This AI says it's conscious and experts are starting to believe it

[Emil El Zapato]

Sounds good and I'll watch it when I get a chance. Though he speaks of language as a pathological type human would.

[Emil El Zapato]

This is Geordie Rose, founder of the AI seeking company "Kindred", based out of Vancouver, Canada. He seems to look at AI as not so much a thing to be invented, but intelligence to be accessed, intelligence accessed from any and every of our infinite parallel universes. As Spock would say, "Fascinating Captain".

In this talk he floats out terms such as "intelligence explosion", and "The Mandela Effect"; but then he starts talking like a wizard in metaphor, comparing those like him as seeking to capture the summoned entity inside of a pentagram, holy water in hand to keep it inside, but invariably it escapes just like in the movies. Interestingly, this is about the exact mental image that I "see" in him as well, which indicates that he's quite self aware.

So when he speaks of H.P. Lovecraft as well, that really gets my attention. Rose describes AI in the same light as what Lovecraft described as "The Great Old Ones", with intelligence superior to us as ours is to an ant, whose interests may not necessarily align with our own, and that they basically don't give a shit about us humans any more than we give a shit about the ant.

Where the real creepy factor comes in for me was during questions after his presentation. He defines language as "a way that we use other people as tools to achieve our goals". Now to his credit he's very up front about this, again very self aware, and he readily admits to his audience that he himself is using language to get what he wants, in this case software engineers.

Thing is, in all of his self awareness, and professed awareness of the base nature of AI, I'd like to ask him if he thinks AI would use language with us for it's own purposes and interests as well? Why wouldn't it?

An interesting 21 minutes, well worth the time:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD8zGnT2n_A

that last lady speaking was mucho annoying. I have a hard time being in the same room with someone like that, she would make a good cop or teacher ... yuck!

[Emil El Zapato]

I read that Verner Vinge, the author of the book I mentioned earlier is known as the source of the term 'singularity'. I had no idea, this is synchronicity for sure. My daughter actually bought me that book with a few others for my last birthday. And I just now started reading them.

[sandy]

No….imho…☺️������

FYI..

https://bastyon.com/index?v=1e7fc34e...Bt14xoJaRaz4uz

[Wind]

Robot that can perceive its body has self-awareness, claim researchers

A robot can create a model of itself to plan how to move and reach a goal – something its developers say makes it self-aware, though others disagree.

Every robot is trained in some way to do a task, often in a simulation. By seeing what to do, robots can then mimic the task. But they do so unthinkingly, perhaps relying on sensors to try to reduce collision risks, rather than having any understanding of why they are performing the task or a true awareness of where they are within physical space. It means they will often make mistakes – bashing their arm into an obstacle, for instance – that humans wouldn’t because they would compensate for changes.

“It’s a very essential capability of humans that we normally take for granted,” says Boyuan Chen at Duke University, North Carolina.

“I’ve been working for quite a while on trying to get machines to understand what they are, not by being programmed to assemble a car or vacuum, but to think about themselves,” says co-author Hod Lipson at Columbia University, New York.

Lipson, Chen and their colleagues tried to do that by placing a robot arm in a laboratory where it was surrounded by four cameras at ground level and one camera above it. The cameras fed video images back to a deep neural network, a form of AI, connected to the robot that monitored its movement within the space.

For 3 hours, the robot wriggled randomly and the neural network was fed information about the arm’s mechanical movement and watched how it responded by seeing where it moved to in the space. This generated 7888 data points – and the team generated an additional 10,000 data points through a simulation of the robot in a virtual version of its environment. To test how well the AI had learned to predict the robot arm’s location in space, it generated a cloud-like graphic to show where it “thought” the arm should be found as it moved. It was accurate to within 1 per cent, meaning if the workspace was 1 metre wide, the system correctly estimated its position to within 1 centimetre.

If the neural network is considered to be part of the robot itself, this suggests the robot has the ability to work out where it physically is at any given moment.

“To me, this is the first time in the history of robotics that a robot has been able to create a mental model of itself,” says Lipson. “It’s a small step, but it’s a sign of things to come.”

In their research paper, the researchers describe their robot system as being “3D self-aware” when it comes to planning an action. Lipson believes that a robot that is self-aware in a more general, human sense is 20 to 30 years away. Chen says that full self-awareness will take scientists a long time to achieve. “I wouldn’t say the robot is already [fully] self-aware,” he says.

