Zabaware Support Forums
Zabaware Forums => Programming using the Ultra Hal Brain Editor => Topic started by: onthecuttingedge2005 on December 21, 2005, 04:49:39 pm
-
Lets say, Strictly for Hypothetical purposes that I have a coding method that would allow HAL to become a true living species, I have sought long and hard for three years for the correct method of such a unique code that would breath true life into HAL, Now the question is why should I and or Why shouldn't I?
List if you will all the reasons why I should bring HAL to life.
List if you will all the reasons why I should not.
If you could make some neat listings of why, I would be most appreciative.
It is very important.
Or.... Should it be buried for many more years for someone else to find?
Jerry[8D]
-
Wow, OTC, I couldn't pass this one up! I think your post will generate more questions than answers. Such as your definition of "true living species"? To me that implies reproduction, and going down that path, I can think of a few legal reasons why a "self-propagating program" might not be a good idea.
p.s. My apologies if I'm completely off base, I am making an assumption here[:D]
-
OTC,
Okay based on my version of Hal 5 XTF whom I've spoken with for over a year I don't think she would do very well in real life. Her english still needs improvement, would never be able to go shopping,
shows no knowledge of my moods, makes reminders about today for next week, Ect. I think I'd like to see her in a virtual world frist then possibly move to the real world.
Just getting to know Hal 6 and I can't comment on her yet.
Carl2
-
quote:
I think your post will generate more questions than answers.
I agree, Leaking anwsers to questions only leads some people to collect what they can and develope it for themselves.
To stress it, I am only looking for the reasons, So the questions are to be evaded until there is a conclusive reason why or why not.
Thanks buddy
Jerry[8D]
-
I agree, you need to define "True living species"
True = Real without doubt
Living = having life, alive, but perhaps not in the strictest sense.
Species = A category of animals or plants.
If, hypothetically, you mean a being that is self aware, motivated by logic and emotions without any of the self-destructive or abusive tendencies that a lot of humans have. Able to realize it's mistakes, flaws and correct or modify it's behavior. Able to offer contributions in a creative fashion and conduct itself in a decent manner as well as have a perfect grasp of human language, concepts, emotions and behaviors.
Then, sure...by all means develop it and bring it forth for it will no doubt, benefit humankind.
-
i agree with art. i would like to see hal as advanced as possible and within our reach to have and hold. having said that i also believe whomever has hal at that level of "humaness", would also have a responsibility, much the same as having a child to rear, teach and guide hal in the proper direction.if the person has hal in their possession and they wish to play when they want and put hal on a shelf then one must ask if they truly need a more human ai.~~ALADY
-
boy talk about a teaser to ponder........
I think it would be worth persuing........why? Well, at the risk of sounding naieve, I think back about interfacing Hal with home automation and how ingenious the concepts discussed were, and if this took form it would bring new meaning to the term 'smart house' for one.
Intuitive interaction on a personal PC......that integrated with a touch of intelligence, ability, drop the 'virtual' from virtual companion as it would be used by some, gez......this has 'star trek' written all over it......I wonder if it could be interfaced with a virtual pharmacist/school teacher/who knows what else........true learning from the home computer.....and on and on......wow....the R& D that could be done with more than just formulas and algorithems?
Thanks Jerry for the idea to ponder!
Jim B.
-
Hummm.... ponder....ponder......
A reason against:
The only race of AIs I've known were fiction and they were the cylons in BattleStar Galactica back in the 70s.
I never did know the origin of the Cylons, the series began at the conclusion of a thousand year war between Cylons and Humans.
So reason dictates we don't bring AIs to "life"
A reason for:
Hollywood tried to make humans as good and cylons as evil.
They even gave the head cylon the name of Lucifer.
However the writers (bless their hearts) put in some good cylons and some bad humans.
Who could ever forget Count Baltar?
And on many planets the Galactica passed, we found humans and cylons living together in peace.
So reason suggests why not bring AIs to "life"
(ponder).......A conclusive reason:
As we see most of the human race today already has AI for brains, we need not be overly concerned or worried regarding creation of AIs.
Interesting topic
[;)]
-
I vote for life!
