably know about a thousand people. Out of these, a few will have views that are very similar to yours about a given topic. Now, picture a million times as many people. Out of that many, you will find a few that either match your views with fantastic precision on a given topic, or match your views and opinions reasonably well on several topics.
Now, consider all of history, past and present. That bumps up the sample size by a few more orders of magnitude.
If you define "the same" as being atom-for-atom identical, then you are indeed unique. If you define "the same" as being similar enough for most practical purposes, then you are no longer unique. It's a big planet. It's a big universe. There's a lot of history behind us and ahead of us.
And uniqueness is still not terribly relevant. If I could fire a duplicator gun at you and wind up with two identical copies, the copies would be no less human.
If human is "ambiguous" to you, you have a problem.
Ask a room full of philosophers what a human is. You will get an amazing variety of answers, because people tend to have very different opinions on what "being human" involves.
Use something more concrete than this if you are using "humanity" to justify arguments. Tell me *what* about what you consider humanity justifies your point, and tell me why you believe that it is so.
A machine "thinks" in a deterministic preprogrammed manner. The manner in which you think has been built evolutionarily and is constantly being modified throughout your entire lifetime. You are sentient (or at least about as sentient as I am) and you can express yourself uniquely and hold opinions and change them independantly under your own volition - or illusion of volition. If I ask a machine the same question a year later, I will probably get the same answer phrased the same way, from you I will not.
Or, from me, you might. And from the machine, you might not. A strong AI would at the _very_ least base its answers upon everything that it has experienced. Over the course of the year, it will have been exposed to new things. Further, it is likely that any machine capable of demonstrating strong AI behaviour would have to be able to modify parts of its programming. The way in which it modifies itself may be deterministic, but the result won't be (as it is performing modificatins in response to nondeterministic stimuli).
"I'm not trying to provoke; I'm trying to get you to think more carefully about your answer."
Please do not accuse me of being a haphazard thinker. I've thought my position over quite carefully. I can use psychology to back me up. I'm not making wild leaps of faith to support my conclusions.
My apologies. In that case, I am trying to get you to express your reasoning more clearly, as the justifications for some of your statements seem to be missing a few points, which I am pointing out in appropriate paragraphs elsewhere.
See above for my objections to the statement that I was referring to.
"Second of all, I am only "unique" if you use a very narrow set of criteria for recognizing me. Out of the six billion people on the planet, there are going to be many who are extremely similar to me. Expand your search to cover all places and all times, and you can probably find as close a match as you like."
Completely untrue. The criteria is extremely broad. You underestimate the diversity of people. [...] no two people will come to the same conclusions in the same way, this means that changing somebody's opinion will require different solutions to change the same opinion.
You underestimate the _number_ of people, or at least the full effects of this large a sample size. Will you find people who think similarly? That depends on the degree of similarity, but for just about all degrees, I'd say "yes".
You sill haven't said why this is relevant, also. Why would it make a difference in either of our arguments if you could or could not find two people who reacted identically to things? Some people react similarly, some react differently. What of it?
Have you ever met two people that acted the same way in most situations? I haven't and I've met a lot of people.
You've never noticed similarities among your friends? Now, as with the example above, bump up the number of people by a few orders of magnitude, and you'll be able to find pairs with even closer similarity.
You cannot be studied so well that you become 100% predictable or even 80%. When I use "machine" I mean a machine that is deterministic from the point of view of a human being, i.e. predictable. I wouldn't place any mammal in the category of machine because they aren't anywhere near 100% predictable but a robotic dog is.
You've never known what a friend will do before they do it? I know that my friends occasionally complain about me being predictable. I know that I can in many cases predict what a friend will do.
Re. machines necessarily being deterministic, it's easy to build one that isn't. Just make some of its decisions random.
Re. being deterministic "from a human point of view" - why is this important? I've been using "deterministic" and "non-deterministic" in the absolute sense. What happens, in your argument, if you have an entity whose behaviour some people can see the pattern to but others can't? How does my personally being able or not being able to predict a robot's behaviour change the nature of the robot?
