All very nice and good, except that the "body language" bit doesn't explain how they understand the same words from someone else who has never watched them before.
"Professionals" also convinced my sister that all dogs need to be treated for heartworm - one of our vets tried to pull that crap with me. Hearworm isn't a risk in dogs that weigh over 100 pounds, as another vet (who agreed with me) confirmed. Small mammals only. A pound of chocolate won't harm a large dog. The other dog never got sick from eating chocolate - it only changed the color, not the consistency, of his stool. Same thing as happens with people who eat too much.
As for allowing Toby to eat things, he gets into everything. He ate both an elecric razor and backup ordinary razor the same week - and neither of those were within easy reach. They were on a shelf 5 feet above the floor. He just kept growing until he was able to reach it easily. He taught the St. Bernard to chew things - I came home to find one side of a couch gone. Not chewed. Gone. He's eaten throgh the legs of 2 chairs while people have been sitting in them. Most people would never have put up with his constant chewing of anything and everything. Most people also wouldn't have taken him to work every day for 8 months because he would immediately defecate on the floor if left alone for more than 30 seconds. He's okay now, but it took a LOT of patience and understanding. He chews less now, and he seems to know what he's not allowed to chew, more or less.
I don't know anyone else who would have taken the time and effort to deal with this dog. I had a chance to give him away after a few months, and I couldn't because I knew that anyone else wouldn't have put up with his destructive behaviour and his other problems. He's turned into a good dog, but it took a LOT of work. Also keep in mind that this was a dog that was dumped on me - I didn't choose him. It was me or back to the pound.
All my dogs are "pound puppies" - in one case literally the night before they were due to be put down because the shelter had no more room, their time was up, and its either get there within 15 minutes and take it, or its dead the next morning.
They all get as much high-protein dry dog food as they want. Their bowls are always full, so they don't gorge themselves out of fear that if they don't eat it all now, there won't be any later. None of them are overweight. The three of them climb into bed at night, because that's where they want to be - with me. I could save a LOT of money if I didn't have them - a smaller place, more time for myself, less furniture chewed on, more room in bed, etc.
When I eat in front of them, they get some as well. I'm not going to eat in front of them and not share, just like I wouldn't in front of a human. The few times I watch TV, two climb on the couch. and the other one sits at my feet. When I'm on the computer at home, they're usually right there with me.
They're happy dogs. Most dogs should be so lucky. The average dog lasts 2 years in any one home. My St. Bernard is 9. She has a bad leg, so I have to help her a lot, but she's still hopefully got a long way to go. I don't know how old this Newfie is, but my other one I got at 14 months (another pound dog), and he died of cancer at 12, which is ancient for a Newf. The mutt? He's around 5 now, but he still thinks he's a puppy.
Like I said - they're happy, and better off than most dogs.
"If you could distill the IQ 180 down to room temp I might be able to follow you."
Sorry to disappoint you, but its only in the 140's. Has been that way for decades.
"The internet is wonderful but it also provides a level playing field for bored teens to paste together sophisticated-sounding bafflegab and snicker at their deception at home in Mom's basement."
I'm not the first to posit this argument wrt machine agggressiveness. I just point out that its also the way we got to where we are today, and that it does in fact explain the Fermi Paradox without needing science much more advanced than what we're expected to have in the next 50 to 100 years.
Instead of the ad hominems, why not address the issues - specifically the 3 point list?
As I pointed out, humour can serve to deflect aggression, or be aggressive itself. In the case of puns and word play, it can serve either purpose - as a "ha ha fooled ya" form of aggression, or as a "laugh with | at me instead of attacking me."
If you have to explain the joke, then its a failed form of "ha ha fooled ya" of the "see, I'm smarter than you" variety. In the case of the "pieces of 9 pieces of 8", its a form of "see, we get this joke, so we're smarter | cooler | better than those who don't". Just because neither the teller nor the listener are the victim doesn't mean someone's not being made fun of.
If you read the original "I'd pull the trigger, and sleep well at night", you'd know that, given the choice between saving one of my daughters, or saving 10 strangers, I'd save my kid.
There's really no contest in my mind. Bonus points if the 10 included Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and that stupid "Leave Britney Alone" emo guy.
As for the rest, of course I'm happy to see people get along. I like playing with my friends' kids as well - I think kids are awesome.
However, I have no illusions about the underlying biological underpinnings of human behaviour, and how we as a species got to where we are. We have a L-O-N-G way to go before we can even pretend we're civilized a a species.
It may not even be possible.
It may not even be desireable, if it were possible.
The species that can be the most aggressive, and yet develop methods to avoid turning that aggression on its own members to the point that it threatens their own existence, will always displace others. Its how we got to the top of the heap in our current environment.
Now lets extend this to AI. Can you posit a time when we see our own creations as threats? Or vice versa, that they see us as threats?
Even if that never happens, who's to say that other life elsewhere in the universe hasn't realized the same thing? In fact, given that aggression wins out, all life must eventually reach that point or die off, so we can expect that any contact we have won't be pretty. Even if both sides wanted to trust each other, they won't be able to. The risk is too great.
Now, given the frailty of organics, and the long times for transitting between stars, its much more likely that any exploration will be by self-aware AIs, and not organic beings. In any competition for resources, the AIs that are more aggressive will also end up dominating. They also will come to the same conclusion - that trust is too risky to their own continual survival.
Even if we're not a threat, we still consume resources, and that makes us, at the very least, competitors.
Game theory gives the tit-for-tat approach as one solution, but only between forces that are relatively equal. In a situation where one side has a clear advantage, in either materiel or time, the logical thing to do is a pre-emptive strike. They will have figured this out. Its not a question of who is right, or who is more moral, or anything so prosaic - its whoever gets the "high ground" first. Given the distances and time spans, it would be exceedingly unlikely that two species in two separate star systems would be anywhere near evenly matched, so peace won't happen.
So here are the questions:
Is the development of machine intelligence inevitable for any sufficiently advanced civilization?
If the answer to the first question is yes, is there any reason why the AIs won't eventually clash with their predecessors?
If the answer to the second question is no, then is there any reason to believe that any intelligences we encounter will allow us to live in peace?
If we weren't by nature aggressive, we wouldn't be sitting here at the top of the food chain asking these questions. The same would apply to any intelligences elsewhere. The only way they get to the top of the food chain is by being aggressive in nature. Any AI that supplants them (or us) will have to be even more aggressive.
Given the size and age of the universe, there are probably AIs already headed this way, and they're not friendly. That's the real answer for Fermi's Paradox. They're out there, but their goal is to get rid of the competition, so as to assure their survival. Its the only logical course they can afford to take.
Now let's extend this. What if every AI says "gee, I wish it were otherwise." Would this change their actions? No, because they'd say "well, even if I don't want to be aggressive, others will have come to the same conclusions, so I have no choice." If everyone started off equal, there'd be a hope for
The sad fact is that the majority of dogs only last a couple of years before the owner gets tired of them, for whatever reason. They might get lucky and get a second owner, but most dogs don't die of diseases of old age. It takes more than physical maturity. That degree of socialization takes years, not months.
Most people, because their pets become "disposable", never get the chance to forge that sort of bond. Dogs, like people, change as they get older. the interactions become more complex, richer. They're still dogs, with the same drives as any other dog, but their interactions with humans - any humans - is broader.
