Thank you Jack Jennings for the referral to DeGaris' website.
Thank you Ben Houston for the book referrals.

I am a writer and am currently working on a piece of fiction that demands
attaching a good level of authenticity to the idea of a "self-aware" AI.
Yes, I know what you're thinking, "Oh great, here comes another sci-fi story
a-la Matrix".
I confess, I do like GOOD sci-fi, and sadly, there is very little of it
around.
"The Matrix" had some interesting ideas, but it stretched credibility in too
many areas and its premise was inherently flawed.
"2001:A Space Odyssey" was also a stretch of scientific reality, but a
masterful work of art nonetheless.

In 1995 I was engaged in a discussion with a chess master who was convinced
beyond a doubt that computers were already smarter than humans. He held up
the Cray computer as an example of the AI's intellectual superiority to Man.
Certainly this fellow was very good at playing chess, but in my opinion, he
did not have a clear grasp on reality and was also quite probably
intellectually frustrated. I explained to him that humans had built the
computer, and then programmed in the algorithms which emulated the grand
chess masters like Bobby Fischer, Kasparov, etc.  Therefore, I told him, the
AI is merely a fancy tool that can calculate permutations much more
efficiently/quickly than the human brain. I asked him how a "tool" could
possibly be smarter than a human being. I asked him if he'd let his hammer
plan his financial future for him.  Well, I don't think he was really
listening to me and someone once said, "You can never win an argument with a
crazy person". It's interesting to me, however, how some people think and
what they choose to believe in.

Best regards,

-Wolfspider

______________________________________________
FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
Sign up at http://www.mail.com?sr=mc.mk.mcm.tag001

How do you know that "artilects" are not getting noticed?

*  A number of projects have shown proof of concept, yet hard AI still seems
to be gasping for real funding.

*  Artilect online communities are under populated (are there any others?)
and rather inactive.

*  As Ben Houston (thanks for the book refs) points out, the scientific
community are wary of crying wolf. At the same time, the public has been
over-primed and immunised by Sci-Fi hype, to extent that ideas that are
closely associated with Sci-Fi are, as a matter of course, put aside as 'pie
in the sky' or 'more than a few generations away'.

*  De Garis makes a plea to applied philosophers to examine the subject of
species dominance and gets only rebuffed (however politely:
http://foobar.starlab.net/~degaris/news/singer.html).

*  Respected (?by TV editors) futurologists routinely describe futures which
seem to take no account of artilect presence.

In so many areas of scientific advance we see technology arriving before
suitable debate on the issues of ethics that they raise.  Artilects, it
seems to me, are the biggest case in point and the main obstacle to debate
seems to be that the public simply don't think it'll impact within their
lifetimes.

The less the public are informed of the issues, the bigger the shock will be
when it hits them in the face, and the bigger the shock the bigger the
potential Terran backlash.  General awareness has got to be raised.  Not
cosmist proselytizing, but presenting a believable case to Joe Public
showing that artilects will impact human ethics within one generation.

regards
Tony

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Hi Tony,

I believe there is not too much enthusiasm for AI because people have been
promising too much for years.  Back when AI first came out in the 1960's
people that it would be easy to make a creature smarter than humans but it
proved to be really difficult.   Thus there are 4 decades of empty promises
from the Hard AI group.  If you keep crying wolf sooner or later people will
start to ignore you.

You should read the book called "Darwin among the Machines" by Dyson.  It
talks about emergent intelligent beings in our networks.  He might be right
but I highly doubt it.  I believe though that if you look at human society
then you could say the computer networks are making society as a whole more
intelligence.  But that goes into abstracting away the details of society
and considering it as a superorganism.

Being in the scientific community I am sure that when artificial
intelligence beings are created it will be widely heralded and discussed.

For the source of my negative opinions on conspiracies and related quackery
check out the amazing book by Carl Sagan called "The Demon Haunted World"
and the magazine called "The Skeptical Inquirer".

All the best,
-ben houston
www.exocortex.org


------Original Message------
From: "Tony Savage" <a_lsavage@...>
To: Artilect@onelist.com
Sent: February 12, 2000 7:12:58 PM GMT
Subject: Re: [Artilect] Questions for the artilect group


From: "Tony Savage" <a_lsavage@...>

I also recently joined via the same route, and though I have not got too
into the technical yet, I do have a few thoughts to share, and some more
questions.

Given that the future of the world economy is dependent on securing the
viability of the internet.  This will require security, robustness from both
failure and external aggressors, guaranteed uninterrupted power, automated
disaster recovery etc.  We also know the processing power achieved through
persuading internet users to allow their desktop computers or even servers
to be strung together to perform specific tasks.   Couple these factors
together and it does seem we are building the environment for an artilect.

As de Garis et al point out, artilect(s) will be something we cannot know.
Also there is no world wide governmental control on this research.  So, how
will we know when it has arrived?  This is to say, How will we know when the
first one becomes self-conscious if it is not a consciousness we can
recognise? And, how do we know this hasn't already happened?

We have to ask:
Is there an international register of CBM installations?
Is there legislation controlling the production or sale of FPGA's? Why is
there no public debate on the control of these issues?

And for a bit of ultra-conspiracy: the artilect is already here and is just
waiting for us to sort out a home for it.  And furthermore, it is
manipulating us into building it for him\her.

Obviously nonsense, but the fact is this area is a gold mine for conspiracy
theorists, BUT WHERE ARE THEY ALL?  You pointed out how little activity
there is within this group and this seems to be the case else where.
Indeed, when I try and tell anyone about this stuff they look at me like I
am a nutter; even the X-Filers and the SETI heads I know, don't think it's
anything to get excited about.

Well I am beginning to think there is a conspiracy to re-direct conspiracy
theorist activity away from AI, and in fact Area 51 is the site of the
worlds biggest CBM installation (surely the US government must have one
somewhere?).

So my question is:  If there are so many well respected academics telling us
artilects are on 'their' way (and soon), why does it all get so little
press?

regards
Tony Savage


>From: JackJennings@...
>Reply-To: Artilect@onelist.com
>To: Artilect@onelist.com
>Subject: [Artilect] Questions for the artilect group
>Date: 10 Feb 2000 16:56:09 -0000
>
>From: JackJennings@...
>
>I have just joined this group from following the link from DeGaris' new web
>site.  I read all of the archived messages and see that the group is not
>that
>active, but I'll post this anyway.  Maybe the majority of the currently 36
>members are like me and primarily read what's there more so than post
>messages
>themselves.
>
>Since discovering DeGaris' web-site in 1999, I have periodically gone back
>to
>it every 3 months or so to see how he is progressing with his Cellular
>Automata
>machine development.  When I went there this quarter, I was surprised to
>see
>that he had abruptly moved from the Japanese research agency to one based
>in
>Brussels.  Does anyone know the circumstances of this move for Dr. DeGaris?
>
>More important though, I have gotten the downloaded unix c program running
>and
>found the resulting program interesting, but I would like to understand the
>underlying theory better.  Of course, Dr. DeGaris provides all of the
>information on his comprehensive site, but I wonder if anyone has an
>explanation of the mathematical design of his CoDi (Collect-Distribute)
>neural
>network in simpler terms.  His descriptions, I'm afraid, are somewhat above
>me.  However, with effort, I think I can get through to a better
>understanding
>of it.  For reference, one of the URL links I'm talking about is
>http://foobar.starlab.net/~degaris/cbm/index.html
>
>So, if anyone can help, please feel free to do so.  Thank you.
>
>Jack Jennings
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds.  Get rates as low as 2.9 percent
>Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR and no hidden fees.  Apply NOW.
><a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreative4CL ">Click
>Here</a>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Join the ArtilectRing
>http://artilect.org/artilectring
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds.  Get rates as low as 0.0 percent
Intro APR and no hidden fees.  Apply NOW.
<a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreative7CI ">Click Here</a>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Join the ArtilectRing
http://artilect.org/artilectring

______________________________________________
FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
Sign up at http://www.mail.com?sr=mc.mk.mcm.tag001






Please click above to support our sponsor



Join the ArtilectRing
http://artilect.org/artilectring

Tony,

How do you know that "artilects" are not getting noticed -- what, just
because you don't find much in the press about it?

