• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Preventing artificial intelligence from taking on negative human traits.

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by sjastro, May 6, 2021.

  1. J_B_

    J_B_ Well-Known Member

    536
    +179
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    You have not addressed my point. I didn't say computers are incapable of beating chess masters. It's happened, so obviously it's a thing. It's also a thing (though not a surprising one), that people are getting better at making chess-playing programs.

    Brute force cut and try, superimposed on a computer by human will through code, with no demonstration of understanding, no matter how elegant one might think the algorithm by which this occurs, is not teaching or learning in the sense in which the word is used in a human context. It's an appropriation and redefinition of the word.

    Maybe you only mean those terms in an AI context and never meant to conflate them with their use in a human context, but the very tone of the OP says otherwise. Why do I think that? Because I am not aware of a rigorous AI definition of those terms used within the field. In everything I've read on AI, it's only ever used in a loosely illustrative sense.

    That the issue of AI "morality" has now leaked into the conversation is evidence of such. For these people to set themselves up as the gods of AI who will keep these autonomous beings in check and guarantee their morality is laughable. Duh. It was never in question that people are responsible for the consequences of their inventions. It didn't need to be said. I suppose it's comforting in some way for them to acknowledge their responsibility, but it didn't need to be said. The law already holds them responsible whether they acknowledge it or not.

    Racism is already a hate crime in much of the world, whether physicists acknowledge that or not. As I said, it's nice that some of them do, but it's no more special than some guy who makes tin cans acknowledging it - maybe less so.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2021
  2. durangodawood

    durangodawood Dis Member

    +9,850
    United States
    Seeker
    Single
    On what authority did you just decide that computational speed is not a component of intelligence? It seems quite a large factor in the capacity to perform many intellectual tasks.

    Perhaps human v. human chess matches should remove computational speed as a factor. That might bring some of those champions who think theyre so smart down a peg. My passing familiarity with sports leaves me struggling to think of other games where the rules have been so drastically changed beyond their infancy.
     
  3. J_B_

    J_B_ Well-Known Member

    536
    +179
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Maybe my reply was too snarky. A quick search of dictionary definitions of intelligence shows no mention of speed. If you find otherwise, please share.

    Regardless, IMO, the person who invents a glass boat quickly is not smarter than the person who takes their time to invent a steel boat.

    Maybe. I would guess the time constraint entered the rules as a matter of practicality rather than a way to privilege some over others. I don't recall it being mentioned here (love The History Guy), and it's a humorous coincidence that I watched this video given the current conversation. You will see that though the basic concepts have remained the same, the specific rules of chess have changed drastically over time.

    I'm terrible at timed contests, so maybe it's a personal bias. Though that wouldn't help me in chess. I'm terrible at chess even without time constraints. Given my father-in-law was ranked in chess, it was never anything but awkward and humiliating to play.

    I'm very familiar with baseball & basketball, and the rules for those games have also changed drastically over time. In fact, so much in baseball that there is now a class of games called "stickball" games that includes all the different variations (cricket being one of the best known alternatives). I believe the same is true of football, such that we now have soccer, rugby, Canadian football, etc.
     
  4. durangodawood

    durangodawood Dis Member

    +9,850
    United States
    Seeker
    Single
    Well Im at work now so I cant give your post the detailed response it deserves.

    My general sense is humans want to protect their turf. So as soon as we see a competitor doing stuff we used to call evidence of intelligence, we redefine intelligence. Speed was always considered evidence of intelligence in human activity. People who are "quick witted", "quick on the uptake", capable of performing calculations quickly.

    Or if a new competitor crushes us at an intellectual game, lets change the rules to eliminate their best advantage.

    Its almost like the humans are getting jealous.
     
  5. J_B_

    J_B_ Well-Known Member

    536
    +179
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    That definitely happens - for a variety of reasons. In Major League Baseball it's an issue of money. They change the rules to try to make the game appeal to more people - something an old baseball fan such as myself often hates.

    But I don't think it can be said turf protection is always the motivation. The words "always" and "never" need to be used judiciously.