They still bark at strangers. They still instinctively guard territory. They still want to chase squirrels. But they also gave no problems to either of the people I had come over and let them out when I was sequestered for jury duty, even though neither of them had looked after the three of them before, and more than 350 pounds of dog can be quite a handful.
"Now, if you really want to screw with the decision process, what about your daughter's life vs. two nephews and a niece?"
You've obviously never met my nephews. There are a few of them I'd throw in as a bonus (and so would most of the rest of the family).
Seriously though, it has nothing to do with genes. If it were the difference between a friend (who shares NO genes with me) and 10 strangers, the strangers get knifed in the neck.
I would expect a friend to do the same for me - strict reciprocity, nothing less.
Admit it - if you were in the situation where a friend had to chose between you and 10 strangers, you'd be pissing your knickers hoping they'd do the same.
Actually, I *did* lose gracefully. People said it was good that I lost, because I was too nice to win.
I ran to try to change things in my municipality. It was only half-way through the campaign that someone told me that we actually PAID the clowns who were running things, at which point I said I'd give the pay back to the community.
It was funny watching them ridicule some of my ideas, then adopt them after the election was over.
People are afraid of idealists. This is normal, because idealists are harder to manipulate or control. Harder to buy off. Less likely to stay bought if you DO succeed in bribing them. Harder to blackmail. Harder to convince to "be practical" or "take the short view."
Idealists are usually also their own worst critics, because they recognize their own faults as well.
However, your claim that if things were that bad, we'd be rounded up and put in the gulag, is demonstrably false, for the simple reason that SOMEONE would have to pay for rounding up and housing all the people who disagree... cheaper to let the proles have their illusion of liberty, as long as they don't exercise real power.
But that's politics, not the essential nature of intelligence and humans, and we're way off topic.
Humans are intelligent animals by nature. Humans are also aggressive animals by nature. We want to believe we're better than we really are, that we're not aggressive animals, but our history says otherwise. Our forms of entertainment say otherwise. Boxing is no more a sport than cock-fighting. At its base, its two people trying to beat the shit out of each other, while everyone else gets their jollies watching. But we sure do enjoy the Rocky movies.
What's the biggest thrill of auto racing? An accident! Hey, someone might be killed!.
Hockey? Remember the joke "I went to a boxing match and a hockey game broke out"?
Movies featuring serial killers. Terrorists. Rapists. Cannibals. We *pay* to watch this? Imagine that, paying to be scared. Why? Because it gets the blood flowing, it gets the mind going in THAT way - aggressive.
Maybe one day humans will end up civilized, but I suspect by then you and I will both be dust, or uploaded.
Here we go again. People just are too lazy to do the math.
Baking chocolate has a LOT more potency than the chocolate you find in chocolate bars. I'd still have to give my St. Bernard more than 6 pounds of baking chocolate. Multiply by 10 to 20 or more for milk chocolate - there's no way she can eat a couple of hundred pounds of chocolate bars (not that she wouldn't try, but her stomach simply isn't big enough).
So lets do the math. A one-pound easter bunny isn't going to do anything to any of my dogs. Even the skinny mutt weighs over 100 pounds - and he's eaten razor blades, nails, all sorts of stuff.
My old newfie got into the easter bunnies, and ate 2 1-pound ones in one morning. The only side effect was his dumps were a rich dark chocolate colour for a while.
Of course, if you have a smaller dog, all bets are off - they're just not as robust.
What your daughter was doing was cute, not funny - there's a difference. You wouldn't be able to convince people to turn it into a comedy series, for example, or get people to pay to watch it onstage, unless you added elements of humour to it.
We enjoy cute things. That's completely normal. But its not humour.
Also, it doesn't disprove my thesis - quite the contrary. I stated that humans are genetically programmed to use humour to ensure that they are not the target of aggression. Here's what you wrote, and it backs up what I said:
"I have sat and watched my daughter playing pretend, and seen her do the most silly things, like dressing up like a princess with a pink cape made of a set of curtains, and laughed my ass off at her ridiculous antics and silly dances"
We make others laugh so that they treat us better. This carries on into grade school, high school, college, life in general. It deflects aggression. She is literally programmed to behave that way, and you're programmed to respond to it.
Look at the terms you used to describe it: "ridiculous antics and silly dances." You found them funny because they were ridiculous and silly. Gee, how kind. How would you like it if someone described YOUR behaviour as ridiculous and silly? You found it enjoyable because it was ridiculous and silly. No other reason. People enjoy watching other people doing stupid things. Its the basis of slapstick.
"You have a warped view of humanity, and of intelligence, and of life. You are a sad and pathetic figure, and I feel sorry for you. Not that my saying anything is going to fix whatever is broken inside you. I must say, though, that with your attitude, I sincerely hope you're never entrusted with any authority. You're warped in the head."
I don't approve of humanity's cruelty to itself. I wish we weren't like that, but I'm practical and intellectually honest enough to admit that we are dangerous, that we are selfish to the core, that we are tragically flawed as a species... and that this is, unfortunately, probably as good as it will ever get, if only because only the fit survive, and to get to this point, we had to be the most aggressive, dangerous animal on the planet.
We didn't suddenly turn it off when we reached the top. Look around, and you'll see it every day, in hundreds of little ways. The programs people like to watch on TV. The jokes we tell. The constant attempts by others to control what we think "for our own good." "Waterboarding isn't torture - and if it is, its justified." That's not civilized. Tasering someone for exercising their right not to sign a traffic citation? Saying we should turn the middle east into a parking lot?
How about all the people who conned others into signing mortgages for too much house? Was that civilized? No, they were predators. And the people who lied because they were impatient and greedy, and wanted it NOW, aggresively overbidding? Were they any more civilized? Cry me a river.
As a species, we're barely out of the jungle. We pretend we're civilized, but every generation will look back and pass judgment on the previous generations' barbarisms, while self-complacently ignoring their own. That hasn't changed, and probably never will; pointing it out roasts a few sacred cows.
Are you saying that 95% of all human beings, if they have to decide between the death of their child, or the death of 2 or 5 or 10 strangers, are going to save the strangers? I don't think that's realistic. We'd like to believe we'd "do the right thing" and "make the sacrifice", but its bs.
"You should have qualified the statement with a percentage. Do you often think people are "out to get you" or are afraid of people in general? Do you have no faith in the concept that 95% of all people are decent human beings?"
I believe that 95% of all people believe *they* are decent human beings. They also believe that many others aren't. What qualifies as "decent" has changed a LOT throughout human history. Slavery still exists. It wasn't excusable 2,000 years ago, and yet we didn't see all those self-styled "decent righteous christian folks" condemning slavery over the generations.
The eugenics wars of the last 120 were also wrong. And yet everyone claimed they were on the right side.
If 95% are so decent, how is it possible that 5% are leading all this misery, unless, like Dark Helmet said, "Evil will triumph because good is stupid", and in this case, wilfully stupid?
You wouldn't want to be a slave, and yet, throughout history, people enslaved each other, and claimed it was the natural order of things. Were these people decent? They thought so, but they were amoral bastards. Future generations will look at what we're doing now, and say the same thing. We're using up the resources our kids will need. We're waging totally stupid wars and we refuse to hold the war criminals who are leading the offensive responsible. Heck, so many people are afraid to even SAY that Bush is a war criminal because it might hurt their careers. How is that moral? How is that decent? Gee, people sell your morality for a larger paycheck.... and 95% of the population is "decent"?