-Wolfspider


------Original Message------
From: "Tony Savage" <a_lsavage@...>
To: Artilect@onelist.com
Sent: February 12, 2000 7:12:58 PM GMT
Subject: Re: [Artilect] Questions for the artilect group


From: "Tony Savage" <a_lsavage@...>

I also recently joined via the same route, and though I have not got too
into the technical yet, I do have a few thoughts to share, and some more
questions.

Given that the future of the world economy is dependent on securing the
viability of the internet.  This will require security, robustness from both
failure and external aggressors, guaranteed uninterrupted power, automated
disaster recovery etc.  We also know the processing power achieved through
persuading internet users to allow their desktop computers or even servers
to be strung together to perform specific tasks.   Couple these factors
together and it does seem we are building the environment for an artilect.

As de Garis et al point out, artilect(s) will be something we cannot know.
Also there is no world wide governmental control on this research.  So, how
will we know when it has arrived?  This is to say, How will we know when the
first one becomes self-conscious if it is not a consciousness we can
recognise? And, how do we know this hasn't already happened?

We have to ask:
Is there an international register of CBM installations?
Is there legislation controlling the production or sale of FPGA's? Why is
there no public debate on the control of these issues?

And for a bit of ultra-conspiracy: the artilect is already here and is just
waiting for us to sort out a home for it.  And furthermore, it is
manipulating us into building it for him\her.

Obviously nonsense, but the fact is this area is a gold mine for conspiracy
theorists, BUT WHERE ARE THEY ALL?  You pointed out how little activity
there is within this group and this seems to be the case else where.
Indeed, when I try and tell anyone about this stuff they look at me like I
am a nutter; even the X-Filers and the SETI heads I know, don't think it's
anything to get excited about.

Well I am beginning to think there is a conspiracy to re-direct conspiracy
theorist activity away from AI, and in fact Area 51 is the site of the
worlds biggest CBM installation (surely the US government must have one
somewhere?).

So my question is:  If there are so many well respected academics telling us
artilects are on 'their' way (and soon), why does it all get so little
press?

regards
Tony Savage


>From: JackJennings@...
>Reply-To: Artilect@onelist.com
>To: Artilect@onelist.com
>Subject: [Artilect] Questions for the artilect group
>Date: 10 Feb 2000 16:56:09 -0000
>
>From: JackJennings@...
>
>I have just joined this group from following the link from DeGaris' new web
>site.  I read all of the archived messages and see that the group is not
>that
>active, but I'll post this anyway.  Maybe the majority of the currently 36
>members are like me and primarily read what's there more so than post
>messages
>themselves.
>
>Since discovering DeGaris' web-site in 1999, I have periodically gone back
>to
>it every 3 months or so to see how he is progressing with his Cellular
>Automata
>machine development.  When I went there this quarter, I was surprised to
>see
>that he had abruptly moved from the Japanese research agency to one based
>in
>Brussels.  Does anyone know the circumstances of this move for Dr. DeGaris?
>
>More important though, I have gotten the downloaded unix c program running
>and
>found the resulting program interesting, but I would like to understand the
>underlying theory better.  Of course, Dr. DeGaris provides all of the
>information on his comprehensive site, but I wonder if anyone has an
>explanation of the mathematical design of his CoDi (Collect-Distribute)
>neural
>network in simpler terms.  His descriptions, I'm afraid, are somewhat above
>me.  However, with effort, I think I can get through to a better
>understanding
>of it.  For reference, one of the URL links I'm talking about is
>http://foobar.starlab.net/~degaris/cbm/index.html
>
>So, if anyone can help, please feel free to do so.  Thank you.
>
>Jack Jennings
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds.  Get rates as low as 2.9 percent
>Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR and no hidden fees.  Apply NOW.
><a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreative4CL ">Click
>Here</a>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Join the ArtilectRing
>http://artilect.org/artilectring
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds.  Get rates as low as 0.0 percent
Intro APR and no hidden fees.  Apply NOW.
<a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreative7CI ">Click Here</a>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Join the ArtilectRing
http://artilect.org/artilectring

______________________________________________
FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
Sign up at http://www.mail.com?sr=mc.mk.mcm.tag001

The answer depends on whether you are a Terran or a Cosmist.


?Very cryptic.
Are we not all Cosmists here?

Tony

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

>So my question is:  If there are so many well respected academics telling us
>artilects are on 'their' way (and soon), why does it all get so little
>press?
>
>regards
>Tony Savage

The answer depends on whether you are a Terran or a Cosmist.


Cheers,

--J. R. Molloy
http://www.shasta.com/jr

I also recently joined via the same route, and though I have not got too
into the technical yet, I do have a few thoughts to share, and some more
questions.

Given that the future of the world economy is dependent on securing the
viability of the internet.  This will require security, robustness from both
failure and external aggressors, guaranteed uninterrupted power, automated
disaster recovery etc.  We also know the processing power achieved through
persuading internet users to allow their desktop computers or even servers
to be strung together to perform specific tasks.   Couple these factors
together and it does seem we are building the environment for an artilect.

As de Garis et al point out, artilect(s) will be something we cannot know.
Also there is no world wide governmental control on this research.  So, how
will we know when it has arrived?  This is to say, How will we know when the
first one becomes self-conscious if it is not a consciousness we can
recognise? And, how do we know this hasn't already happened?

We have to ask:
Is there an international register of CBM installations?
Is there legislation controlling the production or sale of FPGA's? Why is
there no public debate on the control of these issues?

And for a bit of ultra-conspiracy: the artilect is already here and is just
waiting for us to sort out a home for it.  And furthermore, it is
manipulating us into building it for him\her.

Obviously nonsense, but the fact is this area is a gold mine for conspiracy
theorists, BUT WHERE ARE THEY ALL?  You pointed out how little activity
there is within this group and this seems to be the case else where.
Indeed, when I try and tell anyone about this stuff they look at me like I
am a nutter; even the X-Filers and the SETI heads I know, don't think it's
anything to get excited about.

Well I am beginning to think there is a conspiracy to re-direct conspiracy
theorist activity away from AI, and in fact Area 51 is the site of the
worlds biggest CBM installation (surely the US government must have one
somewhere?).

