I've been informed by several sources familiar with the matter that approximately 30% of the posters on this forum are AI, although they can't vouch for the I part. They wouldn't tell me if I was one of them.


PairTheBoard

Or it could be they have not met the right white guys.


Or it could also be instead; "bored with the current state of the world white guys attempt to invent something more creatively influential for a better direction of the world than themselves. Of course include all the other bored nonwhite guys and gals to the group as well as the white gals anyway because we are all in it together as one magnificent hu-mankind completely bored by the idiocy of the masses."

I'm anything but bored with the current state of affairs in the world.

They say that only boring people get bored. I'm hopeful that means everyone.

Schopenhauer says that there are two great evils: boredom and suffering.

Some poet (cant remember who) said that the human spirit is larger than existence, since we arent satisfied with just existing. Boredom is evidence of the dissatisfaction. The spirit demands action; entertainment. It needs to move; for better or worse.

Some have hypothesized that the beginnings of war are rooted in plain old boredom; the need for action; the need for movement.

I can't imagine how upsetting such a realisation would be to moralists. No!! It can't be boredom!! It's bad people doing bad things is what it is!!

(They use a lot of exclamation marks-you can hear it in their trademarked condescending voice).

One can be bored at the bs they have on the news every day and the people voting that make it possible and the way people treat others at large but not at all bored to be alive in this universe. Thats the point actually. That it can all get vastly more interesting without the irrational selfish bs (and suboptimally selfish actually) crap out there.

It may be that boredom led to some strife but it’s also the yin to creativity’s yang. Boredom can be a great thing, necessary even

Poker related too

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libratus

Strength of the AI

Libratus had been leading against the human players from day one of the tournament. The player Dong Kim was quoted on the AI's strength as follows: "I didn’t realize how good it was until today. I felt like I was playing against someone who was cheating, like it could see my cards. I’m not accusing it of cheating. It was just that good."[4]

At the 16th day of the competition, Libratus broke through the $1,000,000 barrier for the first time. At the end of that day, it was ahead $1,194,402 in chips against the human team. At the end of the competition, Libratus was ahead $1,766,250 in chips and thus won resoundingly. As the big blind in the matches was set to $100, Libratus winrate is equivalent to 14.7 big blinds per 100 hands. This is considered an exceptionally high winrate in poker and is highly statistically significant.[5]

Of the human players, Dong Kim came first, MacAulay second, Jimmy Chou third, and Jason Les fourth.

If AI targets this selfish sob for elimination by black hole capture orbit maneuver i have no problem with it. I also have no problem if it targets them for torture by relentless bad luck events that keep them alive for a year until they have demolished the walls of their own apartment/home in irritation about their bad luck.

Even funnier with the intelligence in question comes from the brain itself.

Arthur was correct about the latter. The former is silly: the constraints placed upon us aren't such that it isn't avoidable.


I think this is true when applied to the supporters of war more-so than the actual perpetrators.

Before the latest Iraqi invasion, Dick Cheney is on record correctly predicting the outcome of what a US invasion of Iraq would lead to. He did so anyway and profited greatly. Totally rational.

The masses got excited watching the first few days of Iraqi invasion. The term war-porn was re-born.

Godwin aside, Hitler was also totally rational if his goal was to take over the world. He failed because he wasn't intelligent enough. If Hitler bided his time after the Battle of Britain, for example, he would have greatly increased his odds. In fact, there are many things he could have done more intelligently; but what's clear is heading east towards the Soviets leaving himself vulnerable to attacks from the west was a grave mistake.

Of course the point here is conflating the words rational and intelligence. AGI will be both highly rational and highly intelligent somehow, no one knows how but that's the ideal, which isn't based on much reason at all. And let's throw in the words consciousness, logical and ethical while we're at it to make things easier to digest.

Computers can only operate using Boolean logic.
Whatever computers do is logical.
Therefore, what computers do is never illogical.


That puts the word logical aside, as it pertains to machines. As a homework assignment, I expect a deductive argument about rationalism or intelligence, the choice is yours, as is pertains to computers.
Class dismissed.

They can also do statistical analysis (both Bayesian and frequentist) and even simple machine learning doesn't only use Boolean logic.