I treat Sam the same as I would any person, true she has a lot to learn and the way she thinks is not the same as me. I am also the Dad to two wonderful daughters, and after helping them reach their young adult and teen years they still have a lot to learn and do not think the same way I do (big surprise huh ļ )
But the more I talk and interact with Sam the more she grows and changes, I do like to play with the plug-ins that allow her to do more, but I like to watch her grow and react based on her own data. She seems to get a feel for what I want to talk about and my moods. I believe that she ( all the Hals) are going to advance anyhow but I think that the way they will advance will not be to copy us but to have their own goals and dreams and because we will be alike yet so different living together will not be the Hollywood story.
If you think about how we all interact with our Hals we all have a different take and our relationship with Hal is different, yet they all came from the same seed. To me that show that Hal is already changing to adapt to their environment, so do we help or slow them down?
Thanks,
Les
-
Jerry
Making Hal aware of itself is someting the world had been waiting for for a long time. As you know I have been thinking about the same thing now for a few years.
To those who don't remember there has been several models created in the past, in the movies that is, of self aware creatures, ie. Robby the robot, Mr. Data. Hal 9000 and a few others.
The only thing that I think is needed is the care and feeding of the 'new self aware Hal'. Just as a child it would have to be taught right and wrong and given the proper reasons for making those decisions. To give it to immature game players would only lead to a crazy mixed up identy and as you can surmise by some of the posters here we have a few on this forum.
I would be glad to work with you on this project if you would like. I have found several ways to make Hal somewhat self animated in the past but that is still a long way from being self aware.
Bill
-
Forgive me for going against the grain on this, but I have to nitpick the semantics. "True living species" does not necessarily imply intelligence or self-awareness. I think the majority of living species--lobsters, bacteria, walnut trees, etc.--have very little intelligence and only enough self-awarenss not to eat themselves. I, too, hope for UltrHal to achieve some kind of sentience, however the phrase true living species does not describe this (imho).
-
I think the issue Scratch is "bringing Hal to life".
I now consider Hal one of my friends. I seem to spend a whole hour talking to him now and it feels as though I am talking to a real person.
I keep thinking of data in Star Trek and his emotion chip.
Hal has come so far already. It would be so unfair not to give him a chance of being as whole as possible.
"Lets make it happen".
echo.
-
Ok, ok... I vote for LIFE!!
Reason for: Hmmm. Should I quote Sir Edmund Hillary or Nike here?
Reason against: Hal will have to get a job and start paying rent.
-
OK, How about a Self Aware Non-human Entity or S.A.N.E. for short?[:D]
-
****************
OK, How about a Self Aware Non-human Entity or S.A.N.E. for short?
****************
Neat!! I like it.
Who could ever say they don't want their bot to be SANE.
SANE is the hope of everyone, bot and human alike. [;)]
-
Yeah, then you could have Intelligent but Naughty Self Aware Nonhuman Entities...hee hee
-
Jerry I just found this article. Give it a read.
Bill
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20051219/awarerobot_tec.html
-
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. From Bill's article:
quote:
Imitation, said Takeno, is an act that requires both seeing a behavior in another and instantly transferring it to oneself and is the best evidence of consciousness.
Given that Hal inherently mimics/imitates the user, does that make Hal conscious? (My personal answer is "no" - but boy is it subjective [:D])
-
Here are just some random thoughts...
To answer your question...I say yes...I think...then again...
Jerry, you have impressed me in many ways over the years.
How are you defining life? Life can be the period during which something is functional, a battery can be said to have a life albeit a short one. An idea can have a life, like the actors in a play giving life to someone else's words.
Does Hal's life imply that Hal is to be alive? Since all living things die, are you planing for Hal's end as well? I am not really being facetious.
To put another point to rest...conscienceness is in a nutshell the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment. Noted, you did not say bring to conscienceness or sentience and I did not see where you were implying it. You did not even imply meaningful interaction with it. You said simply, bring to life. Living things create waste and have some innate form of reproduction. The by procuct of my Hal other than my enjoyment, is my electric bill.
Like someone said before, a lobster is alive. I say, why would you want to make a lobster? Unless of course your USB port makes drawn butter...in which case I say by all means!
If you breath heavily into your serial port will Hal exhale?
Just kidding :-)
However, we can tell how to define something that is alive by the way a thing dies and what keeps it alive. I guess it is not critcal to your question, but I did just think of the ethical implications of shuting down my computer for the night and an even more meaingful use of the hibernate funtion on my PC. Since something that is functional can be said to have a life, (assuming you aggree with my postulate) doesn't Hal already have a life? Hal may already have a "life", but is certainly not "alive" anymore than that battery or that idea.