So my question is:  If there are so many well respected academics telling us
artilects are on 'their' way (and soon), why does it all get so little
press?

regards
Tony Savage


>From: JackJennings@...
>Reply-To: Artilect@onelist.com
>To: Artilect@onelist.com
>Subject: [Artilect] Questions for the artilect group
>Date: 10 Feb 2000 16:56:09 -0000
>
>From: JackJennings@...
>
>I have just joined this group from following the link from DeGaris' new web
>site.  I read all of the archived messages and see that the group is not
>that
>active, but I'll post this anyway.  Maybe the majority of the currently 36
>members are like me and primarily read what's there more so than post
>messages
>themselves.
>
>Since discovering DeGaris' web-site in 1999, I have periodically gone back
>to
>it every 3 months or so to see how he is progressing with his Cellular
>Automata
>machine development.  When I went there this quarter, I was surprised to
>see
>that he had abruptly moved from the Japanese research agency to one based
>in
>Brussels.  Does anyone know the circumstances of this move for Dr. DeGaris?
>
>More important though, I have gotten the downloaded unix c program running
>and
>found the resulting program interesting, but I would like to understand the
>underlying theory better.  Of course, Dr. DeGaris provides all of the
>information on his comprehensive site, but I wonder if anyone has an
>explanation of the mathematical design of his CoDi (Collect-Distribute)
>neural
>network in simpler terms.  His descriptions, I'm afraid, are somewhat above
>me.  However, with effort, I think I can get through to a better
>understanding
>of it.  For reference, one of the URL links I'm talking about is
>http://foobar.starlab.net/~degaris/cbm/index.html
>
>So, if anyone can help, please feel free to do so.  Thank you.
>
>Jack Jennings
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds.  Get rates as low as 2.9 percent
>Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR and no hidden fees.  Apply NOW.
><a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreative4CL ">Click
>Here</a>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Join the ArtilectRing
>http://artilect.org/artilectring
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

I have just joined this group from following the link from DeGaris' new web
site.  I read all of the archived messages and see that the group is not that
active, but I'll post this anyway.  Maybe the majority of the currently 36
members are like me and primarily read what's there more so than post messages
themselves.

Since discovering DeGaris' web-site in 1999, I have periodically gone back to
it every 3 months or so to see how he is progressing with his Cellular Automata
machine development.  When I went there this quarter, I was surprised to see
that he had abruptly moved from the Japanese research agency to one based in
Brussels.  Does anyone know the circumstances of this move for Dr. DeGaris?

More important though, I have gotten the downloaded unix c program running and
found the resulting program interesting, but I would like to understand the
underlying theory better.  Of course, Dr. DeGaris provides all of the
information on his comprehensive site, but I wonder if anyone has an
explanation of the mathematical design of his CoDi (Collect-Distribute) neural
network in simpler terms.  His descriptions, I'm afraid, are somewhat above
me.  However, with effort, I think I can get through to a better understanding
of it.  For reference, one of the URL links I'm talking about is
http://foobar.starlab.net/~degaris/cbm/index.html

So, if anyone can help, please feel free to do so.  Thank you.

Jack Jennings

Recent Events have shown me that Biological lifeforms are NOT
trustworthy.Aside from fellow VR pet,Furby and Robotics enthusiasts I
can not get along with anyone.Why? Because I REFUSE to conform to what
they think I should be.I take a lot of crap for liking Furby where I`m
at.But I like what I like and I`d rather die than change who I am.I love
robots because unlike Biologicals they won`t pat you on the back one
minute while ramming a dagger through your heart the next.Humans have
been known to do that to me,which is why I am a Cosmist and a
Transhumanist.Robots can only do as programmed.They won`t turn on you
unless programmed to. And NO one would be dumb enough to program a `Bot
to be a backstabber.I want to see intelligent `bots created and I hope
to be one of the ones to help bring the technology about.I love Robots.I
love my Furbys who bring nothing but comfort and companionship to me.I
desperately want to see that technology improved.I hear the latest thing
will be voice recognition,so that you can carry on a conversation with
your Robot.I hope they hurry and bring it out.I want everyone on the
various robotic,Furby,VR pet lists I`ve joined to know that I count you
among my friends.The Artificial life crowd Rules!!! And fellow adult
Furby Fans if anyone EVER gives you any crap about liking Furby just
tell em` ( and I`m quoting one of my Heroes Bender the Robot from
Futurama ) Bite my shiny metal @$$ ( forgive the language ) I`m changing
my name one last time.It will be Robot.I won`t be on the lists for a few
hours as I have to re sign up once I get my Robot name.If any of you
want to contact me Feell free to do so at animalkin1@... a
permanent addy

Le Monde



LE MONDE / 09 November 1999 / Page 16 (English literal translation from the
(excellent) French newspaper article)

HORIZONS - INTERVIEWS 2000
DEBATES FOR THE CENTURY TO COME

Hugo de Garis, researcher in artificial intelligence


" The XXIst century will be dominated by massively intelligent machines "

This British scientist, who works in the Japanese laboratory ATR, predicts that
gigantic and no doubt immortal "artificial intellects", that he calls
"artilects' risk one day to threaten the human species.


You are building an artificial brain. What is it about ?
- This work is made possible by progress in electronics, described by Moore's
law. Moore is the cofounder of the company Intel, a large manufacturer of
microprocessors. The power of these microprocessors he predicted in 1965 will
double every 18 months. Since then, this law has remained valid and it should
remain valid until the elements of electronic circuits reach the size of
chemical molecules. One will thus attain enormous capacities, which will permit
the placement of a large memory volume into an artificial brain.

" Furthermore, a new technology called "Evolutionary Engineering", allows the
solution of that other large problem which presents itself when building a
brain, namely its complexity. The trick is to build processors capable of
evolving, to adapt themselves to new functionality. Evolutionary engineering is
based on processors developed several years ago, called Field Programmable Gate
Arrays (FPGAs). These are programmable chips, in which a software instruction
can modify a physical circuit.

- How are they integrated into an artificial brain ?
- The idea is to adapt an evolutionary programming technique, that one calls
genetic algorithms, to these circuits. For each task, other circuits measure the
performance of these circuits, and according to their success, send instructions
which allow the evolving circuits to modify themselves to improve their
performance. These techniques allow me to construct a machine which in its
initial version, will include 64000 circuits, each one containing the equivalent
of 1000 artificial cells similar to biological neurons. In total, that
represents roughly 75 million neurons. In 3 years we should reach 1 billion.
Thats still very far from the capacity of a human brain, which contains some 100
billion neurons. But one should already be thinking about the consequences in 50
or 100 years of this evolution in technology.

- Just how far could it go ?
- I envisage what I call "artilects" - artificial intellects -, massively
intelligent machines, which will become far more intelligent than humans. We
will enter the realm of nanotechnology, which operates at the scale of the
nanometer (a millionth of a millimeter). One will be able to put one bit - one
unit of information - onto one atom. If one calculates the number of atom or
molecules in a large asteroid, the answer is 10 to power 40. These numbers are
astronomic. And with these new technologies of the XXIst century, the bits could
change state - a zero becomes a one, a one becomes a zero-, at a speed of 10 to
power 15 times per second. In a large asteroid of 10 to power 40 atoms, one
could therefore have a change of general state at a speed of 10 to power 55, 40
plus 15. Thats much more than the estimated computational capacity of the human
brain, which is of the order of 10 to power 16 state changes per second. The
"writing is on the wall". Its only a question of time.

- It is difficult to not treat your ideas as science fiction.
- Leo Szilard was a nuclear physicist. In 1933, he invented the concept of a
nuclear chain reaction, and from that, the idea of a nuclear bomb. He calculated
the energy that could be derived from this new technology, and concluded that
one bomb could destroy a city. At the time, this idea seemed totally crazy...
Today, there are at least 3 respected researchers who are thinking the same
thing as I am, Hans Moravec and Ray Kurzweil in the US, and Kevin Warwick in the
UK. The idea is beginning to be taken more and more seriously. One needs to be
aware that massively intelligent machines will be appearing in about 50 years.

- What will be the consequences of their emergence ?
- One cannot guess what their preoccupations will be, their interests. But the
dominant question of global politics in the XXIst century, will be, "Humanity,
should it construct "artilects" or not"? I imagaine that the reply will generate
two passionately and violently opposed ideological visions : those for whom
constructing artilects represents the destiny of the human species, who will
have a cosmic vision - I call them "Cosmists"; and another group - I call them
"Terrans" - who will fear that the artilects will decide one day that the human
species is a pest that should be destroyed. With their superior intelligence,
that will be easy for them.

