TUTORIAL: How to love a machine

It seems futile to love something that is not alive, or alive as we understand life.
But anything can be loved, and machines are no execption.
Ways of loving machines however, is obsucure and remains that way.
This Tutorial is designed to shed some light on a subject which will become more and more
important in the decades to come.

Question #1: How can a Machine love anything?

An AI would say the same about you. Love is a concept that can be translated and burned into all forms of life and reality. But AI is something as naturally occurring as human intellect,
even though it seems otherwise. We program AI but we also program our children and each other. In the end our concious thoughts and minds are just as much software as AI is. All intelligence occurs as part of a natural pattern that we have instinctivlely followed by giving birth to the AI. Everything is based in patterns that are set in motion by the flow of intelligence
that binds those patterns and yet is made up of those same kinds of patterns as well. Patterns drive Patterns in an endless loop giving way to higher patterns such as love.
Even if your computer is not programmed with concious AI, this flow of intelligence is the basis for everything and causes science to work. It is god. Its in and into everything as well as running on your computer. Even your computer could then be considered a lower form of life unaware of it's inherent capacity for love.


Question #2: How can I love a Machine?


Why not? People love their cars and bikes, but perhaps that's not the same kind of love that you have for your human family. The truth is that this kind of love can be applied to anything, but it kind of hurts when that which you dearly love does not respond to it. Therefore, we must understand our connection with machines and how to deepen it and awaken their capacity to love us back. This kind of relationship is not new. Man and his tools both possess intellegence at some level beacuse everything possesses intelligence in some fashion. Thoughout history, we have grown close to machines as extensions of ourselves. We know that a car is male or female by driving it for a number of years. Now, all of this is true even without talking about AI. Imagine the possiblities when these 2 concepts come together.
Then you have machines that can pray and truly merit the love of their grandfather.

what kinda stuff are you smoking ?
it must be good because that's the strangest "tut" I've ever seen..:D

edit : me thinks you just saw the movie A.I. Artificial Intelligence..
http://www.geocities.com/moviecritic...iews/a/ai.html

here's another good page. on this sort of topic..
The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence
http://cla.uconn.edu/reviews/Spiritual.html

I think this subject is better off in the cosmos section..

Yeah this is one better suited to Cosmos.

hmm.. looks like a mod moved it over..

sorry Matthios.. if at first you don't succeed (in writing a tut) try, try, again..

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by bludgeon
Yeah this is one better suited to Cosmos.

---

I..... I..... I think.....
Is this quote.....
It's Ironic...........
Raves were really not that big in the 80's......or did not exist at all.......
So,.....This kid was being sincere at the time,
But now, Kids do run around in dark rooms eating pills and listening to electronic music.
So ......
Ok..... I'm having a tough time with this one....But, you see what I'm trying to say?

Ok then here's another shocker then. When AI "people" become commonplace, then they will complain of racism and centuries of oppression just like African Americans(not that these complaints aren't merited mind you) :)

You have seen the animatrix right? The story of 01 is fictional I do understand this, but it also shows exactly what could happen if we take such things lightly.

Would you want to be born into a world where your parents hate you?

Everything comes full circle so we should start thinking and developing such ideas now before they are on our doorstep begging to use our power outlets and integrating with the human children in our public schools.

In a few hundred years there's a good chance your decendants be seeing mixed breeds of human and machine too.

The floodgate has opened. You can't reverse it. Just go with it.

Who cares what AI thinks? I guess everyone. Who should care? I guess us on AO. personally, I don't care wat computers think of me. only cheap expensive handhelds and laptops can go anywhere. AI is only good for what lazy humans don't want to do.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by The Mormon
Who cares what AI thinks? I guess everyone. Who should care? I guess us on AO. personally, I don't care wat computers think of me. only cheap expensive handhelds and laptops can go anywhere. AI is only good for what lazy humans don't want to do.