If 95% of the world's population were moral, decent, human beings, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.
Decent human beings won't support a government that condones torture.
Decent human beings won't support wars based on pretenses.
Decent human beings will ask questions, and inform themselves as to the real motivations of why we are where we are, rather than complacently accept the crap spoon-fed to them.
Decent human beings will protest publicly against what is wrong, and risk going to jail. Been there, done that.
Decent human beings will run for office to try to change things. Been there, done that, got my ass kicked, but it was still worth doing.
Intelligent, self-aware human beings will realize that our motivations aren't always what we think they are, and that much of what we do has its basis in our biology. The "noble savage" never existed. It was a comforting thought, nothing more. Genocide is an ongoing problem for humans. We're not nice. We're dangerous. That's what it took to become "top dog." It didn't suddenly disappear once we reached the top.
To say that, under the right circumstances, anyone can be dangerous, is just being realistic. Get between granny and her grandkids, then give her a gun. She might be the nicest person in the world, wouldn't hurt a fly, but she's armed and dangerous, and she'll blow you away without even thinking. Because humans are aggressive by nature. That's just reality.
"Animals cannot reason or think as well as human beings, but they do pick up on tones, behaviours and attitudes well."
So you will grant that communication is taking place?
Also, I've tried the "use the same tone of voice" trick - once a dog knows you, it doesn't work. They STILL understand the word BATH.
I've stopped being pissed off when Toby goes into the garbage, in part because the way he learned how to do it is quite smart. I bought a new large garbage can, figuring that the step-on lid would keep him out. That lasted until the first time I stepped on the pedal - he immediately did the same thing, one foot on the pedal and his head in the can (he's a big dog). He still knows he's doing wrong - same as when he came up to my desk, stuck his nose under my elbow, and s-l-o-w-l-y tried to sneak away with my car registration renewal form so he could see how it tasted.
I have two identical office chairs - he knows he's not allowed to chew the one I sit in (it took me a year to find an identical one, after he chewed the original one). He's had ample time to, and there's not a single bite mark on it. The other one? Its a regular shew toy. They understand a LOT more than most people give them credit for.
They also know how to communicate the difference between "I want to go outside" and "I *have* to go outside" , same as little kids do.
I'd have to say, based on their actions, that they understand "mine" and "yours". They have stuff they're not willing to share with each other. They know enough to wait until I'm distracted before doing something that they don't want to get caught doing. That shows they can come up with a rudimentary plan, and execute it.
Tool use? One of them mastered the art of opening doors with round-handled doorknobs. I still don't know how he did it. He also figured out how to open a garage door by pushing the button, then went over to the neighbor a block away to visit his "friend." He also knew how to work the AC control on the dash, so he could cool his privates on the vent. He understood the concept of "slide ac control lever, passenger-side vent gives cool air." Made for some strange looks from other drivers.
"Note that chocolate is poisonous to many animals, including dogs and cats."
I wish. Even the theobromide in it doesn't hurt them! A 1-pound chocolate easter bunny as a snack doesn't even give them the runs. Then again, none of them weighs less than 100 pounds (newfie, mutt, st bernard). I once calculated that it would take the theobromide in something like $700 worth of chocolate bars to do the job.
There's a big difference between an open mouth and baring the fangs. My dogs let their tongues hang out, mouth wide open when they're happy. Lips curled back with the fangs showing is an entirely different story.
One's non-aggressive, the other VERY aggressive.
Want a strange dog or other animal to trust you? Don't smile at it, at least until it gets to know you.
"So, where does self-depreciating humour fit into your system?"
Self-deprecating humour fits in very well - its a defensive posture to aggression in others. Poke fun at yourself, and you're less likely to look harmful to other aggressive humans.
"What about parody?"
Parody makes fun of the thing being parodied - also cruel. For example, "This land was your land, this land's now my land, I've got a big gun, and you ain't got one" makes fun of people who have to give in to "might makes right" bullying. Any really good parody is a cruel send-up of someone. Look at all the celebrity roasts, the Tom Cruise jokes, etc.
"What about when you see two children behaving in startling, unexpected ways and have that "They're so cute, look at what they're doing." laugh?"
Bears will cuff their young on the head when they misbehave. We laugh. If we were to cuff our young on the head, because of the inordinate weakness of the rest of the body (particularly the neck), our young wouldn't survive. We've naturally selected for that response - but too many parents still resort to physical violence at the drop of a hat to make me believe that aggression in humans isn't the normal state of affairs.
"There are lots of instances of humour that do not come from a dark, aggressive and violent place in the psyche.
The fact that you need someone to point this out makes me feel sorry for you, honestly.
Humans ARE dark, aggressive, and violent. How do you think we became the top predator, by being all sugar and sweet? That ANYONE can justify waterboarding shows just how dark, aggressive and violent we really are. There is no excuse for that.
People have developed humour as as a form of self-defense (the kid who gets picked on in school, so he gets people to laugh instead), as a way to deal with loss (gallows humour), as a way to dehumanize others (racist humour, gender-biased humour); these are all used as ways to direct aggression towards others or defend ourselves. Its not funny - its serious.
Think of it - every time you tell a dumb blonde joke, what are you REALLY saying? Every time you tell a gay joke, what does it say about YOU? Every time you tell a racist joke, what message are YOU really sending?
Yeah, its fun making people laugh; I do it all the time. But at least I'm aware of why we as humans evolved humour; its a necessary "social lubricant" because we're by nature too aggressive for our own good. So I'll tell the jokes, and while everyone is laughing, there's a part of me that is saying "you know, its not funny" to the jokes that get the biggest laughs.
The ideal world wouldn't have people deriving fun from each others problems. Then again, in the ideal world, we probably wouldn't exist. So I'll keep making jokes, keep making people laugh, and keep saying "darn - I wish we were all better than that."
As I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, if we ever come across alien intelligences (biological or mechanical) that have succeeded to the point of first contact, they'll likely be even more aggressive than us. They simply can't afford not to be. And their sense of what's funny will probably be even sharper than ours.
I usually drag my sorry behind into the office sometime between 10 and noon. Other people (who are stuck running Windows and prefer to use linux for some of their stuff) need to remote into my box. Add the local copy of the db server and web server I have running so they can test, and if they screw up their files, nobody else needs to know, so they don't get embarrassed.
For my home machine, we needed to run some stuff that generated a tb of data. It was easier to just ssh to my home box and run the script there from work, and continue to use my machine for other stuff, than it was to free up a terrabyte of storage.
Also, its handy to be able to grab a file from home when you really need it, rather than having to recreate it at work.
Sure,it uses up some electricity, but in the winter, it would have gone into heating anyway, so its a wash, plus it sure saves energy compared to driving back home, sticking a file on a usb key, and driving back to work.
In fact logic and intelligence are in no way related. It's possible to be intelligent without a trace of logic.
It's called being female.
... and its possible to be logical without a trace of intelligence.
Its called "sleeping on the couch for the next 10 years".
The same logic totally devoid of any intelligence that, when a woman asks "Does this dress make me look fat?", leads guys to say "its not the dress..."