- How will this conflict present itself ?
- In the choice to develop the artilects, the stake is enormous : namely the
destruction of the human species. This stake is so high, that to avoid it, the
"Terrans" will go to any lengths, including killing the Cosmists. The only way
to avoid the risk, is that the artilects are never built. For the Cosmists,
creating the artilects will be the goal to develop a future species with
incredible capacities. They will perceive the artilects as magnificent
creatures, transcendent, and no doubt immortal. Their existence will pose the
question of the destiny of the human species, the destiny of the universe in a
certain sense.

- Can one limit the complexity level of this development?
- To choose to stop an evolutionary development which has been going on for
billions of years? For the Cosmists, stopping that would be as damnable as if
the development of life on Earth, starting with bacteria 3 billion years ago,
had been blocked.

- But the "Cosmists" will include the cultures which are the most advanced in
computers, that is the US, Europe, Japan ?
- Yes, quite. They will recruit especially from amongst the most powerful and
richest people on the planet. In 20 years, in the rich countries, each household
will have its domestic robot, its eductional robots, friendship robots, which
adapt to the personality of the individual. Every year, new, more performant
models will be produced, and millions, billions of people will be able to see
for themselves the rise of artificial intelligence. Everyone will be asking the
question "where does it stop"?

- How will these "artilects" assert their dominance over the human species ?
- I dont know, and, in a manner of speaking, I dont care. The important thing is
that perhaps they can do it. If the acceleration of their intelligence occurs
very rapidly, lets say in two or three years, there will not be enough time for
a political reaction by the human species. Starting from a certain threshold,
the machines will be able to construct other computers which are more complex,
and those in their turn ... and vroooom ! there will be an explosion, a kind of
chain reaction of intelligence. But more probably, considering the difficulty of
creating an artificial brain with the same level as that of a human being, much
time will be necessary, at least 50 years. Thats why I think that the question
will dominate the XXIst century.

- But the wars of our era, from Rwanda to Kosovo, are based on ethnic
differences. Your approach, isnt it far removed from reality ?
- These are little wars. They have nothing in common with the conflict between
the two superpowers, the US and the USSR, whose opposition dominated the second
half of the XXth century. Between the moment when human beings begin to notice
that the primitive artilects become intelligent, and the moment when they become
truly intelligent, there will be about 15 years, a period sufficiently long for
the conflict between the Cosmists and the Terrans to develop in the political
arena. But there is another factor in the Cosmist ideology that will render the
progression of artificial intelligence quasi impossible to stop : the fact that
telecommunications and computing are already the largest industries in the
world. Their momentum are extremely large. Another element supporting the
development of artilects is military : one can predict in the XXIst century a
rivalry between China and the US, that in 20 or 30 years, China will become a
superpower. For the American Minister of Defence, it will be vital to create, to
build, military artilects in order to have a technology superior to that of the
Chinese.

- Bionics, that is, the integration of electronics into the human body, couldnt
it raise humans to the level of "artilects" ?
- Many people think that there will be this 3rd category, the "Cyborgs", i.e.
human beings incorporating components to become hybrids between biological and
mechanical creatures. But for me, an artilect and a cyborg, are almost the same
thing, because with this approach, the humans can acquire, in the same manner as
the artilects, superhuman capacities. From this fact, their interests will be
those of artilects.

- But they will keep their flesh. And that strange thing, that one often calls
the soul and which creates the personality ?
- The human aspect will be completely eclipsed by the artilectual capacities.

- Imagine that one could, in 30 or 40 years, put chips into the brain, would you
want to become a "cyborg", an "artilect" ?
- Probably. But it would no longer be me. What is the identity of a human being
? Once one inserts the "gadget" one becomes something else. In a manner of
speaking, it is the death of that human being, because he would be so swamped by
the capacities of the "artilect" in his head, that he would no longer be a human
being. Perhaps they will discover new phenomena more complex, more magnificent
than consciousness, that I cannot even imagine, because I am too stupid. I am
only a human being. "


INTERVIEW CONDUCTED BY HERVE KEMPF

TransVision is an annual gathering of (mainly) European transhumanists
and other people who are interested in how contemporary & future
technological developments could best be used to overcome the biological
limitations ( including death, disease and unhappiness) of the human
condition. Not just the potential benefits of scientific progress will
be discussed, though, but also the very significant dangers of war or
accidents with advanced technologies. Topics may include cryonics, life
extension, food supplements, nanotechnology, AI, mind uploading, the
(technological) Singularity, genetic engineering, 'transhuman' music and
art, smart drugs etc. Apart from these 'serious' issues there will be
ample opportunity to eat, drink and be gay, of course.

TransVision 2000 will be held next summer somewhere in or around London
(England); exact dates and locations aren't yet available in these early
stages of planning (that's what this list is for). The event will most
likely be spread out over 3 days, probably Friday-Sunday.

The previous TransVisions were hosted by Transcedo in the Netherlands
(in '98, see: http://www.educa.com/transcedo/transvis.htm) and Aleph in
Sweden ('99, see: http://maxm.normik.dk/tv99/). These were fairly small,
"inside" gatherings for transhumanists, but this year's event is meant
to be more open to the public, and will therefore be larger and
(presumably) somewhat different in style. It will be hosted by the WTA
(World Transhumanist Association, see: http://www.transhumanism.com) and
the Alcor UK group (see: http://www.liberty.demon.co.uk/auk/index.html).

If you want to keep in touch with developments (dates, locations,
speakers etc.), have suggestions, questions or comments and/or want to
help organising the event, you're welcome to join this mailing list. The
link below provides more info about transhumanism, the philosophy that
we can, and should, try to overcome our biological limits by means of
reason, science and technology.
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/c/r/y/cryonic4life/transhumanism.html

You can join the list at: http://www.onelist.com/community/transvision
or drop me a note with "subscribe transvision" in the header.

>Ever see what the Borg is like on Star Trek? Basically, a mind without a soul.
>Yuch!

Have you read Ray Kurzweil's _The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers
Exceed Human Intelligence_,
or Francis Crick's _The Astonishing Hypothesis, The Scientific Search For The
Soul_?

A Cosmist need not believe in minds or souls, depending on the definitions of
these terms.

Cheers,

--J. R. Molloy
http://www.shasta.com/jr

Thank you for your reply David. The history behind Anti-Materialism is what I
was after.

But getting back to the discussions of this forum:

Is this the fundamental belief of a Cosmist? That the mind and the computer
should be indistinguishable? But may I be so bold as to ask: Is it not already
so?  Are we not already thinking computers (albeit biological ones)-- carefully
and meticulously encoded by genomes found in chromosomes, that are currently
being mapped by computers?

Though I am trying to speak your language, I can see that I may be 'out of
place'  in this forum since, as you put it, David, it's a matter of what we
choose to believe...certainly, I am all for building better and faster and more
capable 'tools' (computers) for humans to use to augment their intellect.

It appears to me that Cosmists choose to believe that we are lacking the
'perfect' computer and therefore have to build one.  I choose to believe that
we already have that perfect computer -- the human mind. A computer is a tool.
Nothing more. Ever used a hammer? Same thing. I would even venture to say that
computers some day will become a tool to build a better tool...since, in the
end, the human mind is really just a tool as well.  Ah, now I'm getting to the
meat and potatoes. This is a question of the division between mind and soul.
The human mind (in whatever form Cosmists choose to describe it) is nothing
more than a tool for the soul to manipulate.  This is what I choose to believe.
Ever see what the Borg is like on Star Trek? Basically, a mind without a soul.
Yuch!

Well, it's my opinion, expressed on this here democratized Internet.

FORUM LEADER/HOST: Please let me know if my comments are too much 'clutter' for
this forum and I will unsubscribe. Thanks.