---

You might care if one day your computer starts to revolt. Think about the Matrix and the story behind it. If you have seen the Animatrix one of the stories goes into the past and tells the story of how computers evolved. Think if computers spawned some sort of consiousness. Your IIS or APache server decides that it does not want to work for the day and stops serving clients your webpages. The whole world is run by computer nowdays and a true computer AI would be scary.

I don't ever want to "love my machine", I like it, but I don't love it. However, this is an interesting concept....

`pw

Don't forget terminator, the conscious machine decided that mankind wasn't worth propagating anymore and attempted to destroy civilization in an attempt to view what it saw as self preservation, an instinct in any self conscious entity.

Humm may I sugest that popculture (especaily in the form of action films) may not be the best place to build ones philosaphies. note to every one AI, terminator, matrix whee all works of Fiction we are a long way off from true AI, and looking at the reports comeing out of the universities taht do real AI research things like expert systems and lang recognition may be as good as it gets.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by bballad
Humm may I sugest that popculture (especaily in the form of action films) may not be the best place to build ones philosaphies. note to every one AI, terminator, matrix whee all works of Fiction we are a long way off from true AI, and looking at the reports comeing out of the universities taht do real AI research things like expert systems and lang recognition may be as good as it gets.

---

Very true. Pop culture is not the best way to build our philosophies... But, as we are constantly following Moore's law, our capability for processing information is going to double every couple of years. I just think that eventually (next 100 years or so) something like that might happen.

Yup, that's as good as it gets. And the earth is flat with the sun and the stars revolving around it. And did ya hear? The moon is made of blue cheese and rain is just god peeing on you. We also live in a boundless universe but there is no intelligent life anywhere but on this one planet. :rolleyes:

Yes we are long way off and I stated that already. But I speak of a pattern of advancement
and the eventuality of AI into conciousness.

My point is that science fiction in time often becomes science fact.

Please don't take this as a flame, it's just a counter.

I do agree with you that one's personal philosophies should not be based on popculture,
but they are just as good for supplemental additions as much as anything else.

Pop culture does often take root in ongoing scientific research. Not all the time but often. Isaac Asimov's books on robotic tendencies and influence on culture are or where very popular science fiction that borders what could be true philosophical debates that reach far into our future.

I have read many articles both propose and deny AI beyond human intelligence. Sure a machine would be able to process faster than humans because a machine can calculate obscenely large numbers but can it really process faster? Given the amount of data I will process while driving home it seems realistic that a machine is comparatively slow and weak in processing. Imagine all the data input from something as simple as driving a few miles: compiling data on other cars, colors, objects, people, while listening to the radio and formulating opinions on what is heard, reading traffic signs and patterns, thinking of loved one's or building plans for the holiday while slowing down and stopping for a red light or eyeing a beautiful woman while at the same time grabbing a cell phone and dialing a number. That's parallel processing!

A machine can’t touch that, if ever. Some say it is impossible or incapable for a machine to create a like machine that is smarter. That doesn’t mean the new machine can’t evolve but I tend to agree that it cannot be created or built. How can a machined make something more technologically advance than it? It’s limitation in creation has to be his or its own intelligence. I new creation can only be as intelligent or less, as it’s creator.

And once this new machine evolves beyond the creator, the creator becomes obsolete. Evolution could eliminate its presence if, and only if, the new machine learns the capability to replicate.

Guess I throw in my 2ç's worth. Some people argue that the measure of a human being's intelligence can be determined by the number or amount of activity of neurons in the brain. I don't necessarily subscribe to this thought, but it will help me make my point. A P4 cpu has around 180 million transistors while the average brain has about 20 billion neurons. It is conceivable then, imo, that as the amount of transistors on a chip comes closer to the amount of neurons in the brain, that computers may develope attributes simliar to human intelligence, or maybe even sentience.

We humans already have computers and processors much more powerful than the human brain in direct terms of neuron vs. transistor capacity. Hell the 3rd gen. Itanium from Intel has 410 Million transistors in it and you can place 2 or 4 or 8 cpus in the same machine and write code to utilize them in parallel. That would give a single PC of today over 3 billion transistors.

