[Artificial vs Natural Intelligence]

On 08/10/2017 at 0:54 AM, Wuzzums said:

It can't. In order to have human level AI you would need to build a humanoid robot, give it a sex, a desire for reproduction, digestive system, all of a human's senses, desires, etc. Basically you would need to build an artificial human that practically speaking will be indistinguishable from a normal human. The AI issue has been figured out in the 70s. The pundits who keep talking about AI never really did a cursory analysis on the subject. Elon Musk worries that AI will try to take over the world however this is scientifically inaccurate because we know from science (neurology) that a person that has suffered brain injury that affected their reward system (i.e. they're unable to have desires) is tantamount to a vegetable. If we don't program a need to take over the world it won't have the desire to take over the world, and if you say that it will develop a need to take over the world it's like saying a clock can spontaneously create itself from a junkyard. Conquering things is a human trait.

Computer science is not separate from biology. Computer science (transistors, networks, programs, algorithms, etc) are an artificial imitation of biology. Computer science has had 60+ years to develop, biology has had 4 billion years. At the very best computer science can be on par with biology. We can never exceed it because we humans are the ones creating machines and humans are biological. Saying a human can break free of the bonds of biology is like saying a rock can break free of the law of gravity.

A few movies I can think of that have gotten AI correctly are: Ex-Machina, Prometheus, and the original Ghost in The Shell. The GiTS example is interesting because in the movie the AI spontaneously manifested itself and the first thing it did in order to remain sentient was to put limits on itself (like no replicating copying itself) and it searched for a human-like body in order to fully become an autonomous entity.

How is an algorithm an imitation of biology or what are algorithms analogous to in biology?

[Artificial vs Natural Intelligence]

On 08/10/2017 at 4:08 AM, kenstauffer said:

It can. In order to have human level AI you build a humanoid robot, give it a sex, a desire for reproduction, digestive system, all of a human's senses, desires, etc. Basically you build an artificial human that practically speaking will be indistinguishable from a normal human. Then remove the code that emulates sleep. You now have AI which works 24 hours a day, exceeding the abilities of human level AI.

So an imitation is more intelligent simply because it doesn't need sleep?  I must disagree...the statement, "human level AI" contradicts your hypothesis & implies a limit at human level.  I can see how an AI would have superior intellect but not intelligence.

[Artificial vs Natural Intelligence]

On 08/10/2017 at 4:46 AM, ofd said:

Intelligence is the ability to process information, find patterns, and come up with theories based on data. The sheer speed of artificial expert AI makes it better suited at those tasks than humans. A general AI will have the same advantages.

Would it be able to create new theories...if so how?

[Artificial vs Natural Intelligence]

How is it even theoretically possible for artificial intelligence to exceed the intelligence of man?  I can see how it may be more intelligent than most but not all.

[Ghetto Justice]

On 07/26/2017 at 0:55 AM, D.D. said:

Welcome first time poster!

My understanding is that you don't own land, the government is the perpetual owner of said land unless conquered by another government entity.  The government, Canada and USA as far as I understand it, issues land titles/deeds which gives title/deed holder exclusive use of land as per title/deed provided property taxes are fulfilled - sometimes the trees &/or mineral rights remain under the governments ownership.

As for the rest of what you wrote, researching the internet will be more fruitful than here since others (referring to non-FDR members) have proposed similar ideas regarding land ownership.  Georgism is one economic philosophy that incorporates land distribution.

Perhaps you'll share why this topic is important to you, you're level of experience researching said topic, and what does "justice" mean to you.  That's a lot of questions, right. 

 

Ill look into Georgian thank you for your input.  This topic is important to me because there is an injustice created in society by the idea of landed property, while the person has every right to any improvement they have made upon the land, naturally we are all co-owners of the earth & ought to be given something from the land that would provide us sustenance naturally.  When most or all of the land in a given society is owned by persons they are already at an advantage compared to an orphan or person born into poverty & as Thomas Paine argues any person ought to be better off being born into society than they would be if they were born in nature.  This creates a form of indentured servitude to those with landed property that in part shouldn't exist for in nature we could use the land's produce to survive.  I have only read Paine's Agrarian Justice & applied my own thoughts to it, it is his plan in my words for the most part.  Justice to me means many things depending upon context. Righting a wrong is the most general definition for me.  In the title of my post righting a wrong in societie's current precedent using principles from the nature of people & societies.  It is my opinion there is no justice for harm already done on a personal level excepting perhaps genuine correction of the wrong person's behavior & understanding.

[Ghetto Justice]

Land ought to be rented out to owners of property residing upon them for naturally we are all co-owners of the earth.  For the sake of Justice, an initial one-time 50% of an established equal land value to be paid into a General fund by current owners of landed property.  I.e. if I had a house 40% paid off I would owe 20% & the other owner 30%(of the land's value only). Afterwards for the sake of being able to live free, land rent ought to be 20% of the land value to be paid after current property owner’s death by the fortunate that inherit the renters property.  Renters that die without anyone to inherit their property shall be auctioned off to the public & added to the General Fund. Natural resources sold by land renters shall pay 50% of their profits into the General Fund.  The General Fund shall be distributed monthly & equally to all citizens 21 years of age & over for social security.  Unclaimed funds shall be added back into the General Fund after 31 days.  A simple plan as such would end hunger, homelessness, petty crime & add security for the wealthy in society.  Special circumstances easily handled by civil courts. Equal opportunity would be a reality & expensive social programs unnecessary.  If you can, tell me why this would not work.