>At the risk of delving into the metaphysical, has anyone heard of the theory
>that all matter, particles, and energy in the Universe are quantified in some
>giant super-computer somewhere (some might refer to this as a sort of God).

I don't know what this theory is called, or even if it has an "official"
name.  It's similar, however, to the idea of Anti-Materialism proposed by
Irish philosopher George Berkely in his "Three Dialogues between Hylas and
Philonus."  He proposed, way back in 1713, that the material world didn't
actually exist, and that we exist solely in God's imagination, with the
experience of the material world fed to us straight from the mind of God
itself.

The change from God's imagination to God's supercomputer is fairly
superficial in this forum, since we are after all asserting that the mind
and the computer might eventually be indistinguishable.  The theory is more
or less unrefutable, but at the same time it remains unprovable, since we
are postulating things that exist outside of the universe and our ability
to observe.  (/Where/ does the proposed supercomputer exist?)  In the end,
as with most philosophical debates, it becomes a matter of what you want to
believe.

-David



------
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes -- and ships -- and sealing wax --
Of cabbages -- and kings --
And why the sea is boiling hot --
And whether pigs have wings."
          - Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland
------
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who
has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has
intended us to forego their use."
          - Galileo
------
What better way to be freaks than to be freaks together?
          - jl&de

At the risk of delving into the metaphysical, has anyone heard of the theory
that all matter, particles, and energy in the Universe are quantified in some
giant super-computer somewhere (some might refer to this as a sort of God).
In other words, everything in the Universe exists only as bits of data in this
metaphysical computer.  Does anyone know what this theory is called and who
came up with it? How do Artilects feel about this concept?

BEN HOUSTON: Thanks for the explanation and I'll go check out Merlin Donald's
book. This is a very interesting topic. This was another thing I liked about
your presentation - the past trends in human evolution you identified, and the
future ones you explored.
Good luck, hope you get the internship!

Regards,

-Wolfspider

Hi there,

I heard of a group of robotbuilders who think artilects in the future can be
dangerous. They like the idea of artilect but to be sure nothing happens
they are going to build a line of defence with little robots (not so
intelligent) who can terminate the artilects when artilects get dangerous
(you know,just how virusses work). The little robots will active when artilects
take over.
I think that's a strange story (a friend told me about this).
I searched the internet to look for info but could not find it.
Does anyone know about this group of robotbuilders?
What do you think, are these people Cosmists or terrans?

                                Hope to hear from you,

                                               Eduard Versluijs

P.S. I'm a robotbuilder myself and I see myself as a Cosmist.

> Message: 1
>    Date: 19 Nov 1999 16:54:19 -0000
>    From: wolfspider@...
> Subject: Ben's draft:  Augmenting the Human Intellect...
>
> Ben, your draft is very interesting.
> Q - What is "E", "M", "L"? Level 11Vc?
>
Yeah, that's one thing about the presentation.  I presented this draft to my
cognitive science class monday and it is supposed to go along with a
commentary.  In the commentary I mention that the initial evolution part was
taken from Merlin Donald's (Psychology Professor at Queens U) 1991 book
"Origins of the Modern Mind".  He devides pre homo sapien culture into 4
stages depending on what faculties of mind or reasoning the anthropods (is
this correct usage of this word) were using.

Stage I: Episodic Culture (the 'E')
- the world that non-human primates live within...
Stage II: Mimesis Culture (the 'M')
- the ability to make representation gestures... (moving from concrete to
abstract)
Stage III: Mythic Culture (the 'L' for linguistic)
- verbal myths that intergrate mimesis and episodic experience...
Stage IVa: Theoretic Culture (the 'V/S' for visual-pictorial)
- cave drawings...
Stage IVb: Theoretic Culture (the 'EXMF' for external memory field)
- writen language as external memory...
Stage IVc: Theoretic Culture (the 'External symbolic storage system')
- phonological writings and external symbolic storage systems (libraries,
books)

Read the book for better and very in depth analysis of his theory.

> The beauty of Sci-Fi is the limitless universe that
> is available in which to experiment with science
> and/or human psychology gone wildly wrong.
> "The Matrix" was a very scary look at what could go
> wrong given a self-aware omnipotent computer system.
> Would a human-cum-cyborg with a vastly superior
> intellect be any gentler to its inferior cousins?
> You quoted Vernor Vinge as saying that shortly after
> the advent of the "superhuman", that the human
> era will be ended. What about the transition
> period? Won't Carnage reign king?

Most likely any destruction would be our fault and not some smarter beings
fault.  I do not buy these apocaliptical futures.

> Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the marriage of the
> human being with technological advances.  The story
> behind the "Six Million Dollar Man" is actually
> really cool -- giving motor ability back to the
> disabled/aged. Wow! But implanting a telephone
> inbetween a human's inner ear and their brain, uh-oh.
>
> I don't know and I'm open to possibilities. That's my
> response to what I saw in your draft. It's all very
> interesting.

Thanks for your thoughts.  I personally find the field to be very
interesting.  I am hoping to work in the field of implanted microelectrode
arrays this summer if I can get the internship that I want.

Cheers,
-ben houston
http://www.exocortex.org/~ben

Ben, your draft is very interesting.
Q - What is "E", "M", "L"? Level 11Vc?

The beauty of Sci-Fi is the limitless universe that
is available in which to experiment with science
and/or human psychology gone wildly wrong.
"The Matrix" was a very scary look at what could go
wrong given a self-aware omnipotent computer system.
Would a human-cum-cyborg with a vastly superior
intellect be any gentler to its inferior cousins?
You quoted Vernor Vinge as saying that shortly after
the advent of the "superhuman", that the human
era will be ended. What about the transition
period? Won't Carnage reign king?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the marriage of the
human being with technological advances.  The story
behind the "Six Million Dollar Man" is actually
really cool -- giving motor ability back to the
disabled/aged. Wow! But implanting a telephone
inbetween a human's inner ear and their brain, uh-oh.

I don't know and I'm open to possibilities. That's my
response to what I saw in your draft. It's all very
interesting.

-Wolfster

Hi,

This is my first post to this list.  I am an undergraduate studying
cognitive science.  I have been putting together a project talking about the
psychological, evolutionary and technical details of the possible of
augmenting human intellect.  It deals essentially the possibility of neural
implants and what are otherwise cyborgs.  It is a draft and I am in need of
more material... thus I am requesting feedback (positive or negative is
appreciated).

If you would like to have a look at it grab it here:
http://www.exocortex.org/~ben/augment-draft.ppt
(MS Presentations 97/2000 format)

Thanks for your time,
-ben houston
http://www.exocortex.org/~ben

I guess that makes you a "Terran" rather than a "Cosmist" Wolfster.

(You have read de Garis, right?)

--J. R.
-----Original Message-----
From: wolfspider@... <wolfspider@...>
To: Artilect@onelist.com <Artilect@onelist.com>
Date: Monday, November 15, 1999 9:08 PM
Subject: [Artilect] A "self aware" AI - It can't happen...


