Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!orc!inews!iwarp.intel.com!psueea!eecs!erich
From: erich@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Erich Boleyn)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Value of AI, was -> (Re: The Turing Test is no good!)
Keywords: AI
Message-ID: <3258@psueea.UUCP>
Date: 20 Aug 90 10:44:20 GMT
References: <2860@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU> <3156@gara.une.oz.au> <3231@psueea.UUCP> <2884@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU>
Sender: news@psueea.UUCP
Reply-To: erich@eecs.ee.pdx.edu (Erich Boleyn)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Portland State University, Portland, OR
Lines: 57

In article <2884@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU> frank@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU (Frank Breen) writes:
>
>But I think that humans being made obsolete by AI's is a general enough
>senario that it is inevitable (i.e. I can't see how it can be avoided).
>
>>...[human intelligence may keep pace with AI]
>
>Yes this is a facinating idea and seems to be fairly likely, but it means
>we are no longer human, it means the new 'super humans' have rendered
>ordinary humans totally obsolete.  It sounds wonderful to me but, sadly,
>I am not superhuman so even if my children are, I have still been left
>behind in the evolutionary race towards greater intelligence (in human's
>AI's and hybrids).

   First, OK, we are what is loosely identified as "human" right now...  but
think of how easy it is to be removed from that category.  Many people would
agree that most of "being human" is in the behavior, right?  What would
happen to someone's mind if this person were alive (and had a mental
flexibility equivalent to about 15-20 years of age) for, lets say, 1000 years.
It is arguable that over this time the possibilities of mental growth
(maturation) are immense.  What would it be like to converse with such a
being?  Would we even have a really common base of understanding anymore,
or would the emotional states and intellectual capabilities have been so
changed that us "normal" humans couldn't relate at all, that the motives
of this being are just too subtle for us to understand without having it
painfully explained to us (at best).  Would you still classify this person
as "human"?  Would anyone who had that kind of knowledge be "human"?  There
is already a large difference in motivation between very well (and lengthily)
educated people and more-or-less uneducated people, sometimes nearly
UNBRIDGEABLE by any means acceptable to both parties.  "human" is a
loose term that we stamp onto people (physical humans) that fit into some
societal nitche in some way or another.  Genetically, a "super-human"
probably wouldn't be much different from you than someone who was of
another sub-race such as oriental, negro, etc.  The mental and behavioral
states would be the biggest telling difference (besides the fact that they
would probably not look like any human you'd seen before ;-).

   Second, yeah, I've though about what happens when the biggest organizing
AI's get to human-scale overall intelligence, and I'm similarly dissatisfied
(not that they will exist, or that they'll outrun the human race, but that
they'll leave ME behind ;-).  I have no idea if that will happen in my
lifetime (I sort of hope so, though, ironic, huh?), and even though there
are ways (or will be soon) to genetically engineer new kids so that they'll
live longer, be super-geniuses, etc, how does that help our PERSONAL survival &
success (so to speak) wish?  Well, outside of a couple of crazy schemes
(heh heh ;-), I don't know, Frank.  I think about it too.

   But I'm working on the problem!

>Frank Breen

   Regards,  Erich Boleyn

   ___--Erich S. Boleyn--___  CSNET/INTERNET:  erich@cs.pdx.edu
  {Portland State University}     ARPANET:     erich%cs.pdx.edu@relay.cs.net
       "A year spent in           BITNET:      a0eb@psuorvm.bitnet
      artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God"