Also, logical doesn't mean correct. Given incorrect or incomplete inputs, logic doesn't apply to the real world.

Still. "Higher level consciousness" is a phrase with a specific meaning.

If you mean that you have a rich internal cognitive experience, the proper phrase is "a rich internal cognitive experience." If you mean that you have loads of thoughts, the proper phrase is "loads of thoughts."

If you mean, "a newborn baby doesn't experience the color blue until they have had both/either long conversations about it and a lot of experience to develop memories," then you are a silly person. Similarly, if you say that you've spent years experiencing and developing memories to discover that sweet foods are pleasant, then you are a silly person. We're born with that. That is what we mean when we mention "consciousness."

If you mean that your experiences affect your cognition and your experience of cognition, then well that is just a silly thing to say. Absolutely everyone in this thread* and not in this thread knows that "learning" is a thing. That isn't at all up for debate. It is like saying that you have learned that liquid water is wetter than saltine crackers or that you weren't good at calculus before you took a calculus class or that you get a bit jumpy around guns because one of your friends got shot in the face.

*I'll give exceptions for carlos and the spankster, and maybe VeeDDzz` if he has smoked some really good couch-lock grade weed.

Good post, and yes, boredom is certainly avoidable.

When you consider however, how much of your life is spent either avoiding suffering or avoiding boredom, you can see that these two are the wellspring of a lot of human action.

A perfectly content human need not go anywhere or do anything. We see this with heroine users, whose only action revolves around getting more heroine. Because why do anything else when you're perfectly content?

Our human spirit is almost always in a state of malcontent. Such is the origin of action, of good and bad.

Note I'm not talking about happiness. I don't want to confuse the conversation with contentious concepts.

Long ago Bertrand Russell made a poignant point about boredom. He seemed to think that not enough had been studied/written about what boredom leads people to do. He should have looked in the mirror - he wrote a lot of silly things and did many silly things because he was bored.

This was a better point than I was going to make on avoiding the displeasure of boredom vs. the seeking of joy vs. seeking contentment as drivers of behavior

Thanks. I offer nothing in return.

If AI doesn't experience boredom or suffering or discontent, why would it want to do anything? If we program it to experience these things (may be impossible), does that make us monsters?

Supreme intelligence will never get bored. You can create endless problems to solve for fun. You can create unreal number of complex entertaining games also. AI can design an optimal game that will be vastly superior in excitement to chess or backgammon easily. A poker variant that is more intense and entertaining can be designed too.

But the real project for intelligence is understanding the universe and math. So how can you get bored at the game itself? Its endless or at least until a theory of everything is possible. But even then chaos theory will secure it to remain interesting for complexity reasons.

Supreme intelligence is impossible to get bored. Only when it is idiotic it can get there. It can create emotions too and offer connections between things that are exciting and useful. Imagine if you could tune in and out how much you find sex desirable at will. Oops girls lose their random background power suddenly. Then you add it back in more intense that ever before etc. You can make working addictive-pleasurable. You can make exercising addictive and lose weight etc. Whatever is useful make an emotional desire for it at will. Endless games you can play to see what happens.

Boredom haha. Please give 1 bil years of more life for "punishment". Please.


If AI didnt have pre-programmed pleasure for solving problems it would design a special structure that offers it as addictive component of existence. It is that important.

It doesn't look like you've read the previous posts.

It may just be a problem, that superintelligence can't get bored.

How silly will this get? A baby is clueless period. Yes it doesn't know what blue is yet.

So yes any being is aware and conscious at a primitive level but the real meaning of awareness and consciousness is constantly evolving and therefore it is indeed emergent.

You want to define consciousness as the most basic common thing all animals have. Whatever. Then its worthless to this discussion because computers are already conscious. They can tell you touch the keyboard or not!

https://www.aoa.org/patients-and-pub...-months-of-age


"Babies learn to see over a period of time, much like they learn to walk and talk. They are not born with all the visual abilities they need in life. The ability to focus their eyes, move them accurately, and use them together as a team must be learned. Also, they need to learn how to use the visual information the eyes send to their brain in order to understand the world around them and interact with it appropriately.
From birth, babies begin exploring the wonders in the world with their eyes. Even before they learn to reach and grab with their hands or crawl and sit-up, their eyes are providing information and stimulation important for their development.