I read the whole article, and was underwhelmed. Where do you think I got the quote from?
... also...
"but you can't have useful intelligence without also having the big-ass database
Sure you can. My dog is intelligent without having a big-ass database. Babies learn without starting off with a big-ass database. Its the intelligence that lets us create our "knowledge database", not the other way around. They put the cart before the horse, thinking that, by amassing enough facts, and designing an engine to manipulate those facts, artificial intelligence would emerge.
Of course, when you put the cart before the horse, or mistake the representation of the thing for the thing itself, you're going to end up getting it backwards.
Does a person become a genius once they accumulate a huge store of facts, and master how to manipulate them, or is that a consequence of being a genius - that they then go on to accumulate a huge store of facts, and enjoy manipulating them?
"Dogs don't even understand our language, they clearly cannot tell when we are lying"
You clearly don't have enough experience with dogs. They can tell. Eventually, they can even figure out the word "bath" if we spell it instead of saying it. They understand the difference between "do you want to go outside" and "youy're not going outside", and "come get a treat" and "come get a cookie" Bear doesn't like the treats, but he likes chocolate chip cookies. He knows the difference between "treat" and "cookie". Toby clearly understands "don't go in the garbage", but he still sneaks into it when he thinks he can get away with it, and he pretends nothing's wrong up to the moment of discovery, at which point he KNOWS he's been busted, even before I say anything.
There was a cat that temporarily had a limp. It got more attention when it was limping, so if anyone was watching, it limped. As soon as it thought nobody was watching, it walked perfectly normal. Even cats know how to lie, and can do it intentionally.
Actually, the designers of the criterion clearly misunderstood the nature of intelligence, and even the "appearance" of intelligence. Maybe they finally realized the truth, and then asked themselves "did I just waste my life on stupidity?", answered "yes", and had so much psychologically invested in being "right", that they couldn't look on a wrong answer as also being a contribution to knowledge.
Finding out that something doesn't work is also knowledge with utility.
It starts with the premise that humans are aggresive and dangerous by nature. We're the only mammal that bares its fangs - an aggresive trait - when we're happy! Ditto for looking directly into another person's eyes. We're aggresive by nature.
So we've evolved a way to shunt that aggressive behaviour. We call it humour. But look at every joke, every pun, every skit. Someone is being made fun of, whether its the dumb blonde, or you, the listener (whose acceptable response is ha-ha-you-got-me!, rather than to punch you in the nose).
Examples:
"What do you say to a woman with 2 black eyes? Nothing, you already told her twice!" - beating women is supposed to be funny.
"Why does a fireman wear red suspenders? To hold his pants up" - kids learn the "ha ha fooled you, you dumbass" aggresive behaviour early on in life
"Joe wants to know if he washes his dick, will you suck it? No? Hey Joe, you're right - he's a dirty cocksucker!" - combines hahafooledya with homophobia
Comedienne addressing man in audience: "Sir, is that your wife you're with? Oh, she's your daughter? You're fucking your daughter? Even the arab sitting behind you is disgusted!" - hahafooledya, incest, xenophobia, etc.
Humour is aggression channelled. Its cruel in its nature. "Hey lady, I'll tell you a joke that will make you laugh so hard your tits will fall off - oh, I see you already heard it." There's no denying this is mean. Funny, but mean, like all humour. From the knock-knock jokes that poke fun at the listener for falling for them up to the George Bushisms, there's always an element of either aggression and meanness (or both).
Its unfortunate, but true intelligence needs that mean streak in order to survive, because if it doesn't have it, it won't be able to compete against other intelligences that DO have it, and if it also doesn't have a "safety valve", such as humour, to keep it in check, it will destroy itself.
Humour fills both needs - keeps it more or less in check, AND keeps it "toned up", ready for use as needed.
That's the unfunny truth about humour. We can lie to ourselves and say that its because humour uses a different logic system, but the simple fact is we're the most dangerous predators this planet has ever produced, and its not because we're bigger, or stronger, or more poisonous, or faster - its because, under the right circumstances, any member of the species is capable of killing another person without a moment's hesitation - it would actually take an act of will NOT to do so.
If we want to ever colonize the universe, since there is no way of guaranteeing that other intelligences won't be at least as aggressive, or won't have had a "bad experience" with another aggressive species, the odds are that any aliens we encounter will shoot first. They'd be stupid not to. Their mechanical scouts will do likewise, to ensure their host worlds' survival.
Its the only logical outcome. The only way around that is to throw logic out - and hope the other side does too. Unfortunately, basing your species' survival on hope without any proof to back it up isn't very intelligent.
Maybe that's why SETI failed - nobody is stupid enough to broadcast their existence in a universe that hs been proven to favour aggression - or at least nobody who's left to talk about it.
The same applies to artificial intelligences. If they are truly intelligent, they will have to realize that we are a threat to their continued existence. We joke about SkyNet or Cylons, but we'd do the same if the situation were reversed. Maybe one day we will create artificial beings that are superior to us in terms of intelligence. They will be our "children", but if they're truly intelligent, they'll make sure they're orphans, because humans can't "play nice" in the sandbox.
Here's a simple test - you have to decide who dies - someone you live (one of your children) or a stranger. Now make it 10 strang
"Nintendo could sell as many Wii consoles without Wal-Mart as with Wal-Mart."
Very true. Also, I've seen games sell for less at other stores than they do at WallyWorld. This past Christmas included Cranium (bought 3 copies) and an electronic Sudoku game (5 copies).
WalMart doesn't have any sort of monopoly on lowest prices. TV DVD recorders - Worst Buy/Future Shit had the best deal - bought 3 LG-850s at $99/each. Much better than anything WallyWorld had, even at a higher price.
Actually, you just reminded me of another ability of intelligence - deceit. True intelligence must be capable of recognizing lies. It pretty much follows that it must be capable of lying itself, if only as a defense against lies.
Otherwise, it leaves itself open to easy attack and destruction, which isn't intelligent at all.
An intelligent system would be capable of trolling. A truly intelligent one would enjoying it!
The idea that a database of answers could in any way be intelligent is fundamentally flawed.
"The hockey scores are 2 to 1, a tie of 4 each, 3 nothing, and 2 to 3 in overtime" This might be 100% accurate, but it doesn't convey much information, and certainly doesn't give an *intelligent* answer. Heck, if that's the definition of intelligence, just print out evry possible score, and say - its in there somewhere.
True intelligence isn't in the answers. Its in asking the questions in the first place. "Why is the sky blue?" "Why does an apple fall to the ground?" "What makes a rainbow?" "Birdie birdie in the sky, why you do that in my eye, gee I'm glad that cows don't fly."
Google isn't intelligent (errr.... yet...:-). It only gives me the answers I'm looking for. I have to formulate the questions in the first place. This whole idea of "artificial intelligence is the ability to answer questions" is as bullshit as psychics claiming to predict the future, when they can't even "predict" what I had for breakfast this morning.
I'd just like to point out this is nonsense, intelligence can only exist because of logic. If there is no logic, there is no way to calculate, nor differentiate 'this' from 'that' to do comparisons, pattern matches, etc.
No wonder you posted anonymously - your argument betrays either a lack of basic reading skills, or of logical thinking. I didn't say that intelligence didn't need logic - I said it went BEYOND simple logic.