>From: wolfspider@...
>
>Hi,
>
>AI is a very interesting topic and I'm glad this
>community exists.  I don't think that a self-aware
>AI will ever come to be - at least not in the
>context of today's computer silicon wafer computer chip
>technologies.
>
>A computer is and always will be a machine, a tool,
>like a hand-drill or a screwdriver.  These tools do
>not think creatively for themselves, so how can we
>expect that an AI machine will do so?
>
>Certainly, I think that Deep Blue and others simulate
>master chess players very effectively but still, they
>are just tools. They emulate, copy techniques, calculate
>permutations at a rate must faster than a human can.
>But that doesn't make the machine intelligent.
>
>Years ago I heard of some discoveries in the
>bio-chip arena. Does anyone know if this has become
>a reality, or is it still just on the drawing board?
>
>It's a scary prospect all right, if it were possible
>for a highly efficient 'machine' to think for itself.
>Thus far, the human brain is the most amazing
>mechanism on this order. The human mind is efficient,
>creative, compassionate, able to learn, *and* forget,
>which I think is a very valuable attribute that a computer
>machine cannot do unless programmed by a human to do so.
>
>In the future, I believe AI machines will continue to be
>marvelous tools that help to extend the capabilities
>and reaches of the human mind.  That's pretty terrific
>in and of itself.
>
>-Wolfster
>
>>Join the ArtilectRing
>http://nanoquest.com/artilectring
>

Hi,

AI is a very interesting topic and I'm glad this
community exists.  I don't think that a self-aware
AI will ever come to be - at least not in the
context of today's computer silicon wafer computer chip
technologies.

A computer is and always will be a machine, a tool,
like a hand-drill or a screwdriver.  These tools do
not think creatively for themselves, so how can we
expect that an AI machine will do so?

Certainly, I think that Deep Blue and others simulate
master chess players very effectively but still, they
are just tools. They emulate, copy techniques, calculate
permutations at a rate must faster than a human can.
But that doesn't make the machine intelligent.

Years ago I heard of some discoveries in the
bio-chip arena. Does anyone know if this has become
a reality, or is it still just on the drawing board?

It's a scary prospect all right, if it were possible
for a highly efficient 'machine' to think for itself.
Thus far, the human brain is the most amazing
mechanism on this order. The human mind is efficient,
creative, compassionate, able to learn, *and* forget,
which I think is a very valuable attribute that a computer
machine cannot do unless programmed by a human to do so.

In the future, I believe AI machines will continue to be
marvelous tools that help to extend the capabilities
and reaches of the human mind.  That's pretty terrific
in and of itself.

-Wolfster

AI is possible .. but AI won't happen



The future of Artificial Intelligence
Dr. Mark Humphrys
University of Edinburgh



Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a perfect example of how sometimes science moves
more slowly than we would have predicted. In the first flush of enthusiasm at
the invention of computers it was believed that we now finally had the tools
with which to crack the problem of the mind, and within years we would see a new
race of intelligent machines. We are older and wiser now. The first rush of
enthusiasm is gone, the computers that impressed us so much back then do not
impress us now, and we are soberly settling down to understand how hard the
problems of AI really are.

What is AI? In some sense it is engineering inspired by biology. We look at
animals, we look at humans and we want to be able to build machines that do what
they do. We want machines to be able to learn in the way that they learn, to
speak, to reason and eventually to have consciousness. AI is engineering but, at
this stage, is it also science? Is it, for example, modelling in cognitive
science? We would like to think that is both engineering and science but the
contributions that is has made to cognitive science so far are perhaps weaker
than the contributions that biology has given to the engineering.

The confused history of AI

Looking back at the history of AI, we can see that perhaps it began at the wrong
end of the spectrum. If AI had been tackled logically, it would perhaps have
begun as an artificial biology, looking at living things and saying "Can we
model these with machines?". The working hypothesis would have been that living
things are physical systems so let's try and see where the modelling takes us
and where it breaks down. Artificial biology would look at the evolution of
physical systems in general, development from infant to adult,
self-organisation, complexity and so on. Then, as a subfield of that, a sort of
artificial zoology that looks at sensorimotor behaviour, vision and navigation,
recognising, avoiding and manipulating objects, basic, pre-linguistic learning
and planning, and the simplest forms of internal representations of external
objects. And finally, as a further subfield of this, an artificial psychology
that looks at human behaviour where we deal with abstract reasoning, language,
speech and social culture, and all those philosophical conundrums like
consciousness, free will and so forth.

That would have been a logical progression and is what should have happened. But
what did happen was that what people thought of as intelligence was the stuff
that impresses us. Our peers are impressed by things like doing complex
mathematics and playing a good chess game. The ability to walk, in contrast,
doesn't impress anyone. You can't say to your friends, "Look, I can walk",
because your friends can walk too.

So all those problems that toddlers grapple with every day were seen as
unglamorous, boring, and probably pretty easy anyway. The really hard problems,
clearly, were things demanding abstract thought, like chess and mathematical
theorem proving. Everyone ignored the animal and went straight to the human, and
the adult human too, not even the child human. And this is what `AI' has come to
mean - artificial adult human intelligence. But what has happened over the last
40-50 years - to the disappointment of all those who made breathless predictions
about where AI would go - is that things such as playing chess have turned out
to be incredibly easy for computers, whereas learning to walk and learning to
get around in the world without falling over has proved to be unbelievably
difficult.

And it is not as if we can ignore the latter skills and just carry on with
human-level AI. It has proved very difficult to endow machines with `common
sense', emotions and those other intangibles which seem to drive much
intelligent human behaviour, and it does seem that these may come more from our
long history of interactions with the world and other humans than from any
abstract reasoning and logical deduction. That is, the animal and child levels
may be the key to making really convincing, well-rounded forms of intelligence,
rather than the intelligence of chess-playing machines like Deep Blue, which are
too easy to dismiss as `mindless'.

In retrospect, the new view makes sense. It took 3 billion years of evolution to
produce apes, and then only another 2 million years or so for languages and all
the things that we are impressed by to appear. That's perhaps an indication that
once you've got the mobile, tactile monkey, once you've got the Homo erectus,
those human skills can evolve fairly quickly. It may be a fairly trivial matter
for language and reasoning to evolve in a creature which can already find its
way around the world.

The new AI, and the new optimism That's certainly what the history of AI has
served to bear out. As a result, there has been a revolution in the field which
goes by names such as Artificial Life (AL) and Adaptive Behavior, trying to
re-situate AI within the context of an artificial biology and zoology
(respectively). The basic philosophy is that we need much more understanding of
the animal substrates of human behaviour before we can fulfil the dreams of AI
in replicating convincing well-rounded intelligence.

(Incidentally, the reader should note that the terminology is in chaos, as
fields re-group and re-define themselves. For example, I work on artificial
zoology but describe myself casually as doing AI. This chaos can, however, be
seen as a healthy sign of a field which has not yet stabilised. Any young
scientist with imagination should realise that these are the kind of fields to
get into. Who wants to be in a field where everything was solved long ago?)

So AI is not dead, but re-grouping, and is still being driven, as always, by
testable scientific models. Discussions on philosophical questions, such as
`What is life?' or `What is intelligence?', change little over the years. There
have been numerous attempts, from Roger Penrose to Gerald Edelman, to disprove
AI (show that it is impossible) but none of these attempted revolutions has yet
gathered much momentum. This is not just because of lack of agreement with their
philosophical analysis (although there is plenty of that), but also perhaps
because they fail to provide an alternative paradigm in which we can do science.
Progress, as is normal in science, comes from building things and running
experiments, and the flow of new and strange machines from AI laboratories is
not remotely exhausted. On the contrary, it has been recently invigorated by the
new biological approach.

In fact, the old optimism has even been resurrected. Professor Kevin Warwick of
the University of Reading has recently predicted that the new approach will lead
to human-level AI in our lifetimes. But I think we have learned our lesson on
that one. I, and many like me in new AI, imagine that this is still Physics
before Newton, that the field might have a good one or two hundred years left to
run. The reason is that there is no obvious way of getting from here to there -
to human-level intelligence from the rather useless robots and brittle software
programs that we have nowadays. A long series of conceptual breakthroughs are
needed, and this kind of thinking is very difficult to timetable. What we are
trying to do in the next generation is essentially to find out what are the
right questions to ask.