    I'll give you that people are admired for having a quick wit, and some may take that as a sign of higher intelligence (as you obviously do), but I'm looking for something more than the anecdotal and one-dimensional - something more outcome-based. IOW, I'm getting in the steel boat with the slow-wit rather than the glass boat with the quick-wit. Better yet, I'll try to convince the quick wit to get into the steel boat with me and the slow wit ... and then we're all better off.

    [edit] Further, let me ask you this: You have not denied computational speed is the key to chess AI's success, which is a tacit agreement. As such, I, the slow wit, have identified the weakness that would allow me to defeat the chess AI quick wit. Would the chess AI quick wit be able to do the same (identify my weakness) if a human didn't add that feature to it's programming? I think not. As such, the chess AI quick wit would not object to my suggested rule change, and would have no reaction whatsoever to the fact that it now loses every game. It would simply chug along, doing it's computations. I simply can't label that "intelligence".

    [edit] Sorry to keep tacking onto my post, but now my thoughts run amok. My son and I were just discussing the unwritten rules of baseball & basketball last night. In his mind, breaking the rules of a game is immoral. So, in basketball, you should always try to avoid fouling. He doesn't like my position, that fouling is a strategy that can help a team win, and it's tacitly written into the rules of basketball. You CAN foul as long as you're a good sport and accept the penalty for a foul. If you do that, it's fine (as long as you don't injure your opponent), and part of the strategy. Again, I don't see AI inventing that type of gamesmanship by itself. It's only looking at the rules of the game and how to move pieces. It doesn't consider playing head games with its opponent.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2021
  6. durangodawood

    durangodawood Dis Member

    +9,850
    United States
    Seeker
    Single
    Its safe to say that speed has always been considered an marker of intelligence. You are poisoning the comparison by using unequal outcomes tho. Generally the person who gets to correct or good solution X in an hour gets smart points over the person gets to X in a day or a week.

    This is not to say we now definitively call the fast person "smarter". There are other aspects of intelligence which our speedy boat designer may sorely lack.

    The weakness you propose is essentially to lobotomize your competition. Yes, thats smart if youre really fond of "winning".

    I agree that the best chess program is a really capable machine. But its not yet the sort of universal AI youre getting at. As such I agree that we should call it capable or powerful in its domain. But not fully intelligent at all.

    Current machine-learning game engines would 100% arrive at strategic fouling if it offered an advantage. They would probably even discover additional strategic edges we havent considered, as AlphaGo has for the game Go. Not just faster.... but genuine novel strategies that surprised the best human Go minds.

    Still AlphaGo cant celebrate its own wins. Thats a bummer.
     
  7. J_B_

    J_B_ Well-Known Member

    536
    +179
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    I can accept that - calling these chess programs "powerful in their domain ... but not fully intelligent."

    I can't quite accept this. Not quite, because you've never offered a definition of intelligence. You're simply declaring speed should be included even though the definition I referenced didn't include it.

    To me intelligence is more nuanced, and I'm not convinced it can be separated from sentience or creativity for that matter. As I've mentioned, I consider myself a deep thinker rather than a quick thinker, and it's served me well. My employers have valued my engineering solutions over many others even though I often appear to be staring blankly into space ... because I'm in deep thought, not producing quick answers.

    I consider some of my younger colleagues smarter than me, but I can still outperform them - not because of intelligence but because of my experience. I don't consider my ability to recall and apply a lengthy list of experiences to be intelligence. It is simply memory - short & sweet - the application of those memories sometimes misinterpreted by the uninitiated as intelligence.

    In that regard, I'm modifying your phrase of "powerful in its domain" to say I might be able to accept speed as a contributing aspect to intelligence, but not sufficient in and of itself. An algorithm that wins on speed alone is not intelligent. A smart machine that solves a problem quicker, I could accept as smarter, but intelligence independent of speed would be a precursor. A machine following an algorithm devised by others is not intelligent, even if the algorithm is adaptive, because the adaptivity is part of the algorithm, not something the machine innovated. It would be like saying giraffes are clever because they evolved a long neck. Um. No.