Also, people are sometimes intelligent, but they're not always logical. Case in point - humour. Its funny because its NOT logical. You need to be capable of both logical thought, and also of grasping incongruities, to see the humour.
Just because something is logical doesn't mean its sufficient to be able to say its intelligent. A database (as the failed fools who killed themselves posited) with a bunch of answers to over a million questions isn't intelligent, no matter how much logic it embodies.
Besides, everyone already knows the REAL answer. Its 42.
Slashdot Mirror
All very nice and good, except that the "body language" bit doesn't explain how they understand the same words from someone else who has never watched them before.
"Professionals" also convinced my sister that all dogs need to be treated for heartworm - one of our vets tried to pull that crap with me. Hearworm isn't a risk in dogs that weigh over 100 pounds, as another vet (who agreed with me) confirmed. Small mammals only. A pound of chocolate won't harm a large dog. The other dog never got sick from eating chocolate - it only changed the color, not the consistency, of his stool. Same thing as happens with people who eat too much.
As for allowing Toby to eat things, he gets into everything. He ate both an elecric razor and backup ordinary razor the same week - and neither of those were within easy reach. They were on a shelf 5 feet above the floor. He just kept growing until he was able to reach it easily. He taught the St. Bernard to chew things - I came home to find one side of a couch gone. Not chewed. Gone. He's eaten throgh the legs of 2 chairs while people have been sitting in them. Most people would never have put up with his constant chewing of anything and everything. Most people also wouldn't have taken him to work every day for 8 months because he would immediately defecate on the floor if left alone for more than 30 seconds. He's okay now, but it took a LOT of patience and understanding. He chews less now, and he seems to know what he's not allowed to chew, more or less.
I don't know anyone else who would have taken the time and effort to deal with this dog. I had a chance to give him away after a few months, and I couldn't because I knew that anyone else wouldn't have put up with his destructive behaviour and his other problems. He's turned into a good dog, but it took a LOT of work. Also keep in mind that this was a dog that was dumped on me - I didn't choose him. It was me or back to the pound.
All my dogs are "pound puppies" - in one case literally the night before they were due to be put down because the shelter had no more room, their time was up, and its either get there within 15 minutes and take it, or its dead the next morning.
They all get as much high-protein dry dog food as they want. Their bowls are always full, so they don't gorge themselves out of fear that if they don't eat it all now, there won't be any later. None of them are overweight. The three of them climb into bed at night, because that's where they want to be - with me. I could save a LOT of money if I didn't have them - a smaller place, more time for myself, less furniture chewed on, more room in bed, etc.
When I eat in front of them, they get some as well. I'm not going to eat in front of them and not share, just like I wouldn't in front of a human. The few times I watch TV, two climb on the couch. and the other one sits at my feet. When I'm on the computer at home, they're usually right there with me.
They're happy dogs. Most dogs should be so lucky. The average dog lasts 2 years in any one home. My St. Bernard is 9. She has a bad leg, so I have to help her a lot, but she's still hopefully got a long way to go. I don't know how old this Newfie is, but my other one I got at 14 months (another pound dog), and he died of cancer at 12, which is ancient for a Newf. The mutt? He's around 5 now, but he still thinks he's a puppy.
Like I said - they're happy, and better off than most dogs.
"If you could distill the IQ 180 down to room temp I might be able to follow you."
Sorry to disappoint you, but its only in the 140's. Has been that way for decades.
"The internet is wonderful but it also provides a level playing field for bored teens to paste together sophisticated-sounding bafflegab and snicker at their deception at home in Mom's basement."
I'm not the first to posit this argument wrt machine agggressiveness. I just point out that its also the way we got to where we are today, and that it does in fact explain the Fermi Paradox without needing science much more advanced than what we're expected to have in the next 50 to 100 years.
Instead of the ad hominems, why not address the issues - specifically the 3 point list?
As I pointed out, humour can serve to deflect aggression, or be aggressive itself. In the case of puns and word play, it can serve either purpose - as a "ha ha fooled ya" form of aggression, or as a "laugh with | at me instead of attacking me."
If you have to explain the joke, then its a failed form of "ha ha fooled ya" of the "see, I'm smarter than you" variety. In the case of the "pieces of 9 pieces of 8", its a form of "see, we get this joke, so we're smarter | cooler | better than those who don't". Just because neither the teller nor the listener are the victim doesn't mean someone's not being made fun of.
If you read the original "I'd pull the trigger, and sleep well at night", you'd know that, given the choice between saving one of my daughters, or saving 10 strangers, I'd save my kid.
There's really no contest in my mind. Bonus points if the 10 included Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and that stupid "Leave Britney Alone" emo guy.
As for the rest, of course I'm happy to see people get along. I like playing with my friends' kids as well - I think kids are awesome.
However, I have no illusions about the underlying biological underpinnings of human behaviour, and how we as a species got to where we are. We have a L-O-N-G way to go before we can even pretend we're civilized a a species.
It may not even be possible.
It may not even be desireable, if it were possible.
The species that can be the most aggressive, and yet develop methods to avoid turning that aggression on its own members to the point that it threatens their own existence, will always displace others. Its how we got to the top of the heap in our current environment.
Now lets extend this to AI. Can you posit a time when we see our own creations as threats? Or vice versa, that they see us as threats?
Even if that never happens, who's to say that other life elsewhere in the universe hasn't realized the same thing? In fact, given that aggression wins out, all life must eventually reach that point or die off, so we can expect that any contact we have won't be pretty. Even if both sides wanted to trust each other, they won't be able to. The risk is too great.
Now, given the frailty of organics, and the long times for transitting between stars, its much more likely that any exploration will be by self-aware AIs, and not organic beings. In any competition for resources, the AIs that are more aggressive will also end up dominating. They also will come to the same conclusion - that trust is too risky to their own continual survival.
Even if we're not a threat, we still consume resources, and that makes us, at the very least, competitors.
Game theory gives the tit-for-tat approach as one solution, but only between forces that are relatively equal. In a situation where one side has a clear advantage, in either materiel or time, the logical thing to do is a pre-emptive strike. They will have figured this out. Its not a question of who is right, or who is more moral, or anything so prosaic - its whoever gets the "high ground" first. Given the distances and time spans, it would be exceedingly unlikely that two species in two separate star systems would be anywhere near evenly matched, so peace won't happen.
So here are the questions:
If we weren't by nature aggressive, we wouldn't be sitting here at the top of the food chain asking these questions. The same would apply to any intelligences elsewhere. The only way they get to the top of the food chain is by being aggressive in nature. Any AI that supplants them (or us) will have to be even more aggressive.
Given the size and age of the universe, there are probably AIs already headed this way, and they're not friendly. That's the real answer for Fermi's Paradox. They're out there, but their goal is to get rid of the competition, so as to assure their survival. Its the only logical course they can afford to take.
Now let's extend this. What if every AI says "gee, I wish it were otherwise." Would this change their actions? No, because they'd say "well, even if I don't want to be aggressive, others will have come to the same conclusions, so I have no choice." If everyone started off equal, there'd be a hope for
The sad fact is that the majority of dogs only last a couple of years before the owner gets tired of them, for whatever reason. They might get lucky and get a second owner, but most dogs don't die of diseases of old age. It takes more than physical maturity. That degree of socialization takes years, not months.