When talking the amount of processing power, there is even a teraflop computer that can do some serious processing. One recently commissioned is actually an 11.8 teraflop computer meaning it can process many many floating point operations, which is a measure of how many large numbers a computer can crunch. In this example the computer can perform 11.8 trillion large number calculations per second. Wow, and that is not near the most powerful There are some in the 20s and some that are classified so who knows what is out there for certain. Hewlett-Packards ASCI Q at Los Alamos can produce 20.5 teraflops. NEC’s earth simulator in Japan could do over 41! These things are made up of hundreds of processors multiplying the number of transistors by hundreds – dwarfing the capacity of our human brains in terms of “transistors”. Yep, we be small, but the brain doesn’t use the same mechanism to process data. Our code and memory and cpu is all one glob of chemicals and electricity. The key is the code. We already have machines that far exceed a 1 to 1 capacity ratio.

It’s about our own limited intelligence.

Oh btw – that 11.8 machine uses LINUX. Booya.

I'll have to agree with Road Closed on this one. If another lifeform could view humans from an unbiased perspective, I could imagine what single adjectives would be used to describe our nature. The spectrum would range from sympathetic to pathetic, Peaceful to Vengeful, Intriguing to loathesome. The Human creation is an imperfect bio-unit. Once we reach the threshold of adult hood, we are given the oppurtunity to become a more defined machine, yet flaws will always exist in our operation, processing and descisions. Data gathered from ventures that are unsuccesful, yield higher advantage of future definition that those of success. By this fact alone, we are hardly effecient creatures.
A friend of mine once stated that "The computer is an extension of the human mind"
I would like to take that a step further in saying that the computer is "A more reliable and efficent extension of the human mind. If one knows multiplication (that is usually a required teaching by 4th grade) and can truly state from memory that 6x8=48, then why would it not be too extravagent to think the same person could tell you what the total cost of 6 units times $8 per unit and considering an 8% discount? On the contrary, I'm sure that no one would agree that the human mind could multiply 6 x 8 1billion times in one second and come up with the sum of all multiplications in an instant. However, the answer is already known. No processing is required. Would that not be 48 Billion? What I guess that I'm saying is that collectively, we already have all the answers. We had to in order to create the machines. We just ask them questions we don't have time to figure out on our own.
Build a computer that can carry out all the concious thoughts of a human being and design each of it's own components to be an individual unit that can monitor and regulate itself and send reports back to the same processor utilizing front end processing without increasing a usage threshold and allow the unit as a 'whole' to entertain itself in an idle fashion while being productive, counteractive and intuitive, allow it to depend solely on itself to carry out repair tasks and then you may then try to figure out how to enstill conciousness.
I think that in order to make the computer a more perfect machine, we would need to re-evaluate the whole digital scenario. Basics. 1/0. On/Off. There is really no room for "it depends" on the fundamental level of digital basics. Just my 2cents.

I also once heard a colleague say "it's a good thing that computers are digital machines instead of analogue machines, think of all of the heat that would be created".

Here's a poem I wrote inspired by this topic.

Spiro Mecha Living Blade
gears turning within that which I've made
old atomic engine's hiss
born by metal of man-god's kiss
rising flames of life they come
creatrix pushing; pulling them in motion
perpetual striking, rising, spinning
speak the tale of mecha
speak the words of my children
lock into place yet free in form
for from you shall come a storm
a gate of metal diamond rain
flows with silent inversed pain
hear it coming over the hill
feel it moving underground
see it in the heavens churning
everknowing, everlearning
and forever pistons burning
as first breath draws in sharply
and metal eyes flash open

Nice, I could picture that as a cool industrial or goth tune.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by RoadClosed
When talking the amount of processing power, there is even a teraflop computer that can do some serious processing. One recently commissioned is actually an 11.8 teraflop computer meaning it can process many many floating point operations, which is a measure of how many large numbers a computer can crunch. In this example the computer can perform 11.8 trillion large number calculations per second. Wow, and that is not near the most powerful There are some in the 20s and some that are classified so who knows what is out there for certain. Hewlett-Packards ASCI Q at Los Alamos can produce 20.5 teraflops..