    The ability of games with simple rules like GO to become extremely complex is fascinating. I don't disparage the game or those who play it. But for a computer running an algorithm written by humans to devise "novel" strategies is not the type of novelty I meant. Those algorithms still only make the moves they are programmed to make. A truly novel move by a computer would be a decision to cheat. It might be immoral, but it would definitely be innovative - to make a move it was never told was a possible move.

    People know, when playing GO, that physical law allows you to place your piece ANYWHERE on the board. It is only mutually agreed rules that restrict your play to open spaces. The board gets too complex to remember where all the pieces are, a little misdirection and slight of hand to move an opponent's piece and replace it with yours ... you "win" (though not really & not honorably).

    Would any GO algorithm attempt such a thing? I think not. I would bet they are all restricted to fair play. A human would have to decide to add that option, and therefore it is the human demonstrating the intelligence, not the machine. The machine is simply "powerful within its domain."
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2021
  8. durangodawood

    durangodawood Dis Member

    +9,850
    United States
    Seeker
    Single
    I'm just appealing to how people generally view intelligence. If you can perform X intellectual task faster, people consider you smarter. But thats just one factor of many. Depth of thought is another factor, one which may well trump speed depending on the task.

    I dont think its proper to call a very fast calculating machine "intelligent"....yet. But I can picture a day when one will fool even the best of us into believe it possesses true intelligence. Even further afield is a true sentient machine "self". Not sure this is actually possible. But who can say for sure?

    I dont see evidence that we innovated our own adaptability. Either it evolved naturalistically, or a being created us with it. Either way, we cant take credit.

    I dont think that's true strictly speaking. No one programmed AG to make those moves. Nobody even knew about those moves. They programmed AG to go out and discover new advantageous moves.

    Youre talking now about a being who can situate itself outside the game, with its own motivations entirely apart from the game. I agree this is the "strong AI" that I would consider "an intelligence".
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2021
  9. J_B_

    J_B_ Well-Known Member

    536
    +179
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    You're asserting it with no support. You may find that support, but I've not seen it yet.

    Indeed. Yet many do. Have any AI's taken credit for their innovations?

    Yep. Without that, I'm not sure AI can be distinguished from a calculator that just chugs through the steps to add 2 numbers. A pile of rocks cut into the right shape so they fall to complete the same steps would accomplish the same thing. If it can't be distinguished, there's no reason to place a new label on it.

    Which brings me back to my original point. It's just a machine, so of course those physicists are responsible for what happens. They built the machine. That's nothing new, and the law already held them accountable. Was anyone really thinking we'd take a computer to court for racism and hold the physicist harmless? It's nice to know they recognize that, but I don't know that they deserve special applause.
     
  10. durangodawood

    durangodawood Dis Member

    +9,850
    United States
    Seeker
    Single
    I dont think we know enough yet to rule out the possibility that a genuine intelligence could arise from a sufficiently complex self-examining and self re-writing machine.

    We may be overrating human "selfness" and setting up an impossible - and wrong - model. I realize how important it is for us to feel special, for personal and ethical reasons. But it may not be the case.
     
  11. J_B_

    J_B_ Well-Known Member

    536
    +179
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Maybe. This is the point where I concede things for the sake of intellectual honesty though I don't believe them.

    As long as AI is only a way for code monkeys to feed their egos that they can defeat chess masters - as long as AI serves us like metal & plastic slaves, doing exactly and only what we tell them to do - as long as the candidate for intelligence is something humans built - I'll have a very hard time accepting it. Not that AI isn't useful, but I know too much about the process of making sausage to call the result a gourmet meal.

    If an alien knocks on your door someday and wants to discuss theodicy - that's when you'll get my attention.
     
  12. sjastro

    sjastro Newbie

    +1,941
    Christian
    Single
    The point that needed addressing in your post are the serious misconceptions you have about AI.
    Did you actually bother to read the link I sent you?
    By your definition of AI, the creators of AlphaZero and the entire peer review system have been dishonest in claiming the program teaches itself through self play which is explicitly mentioned in the paper along with the technical detail that supports it.