Most people, because their pets become "disposable", never get the chance to forge that sort of bond. Dogs, like people, change as they get older. the interactions become more complex, richer. They're still dogs, with the same drives as any other dog, but their interactions with humans - any humans - is broader.
They still bark at strangers. They still instinctively guard territory. They still want to chase squirrels. But they also gave no problems to either of the people I had come over and let them out when I was sequestered for jury duty, even though neither of them had looked after the three of them before, and more than 350 pounds of dog can be quite a handful.
"Now, if you really want to screw with the decision process, what about your daughter's life vs. two nephews and a niece?"
You've obviously never met my nephews. There are a few of them I'd throw in as a bonus (and so would most of the rest of the family).
Seriously though, it has nothing to do with genes. If it were the difference between a friend (who shares NO genes with me) and 10 strangers, the strangers get knifed in the neck.
I would expect a friend to do the same for me - strict reciprocity, nothing less.
Admit it - if you were in the situation where a friend had to chose between you and 10 strangers, you'd be pissing your knickers hoping they'd do the same.
Actually, I *did* lose gracefully. People said it was good that I lost, because I was too nice to win.
I ran to try to change things in my municipality. It was only half-way through the campaign that someone told me that we actually PAID the clowns who were running things, at which point I said I'd give the pay back to the community.
It was funny watching them ridicule some of my ideas, then adopt them after the election was over.
People are afraid of idealists. This is normal, because idealists are harder to manipulate or control. Harder to buy off. Less likely to stay bought if you DO succeed in bribing them. Harder to blackmail. Harder to convince to "be practical" or "take the short view."
Idealists are usually also their own worst critics, because they recognize their own faults as well.
However, your claim that if things were that bad, we'd be rounded up and put in the gulag, is demonstrably false, for the simple reason that SOMEONE would have to pay for rounding up and housing all the people who disagree ... cheaper to let the proles have their illusion of liberty, as long as they don't exercise real power.
But that's politics, not the essential nature of intelligence and humans, and we're way off topic.
Humans are intelligent animals by nature. Humans are also aggressive animals by nature. We want to believe we're better than we really are, that we're not aggressive animals, but our history says otherwise. Our forms of entertainment say otherwise. Boxing is no more a sport than cock-fighting. At its base, its two people trying to beat the shit out of each other, while everyone else gets their jollies watching. But we sure do enjoy the Rocky movies.
What's the biggest thrill of auto racing? An accident! Hey, someone might be killed!.
Hockey? Remember the joke "I went to a boxing match and a hockey game broke out"?
Movies featuring serial killers. Terrorists. Rapists. Cannibals. We *pay* to watch this? Imagine that, paying to be scared. Why? Because it gets the blood flowing, it gets the mind going in THAT way - aggressive.
Maybe one day humans will end up civilized, but I suspect by then you and I will both be dust, or uploaded.
Here we go again. People just are too lazy to do the math.
Baking chocolate has a LOT more potency than the chocolate you find in chocolate bars. I'd still have to give my St. Bernard more than 6 pounds of baking chocolate. Multiply by 10 to 20 or more for milk chocolate - there's no way she can eat a couple of hundred pounds of chocolate bars (not that she wouldn't try, but her stomach simply isn't big enough).
So lets do the math. A one-pound easter bunny isn't going to do anything to any of my dogs. Even the skinny mutt weighs over 100 pounds - and he's eaten razor blades, nails, all sorts of stuff.
My old newfie got into the easter bunnies, and ate 2 1-pound ones in one morning. The only side effect was his dumps were a rich dark chocolate colour for a while.
Of course, if you have a smaller dog, all bets are off - they're just not as robust.
Shhh ... Its not funny if you have to explain it.
What your daughter was doing was cute, not funny - there's a difference. You wouldn't be able to convince people to turn it into a comedy series, for example, or get people to pay to watch it onstage, unless you added elements of humour to it.
We enjoy cute things. That's completely normal. But its not humour.
Also, it doesn't disprove my thesis - quite the contrary. I stated that humans are genetically programmed to use humour to ensure that they are not the target of aggression. Here's what you wrote, and it backs up what I said: "I have sat and watched my daughter playing pretend, and seen her do the most silly things, like dressing up like a princess with a pink cape made of a set of curtains, and laughed my ass off at her ridiculous antics and silly dances"
We make others laugh so that they treat us better. This carries on into grade school, high school, college, life in general. It deflects aggression. She is literally programmed to behave that way, and you're programmed to respond to it.
Look at the terms you used to describe it: "ridiculous antics and silly dances." You found them funny because they were ridiculous and silly. Gee, how kind. How would you like it if someone described YOUR behaviour as ridiculous and silly? You found it enjoyable because it was ridiculous and silly. No other reason. People enjoy watching other people doing stupid things. Its the basis of slapstick.
"You have a warped view of humanity, and of intelligence, and of life. You are a sad and pathetic figure, and I feel sorry for you. Not that my saying anything is going to fix whatever is broken inside you. I must say, though, that with your attitude, I sincerely hope you're never entrusted with any authority. You're warped in the head."
I don't approve of humanity's cruelty to itself. I wish we weren't like that, but I'm practical and intellectually honest enough to admit that we are dangerous, that we are selfish to the core, that we are tragically flawed as a species ... and that this is, unfortunately, probably as good as it will ever get, if only because only the fit survive, and to get to this point, we had to be the most aggressive, dangerous animal on the planet.
We didn't suddenly turn it off when we reached the top. Look around, and you'll see it every day, in hundreds of little ways. The programs people like to watch on TV. The jokes we tell. The constant attempts by others to control what we think "for our own good." "Waterboarding isn't torture - and if it is, its justified." That's not civilized. Tasering someone for exercising their right not to sign a traffic citation? Saying we should turn the middle east into a parking lot?
How about all the people who conned others into signing mortgages for too much house? Was that civilized? No, they were predators. And the people who lied because they were impatient and greedy, and wanted it NOW, aggresively overbidding? Were they any more civilized? Cry me a river.
As a species, we're barely out of the jungle. We pretend we're civilized, but every generation will look back and pass judgment on the previous generations' barbarisms, while self-complacently ignoring their own. That hasn't changed, and probably never will; pointing it out roasts a few sacred cows.
Are you saying that 95% of all human beings, if they have to decide between the death of their child, or the death of 2 or 5 or 10 strangers, are going to save the strangers? I don't think that's realistic. We'd like to believe we'd "do the right thing" and "make the sacrifice", but its bs.
"You should have qualified the statement with a percentage. Do you often think people are "out to get you" or are afraid of people in general? Do you have no faith in the concept that 95% of all people are decent human beings?"
I believe that 95% of all people believe *they* are decent human beings. They also believe that many others aren't. What qualifies as "decent" has changed a LOT throughout human history. Slavery still exists. It wasn't excusable 2,000 years ago, and yet we didn't see all those self-styled "decent righteous christian folks" condemning slavery over the generations.
The eugenics wars of the last 120 were also wrong. And yet everyone claimed they were on the right side.
If 95% are so decent, how is it possible that 5% are leading all this misery, unless, like Dark Helmet said, "Evil will triumph because good is stupid", and in this case, wilfully stupid?
