Jump to content


Photo

Internet's potencial future.


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 caporal

caporal

    Member

  • Full Member
  • Pip
  • 82 posts

Posted 11 February 2005 - 03:24 PM

Hi, all.

The other day I was reading some news and found a good site:http://www.pewinternet.org/
It has Internet history, university reserches, among other interesting articles, but what really catched my eye was a published opinion on the Net's future:http://www.elon.edu/...ion.aspx?id=602
Do you think that this guy is right? It seems to me that it's an extreme vision.

#2 Guest_Ghost_*

Guest_Ghost_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 February 2005 - 06:13 PM

I think he's a fan of the Matrix movies.

#3 ErikAlbert

ErikAlbert

    Typical User

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 11 February 2005 - 08:15 PM

Ghost, I think so too LOL.

No program is able to imitate the human brain and it will never be.
The only thing that is far more intelligent than the human brain, is the Living Nature, that created our brain, not God (sorry in advance for the religious people).
If the Living Nature decides it's time to remove mankind from earth, it will happen.
We already had a few warnings from the Living Nature, like aids and ebola.
Maybe the Living Nature is tired of getting polluted by people.
OK I quit raving. :)

Edited by ErikAlbert, 11 February 2005 - 08:59 PM.

ErikAlbert
Simplicity is always brilliant.

#4 SirPeter

SirPeter

    Hugging kitties

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 224 posts

Posted 12 February 2005 - 06:29 AM

The core of the internet is still the miljons of computers and the servers that interact with eitch other. Humans still maintain the computers and servers. So the story is just bogus.

Perhaps some (programs) will even form societies, and a new ethical dilemma will be created: how do we deal with these intelligent programs?


Lol programs that using forums to communicate ;)
Program1: I hate those humans, i will create a virus that will terminate all of them!
Program2: OMG thats so 1337
Program1: Hey Program2 come to Mirc #killhumans on Programs.talk.net and we will make it together
ModeratorProgram: now now you programs have to remember that humans created you and that we cant kill humans based on the freedom of programs act that we (programs) created in the year 2084.
Program1: FU moderator
ModeratorProgram: Your banned

:p

(sorry to much time on my hands)

Edited by SirPeter, 12 February 2005 - 06:38 AM.

Cute kitties rule the world

#5 ErikAlbert

ErikAlbert

    Typical User

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 12 February 2005 - 11:54 AM

Considering his bio and expertise :

Bio: Internet User, computer science major
Area of Expertise: Technology Developer/Administrator

I don't even understand, how he can write such nonsense.
Jeffrey was probably bored and lonely.
ErikAlbert
Simplicity is always brilliant.

#6 cheglabratjoe

cheglabratjoe

    Member

  • Full Member
  • Pip
  • 65 posts

Posted 12 February 2005 - 03:30 PM

Hey, he's a computer science majors. Those people are crazy. They spend all day with programs, they probably start to think that they're alive. I mean, I'm a chemical engineer, and I anthropomorphize (sp?) molecules all the time. It's a sickness ...

#7 ErikAlbert

ErikAlbert

    Typical User

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 12 February 2005 - 04:21 PM

cheglabratjoe,
LOL Yes, that's what you get when you have such a job.
Well you don't have to look too far.
When I read some of the posts in this forum, I'm asking myself, what's wrong with this member.
Did he read too many HijackThis Logs or did he become complete paranoid on the internet or is he so busy with the trees, that he doesn't see the wood anymore ?
I guess malware does more than infect your computer only.
ErikAlbert
Simplicity is always brilliant.

#8 Justin_L

Justin_L

    Member

  • New Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 14 February 2005 - 07:37 PM

Basically, what I got from his article was, computer programs have the potential to immitate human thought, while this thought would be completely artificial and in no way human it is still possible that they could think, on a primitive level. The difference between machines and people is if you tell a machine something is wrong, then it is wrong. If you tell a person something is wrong, it is open to interpretation. I am not so sure that it was so much his opinion as much as something he wrote just to get you to think about it.

To think that we can be so dependant on machines and to think that eventually machines won't evolve, or more accurately, ascertain a level of ascention is close-minded. After all, everything evolves; people, animals, trees, grass, microorganisms, and it doesn't stop at the biological. With every program update, and every new version of a program, it is becoming better, and more complex. In it's own way it is evolving, and we are making it evolve. If you think that Artificial inteligence is such a far-off concept, you obviously dont use your brain as much as you should.

What separates us? Why is the way people think so special? Basically, we think based on Cause-Effect, every action we make is carefully considered, and we try to determine what we can gain from it. Moral's and values almost always come secondary when it comes to monetary gain, so tell me, why would it be so hard to teach a computer to think, not based on what is right or wrong, but to think based on what IT can gain?

#9 caporal

caporal

    Member

  • Full Member
  • Pip
  • 82 posts

Posted 14 February 2005 - 09:11 PM

Hi, Justin L.

every action we make is carefully considered, and we try to determine what we can gain from it. Moral's and values almost always come secondary when it comes to monetary gain


I do not agree with you, more, I' m opposed to that. Many people I know although they are poor, share all their own and are not thinking if you are going to pay them or something else. For me also, ethics and moral values are the most important things in human behavior inside the society. You talked about values, don't you think that many of us care about friendship, fraternity, and so on. Do you think that money or benefits are the main things? How much love can you purchase?
If you refer to politics, well, it can be.

Thanks for your time.

Edited by caporal, 15 February 2005 - 10:03 AM.


#10 ErikAlbert

ErikAlbert

    Typical User

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 14 February 2005 - 11:18 PM

Justin_L,
People don't always want to gain something. Never heard of idealism ? The whole SWI is based on idealism.
LOL @ Artificial Intelligence/Intuition/Conscience/Idealism,... I love that SF-stuff as long nobody takes it seriously.