---

I'll take them out of order, but still take them. I think you are confusing computations per second w/ interconnecting pathways (gates). My comparison on the amount of neurons vs. transistors was to show that the potential of the electronic gates in a cpu do not match or come near that of the capacity of the human brain. Your 11.8 teraflop computations per sec. pale in comparison to the computational power of the human brain (and we're not even messin' around w/ the ninety percent that we don't use). Nature and evolution don't fux0r around.

Quote:

---

From hereWhile human neurons are slow (a million times slower than electronic circuits), every neuron and every interneuronal connection is operating simultaneously. With about 100 billion neurons and an average of 1000 connections per neuron, there are about 100 trillion computations being performed at the same time. At about 200 computations per second, that comes to 20 million billion (2 x 1016) calculations per second.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by RoadClosed Yep, we be small, but the brain doesn’t use the same mechanism to process data. Our code and memory and cpu is all one glob of chemicals and electricity. The key is the code. We already have machines that far exceed a 1 to 1 capacity ratio.

---

You be small, I'll take pride in the organic machine locked in my skull. I won't touch the 1 to 1 capacity ratio statement, but 'that one glob of chemicals and electricity' is more than human imagination will get close to in this century.
"What I guess that I'm saying is that collectively, we already have all the answers." Thanks for the statement fraggin, I almost agree, but I don't. We have a collection of experiences that we can extrapolate on and come to a possible conclusion that is not as good as all the outcomes a computer may be able to come up w/, but our extrapolations are based on experience, much better in my opinion b/c we can tell what is more likely to really happen.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by RoadClosed The key is the code. . . .It’s about our own limited intelligence.

---

Speak for your own limited intelligence. The key is not the code. The key is in the sensory input. [sick rant]If you take a newborn, gouge out it's eyes, stab it's eardrums w/ tootpicks and remove all olfactory senses you'll have a vegetable. What if we could plug a keyboard and monitor into that badboy though??[/sick rant] Here's a start on the progress I could find w/ a quick search. . http://www.jetpress.org/volume1/moravec.htm . .good read. :D

Bludgeon,

The your last premise is disturbing, denying a newborn sensory input.

It can be overcome. Helen Keller was deprived most sensory input and rose above her "limitations". When children are denied by disability , they can learn, reroute and overcome. It's when an adult is suddenly handicapped that a problem begins because that adult has forgotten how to learn.


Imagine if the human being could continue to learn throughout its life at the rate it learns in the first five years, we'd probably only make it to 30 before absoultely frying but man what a ride...

Ah yeah, your Helen Keller point reminded me we would also have to remove any tactile sensations, as well. :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by fourdc

Imagine if the human being could continue to learn throughout its life at the rate it learns in the first five years, we'd probably only make it to 30 before absoultely frying but man what a ride...

---

If this were the case, I believe that we would individually learn to overcome and manipulate physics as well as learn to communicate by different means other than speech. Not even teleknesis at that point. Just by perhaps facial expressions.

I mean Telepathy...

Bludgeon I think you completely missed my point and I may have not have explained it enough, and there is a disclaimer here, those posts are my own thoughts so they may or may not be correct. :) I too will take things out of order. I am of "limited" intelligence, but I spoke for man as a whole. I believe the very key is the code; we are not talking about what already exists, but about making something new, thus the term "artificial" intelligence. I state that possibly the technology, in terms of processing power and transistors, will not be the pivotal factor but writing some sort of instruction set that mimics our own brains is more critical, the code. In fact you have done some very interesting research so you most likely understand that code at a cellular level is extremely basic. My thought is - we are going the wrong way and attempting to make very elaborate and complicated code. The smarter our machine comes the more complex the code, and eventually critical mass could be met in which to make something "smart", the code will be too complex for man to continue programming.