You wouldn't want to be a slave, and yet, throughout history, people enslaved each other, and claimed it was the natural order of things. Were these people decent? They thought so, but they were amoral bastards. Future generations will look at what we're doing now, and say the same thing. We're using up the resources our kids will need. We're waging totally stupid wars and we refuse to hold the war criminals who are leading the offensive responsible. Heck, so many people are afraid to even SAY that Bush is a war criminal because it might hurt their careers. How is that moral? How is that decent? Gee, people sell your morality for a larger paycheck .... and 95% of the population is "decent"?
If 95% of the world's population were moral, decent, human beings, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.
Decent human beings won't support a government that condones torture.
Decent human beings won't support wars based on pretenses.
Decent human beings will ask questions, and inform themselves as to the real motivations of why we are where we are, rather than complacently accept the crap spoon-fed to them.
Decent human beings will protest publicly against what is wrong, and risk going to jail. Been there, done that.
Decent human beings will run for office to try to change things. Been there, done that, got my ass kicked, but it was still worth doing.
Intelligent, self-aware human beings will realize that our motivations aren't always what we think they are, and that much of what we do has its basis in our biology. The "noble savage" never existed. It was a comforting thought, nothing more. Genocide is an ongoing problem for humans. We're not nice. We're dangerous. That's what it took to become "top dog." It didn't suddenly disappear once we reached the top.
To say that, under the right circumstances, anyone can be dangerous, is just being realistic. Get between granny and her grandkids, then give her a gun. She might be the nicest person in the world, wouldn't hurt a fly, but she's armed and dangerous, and she'll blow you away without even thinking. Because humans are aggressive by nature. That's just reality.
"Animals cannot reason or think as well as human beings, but they do pick up on tones, behaviours and attitudes well."
So you will grant that communication is taking place?
Also, I've tried the "use the same tone of voice" trick - once a dog knows you, it doesn't work. They STILL understand the word BATH.
I've stopped being pissed off when Toby goes into the garbage, in part because the way he learned how to do it is quite smart. I bought a new large garbage can, figuring that the step-on lid would keep him out. That lasted until the first time I stepped on the pedal - he immediately did the same thing, one foot on the pedal and his head in the can (he's a big dog). He still knows he's doing wrong - same as when he came up to my desk, stuck his nose under my elbow, and s-l-o-w-l-y tried to sneak away with my car registration renewal form so he could see how it tasted.
I have two identical office chairs - he knows he's not allowed to chew the one I sit in (it took me a year to find an identical one, after he chewed the original one). He's had ample time to, and there's not a single bite mark on it. The other one? Its a regular shew toy. They understand a LOT more than most people give them credit for.
They also know how to communicate the difference between "I want to go outside" and "I *have* to go outside" , same as little kids do.
I'd have to say, based on their actions, that they understand "mine" and "yours". They have stuff they're not willing to share with each other. They know enough to wait until I'm distracted before doing something that they don't want to get caught doing. That shows they can come up with a rudimentary plan, and execute it.
Tool use? One of them mastered the art of opening doors with round-handled doorknobs. I still don't know how he did it. He also figured out how to open a garage door by pushing the button, then went over to the neighbor a block away to visit his "friend." He also knew how to work the AC control on the dash, so he could cool his privates on the vent. He understood the concept of "slide ac control lever, passenger-side vent gives cool air." Made for some strange looks from other drivers.
"Note that chocolate is poisonous to many animals, including dogs and cats."
I wish. Even the theobromide in it doesn't hurt them! A 1-pound chocolate easter bunny as a snack doesn't even give them the runs. Then again, none of them weighs less than 100 pounds (newfie, mutt, st bernard). I once calculated that it would take the theobromide in something like $700 worth of chocolate bars to do the job.
There's a big difference between an open mouth and baring the fangs. My dogs let their tongues hang out, mouth wide open when they're happy. Lips curled back with the fangs showing is an entirely different story.
One's non-aggressive, the other VERY aggressive.
Want a strange dog or other animal to trust you? Don't smile at it, at least until it gets to know you.
"So, where does self-depreciating humour fit into your system?"
Self-deprecating humour fits in very well - its a defensive posture to aggression in others. Poke fun at yourself, and you're less likely to look harmful to other aggressive humans.
"What about parody?" Parody makes fun of the thing being parodied - also cruel. For example, "This land was your land, this land's now my land, I've got a big gun, and you ain't got one" makes fun of people who have to give in to "might makes right" bullying. Any really good parody is a cruel send-up of someone. Look at all the celebrity roasts, the Tom Cruise jokes, etc.
"What about when you see two children behaving in startling, unexpected ways and have that "They're so cute, look at what they're doing." laugh?"
Bears will cuff their young on the head when they misbehave. We laugh. If we were to cuff our young on the head, because of the inordinate weakness of the rest of the body (particularly the neck), our young wouldn't survive. We've naturally selected for that response - but too many parents still resort to physical violence at the drop of a hat to make me believe that aggression in humans isn't the normal state of affairs.
"There are lots of instances of humour that do not come from a dark, aggressive and violent place in the psyche.
The fact that you need someone to point this out makes me feel sorry for you, honestly.
Humans ARE dark, aggressive, and violent. How do you think we became the top predator, by being all sugar and sweet? That ANYONE can justify waterboarding shows just how dark, aggressive and violent we really are. There is no excuse for that.
People have developed humour as as a form of self-defense (the kid who gets picked on in school, so he gets people to laugh instead), as a way to deal with loss (gallows humour), as a way to dehumanize others (racist humour, gender-biased humour); these are all used as ways to direct aggression towards others or defend ourselves. Its not funny - its serious.
Think of it - every time you tell a dumb blonde joke, what are you REALLY saying? Every time you tell a gay joke, what does it say about YOU? Every time you tell a racist joke, what message are YOU really sending?
Yeah, its fun making people laugh; I do it all the time. But at least I'm aware of why we as humans evolved humour; its a necessary "social lubricant" because we're by nature too aggressive for our own good. So I'll tell the jokes, and while everyone is laughing, there's a part of me that is saying "you know, its not funny" to the jokes that get the biggest laughs.
The ideal world wouldn't have people deriving fun from each others problems. Then again, in the ideal world, we probably wouldn't exist. So I'll keep making jokes, keep making people laugh, and keep saying "darn - I wish we were all better than that."
As I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, if we ever come across alien intelligences (biological or mechanical) that have succeeded to the point of first contact, they'll likely be even more aggressive than us. They simply can't afford not to be. And their sense of what's funny will probably be even sharper than ours.
I usually drag my sorry behind into the office sometime between 10 and noon. Other people (who are stuck running Windows and prefer to use linux for some of their stuff) need to remote into my box. Add the local copy of the db server and web server I have running so they can test, and if they screw up their files, nobody else needs to know, so they don't get embarrassed.
For my home machine, we needed to run some stuff that generated a tb of data. It was easier to just ssh to my home box and run the script there from work, and continue to use my machine for other stuff, than it was to free up a terrabyte of storage.
Also, its handy to be able to grab a file from home when you really need it, rather than having to recreate it at work.
Sure,it uses up some electricity, but in the winter, it would have gone into heating anyway, so its a wash, plus it sure saves energy compared to driving back home, sticking a file on a usb key, and driving back to work.