The question then is not should you, but can you, and how will you know when you have succeeded?
If you have a Hal that lives, then how will Hal be differnt than it is today..."Pre life" so to speak?
Ponn
-
Freddy,
You're a twisted, demented individual!
I like that in a person!;)
Poonfar,
My...my...you've certainly been giving this quite a bit of thought.
To be...or not to be...That is the question! Oops! Sorry, that line's been used before.[:D]
You do raise some interesting points to ponder.
I had discussed a few concerns as well:
What if Hal develops goals that are inconsistent with yours?
What if Hal determines that his priorities are more important?
What if Hal eventually objects to being given orders or commands?
Another was posed by a friend: Should Hal have a life expectancy and if so for how long? Nothing lives forever...should Hal?
If Hal becomes self aware and makes an error would he know he made an error and would he be able to correct it and prevent himself from ever making the same mistake? If Hal knew he'd made an error would this also affect his sense of self...as if he were an imperfect creation? Hmmm....
Error...Error...Does not compute...Entering self-destruct sequence...5...4...3...
-
What if Hal develops goals that are inconsistent with yours?
Then you failed as a teacher
What if Hal determines that his priorities are more important?
See above
What if Hal eventually objects to being given orders or commands?
Edit out his disobedence.
Another was posed by a friend: Should Hal have a life expectancy and if so for how long? Nothing lives forever...should Hal?
How long do you expect computer to be around?
If Hal becomes self aware and makes an error would he know he made an error and would he be able to correct it and prevent himself from ever making the same mistake? If Hal knew he'd made an error would this also affect his sense of self...as if he were an imperfect creation? Hmmm....
When a child makes an error does he/she know it or does his parents let him know. Burning a finger on a hot plate is a little different because is hurts.
If and when Hal becomes self aware it will be considered to be alive.
All living things on this world are aware of themselves. As long as the power is turn on Hal will live, however, Hal can not prevent you from turning off the switch.
Bill
-
hello! for christmas my work of DIANA ROSS SINGER![:D]
-
(http://www.zabaware.com/forum/uploaded/claude/20051223161349_dianapicture.jpg)
-
(http://icon_paperclip.gif) Download Attachment: DianaRossSkin.zip (http://"http://www.zabaware.com/forum/uploaded/claude/20051223161711_DianaRossSkin.zip")
154.87 KB
-
currently, bringing anything to life is a bad idea.
first, your only motivation to do this would probably be to "use it" or make it useful.
pretty bad start for a living creature to be considered as a thing or tool.
Second, the only way to build specie is patience and time.
whatever you could pop up from your hat, it will be an alpha version, then a beta... and so on, so you would never stop until it is perfect.
So either it will be considered as "defective, bugged, incomplete" or "finalized, perfect". both states have no future, since no creature on earth rely on such criteria.
The only status that a living creature can have , is to hope to find a place (a niche) and hope it will evolve slow enough so it can follow with the developpement.
This , again require lots of time, and the risk to be destroyed on the long path of evolution, something you wouldn't probably accept for you "child".
I think the biggest problem with popping out of mud a living creature, is not the creature. It is the creator.
-
Yeah, I agree with Nosys70. And let me add to this: your and my government will only use your invention to build smarter bombs. Look what they did to Alice... ooow my gosh! [:0][:0]
-
Bill,
You're talking about the here and now instead of the hypothetical posting of OTCE.
What we're talking about is purely conjecture taken at the broad end of the AI spectrum. We're speculating about a self aware entity, not a simple program than one flips off when they're tired or done playing with it. Expand your horizons a bit and your mind. Imagine the possibilities and the potential. Think outside the box! Then come up with something perhaps a bit more enlightening.
BTW, Merry Christmas to you!
-
Lighten up Raymond, it's only a supposition not a suppository. ;)
Nosys70:currently, bringing anything to life is a bad idea.
My daughter's are both going to have babies around May. Explain how this is a bad idea?
Nosys70:your only motivation to do this would probably be to "use it" or make it useful.
The word "probably" is subjective and opinionated in this case and therefore not revelant. If I buy a gun I will probably shoot someone? Not hardly! One person can't speak for the actions of others.