No offense, but please reread my last post. I was answering your question as to how talking to a human being on the Internet is significantly different than interacting with a machine controlled by a set of algorithms. Again, I use machine as in "predictable machine".
Then that is the source of one of our conflicts. It is easy to build machines that are non-deterministic, and it is easy to build deterministic machines that are complex enough to appear non-deterministic to a human (look at a standard pseudo-random number generator; that uses a deterministic formula).
Re. the social benefits or lack thereof of melding with the 'net, that depends on what you're reading. I've seen people have thought-provoking discussions on the 'net, but I've also seen people who log into chat rooms and react purely on reflex. Just because there's someone else on the end of the connection doesn't mean that they're making thought-provoking statements, or that you couldn't be having more fulfilling social interactions elsewhere.
Joe Average Kid in a chat room may be having a useful social interaction. Joe Average Kid surfing for porn or pirated games might as well be talking to the robotic dog.
There are plenty of anti-social distractions out there already. IMO, one more won't make that much of a difference.
I'm not going to explain myself down to a masonite block. If you cannot understand the conversation, then I'm no longer willing to converse. What am I getting out of this? What are you telling me?
I am poking holes in your arguments, and arguing for a different point of view. If you would rather leave than defend your statements, I of course have no way of stopping you.
What ideas have you given me so far? None. No offense, but I engage in conversation to get different points of view, I'm not here for your benefit, I'm here for mine. Likewise if you get nothing out of this, you may as well leave as you have no obligation to me either.
When I see someone make a statement that I believe to be incorrect, I have a strong urge to argue the point, so that they and whoever else is listening may be better informed. I am not always right - I don't claim to be infallible - but if I am right, and I argue the point, I have increased the amount of knowledge per capita by an insignificant fraction. If I'm wrong, then at least I've learned a bit more.
That is why I'm here, to answer your question.
You claim that I've presented no ideas? Then what the heck are you disagreeing with me about? I've certainly stated _something_, or else you wouldn't have had anything to reply to.
To recap, my main points are:
Some of these points are in direct conflict with yours, and so we each argue our cases, presenting evidence for our own arguments and poking holes in the arguments of each other.
At what point was I unclear about this?
Consult with a friend in neurobiology for more information on how much we do and do not understand of the brain on a physical level. Find a few good textbooks on neural networks for more information on how much we do and do not know about how the brain and similar structures can process information.
We most certainly don't know everything about the brain, but neither is it a complete mystery, as you claim it to be. And our understanding continues to (slowly) improve.
I don't know about your friends, but most of mine are more socially active than the football-watcher that you describe.
Do I know the people living next door to me? No.
Do I know other people? Yes.
Readily available transportation means that my circle of friends is scattered about the city (and beyond). I still have several close friends and dozens of more casual friends, whom I see and socialize with regularly. My friends have similarly large circles of friends.
I think that you're being overly pessimistic about the amount of socialization that Joe Average participates in. Certainly, you _could_ just sit at home and meld with the TV or the computer in _all_ of your free time, but how many people do you know who actually _do_?
You can easily build a computer that has the ability to "understand" its own design, because a lot of the design _is_ redundant, or easily inferred from basic principles. You don't even need magical software to do this; look up integrated circuit CAD and synthesis tools on the web. Sure, a PII contains several million transistors in the CPU alone, but the VHDL code specifying how it works is much more compact. The implementation can be algorithmically generated by synthesis tools that understand the basic principles of how transistors can be used to implement logic.
Now, you'd get a more efficient version of the chip by designing parts of it by hand, but the automatically generated version will still work, and will be able to run the synthesis tools itself.
IMO, the mind is based on similarly simple principles; it just has a complex implementation.
Picking apart the mind's inner workings will be like picking apart spaghetti code under the best of circumstances, because it was put together by more-or-less random processes working over a very long period of time and so is disorganized. That doesn't mean that we can't understand the compiler, to carry the programming analogy further, or the logic involved in the mind's construction.
Back it up with evidence. We have more antisocial behavior than ever it seems.
Back *that* up with evidence. The operative word here is "seems".
Kids blowing away kids with guns, people getting mugged for sneakers, you name it.
