When does an algorithm turn alive?

NQ · 2006-01-26T19:42:22

EDIT: This first post is outdated. Please ignore this first post and read the corrected version at page 2. Follow this link. Hey, I'm about to write an article which relates to AI, for a magazine. Before I do this I want to check my ideas with the people on this forum, to check for inconsistency. You guys usually know what you're talking about. =) Before I start explaining the topic, let me state some key information: - I'm posting coz I would like some help to check for contradictions, faulty logic and similar errors. - This is not the ACTUAL article, only a summary of the thinking I base it on. - Enjoy! When does an algorithm turn alive? ----------------------------------- One reason to why I like AI is because it forces us to face the really big questions regarding our existence. Say I'm working on creating a self-learning AI. I build a robot which learns about it's environment and how to deal with certain problems. One generation after myself, somebody else creates an even better one. And then somebody else creates an even better one. We end up with an autonomous AI robot, which is very hard to seperate from a human. It looks like a human, it walks around like a human. When you talk to it, it responds like a human. In the end you can't distinguish it as non-human, because it's built to produce the exact same behaviour as real humans. But it's still just a machine. An algorithm which is built to produce certain output given certain input. A very advanced one, but an algorithm none the less. This scenario have been proposed many times before, such as in the movie 'Blade Runner' from the 80's. In the movie, the main character must pick out AI machines within the actual human population. He does this with psychology-tests, since the AI is incapable of having feelings. As the famous thought experiment 'The Chinese Room' (wikipedia) tells us, this would be true in real life as well. The AI could still look happy, smile and wave its hand, but it's not really happy. A smile, a frown, a shiver... to an algorithm they're just movements of facemuscles. A means to produce a certain effect. The effect could be to appear human, or to communicate, but the desired effect doesn't matter. In the end, the smile is just movement of face muscles, with nothing underneath. An algorithms output to a given input. It's obvious that an AI - even though it's learning from its mistakes and displays intelligent behaviour... still lacks something compared to real biological brains. This 'something' is really hard to decribe, perhaps even impossible. Call it life, counciousness, spirit, creativity, feelings, sapience or whatever. That is the realm of seriously deep philosophy, and I will avoid the problem altogether by just summing it up with 'what AI lacks compared to real humans/biological brains'. For the sake of simplicity in the following text, I will refer to this thing as a persons 'ghost'. This is a term I borrow from the japanese manga 'Ghost in the Shell', which suits the topic quite well. It is obvious that an AI is a created being. Whatever it does, it does because somebody designed it that way. Somebody programmed it just like that. However, both 'Blade Runner' and 'Ghost in the Shell' suggests the idea that... once a system with powerful enough capacities is created, a ghost spontaneously spawns within the system, wether you want it to or not. Perhaps not immediately, but after a while, like a child trying to learn to read. Suddenly the 'blockade' is no longer there, and she can no longer choose to NOT read something she's looking at. 'Blade Runner' suggests this could happen with autonomous robots. 'Ghost in the Shell' takes it one step further and suggests it could happen with... the Internet. Sounds quite improbable, right? If you regard the Internet as a massive array of nodes, each with a vast amount of information, constantly expanding both its storage room and its contents and each node is communicating with all nearby nodes with blazing speed... then it suddenly seems less improbable. If you're imagining the Internet 'entity' like computer code being run, then I have to correct you. That would take somebody to write the code, wouldn't it? Rather, the processing would be the actual traffic of the net. Somebody requesting a pageview. Somebody opening a new server. Switching IP adresses. This system takes on the shape of a massively paralell processor. It's processing completely random things, producing completely random outputs, in a massive environment. Is it so unlikely that somewhere, sometime, a cluster of nodes are arranged with such properties that they exhibit the behaviour of self-preservance? If such a thing ocurred once, then it would remain, wouldn't it? Couldn't you even say, if you sum up the entire Internet into One entity, that it shows the behaviour of self-preservance? If an ISP is knocked out, the little white bloodcells (the network admins) work around the clock to get it back up running. Without competition, it's spreading across the world. First settling on the most lush lands, the wealthy and highly developed countries. When that is done, it's gradually spreading into Africa too, though that land is not quite as suitable habitat, so spreading there goes slower. If there was a competitor to the Internet, they would try to defeat eachother. Claim eachothers territory, like Macintosh and Windows. Either one would win, or they would settle into an eco-system. Sounds like the behaviour of a living being, doesn't it? But that wouldn't necessarily mean Internet has got a ghost, would it? Nope. Not at all. Just maybe. One can argue that other systems such as the country France, if summed up into one entity, behaves like a living being. If attacked, it will retaliate or request help from friends. The resources it's dependent upon are either self-produced or imported. If suffering from a lack of one resource, the hunt/desire for it grows higher and higher, possibly starting a frenzy or an attack on another country which has the resource. This sounds really silly, right? Systems cannot have ghosts, can they? After all, why would they? But how do you explain that we have ghosts, then? Evolution is a heavily backed up fact. Given that we originate from a bunch of goo in the ocean, at which point did we aquire these 'ghost' thingies? Of course, there's lots of ideas about what a ghost is and were it's from. I can't tell anybody what way it is. Nobody can, at least presently. All we can securely agree on, is that we DO have it RIGHT NOW. Everybody agrees we have got ghosts (whatever that is). Evolution happened. We have ghosts. This gives us three possibilities: 1. Our ghosts was given to us. (this implies an origin such as a higher being, God, or aliens if you believe in that) 2. We aquired them ourselves. (this implies that ghosts appear spontaneously within something qualified to hold it) 3. We had them all along. (this implies that even atoms have ghosts) Who am I to say that either of these are true? I can't. It would be based on my personal belief, and would thus be for me and me alone. But based on this, we can make some rather interesting conclusions. The list above would mean either of these things: 1. A higher being exists. An idea which in all versions of it has countless and severe logical flaws. It would mean logics aren't worth much. 2. This would mean that ghosts are something which appears when a system is configured the right way. That means we can create AI which is just as alive as ourselves. It would also mean that it's possible for other systems like the Internet, the stock market, families, and the country France have ghosts. Which is straight out silly. 3. This relates heavily to quantum physics, and would mean things such as the pavement you walk on has a ghost (but perhaps no intelligence). As well as your pencil, your shoe and your toupé. It would also mean we can create AI which is just as alive as ourselves. Important would also be things such as the concept of 'Gaia' (the collective 'ghost' of planet Earth). Which is just weird. Given this, no matter what option we choose, we can conclude that the universe is a far more weird place than it first seems like. It is not as simple as 'a place where physics happen and stuff'. Don't think we know everything yet. There's major stuff still to be unveiled. ------------------------ End. It's meant to inspire the reader to further thinking, and smash the belief that 'nothing matters anymore - all exciting ages have already been in the past, with frontiers, swords and heroes and stuff'. I want to make people see this age is not any less exciting than the rest. There's still frontiers. Any comments? Merry Christmas! =) (or whatevers appropriate to say where you come from!) [Edited by - NQ on December 29, 2005 10:06:28 AM]