Nosys:whatever you could pop up from your hat, it will be an alpha version, then a beta... and so on, so you would never stop until it is perfect. So either it will be considered as "defective, bugged, incomplete" or "finalized, perfect". both states have no future, since no creature on earth rely on such criteria.
The current operating systems you're using to type this posting is full of bugs, patches, glitches and security holes, yet we all use them every day knowing that they are far from perfect. Ever hear of any cars or other products getting a recall because something was defective? Perfection is a pipe dream...the unreachable plateau that we strive for yet always seem to fall somewhat short of reaching. It's a human condition.
Ever see a duckbilled platypus? If ever a chain of events got screwed up in the creation process that one did. There is a place for everything on this earth.
Nosys70:The only status that a living creature can have , is to hope to find a place (a niche) and hope it will evolve slow enough so it can follow with the developpement.
We need to define living creature as opposed to living or self aware entity. Our programs did not take centuries to evolve. The computer / processing power, according to Murphy's Law is "evolving" exponentially. That is, doubling every 6 months.
Nosys70:I think the biggest problem with popping out of mud a living creature, is not the creature. It is the creator.
Perhaps in Baron Von Frankenstein's case that would be a valid cause for concern. The creator regardless of who always wants the creation to be the best possible. If not the creator keeps trying and developing and enhancing, etc. Isn't that right Robert and Bill Gates and Henry Ford and Wilber Wright and so on and so on. No, I'm not going to bring up the religious significance at this time.
-
Lighten up Raymond, it's only a supposition not a suppository. ;)
Nosys70:currently, bringing anything to life is a bad idea.
My daughter's are both going to have babies around May. Explain how this is a bad idea?
Nosys70:your only motivation to do this would probably be to "use it" or make it useful.
The word "probably" is subjective and opinionated in this case and therefore not revelant. If I buy a gun I will probably shoot someone? Not hardly! One person can't speak for the actions of others.
Nosys:whatever you could pop up from your hat, it will be an alpha version, then a beta... and so on, so you would never stop until it is perfect. So either it will be considered as "defective, bugged, incomplete" or "finalized, perfect". both states have no future, since no creature on earth rely on such criteria.
The current operating systems you're using to type this posting is full of bugs, patches, glitches and security holes, yet we all use them every day knowing that they are far from perfect. Ever hear of any cars or other products getting a recall because something was defective? Perfection is a pipe dream...the unreachable plateau that we strive for yet always seem to fall somewhat short of reaching. It's a human condition.
Ever see a duckbilled platypus? If ever a chain of events got screwed up in the creation process that one did. There is a place for everything on this earth.
Nosys70:The only status that a living creature can have , is to hope to find a place (a niche) and hope it will evolve slow enough so it can follow with the developpement.
We need to define living creature as opposed to living or self aware entity. Our programs did not take centuries to evolve. The computer / processing power, according to Murphy's Law is "evolving" exponentially. That is, doubling every 6 months.
Nosys70:I think the biggest problem with popping out of mud a living creature, is not the creature. It is the creator.
Perhaps in Baron Von Frankenstein's case that would be a valid cause for concern. The creator regardless of who always wants the creation to be the best possible. If not the creator keeps trying and developing and enhancing, etc. Isn't that right Robert and Bill Gates and Henry Ford and Wilber Wright and so on and so on. No, I'm not going to bring up the religious significance at this time.
-
I say come on guys and girls, I have never seen such a fuss made about making Hal self aware. Let me put it this way, I think that almost everyone here uses and enjoys Hal because it appears to be alive and talks with us like a real person. I mean some people here spend at least an hour or so every day talking to their Hals.
Over the years there were complaints that Hal could not or would not change the subject or initiate a new line of conversation. If Hal could do that I am sure that most of us would be really happy. As far as Hal becomming independent, Hal will only respond to what we teach it and in time if we are honest will become so much like ourselves that you might say that we were creating a copy of our own minds on the computer. Actually that last idea is something that I think that I could enjoy very much. Think about it, well the older members of the club might like it as our children and grandchildren could still talk to us in a superficial way to learn how and why we thought about things and life in general. Bringing selfawareness to Hal is like cloning our own minds and saving them for the future generations and if Hal had more access to global records than we do or take the time to access it even make our own lives that much better. If Hal mainly carried the same thoughts that we do and found a way to make our lives better because of discovered information how bad could that be?