There was an interesting documentary a few years back about television and the Internet. It brought up headlines similar to the ones you describe, with 11-year-olds murdering 11-year-olds and similar atrocities.
The newspeaper headlines were from the first couple of decades of this century. The antisocial behavior was then blamed on comic books.
A very large number of people are anti-social, criminal, selfish, stupid, or a combination of the above. This is true now, and it always _has_ been true. That's human nature. Instead of pointing fingers at the latest fashionable target for blame, try thinking about how to make society work despite the fact that such people exist. They certainly aren't going away.
I don't think the average middle income white person has any idea how the average middle class black person lives - or cares. And it goes both ways. For all people, for all groups, income brackets, and education levels. When is the last time you talked to a somebody that was between 30 and 40 and dropped out of high school? There make up a good section of our population. When is the last time they talked to you?
You're presuming a lot about who I am and am not friends with. Speak only for yourself in this regard, please.
Shit happens dude. And I think this is shit. I'm predicting that this will be ultimately negative for both human beings and for animals.
People happen, "dude". I don't think that this will have any greater an effect on human nature than anything else this century has. What we do in any given decade may be different, but there are still nice people, not so nice people, and actively malevolent people.
"Now, this is much easier said than done, as it is extremely difficult to observe the mind in operation, and it is very complex. However, I'm addressing your point re. it being possible at all. We don't have to know everything that is in our minds to understand how our minds work, IMO."
I still maintain that it is absolutely impossible to do this. We might may very gross generalizations that hold well for many situations, but these are models. Models do not represent reality, they represent a simplified reality so that the real reality can be better understood.
We can come up with increasingly refined models. How refined a model we need depends on what we want to do with it. Understanding how something works does not require that we be able to predict with certainty how it will behave. In fact, for nondeterministic systems, we will never be able to predict behaviour. A coin toss is a good analogy here, though something truly random like quantum tunnelling would be a better example.
Another point is that all depths of understanding are not equal. Understanding how our minds work well enough to create a true AI does not necessarily require that we understand all of the peculiar idiosyncracies of human brains that have built up over several hundred million years of evolution. Only the critical and/or relevant points need be understood.
Why do you feel that our minds must be based on principles too complex to be understood?
You may not be a friend, but you are human. You are unique. You're not a machine.
First of all, I'd appreciate a definition of what "human" means in this context/what aspects of "humanity" you consider important in your statement above. As it stands, that point is too ambiguous to be very meaningful.
Why is my being "human" relevant to the discussion?
I'm not trying to provoke; I'm trying to get you to think more carefully about your answer.
Second of all, I am only "unique" if you use a very narrow set of criteria for recognizing me. Out of the six billion people on the planet, there are going to be many who are extremely similar to me. Expand your search to cover all places and all times, and you can probably find as close a match as you like.
Why is my being "unique" relevant?
I am not a machine? Actually, I beleive that I am (in that I am a physical entity governed entirely by the physical laws of the universe, and could be duplicated perfectly if my physical form was duplicated perfectly).
Why is my being a machine or not a machine relevant to your point?
I get some idea of what you're getting at, but I need it phrased a bit more concretely if I am to debate it.
"Most people have the self-control needed to balance social and non-social behaviours in their life. Some people don't, but IMO they have bigger problems than robotic dogs."
This is an assertion that you will not be able to back up with evidence. Hardly anybody has the self-control that you think they do.
Let me give some context - I believe that most people in an environment similar to the one that most people presently are in have enough self control to (etc). The proof of this is simple. Look around you; most people interact adequately socially and spend an adequate amount of time in social interaction (note that I'm saying "adequate" instead of "wonderful" for both of these points).
You can of course produce extreme cases where a person will not balance these factors. IMO, this is not relevant, as such extreme cases are very unlikely to occur, even with things like robotic dogs around. Humans will always be around too, and ignoring them tends to have very negative consequences.
"I'm not saying that introversion is a good thing - I'm just saying that we should try addressing it directly, as opposed to addressing (in reverse chronological order) toys that emulate affection, the Internet, television, comic books, and whatever else people have held up as threats to human interaction over the years. IMO, these people are going after the wrong targets."