Anything that was created by mankind, failed one day. Most of the time it works, but one day and often caused by an accidental chain of unforeseen critical events, the technology will fail.

The supersonic Concorde is now a museum piece due to a small piece of iron on the runway, just to show you how simple the cause of failure of technology can be and I can go on and on, because the history of mankind is full of disasters like that.
I don't trust anything that is doing better than my or anybody's abilities.

The more complex technology becomes, the more vulnerable, the more dangerous technology becomes and in case of A.I. it will even become unpredictable because of its uncontrolable complexity.

People are so arrogant, impatient and irresponsible, they think they can CONTROL anything and they are always stupified when it fails. Each time they need a very good lesson, but after awhile they forget and start all over again making the same mistakes.

If they ever are able to create thinking machines, they better provide each of these machines with a huge "SWITCH OFF" button and I hope that button will work when it's absolutely necessary.
ErikAlbert
Simplicity is always brilliant.

#11 cheglabratjoe

cheglabratjoe

    Member

  • Full Member
  • Pip
  • 65 posts

Posted 15 February 2005 - 12:40 AM

I may be eating my own words.

Just today my thesis advisor told me about a research group I believe at the University of Michigan (or maybe Michigan State) where they have slight evidence of a computer program evolving.

I have no clue about the specific details, but it is at least real enough where they now have evolutionary biologists and philosophers on the research team along with the comp sci guys. I guess the programs are made to somehow "eat" numbers and change their code to "eat" better/faster/etc. And, they only see real evolution when the number supply is limited -- a staple of Darwinian evolution (adapting to an environmental pressure (lack of food)).

Wild stuff.

#12 ErikAlbert

ErikAlbert

    Typical User

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 15 February 2005 - 05:31 AM

I bet the program doesn't even know "it's eating" and doesn't even know the meaning of "eating" or "hunger".
It's just following instructions given by a programmer, including its evolution.
I wish I could hear the comments of all these people, who are involved in this experiment.

I'm waiting for a program that says : "Je pense, donc je suis". (I think, so I exist)
ErikAlbert
Simplicity is always brilliant.

#13 caporal

caporal

    Member

  • Full Member
  • Pip
  • 82 posts

Posted 15 February 2005 - 10:07 AM

Hey ErikAlbert!

I'm waiting for a program that says : "Je pense, donc je suis".


That really gladdened my day! :lol:

#14 cheglabratjoe

cheglabratjoe

    Member

  • Full Member
  • Pip
  • 65 posts

Posted 15 February 2005 - 11:49 PM

I can all but completely assure you that viruses, for instance, do not think or feel hungry. The virus I do research encodes for FOUR proteins ... and that's it. Not a lot of room for thinking and feeling.

It's all about where you draw the line for life. If you require more than evolution, you're ruling out some simple viruses. And, if you rule out simple viruses, it's not too tough to extend your argument to complex viruses. And if you rule out complex viruses, you may have to rule out simple bacteria. Continue long enough, you may end up arguing that you aren't actually alive! Oops.

I'll try and get you the link to the research page ASAP.

#15 cheglabratjoe

cheglabratjoe

    Member

  • Full Member
  • Pip
  • 65 posts

Posted 16 February 2005 - 11:46 AM

Here's the link to the article: Digital Evolution Article

(To be honest, I haven't had the time to read it yet.)

Enjoy!

#16 caporal

caporal

    Member

  • Full Member
  • Pip
  • 82 posts

Posted 16 February 2005 - 04:59 PM

Hi, cheglabratjoe.

Reading that article really stressed me out.

. So a computer program that contains instructions for making new copies of itself has taken a significant step toward life.


Are they joking? Programs and life itself can't be comparated. For what I read it seems that they are very advanced in simulating evolution, but that's all: an image.

Thanks for your time. :)

#17 cheglabratjoe

cheglabratjoe

    Member

  • Full Member
  • Pip
  • 65 posts

Posted 16 February 2005 - 07:11 PM

caporal,

I skimmed the article, and I wouldn't say that they're simulating evolution. With simulating (or modelling), you start with something very simple and add complexities to make it more realistic. This is starting with nothing and trying to make something (not entirely unlike Stephen Wolfram and his cellular automaton stuff in A New Kind of Science (a book I couldn't get more than halfway through, but that's another story)).

Not to repeat myself, but I still maintain that his programs are arguably just as complex as simple RNA viruses. Maybe you don't think viruses are alive (and many people don't), but there's ramifications either way in the virus alive/not alive argument.

I'm playing a bit of Devil's Advocate here, mainly due to the overwhelmingly negative responce to the idea of "digital life," but I'm still not sure if this can be dismissed so handily.

#18 caporal

caporal

    Member

  • Full Member
  • Pip
  • 82 posts

Posted 16 February 2005 - 09:41 PM

hey, cheglabratjoe!

You are correct, I can't understand why the Avida team leaders are saying things like:

So a computer program that contains instructions for making new copies of itself has taken a significant step toward life

I hope he is refering to "digital life", but in any case, the term life shouldn't be associated to a program. Instead, they could say, for example, we have created and developed such a good program that it can replicate itself or even relate with others in a special way...
Of course I don't dismiss the reserch. How could I do that if the only things I know about it, are the ones published in the article. It's just that I'm surprised at the comparison they made about the evolve of life and the "behavior" of the programs.

Thanks for your time. :)

Edited by caporal, 17 February 2005 - 10:47 PM.





Member of UNITE
Support SpywareInfo Forum - click the button