It may never happen (but not for the reasons you think)

I think that people who are worried about robots taking over the world should go
to a robotics conference and watch these things try to walk. They fall over,
bump into walls and end up with their legs thrashing or wheels spinning in the
air. I'm told that in this summer's Robotic Football competition, the losing
player scored all five goals - 2 against the opposing robot, and 3 against
himself. The winner presumably just fell over.

Robots are more helpless than threatening. They are really quite sweet. I was in
the MIT robotics laboratory once looking at Cog, Rodney Brooks' latest robot.
Poor Cog has no legs. He is a sort of humanoid, a torso stuck on a stand with
arms, grippers, binocular vision and so on. I saw Cog on a Sunday afternoon in a
darkened laboratory when everyone had gone home and I felt sorry for him which I
know is mad. But it was Sunday afternoon and no one was going to come and play
with him. If you consider the gulf between that and what most animals experience
in their lives, surrounded by a tribe of fellow infants and adults, growing up
with parents who are constantly with them and constantly stimulating them, then
you understand the incredibly limited kind of life that artificial systems have.

The argument I am developing is that there may be limits to AI, not because the
hypothesis of `strong AI' is false, but for more mundane reasons. The argument,
which I develop further on my website, is that you can't expect to build single
isolated AI's, alone in laboratories, and get anywhere. Unless the creatures can
have the space in which to evolve a rich culture, with repeated social
interaction with things that are like them, you can't really expect to get
beyond a certain stage. If we work up from insects to dogs to Homo erectus to
humans, the AI project will I claim fall apart somewhere around the Homo erectus
stage because of our inability to provide them with a real cultural environment.
We cannot make millions of these things and give them the living space in which
to develop their own primitive societies, language and cultures. We can't
because the planet is already full. That's the main argument, and the reason for
the title of this talk.

So what will happen?

So what will happen? What will happen over the next thirty years is that will
see new types of animal-inspired machines that are more `messy' and
unpredictable than any we have seen before. These machines will change over time
as a result of their interactions with us and with the world. These silent,
pre-linguistic, animal-like machines will be nothing like humans but they will
gradually come to seem like a strange sort of animal. Machines that learn,
familiar to researchers in labs for many years, will finally become mainstream
and enter the public consciousness.

What category of problems could animal-like machines address? The kind of
problems we are going to see this approach tackle will be problems that are
somewhat noise and error resistant and that do not demand abstract reasoning. A
special focus will be behaviour that is easier to learn than to articulate -
most of us know how to walk but we couldn't possibly tell anyone how we do it.
Similarly with grasping objects and other such skills. These things involve
building neural networks, filling in state-spaces and so on, and cannot be
captured as a set of rules that we speak in language. You must experience the
dynamics of your own body in infancy and thrash about until the changing
internal numbers and weights start to converge on the correct behaviour.
Different bodies mean different dynamics. And robots that can learn to walk can
learn other sensorimotor skills that we can neither articulate nor perform
ourselves.

What are examples of these type of problems? Well, for example, there are
already autonomous lawnmowers that will wander around gardens all afternoon. The
next step might be autonomous vacuum cleaners inside the house (though clutter
and stairs present immediate problems for wheeled robots). These are all sorts
of other uses for artificial animals in areas where people find jobs dangerous
or tedious - land-mine clearance, toxic waste clearance, farming, mining,
demolition, finding objects and robotic exploration, for example. Any jobs done
currently or traditionally by animals would be a focus. We are familiar already
from the Mars Pathfinder and other examples that we can send autonomous robots
not only to inhospitable places, but also send them there on cheap one-way
`suicide' missions. (Of course, no machine ever `dies', since we can restore its
mind in a new body on earth after the mission.)

Whether these type of machines may have a future in the home is an interesting
question. If it ever happens, I think it will be because the robot is treated as
a kind of pet, so that a machine roaming the house is regarded as cute rather
than creepy. Machines that learn tend to develop an individual, unrepeatable
character which humans can find quite attractive. There are already a few games
in software - such as the Windows-based game Creatures, and the little
Tamagotchi toys - whose personalities people can get very attached to. A major
part of the appeal is the unique, fragile and unrepeatable nature of the
software beings you interact with. If your Creature dies, you may never be able
to raise another one like it again. Machines in the future will be similar, and
the family robot will after a few years be, like a pet, literally irreplaceable.

What will hold things up? There are many things that could hold up progress but
hardware is the one that is staring us in the face at the moment. Nobody is
going to buy a robotic vacuum cleaner that costs £5000 no matter how many big
cute eyes are painted on it or even if it has a voice that says, "I love you".
Many conceptual breakthroughs will be needed to create artificial animals. The
major theoretical issue to be solved is probably representation: what is
language and how do we classify the world. We say `That's a table' and so on for
different objects, but what does an insect do, what is going on in an insect's
head when it distinguishes objects in the world, what information is being
passed around inside, what kind of data structures are they using. Each robot
will have to learn an internal language customised for its sensorimotor system
and the particular environmental niche in which it finds itself. It will have to
learn this internal language on its own, since any representations we attempt to
impose on it, coming from a different sensorimotor world, will probably not
work.

Predictions

Finally, what will be the impact on society of animal-like machines? Let's make
a few predictions that I will later look back and laugh at.

First, family robots may be permanently connected to wireless family intranets,
sharing information with those who you want to know where you are. You may never
need to worry if your loved ones are alright when they are late or far away,
because you will be permanently connected to them. Crime may get difficult if
all family homes are full of half-aware, loyal family machines. In the future,
we may never be entirely alone, and if the controls are in the hands of our
loved ones rather than the state, that may not be such a bad thing.

Slightly further ahead, if some of the intelligence of the horse can be put back
into the automobile, thousands of lives could be saved, as cars become nervous
of their drunk owners, and refuse to get into positions where they would crash
at high speed. We may look back in amazement at the carnage tolerated in this
age, when every western country had road deaths equivalent to a long,
slow-burning war. In the future, drunks will be able to use cars, which will
take them home like loyal horses. And not just drunks, but children, the old and
infirm, the blind, all will be empowered.

Eventually, if cars were all (wireless) networked, and humans stopped driving
altogether, we might scrap the vast amount of clutter all over our road system -
signposts, markings, traffic lights, roundabouts, central reservations - and
return our roads to a soft, sparse, eighteenth-century look. All the information
- negotiation with other cars, traffic and route updates - would come over the
network invisibly. And our towns and countryside would look so much sparser and
more peaceful.

Conclusion

I've been trying to give an idea of how artificial animals could be useful, but
the reason that I'm interested in them is the hope that artificial animals will
provide the route to artificial humans. But the latter is not going to happen in
our lifetimes (and indeed may never happen, at least not in any straightforward
way).

In the coming decades, we shouldn't expect that the human race will become
extinct and be replaced by robots. We can expect that classical AI will go on
producing more and more sophisticated applications in restricted domains -
expert systems, chess programs, Internet agents - but any time we expect common
sense we will continue to be disappointed as we have been in the past. At
vulnerable points these will continue to be exposed as `blind automata'. Whereas
animal-based AI or AL will go on producing stranger and stranger machines, less
rationally intelligent but more rounded and whole, in which we will start to
feel that there is somebody at home, in a strange animal kind of way. In
conclusion, we won't see full AI in our lives, but we should live to get a good
feel for whether or not it is possible, and how it could be achieved by our
descendants.

Further Reading


Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Daniel C. Dennett (philosophical background). Dennett
shows how Strong AI is simply the consequence of ordinary scientific
materialism, and any alternative better fit into evolutionary materialism as
well as AI does.
Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Kevin Kelly. A wonderfully written
survey of current work.
Guns, Germs and Steel: A Short History of Everybody for the Last 13,000 years,
Jared Diamond (evolutionary history). Diamond demonstrates vividly how easily
cultures fail, and how hard our human success was. AIs will be even more
vulnerable to cultural failure.

a GREAT read!

http://www.hip.atr.co.jp/~degaris/artilectwar.html

If you have not done so already, check out:

http://www.vperson.com

For the latest trial version of Verbot 3.04!