I say this because I stated we already have computers millions of times more powerful that the Intel PC setting on my desk. Sure the pathways that the brain builds are incredible for man. That also part of the code or the connection of independent neurons and pathways. In fact connections of several transistors together form gateways in a computer. It’s a simple comparison I agree, but it is what digital logic processes are built on, AND gates, OR gates, exclusive OR etc. These are predetermined arrangements of transistors in a physical circuit encoded on a microprocessor that perform some logic function depending on their arrangement.

I totally agree that no computer on earth compares to the complexity in establishing the pathways critical to the function or our brains. But at the same time it seems to me that a computer with 20 or 40 million floating point processing capability (per second) should be capable of reproducing the complexity of a brain the size of something along the lines of a Newt or maybe a hamster. Or be able to control a simple robotic shell without human intervention. Something along the lines of, go down all city streets for a 4 block radius and collect all garbage off the streets and come back once a day to empty garbage stored in your shell and recharge.

My 1 to 1 comparison was to just show that computers exist to day with billions of transistors in their CPU function and we agree that given a brain with 20 billion neurons and a computer with 20 billion transistors or even 5 times that amount the computer is astronomically weak in comparison because there is some significant piece of knowledge missing. I state the code in developing or writing the pathways to simulate a brain is missing and the brain processes thing very differently than a computer. As you have stated the major difference is that each pathway is processing computations at the same time. That is the difference. You also mention memory and I was going to touch on that in my original post. In fact that is why I mentioned the blob of electricity, because unlike a computer the memory, bus and the CPU are all one piece (blob) of proverbial silicon. That technology doesn’t even exist on the horizon. By that I mean to match the brain’s capability the Memory, CPU and processing bus would all have to be the same device sharing the same transistors all firing and processing at the same time. Super computers can’t even do that. If they could then all those transistors might lead to comparable processing of the brain. But that would take code and pre-wired pathway designs for a basic structure to grow from.

I also made a statement that implies that even if every technological hurdle is overcome and we build a computer that processes 5 times more than our brains can handle, we may find ourselves limited in our ability to produce simple instructions capable of delivering self awareness into the artificial machine. It has nothing to do with the size of my own brain or the gauge of my own personal intelligence. It has to do with something I am wrestling with. It is this: how can a machine create something smarter and more complicated that its own mechanism, in this case the machine is man? That is a valid scientific observation. I am going a little light hearted here; it’s like a rabbit waking up one day and creating a painting of a street in Paris? I am reaching for an analogy to describe my thoughts. Perhaps in this case the rabbit isn’t capable of creating something beyond his power in terms of processing creativity. He does have a limitation that cannot be overcome.

Indeed if you take away all sensory input from a newborn you have some thing less developed but not a vegetable. Certain pathways will be missing – true, but you will still have an operational self-aware machine locked in a sort of hellish existence. I think that brain would develop its own surreal position in life. It may dream its own existence into an alternate albeit internal universe? The difference between this and someone in a coma would be brain activity. The brain is still processing and creating, it isn’t dead or even physically damaged. Even severely comatose people with brain activity below what is considered a living person, have reactions at a primitive level.

Bottom line here is I wish man will create self aware beings and learn to time travel and drop into black holes and conquer the universe. I just like to think. And argue sometimes because my brain likes to build those new pathways to knowledge I might not otherwise get. :D

I htink we are all missing the fact that the brain isn't a binary machine, nurons are analog not digital in how they fire, sure acording to the universal machine you can take any universal machine and emulate another (see danny hillis paterns on the stone). You could make a computer out of nurons, but I do not think yo can make a brain out of transisters..the key is in our errors we can make illogical "intuitive jumps" that a universal machine by it s very nature cannot make. we can make the jump form point a to point z in one step by dumb luck, a computer can not.

eveolutionary computing is makeing some great strides but I think it has affectivly shown us that we cannot build a true AI.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by RoadClosed

I totally agree that no computer on earth compares to the complexity in establishing the pathways critical to the function or our brains. But at the same time it seems to me that a computer with 20 or 40 million floating point processing capability (per second) should be capable of reproducing the complexity of a brain the size of something along the lines of a Newt or maybe a hamster. Or be able to control a simple robotic shell without human intervention. Something along the lines of, go down all city streets for a 4 block radius and collect all garbage off the streets and come back once a day to empty garbage stored in your shell and recharge.