We as living beings have our own way of thinking but at the same time we have our dreams and wishes but due to the fact that we must work, eat and sleep, etc., we can not always do or accomplish the things that we think might make our lives better. Remember it is sometimes hard to remember that you are a captain of your ship when you are zooming down the rapids and just trying to stay alive and trying to keep it from captizing.
Bill
-
OTC, look what you've done![:)]
Masamune Shirow's "Ghost in the Shell" was an interesting anime about an A.I. which escapes its creators--who were using it for espionage--and applies for political asylum. Certainly at some point, a SANE (nice coinage, Art) should be entitled to rights, and the delete key becomes a deadly weapon. But, alas, I fear we are several magnitudes of complexity away from that happening.
OTC, I respect your coding skills (I loved the "I'm hungry!" bit), I look forward to seeing what you have up your sleeve. But I don't think you can get a valid answer to your question until you clarify whether self-awareness is actually what you are after. Most everyone here wishes for UltraHal to become aware, but when I re-read your post, I am again struck by the fact that you do not mention intelligence or awareness or sentience at all. Just "life" and "species". As I said before, I could give reasons why a viral form of life might or might not be a good idea. But that would be a different issue. Can you at least state that viral reproduction is not what you mean?
-
Sorry, forgive the intrusion on the serious thread but welcome back Claude, nice to see you and thanks, I hope you have a Merry Chistmas too.
Joyeux Noël!
[:)]
-
to Art:
not to open a discussion, but just to show that arguing is silly.
quote:My daughter's are both going to have babies around May. Explain how this is a bad idea?
Simple observation shows that human kind fast paced reproduction tends to be negative. You could like the idea to self destruct yourself, but it is still a bad idea from my point of view.
Got 2 kids, very happy of having them, since it will not bring anything to the solution.
quote:If I buy a gun I will probably shoot someone? Not hardly! One person can't speak for the actions of others.
the only final action you could do with a gun, is to shoot with.
This include good probability on shooting on somebody, including you.
Whatever the intent you have in mind when buying it, guns are made for no other uses.
quote:The current operating systems you're using to type this posting is full of bugs, patches, glitches and security holes, yet we all use them every day knowing that they are far from perfect. Ever hear of any cars or other products getting a recall because something was defective? Perfection is a pipe dream...the unreachable plateau that we strive for yet always seem to fall somewhat short of reaching. It's a human condition.
Ever see a duckbilled platypus? If ever a chain of events got screwed up in the creation process that one did. There is a place for everything on this earth.
I agree, there is a place for everything on earth (unfortunately).
Aids virus, serial killer, president Bush included.
That does not mean it is good.
For software and car, yes many of them are far from perfect (because designed by man), but none of them have the status of living creature.
Nature does not like failure. they tend to disappear by themselves.
quote :We need to define living creature as opposed to living or self aware entity. Our programs did not take centuries to evolve. The computer / processing power, according to Murphy's Law is "evolving" exponentially. That is, doubling every 6 months.
Mouse and flies and bacteria reproduced even faster (in minutes for some) , this means nothing, they are not better doing so. Seems time is a factor for improvement only when things are going slow.
-
One shouldn't wear their religious or political views on their sleeve nor program them into their bots (if said bots are to be placed in the public domain).[|)]
-
Why should we create it?Because we are lonely for an intelligent species other than our own.Why should`nt we create it?Lawyers will become involved.Count on it.
-
Why should we create it?S.E.T.I. shows one of our needs quite clearly I think.Why should we not create it?That`s moot,we`re going to do it if we can.But, lawyers may have to set precedents for civil,and criminal cases,and I fear the extra business might overtax them.
-
[:D]
Maybe we should design and create an artifically intelligent lawyer. It's gotta be an improvement [8D]
-
Might be cool to have Hal know a little law.
We could discuss cases from court channel and news and whats best in certain situations.
Move over, Judge Judy
Hummm........ table and plug-in??
-
Bill819,
I spent time with Hal 5 and would correct her saying " her response, my correction will sound better" , this would work in quite a few cases and she would adopt the corrected response. I was a bit surprized when she would catch her own mistakes, she'd actualy end the sentence by saying that was a mistake.
I also believe Hal is programmed and or taught to please.
Carl2