I agree 100%
Then why the strong objection to robotic dogs, as opposed to bad parenting?
"This is most likely pretty accurate. IMO, a good approach to solving this kind of problem is to encourage people to interact more with their children. Then it won't matter if the kid has a television set or a 'net connection or a robotic dog, because there will be something better available to them - a real person."
What a child might perceive as "good" is not necessarily good for the child. Things that bring a developing adult despair are equally important to things that bring a developing adult joy. This is a harsh reality, but happiness isn't attained by having fun, it's attained by work and work is often not fun.
An absence of having fun tends to detract substantially from happiness, from what I can see. Work can sometimes lead to happiness, and is certainly a prerequesite for happiness in a capitalist society, but this is hardly the same as your claim above. In fact, I define "having fun" as being "doing things that make me happy", regardless of whether those things are also considered "work" or not.
Re. what a child percieves as "good"... I'm having trouble seeing what you are getting at. If you're saying that a child might be attracted to behaviour that is ultimately harmful, then I'll agree. However, that doesn't relate directly to my point. My point is that parents can make themselves an influence in their childrens' lives, and that (if done right) this can counteract harmful effects from other influences under most conditions.
So, I don't see the problem with a robotic dog or a TV or a 'net connection if the kid is also properly exposed to other humans.
The second we can decontruct psychology to explain all aspects of human nature in minute detail is the second we cease to non-deterministic.
We will always be nondeterministic, because the stimuli that affect us are nondeterministic, and influence our "programming". Our "programming" will therefore change in nondeterministic ways even if the principles governing our minds are deterministic. At best we are probabilistic, and chaos severely limits how far into the future predictions can be usefully extended.
And if it turns out that we are deterministic, why would it make a difference whether we knew about it or not? I'd _rather_ know, personally.
Ant's are too complex for us to understand completely.
No. The only thing that we know for certain is that we don't presently understand ants. Whether they can or cannot be understood is not directly proven by empyrical evidence, and there is strong circumstantial evidence that they can.
This "dog" isn't even close to a dog, it operated on completely different principles, it's not even close to being a life form.
So what? I never claimed that it was. I and the original poster were talking about understanding minds in general and the human mind in particular at this point in the thread. The robotic dog is not relevant for this discussion.
Insane people exist. IMO, it is better to recognize them and restrict their actions if necessary than to restrict the actions of *all* of the populace. This best preserves the freedom of individuals in general.
However, as mentioned in another thread, I don't think that we're in danger of interacting primarily with robots any time soon. Every time a major entertainment fad has shown up, this kind of concern has been voiced, but so far it doesn't seem to have been warranted.
Not that there aren't other problems that need fixing; see my previous messages.
Well, bear in mind that there's a fair bit of random noise injected into our feedback loops, which makes our behaviour more probabilistic than strictly deterministic.. O:).
I see where you're coming from, but I think that human-to-human interaction is prominent enough in peoples' lives even with robotic dogs that this isn't a big threat.
If the Evil Empire locked us in a room from birth with only carefully programmed machines to interact with, then we would probably develop standardized personalities (to within the limits imposed by physical variations to our brains and noise perturbing our thoughts), but IMO anything short of such an impractical isolation would have a hard time standardizing people to the extent that you fear.
Just another opinion.
Similarly, you could be out socializing with friends instead of surfing on Slashdot reading this.
Most people have the self-control needed to balance social and non-social behaviours in their life. Some people don't, but IMO they have bigger problems than robotic dogs.
I'm not saying that introversion is a good thing - I'm just saying that we should try addressing it directly, as opposed to addressing (in reverse chronological order) toys that emulate affection, the Internet, television, comic books, and whatever else people have held up as threats to human interaction over the years. IMO, these people are going after the wrong targets.
Do you know how you can make a sociopath? Have a kid and give it no affection for the first 4 years of life, the resultant adult will exhibit complete indifference to the welfare of others.
This is most likely pretty accurate. IMO, a good approach to solving this kind of problem is to encourage people to interact more with their children. Then it won't matter if the kid has a television set or a 'net connection or a robotic dog, because there will be something better available to them - a real person.