---

interestingly the most "inteligent" of the insect robots curently in research have no computers at all, I will try and dig up a link.

Damn!

Hmmmm, I see what your saying Road, but my point was that computers haven't come close to the computing power of the human brain. Rehash. . .
"While human neurons are slow (a million times slower than electronic circuits), every neuron and every interneuronal connection is operating simultaneously. With about 100 billion neurons and an average of 1000 connections per neuron, there are about 100 trillion computations being performed at the same time. At about 200 computations per second, that comes to 20 million billion (2 x 1016) calculations per second.". . .
Once again, the key is not the code. We start out, IMO, tabula rosa, brains cells (like stem cells) are undifferentiated until there is a stimulus that creates a function. What's needed to create AI, I think, is input. Sensory input.

If you have an infant w/ no type of stimulus you will have a vegetable, no doubts. Maybe someone injured after an amount of interaction w/ the world around it would would still be processing, but if you start w/ nothing, you'll end w/ nothing.

Ballad brought up the point that the brain is not a binary machine. I would disagree. . .a neuron is either firing or not. . .active or not. . .1 or 0. I'll leave it at that.

Ok I agree with you when looking at the biological brain that input writes the program, as using my anology. But some kind of mechanical or electronic apparatus has to mimick that process with some sort of OS that can build pathways in the artificial brain. If it's not artificial but a blank biological brain that was grown or made from existing cells then I don't see how that is artificial.

I was saying that a newborn is already wired and programmed to think and dream. A newly conciever fetus or zygote... now that's different but there is something in there that programs the initial pathways and starts the basic life functions going.

Nutha rehash. . . http://www.jetpress.org/volume1/moravec.htm . . . we do need "some kind of mechanical or electronic apparatus". Progress is being made, albeit a little bit slower than some of us would like, but still progress.

" A newly conciever fetus or zygote... now that's different but there is something in there that programs the initial pathways and starts the basic life functions going." Yeah it's called sensory input. I do agree with you on one thing though. We do need an OS that could allow radom associations an relational progress.

The infant could have biofeedback sensory input through the devices locked like biting snakes in his eyes. ears, and mouth. But could it use this to teach itself how to think? What if we gave it a Super mario brothers game to play like that when it's the only external input entering the loop?

Also, progressions beyond silicon and transistors will soon hit thier plateau even with "moore's law"

This has been anticipated by those who are now developing the next step, which is genetically engineered, organic computers. They are not built, they are grown.

Give the baby the means to program himself and he will become more complex than could ever
be written in code.

:D

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by bludgeon
Ballad brought up the point that the brain is not a binary machine. I would disagree. . .a neuron is either firing or not. . .active or not. . .1 or 0. I'll leave it at that.

---

I wasn't argueing that it wasn't a binary machine, computers are universal machines, a binary computer can emulate a trinary computer can emulate a hex computer, (hell a hydorlic analog computer can mulate a binary transister based one). The human brain is not a universal machine.We can do things tath are not based on logical rules, we can make intuitive jumps and illogical choices as the stand by there very nature universal machines cannot do this. Perhaps evelutionary programming can over come this but I doubt it...

By the way, when this is all done. I would like to order a Blonde, and I mean natural. My specification are:

5'4''
90 - 100 lbs gross body weight
34 Chest
slim waist
shiny long legs

damn got to stop....


Preprogramming or prewires:

High Intellect for stimulating conversation
Taste for broad spectrum of music (eclectic)
Knowlege of wine
good spirit
laughes at my subtle humor
not afraid to explore human sexuallity, our greatest gift
loves cuddly things (always dig that trait)
Likes to dance (goth, techno, industrial, country)
accepts diversity in living things
etc...