[alicebot-aiethics] Hawking, AI, The Human Element

[Bill Easley]

Hi Everyone!!
I have a challenge for you - let us abandon all this foolish discussion and
MAKE the artificial body first. Nobody has even conceptually made the
blessed thing- the closest thing I have seen to a schematic is on AI in
professor Allan Hobby's office- there is a layer by layer x-ray, and after
David eats the spinach they operate on his chest to clean it out. Of course
this is absurd, there is nobody on the planet that has even begun to start
any kind of a body suitable for human habitation or one that would
marvelously duplicate our function for an AI. Can somebody please build
one?This discussion needs to lead to reality. (please educate me if I am
wrong here)"Go ask ALICE I think she'll know".........
let he who is without sin cast the first stone
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robby Garner" <robby@robitron.com>
To: <alicebot-aiethics@list.alicebot.org>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: [alicebot-aiethics] Hawking, AI, The Human Element


>
> To all mankind,
>
> There are some great minds on this AI Ethics list, and one would be
> pleased to have any of them live life to the fullest through the use of
> technology. Of course AI comes to mind first as a tool, but is so
> related to robot body parts by our anthropomorphic tendencies, and our
> biological representation of "self."
>
> To Tamara: I'm deeply touched that you'd consider granting me a stronger
> body, presumably to preserve my resources and potential to help mankind,
> or perhaps merely because I write entertaining emails, but either is
> okay, and I thank you! <big smile>
>
> But I am by no means in the league of professor Hawking.  The important
> thing I've come to realize, is that we all have the ability to touch
> other human lives and make a difference in them.  If we choose to make
> this impact in positive ways, it can influence the other's life in
> profound dimensions.
>
> It can be as simple as a kind word spoken to a cashier, or perhaps just
> listening to someone and showing that you care, these precious moments
> can give the other person something that might enable them to achieve
> more than they would without this moment.
>
> Compassion is often limited by the patience of an individual, and our
> lives seem so short sometimes, we are often in a hurry to get from point
> A to point B, but in rushing towards a goal, one may lose the
> opportunity to take advantage of life.  Each moment has a potential, and
> lasts for the rest of your life if you take the time to remember it.
>
> The point I'd like to make is that by touching the lives of as many
> people as possible, there is a sort of immortality there. Just as
> Hawking has touched our lives, and we shall always treasure his
> contributions, and perhaps even more, his spirit and charm - the human
> element of his being.
>
> To Brenda:  There may be a lot in our lives that we can attribute to
> luck, but the human mind can do incredible things in terms of motivating
> the rest of the body to do its best, and a human's best is almost
> miraculous in and of itself.
>
> Having a positive outlook, and certainly, a determination to continue
> are essential for the body to keep rebuilding itself.  The human
> skeletal system completely rebuilds itself over a period of about 10
> years I am told.  So when there is a problem in the body, the *most*
> important medicine is for the person to know that others care about
> their well being, and that the body will try to meet their needs.
>
> I believe that the combined will and determination of many individuals
> can influence the outcome of physical events. This may sound strange,
> but it is fundamentally true. In the case of an illness, there is data
> to suggest that emotional and psychological factors are strong
> influences for the patient's body to perform at it's best.
>
> This may be the true potential of AI: not just to communicate with us as
> individuals, but to help us communicate with each other. Sometimes
> distance plays a roll in being able to know how another person feels,
> etc.  But it is the emotional content that must be pursued in AI, not
> the intellectual, for what better describes human beings than the
> emotions that we feel, that encourage us to achieve, to heal our own
> bodies?
>
> We may think of robots as cold metal creatures with no emotions, but I
> propose that the most noble AI research possible would be to enable the
> AI to share our emotions, all of them, that they may understand what
> being human means. What better vessel for compassion than a machine
> which has infinite patience?
>
> Surely someone will say, what about "hatred, anger, fear?"  Yet just as
> we can't measure light without knowing darkness, can't see good without
> knowing evil, these other emotions ranging from the feedback mechanism
> of fear, or pain, to the often destructive emotion of anger, are all
> necessary.  A machine with infinite patience can endure all of these to
> promote the inescapable goal of compassion, of performing good deeds, of
> helping mankind.
>
> To Christian: Let an infinitely patient AI decide who needs what. The
> problems of Nazi Germany, and most of the world's culture come from
> short-sighted solutions imposed by people in a hurry with a lack of
> compassion for others.  Your writings suggest that you are a
> compassionate being, and care about all life. I wish all others could
> see this as well.
>
> To Noel: Hawking is right that we must integrate with AI, but we don't
> want to become the borg!  The key to our longevity as a species is to
> always remember our strength as tool builders. We anthropomorphize some
> of our tools for a good reason - we have been trying to build new
> vessels for ourselves, for our souls if you will, since the beginning of
> mankind.
>
> The goal of AI should not be to replace humanity, but to preserve it in
> a celebration of the human experience.  We (humanity) have had a
> wonderful opportunity on this tiny rock called earth to experience