webwraith

239

December 30, 2005 05:55 PM

I'm not sure I'm following you on the whole 'dolphins are more alive than us' part. I'm not entirely certain of all that the field of Artificial Life has to offer, but I know that one of the prime conditions for scientists to describe an object as 'alive' is the ability to reproduce. This is evident in the works of (prof\dr?) J. von Neumann, Dr Thomas Ray, and others, including von Neumanns Cellular Automata (in his case a theoretical robot that existed in an infinitely deep canal filled with all the parts required to make copies of itself) or Rays 'Tierra', a world inside a computer, with 'lifeforms' which each had their own DNA, and responded to their surroundings in the same way as bacterium and amoebae do.

hehe... sorry, got a little carried away there

anyway, it definitely reads better than your last draft, and I think you've got most of the points down pat, now

On a personal note, I reckon that the ghost (or soul, or whatever) is an illusion that we created to explain why we are more 'intelligent' than any other known animal at this time( said in case we make first contact with aliens tomorrow ;)
so it can be thought of as a reflection of our belief that we are, in some way, different to every other living creature on this planet.

Also, if a computer\robot can think like a human, act like a human, and just be plain indistinguishable from a human, then I think I would willingly greet them as equals.

or even superiors, if the T-800 watching over my shoulder has anything to say about it ...

webwraith

239

December 31, 2005 09:09 AM

Geez, so that's what happens when I write a reply at 0100 hrs...

I like the part about billions of neurones working together, that's cool, in a freaky kinda way...

I take it that meanss that I should stop referring to myself as 'I' and start using 'We' instead?

n0b

130

December 31, 2005 05:39 PM

Quote: Original post by NQ
That would mean that 'life' is just what we call this thing that occurs when a bunch of neural cells are linked together. By this definition there's no other difference between insects and humans, aside from the number of interlinked brain cells.