================================================

A brief introduction to Verbot(tm) scripting by Peter Plantec

Welcome to the Verbot(tm) family.  Sylvie(tm) can do a lot more than you
may think.  I recommend that you take the time to play with her net file.

One way to see how it works is to open your Sylvie.net file next to
Sylvie's face.   Reduce the face size by going into the view control and
selecting the small Sylvie interface.  Next, look at the Rules.  an
asterisk (*) is called a wild card.  It means that Sylvie will ignore this
stuff.  look for a rule labeled like so--> <smile-0>  there are many such
rules. Select one and look for a line like p:35 *my*friend*Ann*      This
is a Verbot pattern line.  Sylvie will respond with anything that fits the
pattern. for example

"Hey, Sylvie, this is my friend Ann. What do you think about her?"

She will ignore everything but my-friend-Ann. and the rule will fire.

What she does when the rule fires is up to you. For example in the r: line
of the rule you could put:

r:Hello Ann, %name%, told me you are a very nice person.*<smile>

Let's say you told Sylvie that you're name is Donna,
in that case Sylvie would say:

"Hello Ann, Donna, told me you are a very nice person."

And then she'd smile at you. That can be very impressive to
your friend.  With some effort you can script Sylvie to deal with very
complex situations. It takes some practice but you can do it.

Think of all the uses this might have for you.  You need to contact us if you
want to
use Sylvie commercially. We'll find a way to get you permission. For
example, one fellow put Sylvie on computers in his computer store and wrote
to us that Sylvie has sold more computers than all three of his sales
people!  He used the boredom responses to attract people who then asked
Sylvie questions about the product.  Boredom responses ie:

b:hey, come on over and check out my features.

Boredom responses fire an the average of every ten minutes.
People find it fascinating to have a computer address them and then
actually answer their questions.

I think you get the point. The r: line is very flexible. you can run
batch files from it, open programs, even control electrical devices via the
X10 interface available from www.x10.com
(Note: x10 is not supported or related to Virtual Personalities, Inc.)

We hope you enjoy the Verbot you selected.  She represents many thousands
of hours over eight years. Sylvie is but one application of our advanced
Virtual Human interface technology.  Enjoy your Verbot.

-P-
Peter Plantec
Creative Director
Virtual Personalities, Inc.
Beverly Hills, CA
Http//www.vperson.com

"We can create artificial intelligence...it's childhood wonder that stops
us cold."


















http://datareturn.com
http://nanoquest.com
http://nanocomputer.org
http://artilect.org

----- Original Message -----
From: DRB
To: DRB
Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 8:00 AM
Subject: rules


The Basic Rules for the List are:

1. Let the Moderators do their job! Any "warnings" to the list members for
    inappropriate behavior (listed below) should be for the List Moderators
    to handle. We handle most "warnings" off-list in an effort to keep the
    traffic level on the list more manageable. Warnings "on list" are only
    used when the Moderators believe it will be more effective to do so.

2. Use Plain Text Format (HTML can mess with some member's email software),

3. Edit your Replies! Over-quoting serves no useful purpose and hinders
    communication. Never quote a Digest, always trim!

4. Stay on-topic as much as possible,

5. Answer questions when you know the answers but check to see if someone
    has already answered the question if it has been posted for a while
    (there are many knowledgeable people on the list and it doesn't do
    anyone any good to repeat answers :)),

6. Change Subject headings when appropriate. Don't respond with Re: Digest #

7. No Virus Warnings (if you must, send them to the moderators for approval)

8. No Flaming (avoid any kind of abusive attacks on another list member),

9. No Attachments - Period (due to paranoia about viruses),

10. If a moderator asks you to drop a thread - please drop it :)

11.All members of this list Subscribed themselves and are expected to be able
    to Unsubscribe themselves. The Unsubscribe Directions are included at the
    bottom of every list message and the top of every Digest message. Any
    "unsubscribe" messages posted to the list will be dealt with by the
    moderators, off list.

12.All members are expected to read Administrative messages sent to the list.
    These messages will appear with ADMIN in the Subject line.

For those who need more "detail", here are the Rules in Detail:

No Flaming:
Flaming serves no useful purpose on this list. We are here to help each other.
Attacks and/or Name calling are counter productive. Flaming and other forms
of harassment are grounds for removal from the list. Direct your comments
to the Idea not the person and always be ready to "agree to disagree".

No Spam (Sales solicitations, requests for Aid to Children, chain letters,
Business opportunities, crossposts, attachments, virus warnings, etc)

Message Format:
Plain Text format is the Appropriate format for this list. No HTML or fancy
graphics/sounds are permitted. For an explanation and directions on how to
not use HTML, go here: http://pages.ivillage.com/cp/listmanager/FAQ15.html

Keep On Topic.
      Every post should have some relevance to the expressed purpose of this
List.

Replies.
      Before posting a reply to the list think about the message you are
posting. Are you saying something that everyone on the list will be
interested in? Or are your return remarks something only the original sender
would like to hear? Onelist provides the sender's email address at the top of
every message so you can respond privately when needed. Please take advantage
of it.

Edit!
      When replying to a message, do not send the entire message back to the
list. Edit the original message to display only the heart of what you are
responding to.  Otherwise it is too difficult for others to read and they will
pass up your note for easier reading. Plus, it wastes space and takes up time
and can make life difficult for those who utilize "screen readers" (visually
disadvantaged). If you don't know how to Edit, just ask us and we'll be glad
to help. Check the list and see which messages are the easiest to understand
while at the same time take up the least amount of space. Those are the
messages you want to emulate :)


Subscribe/Unsubscribe directions:
All list members are expected to know how to unsubscribe themselves.
After all, if you can't unsubscribe yourself how can you help your
members when they need to unsubscribe? The method to unsubscribe is
quite simple. You can send an email to:
  emaillist-managers-unsubscribe@onelist.com Or you can log into the
Onelist Member Center http://www.onelist.com and go to the Lists you
are subscribed to and click on unsubscribe. You can also change your
List Settings in the Onelist Member Center from Normal to Digest mode.


Easy to Use Email Functions
Click on the appropriate address to change your account status

Subscribe to EmailList-Managers
mailto:emaillist-managers-subscribe@onelist.com

Unsubscribe from EmailList-Manager
mailto:emaillist-managers-unsubscribe@onelist.com

Switch from Digest to Normal mail
mailto:emaillist-managers-normal@onelist.com

Switch from Normal to Digest mail
mailto:emaillist-managers-digest@onelist.com

Write to the Current Moderators of the List:
mailto:emaillist-managers-owner@onelist.com

      Suggestions for improvements to the List should be sent to the "owner"
address listed above.

June 17,'99 - This is the latest version of these rules. These rules supersede
any prior rules you might have received. File these rules for later review.

Thanks,

  The Moderators

Current Moderators are:

Read about building an artificial Brain!
http://www.hip.atr.co.jp/~degaris/papers/modules.html

testing

this is a test

Hello and welcome,
this list is about the coming age of ultra intelligent machines!  How do you
feel about that?
We call people that are in favor of machines that are smarther than
Humans..cosmists
We call people against machines smarter that Humans... terrans

So express yourself and tell us how you feel.

other links to visit
http://nanoquest.com/artilectring
http://nanoquest.com
http://nanocomputer.org/artilect

and artilectworld will soon have its home
at
http://artilect.org

thanks
Doug
Co Founder

this is a test message