    Its ironic you should use the term brute force as it provides a good example of how machine learning generates far more chess knowledge than implementing the chess knowledge into a program.
    In the early days of computer chess programming the brute force method was employed in trying to calculate all possible chess moves for a given number of ply or half moves.
    As a result chess programs played weakly as search depths were shallow as the number of chess moves increases exponentially with each increasing ply.

    [​IMG]
    Chess programmers understood in the 1980s a brute force program would need to reach at least 15 ply to be possibly competitive against grandmasters let alone exceed their standard of play at tournament time controls.
    Even based on today’s processor speeds this is not possible.

    This led to a change where chess knowledge was programmed into the software allowing deeper selective searches.
    From this change computer chess programs caught up to and exceeded grandmasters.

    The next step was machine learning.
    In this case the extent and depth of chess knowledge of a self teaching program is far greater than what any programmer can implement into the code.
    Furthermore self teaching programs have expanded on the concepts of chess strategy which involves long term planning something we humans overlooked despite playing the game for centuries.

    The rest of your post I won’t respond to because it has nothing to with chess programming.
    I only brought it up in an earlier post as machine learning produces a higher level of chess which we humans cannot attain and can lead to the impression of AI as being the manifestation of a ‘sentient being’ (note the quotation marks indicating I don’t take this seriously).
     
  13. J_B_

    J_B_ Well-Known Member

    536
    +179
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    It appears I've irritated you, so I will be brief with no claim this fully explains my position. If you wish, consider this an invitation to explore our conversation further.

    The OP wasn't about chess. My posts were meant to address what I drew from the OP ... but OK ... it's about chess AI now.

    I know you don't take chess AI as sentience. I acknowledged that in my post to you, if you happened to notice it. I know because you said as much in post #7.

    I said no such thing. I've tried to avoid saying something else because it's not complimentary, and I'd prefer not, but you appear to completely miss what I'm saying. It happens to me frequently in my job where engineers are so enamored with their technology that they can't make the human connection with managers who have a different outlook. I constantly get these bewildered looks from managers and engineers who can't talk to each other, and often find myself in the role of interpreter.

    So I'll start with this simple question. If you want to continue, it would be helpful to answer it: Define the terms "teach" and/or "learn" within the context of AI. Not your own impression of their definition, but the definition accepted within the field.
     
  14. sjastro

    sjastro Newbie

    +1,941
    Christian
    Single
    I'll avoid the obfuscation tactics.
    Here is the link again.

    Since you are the one that has the issues about "teach" or "learn" it's up to you to demonstrate the link is consistent with your definitions.
    You can start by addressing this quote in the link.
     
  15. J_B_

    J_B_ Well-Known Member

    536
    +179
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Of what use would that be? You've already declared me wrong. I was giving you the chance to teach me, but it seems we've already encountered one of the differences I would have noted between "teaching" AI and teaching humans.

    I leave you to make of it what you will.
     
  16. sjastro

    sjastro Newbie

    +1,941
    Christian
    Single
    Hopefully this will help.
    From about the 12 minute mark the playing style of AlphaZero is compared to human play.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2021
  17. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +1,199
    Humanist
    Private
    Hmm ... I dunno .. Chess is well constrained by very clear 'rules'.

    I'd like to see how it copes with something more real-world based .. like relationships!? :)
     
  18. sjastro

    sjastro Newbie

    +1,941
    Christian
    Single
    I think chess can be character building like playing golf and not getting ulcers in the process.
    I was once foolish enough to play a game of chess with AlphaZero's successor Leela Chess Zero.
    I'm no grandmaster but no mug either and when I lose games against humans or computers I usually know why.
    After being wiped out by Leela Chess Zero in about thirty moves, I had no idea how I lost the game.
    Leela Chess Zero played at a level which I could barely appreciate.
    From the video it appears I was a victim of the dreaded python strategy developed by AlphaZero and employed by Leela Chess Zero.
     
  19. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +1,199
    Humanist
    Private
    Shoulda asked her out on date during the game!! :cool:
     
  20. durangodawood

    durangodawood Dis Member

    +9,850
    United States
    Seeker
    Single
    Just using brute force, AI can look 15 moves ahead in any relationship. We're doomed to fall for their charms.
     
Loading...