The AI Engine

The Professor, you asked how can evolution be applied to Neural Nets. Well, it is possible. Such neural nets are called GenNets. They evolve over time. Our brain is an example of a hyper complex system that we cannot fully comprehend. Though we might be able to evolve a brain using genetic programming, that is genetic programming evolving neural networks. We might not be fully able to comprehend the resulting code as it might be too complex but it will surely function the way we want it to and this is the only promising (and economical) way if we want to understand the inner working of the brain. That is trying to understand the resulting code rather than doing costly experiments with the real brain which is perhaps still too complex for us to understand.

I'll be honest here- I think the theory of evolution is ridiculous. To think that we exist by a series of random mutations is the most shortsighted thing I've ever heard. As long as you dont think about it, you can believe in it. But imagine the nightmare of misshapen creatures that should be found in the fossil bed, or the incredible variety of people that would exist with non-fatal random mutations- patches of green hair on the hands, an extra eyeball, a dozen tiny failed useless organs in the abdomen that cannot be detected without surgery, and so on. There was a plan, a design, and a purpose to every part of us. Science exists by right of breaking off from the church, by dividing existence into the spiritual and the material. It's a millenium old habit, but science continues to embrace the material only, denying a clock-maker and a purpose, since those things are the realm of the spiritual.

I believe we should speak of learning and conditioning when it comes to AI.

I'd like to announce that I'm going to be putting together Gaia in the next week or so. It'll be the first AI based on "collective consciousness," if you will. I applied for the Loebner Prize, which awards a medal to the most believable AI each year, and if Gaia is successful, it shall be the participant.

Well random mutations do occur but are very very rare. I heard that there was one part in America i think , where the children that were born were very very genius. Probably a case of mutation. And talking bout evolution in AI, well it works!
I cannot say much bout it, but most of today AI machines are examples of 'logic engineering' than true intelligence.
Wish u good luck with Gaia, btw what is "collective conciousness"?

Collective Conciousness is a large group of minds linking to geather. Kinda like the borg... (god I cant beleave I just said that) Anyways, Evolution is the only thing an AI can do. We can not build an AI. It would be imposable to program one. IT has to program its self an learn on its own. Other wise it will only know what we tell it. And Please dont get in to Chirch VS Scincse in here. This is for AI talk not Church and Scinece. I really dont care for getting in to a fight about who or what made us. Now this is all Im going to say for now I will Give you all a link later this week telling you all about My Idea of what an AI Needs to be, and how one should be/can be made.

BTW I am one of thos mutations. I have an IQ of 168. Even though I dont spell well because I have hearing damages and cant spell stuff Phonicly. Every thing I have said so far is spelled from my memory.

Oh certainly, I dont want a church vs science discussion. That was just a piece of history, and some of the reasons why evolutionary beliefs are as they are.

Immadn, I'd be more likely to believe that this pack of geniuses was more nurture than nature. Something tells me that genetics dont determine intelligence. Imagine if scientists found a "smart" gene and could just turn it up. But that's as likely as finding a "sexy" gene or a "success" gene or a "disco" gene. In fact there's so few genes that differentiate us from primates, scientists are quite astonished. Most likely those genes are used for altering bone structure and hair to be more human.

I don't think evolution is a process of random mutation, but I don't think organisms change by design or purpose either -- I think circumstances change and species try to adapt to those changes, and some of those adaptations are encoded genetically.

But not all evolved traits are "by design". Human-level intelligence could easily have been a happy mistake or coincidence -- excessive redundancy in brain tissue perhaps protected us from fatal heat-induced brain damage but then got used in a new and different way -- thus enabling us to be the most successful (for now) species around. And then that kind of unforseen adaptation changes circumstances for everything else, and evolution continues...

But since it's probably not true that our kind of intelligence/self-awareness is a necessary result of evolution, there may be little hope in "evolving" an AI. Still, if one *did* evolve, it would probably be closer to our kind of intelligence than anything we might create from the ground up.

If there was a fossil record for computers, and we lived in a society that knew nothing of computers, we might be fooled into beleiving that the computers were rapidly evolving, that they started out as mere single circuits, roaming the office, then joined with others, grew plastic and metal coverings, and then roamed the world as such, "evolving" more with each passing year.

But we know better. We know there was a design, a maker. So why think that something a billion billion times more complex and advanced such as ourselves could have been some sort of accident?

A few unorganized points I'd like to make- we're heroes in our own minds. No virus or predator has done as much ecological damage to our planet as ourselves. In that respect, we are the most selfish and unevolved beings on Earth.

And why string things together in sequence when there might not be one. Without the continuation of single-celled beings, the pyramid of life on earth would collapse. Perhaps humans were the first thing temporally and through millions of years of science, developed the single-celled organisms that are necessary to make life on earth such that it is.

In a way, computers are evolving. Take the demise of Apple, for instance . . . <grin>. But seriously, the complexity of organic life is an argument *against* a creator, not in favor of one. There is also the fact that computers are built in an observable way and for an obvious purpose. The fact that human beings are destructive of their environment doesn't mean they are unevolved, it just means they aren't as well adapted as they'll need to be to survive long-term as a species. Elephants are incredibly destructive of their habitat, but they survive as a species (prior to human intervention, anyway) because they are so few and nomadic (destroyed areas have time to recuperate before the elephants need them again). Disagree with the idea that we're the most selfish and unevolved... just probably the most destructive (for the time being).

