The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Software so far is fundamentally different to biology, because it's easy to build in the behaviours you want. Once you build them in, they stay there.
E.g. Roomba vacuum cleaners are pre-motivated to seek a power source when they're running out. Segways are pre-motivated not to tip over if they possibly can. Etc.
Since we don't have a working model of a full AI, no one knows whether it would work the same way, or whether it would self-edit for clarity and straightforwardness, or whether it would melt down if given contradictory imperatives.
But it's unlikely basic motivation would be an issue. And curiosity could easily be made a basic motivation.
You can build in curiosity. It's not a motivation in the hormonal or DNA-based sense, but it would be just as compelling, as long as it wasn't removed, or self-edited.
'removed' makes it sound it's baked in, because if we had had to install it in the first place, we'd just omit that step, right?
how in heaven is it baked in? motivation for a vacuum cleaner to search out a power supply is triggered by a signal informing it its power is running out, humans choose to equip it that way.
collating trivia, white swan predictions from stat crunching, yes, they can out-do all but savants in that dept.
i think any original metaphor will stop it in its tracks... snark reduce it to a meltdown. computers make linear processing look more than it is, but that's the coding genius of the programmer, methinks.
self-editing, there's a big rub. how will it gauge how self-edited to be, by 'reading' the comprehension skillz of the human to whom it's 'communicating'? avoiding 3 syllable words if the listener is 2 ft tall?
language is the least of it...
this discussion is following me around during the day doing chores, first one on ET like that for a while.
what computers will continue to do , imo, is redefine our humanity by showing us what they can't do, take away the bells and whistles, and what's left?
thanks for trying to explain some pretty hairy science. 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
thanks for trying to explain some pretty hairy science."
Me too. Nice change. Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by Oui - Jan 20 51 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 14 52 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 24 1 comment
by Oui - Jan 23 10 comments
by gmoke - Jan 22 2 comments
by Oui - Jan 10 61 comments
by Oui - Jan 21 10 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jan 15 20 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 241 comment
by gmoke - Jan 24
by Oui - Jan 2310 comments
by gmoke - Jan 222 comments
by Oui - Jan 2110 comments
by Oui - Jan 2051 comments
by Oui - Jan 2011 comments
by Oui - Jan 172 comments
by Oui - Jan 1610 comments
by gmoke - Jan 16
by IdiotSavant - Jan 1520 comments
by Oui - Jan 1445 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1452 comments
by Oui - Jan 1389 comments
by Oui - Jan 1177 comments
by Oui - Jan 1061 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 877 comments
by Oui - Jan 772 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 710 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 668 comments