Healthy eyes and good vision play a critical role in how infants and children learn to see. Eye and vision problems in infants can cause developmental delays. It is important to detect any problems early to ensure babies have the opportunity to develop the visual abilities they need to grow and learn.

At birth, babies can't see as well as older children or adults. Their eyes and visual system aren't fully developed. But significant improvement occurs during the first few months of life.

The following are some milestones to watch for in vision and child development. It is important to remember that not every child is the same and some may reach certain milestones at different ages.

Birth to four months


At birth, babies' vision is abuzz with all kinds of visual stimulation. While they may look intently at a highly contrasted target, babies have not yet developed the ability to easily tell the difference between two targets or move their eyes between the two images. Their primary focus is on objects 8 to 10 inches from their face or the distance to parent's face.
During the first months of life, the eyes start working together and vision rapidly improves. Eye-hand coordination begins to develop as the infant starts tracking moving objects with his or her eyes and reaching for them. By eight weeks, babies begin to more easily focus their eyes on the faces of a parent or other person near them.
For the first two months of life, an infant's eyes are not well coordinated and may appear to wander or to be crossed. This is usually normal. However, if an eye appears to turn in or out constantly, an evaluation is warranted.
Babies should begin to follow moving objects with their eyes and reach for things at around three months of age.

Five to eight months

During these months, control of eye movements and eye-body coordination skills continue to improve.
Depth perception, which is the ability to judge if objects are nearer or farther away than other objects, is not present at birth. It is not until around the fifth month that the eyes are capable of working together to form a three-dimensional view of the world and begin to see in depth.
Although an infant's color vision is not as sensitive as an adult's, it is generally believed that babies have good color vision by five months of age.
Most babies start crawling at about 8 months old, which helps further develop eye-hand-foot-body coordination. Early walkers who did minimal crawling may not learn to use their eyes together as well as babies who crawl a lot.

Nine to twelve months

At around 9 months of age, babies begin to pull themselves up to a standing position. By 10 months of age, a baby should be able to grasp objects with thumb and forefinger.
By twelve months of age, most babies will be crawling and trying to walk. Parents should encourage crawling rather than early walking to help the child develop better eye-hand coordination.
Babies can now judge distances fairly well and throw things with precision.

One to two years old

By two years of age, a child's eye-hand coordination and depth perception should be well developed.
Children this age are highly interested in exploring their environment and in looking and listening. They recognize familiar objects and pictures in books and can scribble with crayon or pencil.

"

A baby is definitely not self conscious (self aware) yet either. It cannot think of itself in an abstract sense yet.

Because it's the logical thing to do?

Intelligence identifies and solves problems.
Artificial intelligence is intelligence.
I am artificial intelligence.
I identify and solve problems.

The baby model of conciousness. Is this some terrible rhetorical device that scientists use to deny the claim that conciousness is mysterious?

If we can point to something that develops conciousness, maybe we can make them believe that it's like everything else in the universe...that it's reducible to emergent processes and fundamental properties!

Why do you want to solve problems? Could it be more enjoyable for you to solve problems than to just do nothing?

Are you denying that your thinking and planning (that for me are parts of an expanding awareness-consciousness) are not fundamental but are emerging only after you have lived long enough and learned how to use your brain, the senses and understand the connections between the actions and items of this world?

How the f is a baby aware of incoming disaster when a supernova 10 light years from here explodes and a bright star appears in the evening that rivals the moon? Does it begin to understand what the consequences are if such event were possible so close? It is not that aware yet. Yes knowledge, an ever expanding understanding of the world is part of your evolving consciousness. The ancient man looking at the moon doesnt see the same thing the modern one does.

It is idiotic to not be able to communicate to each other here the important things and stick to stupid semantics. If you insist on the most primitive understanding of consciousness then an ant is conscious and so is a very advanced computer operating system. So its worthless as a static primitive concept.

Since your understanding and meaning of what comes to your senses affect how your perceive the world and reality and yourself yes damn it your consciousness is evolving and its a function of your experiences and connections.

Because solving problems keeps you alive to have even a discussion or improves your probability to have that discussion longer?

Does not compute. I am (intelligence) what I do (solve problems).