Of course there's nothing in evolution that refutes the possibility of external guidance or purpose -- there's just no evidence for it. And such a guide would clearly be far beyond our abilities -- hence it's a problematic solution for AI.

Explain this temporal idea. Are you saying maybe non-organic humans used science to create single-celled organisms, infused themselves into them, and then promptly forgot all about it? Would that have any meaning?

The complexity of organic matter is only an argument against a quite limited creator, but imagine a creator who is everywhere and within all of its creations at all times simultaneously. In such a way it could be accurately stated that each being is evolving itself, but likely this development is from a far more general and intelligent field that includes knowledge of every other form of life in its environment. Also, looking across time, evolution could be goal-oriented. There may be a perfected end result with creatures reaching toward that through time.

I dont at all believe in the notion that some white-bearded cosmic (and generally insecure) god thought.. "Hmm, dogs," then snapped his fingers and there were dogs. But this doesnt mean there wasnt a different kind of plan.

Strangely enough, science denies the possibility of evolution with the 2nd law of thermodynamics- the running down of the universe, the increase of entropy. Whatever caused the proverbial two cells to hook up together and form a new life form must have been grossly ignorant of this 2nd law.

You mentioned external guidance, but I think it's internal guidance. There's actually no evidence for randomness. No one has seen a non-cancerous random mutation. Sure genetic mixes appear that play up or down certain characteristics, but when has something entirely new been found in an offspring that wasnt there before?

The temporal idea- I'm just saying, what if humans were first, living in some sort of void, then said "Let's create a planet where we can live" and spent millenia developing the sort of self-sustaining single-celled organisms that are necessary for life on earth to exist. Then the single-celled organisms would be the more advanced (more recent, harder to design) life form. And of course, they would deny our existence.

IM going to be starting a Webcite soon that tells things as how I see them. I thing that you two will like it since it incoraptes some of both of your ideas. I will post it once I get done with it.

I don't think these pre-matter humans are like what I would call humans at all (and in any event, they're not US). Also I don't deny and can't refute that there might be an underlying or overt plan. But if there is, it's definitely not simple enough for us, limited creators, to grok. Since we are limited creators, we might face obstacles to creating an AI similar to our own Organic Intelligence that a hypothetical or real unlimited creator wouldn't/didn't.

THe second law of thermodynamics isn't violated, by the way, by any localized increase in complexity. As long as the total entropy in the universe increases, there can be any *localized* decrease in entropy you like. It happens all the time in the universe, though organic living systems are among the most dramatic examples.

Lastly, there are non-cancerous "random" (meaning apparently random) mutations all the time. Our schoolmate Mike Hammer is working on a project at U.Chicago right now studying an example of non-genetic DNA variation, trying to see if these variations are predictable (they seem to be based on the presence of certain proteins during critical phases of growth). Anyway...

I didn't think you believed in boundaries. How do you have this notion of everything being planned out without resorting to determinism? Our bots certainly lack anything approximating free will, and that's the biggest challenge for an AI, don't you think?

Holy smokes! I just caught up on the recent postings, these conversations are outta' control! This one'll have to be a little long I think...

It seems to me that us humans have a big problem saying "I don't know". People can go on and on about "god", "the beginning", "conscience" with great certainty and conviction in what their saying when in reality, we simply don't know. We've got impressions or hunches of things like "collective consciousness" or "inner guidance", but unless you were actually part of some master plan or in touch with some being that is, I don't believe we'll ever know the answers to those very complex questions that are brought up here. Our main problem being our incapacity to manipulate time. No matter what your IQ is, you can only explore the "present". Yet, we're constantly travelling through time so the present is constantly changing.

I also sometimes get the feeling that everything could actually be explained and is a lot simpler than it seems, but that's ridiculous! This notion that we're somehow the most successful beings or that intelligence only exists in humans is something I just can't bring myself to believe.

When you think that their are about 1 million insects for every human on this planet and that they've been living here at least since the dinosaur era...

Or how about the unlimited number of wave lengths that exist? We've got ears and eyes that can detect certain ranges of frequencies, but other animals could detect and use any of the infinite number of ranges, thus enabling them to communicate with the rest of some borg or somethin'.

There maybe no evidence of randomness, but when you combine that to infinite, it seems like there's some kind of infinite loop in the calculation required to foresee and predict something that we see now as random.

Anyways, if we ever do come up with all these answers... and step back and look at the sketch that describes the existence of everything, everywhere, "everytime" - we'll have this horrible feeling that the search will have ended. The party will be over. yuch!

Evolution is just a word invented by man to describe change that we'd like to consider good. Calling a difference between "now" and "then" "Evolution" just gives us the impression that the change in question is for the better. Grossly misused in human history to control the population.

On another note, how come no one has discussed the possibility of us humans "evolving" into the machines? We're already using the internet to connect to the borg and using hard disk space as an extension to our own memory banks. When are we going to get rid of these troublesome bodies? If I spend my whole life teaching a machine to be like me... and then I die off... but don't tell anyone and let the machine keep on taking care of business...

What if we all did this and then there were only machines left? Would they have taken over? Or would we have evolved?