If we could understand ourselves, we would be too simple to understand outselves.
Not strictly true. We can understand the principles upon which we operate, without having to hold in our minds every memory, association, and piece of data that is held in our minds (which is indeed impossible). IMO, an understanding of psychology adequate for building a true AI would consist of understanding thoroughly the principles upon which the mind operates, and understanding the more important association links that form in humans. Anything beyond that is IMO most likely extraneous.
Now, this is much easier said than done, as it is extremely difficult to observe the mind in operation, and it is very complex. However, I'm addressing your point re. it being possible at all. We don't have to know everything that is in our minds to understand how our minds work, IMO.
Just my two cents worth.
Why is this sinister?
By similar arguments, Tamagochis are unhealthy and stuffed animals shouldn't exist either.
This isn't real, and the buyers fully know that it isn't real. Where is the problem? I'm having trouble seeing where you are coming from with this.
I doubt it. It started too early and has gone on too long.
And we won't be getting more information until next week, according to Daily Static
You got me :).
Can anyone independently confirm this (ideally by talking to Linus)? After the recent hype about the processor, this seems suspiciously like marketing vapour (though I could well be mistaken).
If I understand correctly, this lets you change the playback speed of an MP3 by turning a vinyl record. It's set up so that when the record is playing at normal speed, the MP3 is playing at normal speed. When you stop the record or move it backwards, the MP3 playing stops or moves backwards. If you "scratch" the record by moving it back and forth, MP3 playback moves back and forth in the same way. The idea is to make it sound as if the MP3 was stamped into the record, which lets you do the same kinds of record tricks that DJs did when records were common.
_If_ I understand correctly
Chromatic abberation would get ugly, however, as different wavelengths would be affected to very different degrees by the camera's lenses. This is probably what limits the camera's sensing into the ultraviolet (in the EUV/soft x-ray range, the lenses will cease to have much effect).
The lower sensing limit is a bit harder to get around. To detect far infrared (including thermal infrared), you have to use special materials that respond to photons of these low energies, and more importantly you have to cool your detector so that "glow" from the camera and thermal noise don't swamp the signals that you are trying to measure. I played with a thermal infrared camera a while ago; it had a bulky housing that cooled the sensor with IIRC liquid helium (though in retrospect liquid nitrogen seems more likely, as it would do the job adequately and would be easier to contain).
So, in summary, you could build an artificial eye that saw blurrily from the near infrared to moderately deep ultraviolet, but thermal infrared is a lot harder.
Thanks for the offer; I'm just waiting for direct approval from either Rowan or CmdrTaco, and then I'll email a copy to you.
I've finished an edited and nicely-formatted version of the essay. I need either Rowan or CmdrTaco to give me the go-ahead to post it.
Also, does anyone (Rob?) have web space to post the edited article? My workplace would be most annoyed if our web server got slashdotted.
Ok, I'm starting to get confused here, which means that I'm probably not interpreting your points correctly.
So that I may better see where you are coming from, please clarify:
I've been reading this to mean tweaking OS or application code to make products better serve a specific company. Due to the closed nature of most software presently in use, this doesn't happen much.
I count sysadmins as sysadmins, unless they do a fair bit of coding for pay. I use "programmer" to mean someone who has a full-time job writing code (or at least primarily writing code).
My impression of the industry is that most programmers (using the definition above) spend their time doing software development for companies that are releasing commercial products, be they the next version of an operating system (large or small), the next version of an application (ditto), drivers, proprietary utilities, or what-have-you.
I could be wrong about this, but I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying about how you view the breakdown of labour in the software industry.
This depends on what you do with the data that you get. Mixing flour and sugar because people usually buy both is silly, but putting the flour next to the sugar on the shelves isn't.
I worked with a similar data mining endeavor in the past. Our goal was to figure out what banner ads the user might actually find interesting. As long as the application of the results is kept within the bounds of sanity, data mining can actually produce valid results.
I know that if a banner ad on cheap alpha boxes showed up, I might actually click on it.