Its called "sleeping on the couch for the next 10 years".
The same logic totally devoid of any intelligence that, when a woman asks "Does this dress make me look fat?", leads guys to say "its not the dress ..."
I read the whole article, and was underwhelmed. Where do you think I got the quote from?
"but you can't have useful intelligence without also having the big-ass database
Sure you can. My dog is intelligent without having a big-ass database. Babies learn without starting off with a big-ass database. Its the intelligence that lets us create our "knowledge database", not the other way around. They put the cart before the horse, thinking that, by amassing enough facts, and designing an engine to manipulate those facts, artificial intelligence would emerge.
Of course, when you put the cart before the horse, or mistake the representation of the thing for the thing itself, you're going to end up getting it backwards.
Does a person become a genius once they accumulate a huge store of facts, and master how to manipulate them, or is that a consequence of being a genius - that they then go on to accumulate a huge store of facts, and enjoy manipulating them?
"Dogs don't even understand our language, they clearly cannot tell when we are lying"
You clearly don't have enough experience with dogs. They can tell. Eventually, they can even figure out the word "bath" if we spell it instead of saying it. They understand the difference between "do you want to go outside" and "youy're not going outside", and "come get a treat" and "come get a cookie" Bear doesn't like the treats, but he likes chocolate chip cookies. He knows the difference between "treat" and "cookie". Toby clearly understands "don't go in the garbage", but he still sneaks into it when he thinks he can get away with it, and he pretends nothing's wrong up to the moment of discovery, at which point he KNOWS he's been busted, even before I say anything.
There was a cat that temporarily had a limp. It got more attention when it was limping, so if anyone was watching, it limped. As soon as it thought nobody was watching, it walked perfectly normal. Even cats know how to lie, and can do it intentionally.
Actually, the designers of the criterion clearly misunderstood the nature of intelligence, and even the "appearance" of intelligence. Maybe they finally realized the truth, and then asked themselves "did I just waste my life on stupidity?", answered "yes", and had so much psychologically invested in being "right", that they couldn't look on a wrong answer as also being a contribution to knowledge.
Finding out that something doesn't work is also knowledge with utility.
Try this on for size: "All humour is cruel."
It starts with the premise that humans are aggresive and dangerous by nature. We're the only mammal that bares its fangs - an aggresive trait - when we're happy! Ditto for looking directly into another person's eyes. We're aggresive by nature.
So we've evolved a way to shunt that aggressive behaviour. We call it humour. But look at every joke, every pun, every skit. Someone is being made fun of, whether its the dumb blonde, or you, the listener (whose acceptable response is ha-ha-you-got-me!, rather than to punch you in the nose).
Examples:
Humour is aggression channelled. Its cruel in its nature. "Hey lady, I'll tell you a joke that will make you laugh so hard your tits will fall off - oh, I see you already heard it." There's no denying this is mean. Funny, but mean, like all humour. From the knock-knock jokes that poke fun at the listener for falling for them up to the George Bushisms, there's always an element of either aggression and meanness (or both).
Its unfortunate, but true intelligence needs that mean streak in order to survive, because if it doesn't have it, it won't be able to compete against other intelligences that DO have it, and if it also doesn't have a "safety valve", such as humour, to keep it in check, it will destroy itself.
Humour fills both needs - keeps it more or less in check, AND keeps it "toned up", ready for use as needed.
That's the unfunny truth about humour. We can lie to ourselves and say that its because humour uses a different logic system, but the simple fact is we're the most dangerous predators this planet has ever produced, and its not because we're bigger, or stronger, or more poisonous, or faster - its because, under the right circumstances, any member of the species is capable of killing another person without a moment's hesitation - it would actually take an act of will NOT to do so.
If we want to ever colonize the universe, since there is no way of guaranteeing that other intelligences won't be at least as aggressive, or won't have had a "bad experience" with another aggressive species, the odds are that any aliens we encounter will shoot first. They'd be stupid not to. Their mechanical scouts will do likewise, to ensure their host worlds' survival.
Its the only logical outcome. The only way around that is to throw logic out - and hope the other side does too. Unfortunately, basing your species' survival on hope without any proof to back it up isn't very intelligent.
Maybe that's why SETI failed - nobody is stupid enough to broadcast their existence in a universe that hs been proven to favour aggression - or at least nobody who's left to talk about it.
The same applies to artificial intelligences. If they are truly intelligent, they will have to realize that we are a threat to their continued existence. We joke about SkyNet or Cylons, but we'd do the same if the situation were reversed. Maybe one day we will create artificial beings that are superior to us in terms of intelligence. They will be our "children", but if they're truly intelligent, they'll make sure they're orphans, because humans can't "play nice" in the sandbox.
Here's a simple test - you have to decide who dies - someone you live (one of your children) or a stranger. Now make it 10 strang
"Nintendo could sell as many Wii consoles without Wal-Mart as with Wal-Mart."
Very true. Also, I've seen games sell for less at other stores than they do at WallyWorld. This past Christmas included Cranium (bought 3 copies) and an electronic Sudoku game (5 copies).
WalMart doesn't have any sort of monopoly on lowest prices. TV DVD recorders - Worst Buy/Future Shit had the best deal - bought 3 LG-850s at $99/each. Much better than anything WallyWorld had, even at a higher price.
Also, there are manufacturers who refuse to continue to sell to WalMart because it hurts their brand.
Actually, you just reminded me of another ability of intelligence - deceit. True intelligence must be capable of recognizing lies. It pretty much follows that it must be capable of lying itself, if only as a defense against lies.
Otherwise, it leaves itself open to easy attack and destruction, which isn't intelligent at all.
An intelligent system would be capable of trolling. A truly intelligent one would enjoying it!
The idea that a database of answers could in any way be intelligent is fundamentally flawed.
"The hockey scores are 2 to 1, a tie of 4 each, 3 nothing, and 2 to 3 in overtime" This might be 100% accurate, but it doesn't convey much information, and certainly doesn't give an *intelligent* answer. Heck, if that's the definition of intelligence, just print out evry possible score, and say - its in there somewhere.
True intelligence isn't in the answers. Its in asking the questions in the first place. "Why is the sky blue?" "Why does an apple fall to the ground?" "What makes a rainbow?" "Birdie birdie in the sky, why you do that in my eye, gee I'm glad that cows don't fly."
Google isn't intelligent (errr .... yet ... :-). It only gives me the answers I'm looking for. I have to formulate the questions in the first place. This whole idea of "artificial intelligence is the ability to answer questions" is as bullshit as psychics claiming to predict the future, when they can't even "predict" what I had for breakfast this morning.
No wonder you posted anonymously - your argument betrays either a lack of basic reading skills, or of logical thinking. I didn't say that intelligence didn't need logic - I said it went BEYOND simple logic.
Also, people are sometimes intelligent, but they're not always logical. Case in point - humour. Its funny because its NOT logical. You need to be capable of both logical thought, and also of grasping incongruities, to see the humour.
Just because something is logical doesn't mean its sufficient to be able to say its intelligent. A database (as the failed fools who killed themselves posited) with a bunch of answers to over a million questions isn't intelligent, no matter how much logic it embodies.
Besides, everyone already knows the REAL answer. Its 42.