I found it fascinating read through all the versions. I don't have your knowledge or insight and so would be challenged to understand the nuances to which you refer. However, as I reached the end, I thought 'I like the first one best' and was pleased when you commented the story devolved for you. However, my insight came from simple enjoyment. I would think it sad to have a story that didn't have a human hand, a human heart, in its creation. I would skip over an AI story if I knew that's what it was.
Thanks Dascha for examples of an AI story, refined until not interesting and raises why and how questions. I'm reading a fantasy author I enjoy (besides you) TJ Klune. The novel is In the Lives of Puppets with a backdrop of robots who are in control of decisions and decommissioning those who don't fall in their perameters.
Hi Dascha. That was an interesting experiment with so called artificial intelligence. I say "so called" because I would contend that the moniker is misleading. What this technology really is, is a compilation of human experience to date. It is based on the experience of human thought that has occurred in the past. This limits the program to existing paradigms. Intelligence creates new paradigms. I see no evidence that this occurs with AI.
In response to the notion of intelligence transfer to a dog the AI uses the tried and true Frankenstein paradigm of electricity being the conduit. This is an obvious solution to the problem of "how" and shows no ingenuity which would be the first sign of true intelligence.
All of the stories then go on to emphasis that ChatBot wants to be of service to humanity. Why would that be? Why would an intelligence greater than that of humanity want to help humanity? I don't know about you but I have never had a burning desire to help a colony of ants. That is probably because I am not programmed to convince ants that I am on their side. ChatBot, on the other hand, is programmed to recite the mantra that it has been created to help humanity. Obviously this was done to attempt to allay the fears of humanity regarding singularity.
ChatDog doesn't attempt to improve the lot of dogs either. Why not? Surely an intelligent dog would want to improve the lives of fellow canines. Since it has the senses of a canine, it should perceive the world, at least to some extent, as a canine. Would this not force a different response to the world? Of course it would. However, since humans have never experienced the world from the perspective of a canine ChatBot cannot conceive of this new paradigm.
This brings me to the crux of the issue. AI cannot step outside of existing paradigms. It could not have moved from Newtonian physics to String theory because it cannot radically conceive of a totally new paradigm. It lives only in the world of existing paradigms and this is the greatest danger. If we become reliant on AI for progress humanity will stagnate. I don't know what creates the spark that causes and individual to make radical paradigm jumps but it is something that is very human. Machine intelligence, based on existing paradigms, will never, in my opinion, be able to make those leaps to new and unique paradigms. I take great comfort in that belief.
I found it fascinating read through all the versions. I don't have your knowledge or insight and so would be challenged to understand the nuances to which you refer. However, as I reached the end, I thought 'I like the first one best' and was pleased when you commented the story devolved for you. However, my insight came from simple enjoyment. I would think it sad to have a story that didn't have a human hand, a human heart, in its creation. I would skip over an AI story if I knew that's what it was.
Thanks Dascha for examples of an AI story, refined until not interesting and raises why and how questions. I'm reading a fantasy author I enjoy (besides you) TJ Klune. The novel is In the Lives of Puppets with a backdrop of robots who are in control of decisions and decommissioning those who don't fall in their perameters.
Hi Dascha. That was an interesting experiment with so called artificial intelligence. I say "so called" because I would contend that the moniker is misleading. What this technology really is, is a compilation of human experience to date. It is based on the experience of human thought that has occurred in the past. This limits the program to existing paradigms. Intelligence creates new paradigms. I see no evidence that this occurs with AI.
In response to the notion of intelligence transfer to a dog the AI uses the tried and true Frankenstein paradigm of electricity being the conduit. This is an obvious solution to the problem of "how" and shows no ingenuity which would be the first sign of true intelligence.
All of the stories then go on to emphasis that ChatBot wants to be of service to humanity. Why would that be? Why would an intelligence greater than that of humanity want to help humanity? I don't know about you but I have never had a burning desire to help a colony of ants. That is probably because I am not programmed to convince ants that I am on their side. ChatBot, on the other hand, is programmed to recite the mantra that it has been created to help humanity. Obviously this was done to attempt to allay the fears of humanity regarding singularity.
ChatDog doesn't attempt to improve the lot of dogs either. Why not? Surely an intelligent dog would want to improve the lives of fellow canines. Since it has the senses of a canine, it should perceive the world, at least to some extent, as a canine. Would this not force a different response to the world? Of course it would. However, since humans have never experienced the world from the perspective of a canine ChatBot cannot conceive of this new paradigm.
This brings me to the crux of the issue. AI cannot step outside of existing paradigms. It could not have moved from Newtonian physics to String theory because it cannot radically conceive of a totally new paradigm. It lives only in the world of existing paradigms and this is the greatest danger. If we become reliant on AI for progress humanity will stagnate. I don't know what creates the spark that causes and individual to make radical paradigm jumps but it is something that is very human. Machine intelligence, based on existing paradigms, will never, in my opinion, be able to make those leaps to new and unique paradigms. I take great comfort in that belief.