The Technological Singularity and super intelligence revolution

[crazy canuck]

I find it kind of weird to argue that humans cannot do what biology has already done without humans.

It is some kind of weird, "Watchmaker" kind of argument...

I suppose if humans can ever replicate what biology now does without humans anything is possible.  But that is still in the realm of science fiction.

[Berkut]

I find it kind of weird to argue that humans cannot do what biology has already done without humans.

It is some kind of weird, "Watchmaker" kind of argument...

I suppose if humans can ever replicate what biology now does without humans anything is possible.  But that is still in the realm of science fiction.

I am not sure I understand your comment. What do you mean?

Humans are a product of evolution. My point is that it seems silly to claim that it is even theoretically impossible for humans to do what has been done without humans, via evolution and random selection.

We can, of course, replicate what evolution does ourselves, and we've done so in many, many examples.

[crazy canuck]

I find it kind of weird to argue that humans cannot do what biology has already done without humans.

It is some kind of weird, "Watchmaker" kind of argument...

I suppose if humans can ever replicate what biology now does without humans anything is possible.  But that is still in the realm of science fiction.

I am not sure I understand your comment. What do you mean?

Humans are a product of evolution. My point is that it seems silly to claim that it is even theoretically impossible for humans to do what has been done without humans, via evolution and random selection.

We can, of course, replicate what evolution does ourselves, and we've done so in many, many examples.

Why do you assume that because something has been done without human intervention that human intervention could cause the same thing to be done.  Are you assuming computers can evolve naturally?

And we replicate evolution?  We have bred animals and plants to have certain characteristics.  But we are still trying to figure out our own DNA.  We are long way off from replicating evolution.

[Iormlund]

CC, genetic algorithms mimicking actual evolution have been a thing for ages.

The way machine learning works is the programmer sets up an environment where the software can improve itself.

[Berkut]

Why do you assume that because something has been done without human intervention that human intervention could cause the same thing to be done.  Are you assuming computers can evolve naturally?[/size]And we replicate evolution?  We have bred animals and plants to have certain characteristics.  But we are still trying to figure out our own DNA.  We are long way off from replicating evolution.

Evolution works without understanding anything about "our own DNA". You don't need to understand anything about DNA to engage in evolution, and we have been using evolution to produce species of plants and animals we want for hundreds of years without even knowing there was anything such thing as DNA.

There are entire species of animals and plants that exist and thrive today because humans understood evolution enough to create them, even if they had never even heard the word evolution to begin with.

There are all kinds of systems that work without any singular intelligence understanding them at all - indeed, intelligence itself is a result of some those systems.

The argument that humans cannot, even in theory, do what systems that have managed to do without any intelligence guiding them at all is not just a bad conclusion, it is objectively wrong.

How could it be the case that *adding* intelligence into the mix could make it LESS possible to accomplish something, at least in theory? Surely directed evolution, as an example, can at the very least achieve what non-directed evolution has accomplished. And in fact we know this to be true, because we have dogs and grain and roses and all kinds of species of living things that only exist because humans consciously or even in some cases unconsciously drove them to exist.

[The Brain]

Humans cannot stray into the domain of the Lord God.

[Berkut]

CC, genetic algorithms mimicking actual evolution have been a thing for ages.

Indeed - it is actually really damn cool. You can get solutions to problem that you simply cannot understand. You just know they work because...well, they work.

You can create an easy thought experiment to show this. Lets imagine a black box that generates a number between 1 and 100. Prior to starting, we have no idea what number the box will generate, or what system it uses to generate that number, we just know it generates a number. We don't know what the number is, we only know if we get the answer right or wrong. So our test box generates a number.

Now, if we understood HOW it generated the number, we could write a program to predict what it generates. Lets say it uses some incredibly complex algorithm that checks the orbits of the planets at some point in time, then multiplies it by an atomic clock, and takes the modulus of that 100 to get the number, and thrown in a hundred other complex permutations in there for giggles. If we understood all that, and we knew the input variables, with sufficient time we could replicate its logic and generate the right number.

Or we could just feed it numbers from 1 to 100 until it tells us which one is right. We don't understand WHY we are right at all, but we may not really care. We have the right answer, and we did it by a dumb simple "learning" algorithm that only learns what numbers are not correct, and knows not to check them again.

We have a computer now that can solve this incredibly complex problem that we may not understand at all.

This is a gross over-simplification of how evolution works. The mechanism of evolution doesn't understand why or how it works, it just uses random fluctuation to try various crap until something is a little bit better and repeats.

[Razgovory]

I find it kind of weird to argue that humans cannot do what biology has already done without humans.

It is some kind of weird, "Watchmaker" kind of argument...

It is a watchmaker argument.  Human evolved, machines do not.  They are produced by intelligent design (that is by people).  Evolution is slow, but it has one enormous advantage.  It's not directed.  Nobody has to know where it's going or how to get there.  Planning isn't necessary.  Computer programming requires design.  You have to know where you are going.  If you can't know where to go, you can't plan to get there and you can't move in that direction.

[crazy canuck]

CC, genetic algorithms mimicking actual evolution have been a thing for ages.

The way machine learning works is the programmer sets up an environment where the software can improve itself.

Evolution is a process of mutation based on a number of factors.  What you are talking about seems to be more about programming a system that can learn certain things.  Aren't those two things different? 

[crazy canuck]

This is a gross over-simplification of how evolution works. The mechanism of evolution doesn't understand why or how it works, it just uses random fluctuation to try various crap until something is a little bit better and repeats.

That wasnt just a gross over simplification.  That isnt evolution at all.

[frunk]

CC, genetic algorithms mimicking actual evolution have been a thing for ages.

The way machine learning works is the programmer sets up an environment where the software can improve itself.

Evolution is a process of mutation based on a number of factors.  What you are talking about seems to be more about programming a system that can learn certain things.  Aren't those two things different?

Here's how a genetic algorithm works:

1.  A bunch of programs with different traits are set loose to compete for resources.
2.  Those that do well pass on their traits to more "children" than those who don't.
3.  Add in the potential for mutations, crossbreeding and the like.

For most uses it isn't an attempt to simulate evolution, it's an attempt to mimic evolutionary processes to get to a specific solution.  The point is that genetic algorithms can get to unpredictable and unimaginable answers, not that it is replicating evolution.  For the purposes that it is used it is far superior to evolution, which would be much less reliable.

[Berkut]

CC, genetic algorithms mimicking actual evolution have been a thing for ages.

The way machine learning works is the programmer sets up an environment where the software can improve itself.

Evolution is a process of mutation based on a number of factors.

It is a process of natural selection actually. Mutation is just one part of evolution. A necessary, but far from sufficient condition.

What you are talking about seems to be more about programming a system that can learn certain things.  Aren't those two things different? 

You can program a system that uses principles of evolution to evaluate solutions.

[Berkut]

This is a gross over-simplification of how evolution works. The mechanism of evolution doesn't understand why or how it works, it just uses random fluctuation to try various crap until something is a little bit better and repeats.

That wasnt just a gross over simplification.  That isnt evolution at all.

Argument by assertion is not argument at all.

[The Brain]

I don't understand why this discussion exists.

Or rather I do.

[11B4V]

Trunk Monkey FTW.