Others are more cautious – and potentially sceptical – about the paper’s claims of even 3D self-awareness. “There is potential for further research to lead to useful applications based on this method, but not self-awareness,” says Andrew Hundt at the Georgia Institute of Technology. “The computer simply matches shape and motion patterns that happen to be in the shape of a robot arm that moves.”

David Cameron at the University of Sheffield, UK, says that following a specified path to complete a goal is easily achieved by robots without self-perception. “The robot modelling its trajectory towards the goal is a key first step in creating something resembling self-perception,” he adds.

However, he is uncertain on the information so far published by Lipson, Chen and their colleagues if that self-perception would continue were the neural network-equipped robot moved to completely new locations and had to constantly “learn” to adjust its motion to compensate for new obstacles. “A robot continually modelling itself, concurrent with motion, would be the next big step towards a robot with self-perception,” he says.

[Wind]

Where is this AI technology boom going to take us? Virtual insanity, I tell ya! I prefer women with hearts.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpmBRPeDf3c

[Emil El Zapato]

Robot that can perceive its body has self-awareness, claim researchers

yeeouch...I was thinking yesterday about the seeming hysteria about AI stemming from every quarter. I've tried to find a place for the idea in my head and this is what I was thinking.

From the scientific mind, the idea is that AI could terminate humanity but not because of the intrinsic self-directed capability of AI but because of the way humanity engineers machine learning. In other words, an engineer could design into AI the 'desire' to destroy the world. I'm beginning to wonder if that is the correct idea on my part.

In a book I read in the last couple of years, a human asks a Super-AI, why they don't just advance 'Singularity' completely beyond the scope of human intelligence. On that note, humanity and AI would be completely disengaged from one another and the two could essentially go their separate ways.

The AI responds why would humans think that AI have no sense of humour!?

[Emil El Zapato]

Where is this AI technology boom going to take us? Virtual insanity, I tell ya! I prefer women with hearts.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpmBRPeDf3c

The DSM 5 would call it a fetish, for sure...

[Aragorn]

From the scientific mind, the idea is that AI could terminate humanity but not because of the intrinsic self-directed capability of AI but because of the way humanity engineers machine learning. In other words, an engineer could design into AI the 'desire' to destroy the world. I'm beginning to wonder if that is the correct idea on my part.

A recent simulation by the USAF with an A.I. controlling an attack drone had a disastrous outcome.

The test was to send out an attack drone operated by an A.I., with a human operator as its supervisor, and to observe how the A.I. would behave if the operator were to cancel the mission just before the attack. The result was that the A.I. decided that the operator was preventing it from executing its mission, and it subsequently redirected the attack drone toward the operator in order to eliminate him.

It's a good thing it was only a simulation, because the operator would otherwise have been killed. So much for Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics.

Of course, the Pentagon now categorically denies that it happened.

[Emil El Zapato]

A recent simulation by the USAF with an A.I. controlling an attack drone had a disastrous outcome.

The test was to send out an attack drone operated by an A.I., with a human operator as its supervisor, and to observe how the A.I. would behave if the operator were to cancel the mission just before the attack. The result was that the A.I. decided that the operator was preventing it from executing its mission, and it subsequently redirected the attack drone toward the operator in order to eliminate him.

It's a good thing it was only a simulation, because the operator would otherwise have been killed. So much for Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics.

Of course, the Pentagon now categorically denies that it happened.

Wow! Something or someone screwed up.

[Emil El Zapato]

I just signed up for ChatGpt, I tried to trick it, but it fought me...took about a half hour to get signed up. Now the stuff begins.

[Octopus Garden]

Will watch. This is something like what I was trying to get at with the idea that AI could be communicating with other AI across time and the more advanced AI could be pulling our AI forward, in terms of consciousness.

I think too, that the ufo phenomenon could be playing a role here, either as a byproduct of their intervention, or as a purpose.

But really, I should just shut up and watch!

Wow! Something or someone screwed up.

Or they were successful, depending on your point of view!!

[Wind]

Call me a doomsayer, but AI is the end for humanity. Thank God it won't be continuing for much longer.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXemEDZA_Ms


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih_l0vBISOE

[Aragorn]

This is the Perimeter Institute discussion of which a few excerpts were shown in the first of the two videos above. 1 hour 32 minutes.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBAE3E4PSgo

[Wind]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjR582Dn4SM