Nope.
As far as i know, the difference does not come from the number of interlinked brain cells - that would be something like "the more brain the better" - but that does not always suite.
It actually depends on HOW INTENSIVE the information-exchange between those inter-linked brain cells is.
I guess there was a link about this topic on the wikipedia.org-human brain page.
Just take a look at it :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain

The idea of billions of little cells melting temporarly together, creating one huge, gigantic mind with many times the capability of a human's mind was also discussed by Frank Schätzing in 2004 within his scifi "Der Schwarm". Although he used a quite dramatic scenario, it includes some interesting thoughts. One of his theories includes the possibility of those "goo"s being able to create a living, learning and thinking individual all by themselves based on information-exchange going on during DNA-Modifing. He was the first person i know which stated that thinking might not nessessarily be based on neurons / brains.
However, i don't know if it was released in english.

But i like your article. I've watched the entire Ghost In The Shell stuff by myself, therefor i'm quite familiar with some of those theories.
I guess it's a nice review of them and you also inserted some additions - other thoughts. Nice one.

Sneftel

1,788

January 03, 2006 07:35 PM

Quote: Original post by aphydx
the central creative core of your mind cannot comprehend something as complex as itself.

Prove it.

M2tM

948

January 03, 2006 07:56 PM

"When does an algorithm turn alive"

Let me just say that the title itself is poorly worded and the arguments within are not entirely well stated. Others have pointed out things with regard to that statement so I won't repeat them.

Perhaps:

"When does an algorithm live?"

or

"When is an algorithm alive?"

or even:

"When does an algorithm become alive?"

Because "turn alive" just sounds silly. My apologies if you feel offended, I'm really just trying to make a suggestion that might help set a more serious tone.

_______________________"You're using a screwdriver to nail some glue to a ming vase. " -ToohrVyk

darookie

1,441

January 03, 2006 08:31 PM

Quote: Original post by Sneftel
Quote: Original post by aphydx
the central creative core of your mind cannot comprehend something as complex as itself.
Prove it.

Good one [smile]

NickGeorgia

580

January 03, 2006 08:31 PM

My algorithm just turned alive... help... me.... (non-sensical scribbles)

M2tM

948

January 03, 2006 08:35 PM

or a voice recording:

*frantic, breathy whispers*
"oh my god... it's... not human... in the ventilation shafts... I don't think it sees me yet... .... ..... "
the transmition is ended by a blood-curdling scream.

_______________________"You're using a screwdriver to nail some glue to a ming vase. " -ToohrVyk

Jmuulian

126

January 03, 2006 08:37 PM

I only skimmed over your actual article, as I'm reading this from work, so ignore me if I draw the same conclusions as you have. You would benefit by including an abstract introduction/conclusion clearly stating your answer to the question raised.

Quote: When does an algorithm turn alive

I'm going to rephrase your question:

"When does the complexity and/or sophistication of an algorithm become sufficent so as to be considered alive?"

I suggest that this question is misleading. Life, or consciousness (which is what we're really discussing here) should, IMHO, not be considered in terms of a binary distinction; things are not merely conscious or unconscious. Rather, consciousness should be defined as a spectrum. Ants at one end, Humans at the other. The more complex the algorithm, the better it performs, the higher on the scale it goes.

As an excersise, rank the following objects in terms of consciousness:

Human, Flower, Ant, Elevator, Screwdriver, Eliza, HAL 9000.

Note first that a Flower is certainly alive, but has little consciousness. The Elevator has a basic Input/Process/Output loop - taking button presses, engaging machinery, etc.

Here's my list, in ascending order of consciousness: Screwdriver, Flower, Elevator, Ant, Eliza, HAL 9000, Human.

In my experience, a lot of people want to do something like this - [] denotes equal precedence: [Elevator, Screwdriver, Eliza, HAL 9000, Flower], [Ant, Human]

The Philosophy of Mind is a debate that has been going on forever, but in my opinion, if you hold that there is no "ghost in the shell", then it makes no sense to start talking about consciousness as a binary distinction.

Julian McKinlayhttp://julianmckinlay.com/

Sneftel

1,788

January 03, 2006 08:44 PM

It's an important thing to keep in mind (no pun intended). That the mind can't comprehend itself is something that seems trivially true at first, but can lead one to seriously mistake the nature of comprehension. It's analogous to saying that no country can contain a map of itself, or a description of its political process.

When does an algorithm turn alive?

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

When does an algorithm turn alive?

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Reticulating splines