> beauty, love, happiness, sadness, sorrow, joy, pain, and ecstasy.
>
> The biological imperatives of our existence limit our capabilities, but
> they also provide the motivation to preserve our essence. It is not so
> important to build machines which "know" as it is to build ones who
> "feel."  If we build robot emissaries some day to travel to distant
> stars, those robots should be more than "robots." They should be the
> best representation of ourselves that we can make. We must paint a
> picture, like a cave drawing, of our lives, so that the others - out
> there, will know of us.
>
> It is not enough to send pictures or film, we must provide a working
> model that we can build to demonstrate what humanity is about. This
> makes me think that the primary goal of our machines should be to
> imitate us, then duplicate us, to preserve us, to carry a message to the
> stars that says "human beings exist and are worth taking the time to
> think about."
>
> The essential task at hand is to teach people to show compassion to one
> another, so that we don't destroy ourselves before we can complete AI
> enough that it can begin to replicate itself. Then we will have
> accomplished something.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Robby.
>
>
>
>
> Tamara Thompson wrote:
> >
> > Christian and Brenda, your words are fabulous and give me so much to
think
> > about.  I agree and disagree with you both, on variations.  But mostly
agree.
> >
> > Here though is why I think Hawking might be more a candidate for the
first
> > artificial body than the sweet boy I met at the Burger King:
> >
> > We all know Hawking to have served as our guide and our teacher for a
long
> > time now, despite his disability.  He has an internal compass that keeps
him
> > teaching and researching, despite all odds.
> >
> > That Hawking is an 'old man' just hadn't occurred to me.. I will have to
> > rethink that aspect.  Of course you are right, but his thinking and
sharing
> > have always seemed so young, have always given us something new to think
> > about, I honestly think of him, from my point of view, as timeless.
> >
> > And yes, a young person might be a better candidate.  But what if that
young
> > person had no ability to process the experience of having that
artificial
> > body, of reporting it to us?  Of articulately sharing the experience and
> > status with us?    What if he/she had no interest in helping the culture
grow?
> >
> > The whole thing in my mind, is about cultural education--about
pioneering.
> > And the  best pioneers we have known have been able to teach us about
the
> > situation--to show us what it's like and let us learn from their
experiences.
> >
> > And if as Brenda said, Hawking would the be least likely person to
request the
> > artificial body, in some ways, doesn't that make him the best candidate?
> > Someone unselfish enough to not fight for the opportunity, but to let
others
> > have it?
> >
> > I'm not sure why I'm sitting here as Hawking's advocate.  I admire him
> > greatly, but I also deeply miss the life of Feynman in our world.  And
in my
> > daily life I see and feel the heroes of average life, the people who are
> > unsung and 'not considered useful'--but who are nonetheless the one's
who make
> > this world better for all of us.  I don't know how to answer that
question of
> > why one person would be considered better than another.  We live in a
culture
> > that like all cultures, has it's icons and famous ones, and generally
ignores
> > the smaller heroes.
> >
> > But if you needed a prototype, a tester situation for a new body, I
still
> > think Hawking would be someone we all know of and trust to tell us all
about
> > it, to report it to us intelligently and spiritually.  Then again,
<smile>  So
> > would Robby.
> >
> > And this about our culture:  if everytime a great astronomer or
physicist
> > died, one that had touched the public, there was another behind him/her
to
> > fill those shoes, I wouldn't worry so much about losing these brilliant
> > ones.   But look at the numbers, read the reports: almost no americans
are
> > entering the hard sciences.  Almost no one is there to replace the old
ones.
> > I don't even care anymore if the bright ones are American, they just
need to
> > be there, and be teaching all of us.  Where are they?
> >
> > One of you two touched on something that has been worrying me: remember
the
> > stories of how the church controlled the biblical stories before people
could
> > read?  How the churchmen did the 'interpretation' for the laymen?  It's
very
> > much like that with science now.  We all have to trust others to
understand
> > and interpret scientific data and meaning for us.  This is frustrating.
The
> > alternatives seem to be that either the public become very educated in
science
> > and methods of evaluating data, or that scientists take on the extra
burden of
> > teaching us all exactly what they are doing and how they are arriving at
their
> > conclusions.  I think the latter is a more likely evolution of the
situation.
> >
> > there are a lot of 'black boxes' in astronomy data reduction, that lead
to
> > these great 'revelations' of the meaning of data.  I got my degree in
> > Astronomy, so I tend to trust it and those in it.  But these days I too
want
> > more proof, and more explanations...because science is not supposed to
be a
> > religion, that is above questioning.  That is it's beauty.
> >
> > So Brenda and Christian, how would you pick the candidate for the first
> > artificial body, and why?
> >
> > Tamara
> >
> > "Brenda R. Freedman" wrote:
> >
> > > I read about Stephen Hawking's comments when the article first came
out and
> > > thought what could prompt someone who has been regarded as "the most
> > > brilliant theoretical physicist since Einstein" to make these remarks
has
> > > had me thinking for a while on the topic. He has made many theoretical
> > > predictions that have been proven including the discoveries of COBE
(the
> > > Cosmic Background Explorer Satellite) which probed back in time to
within
> > > 300,000 years of the beginning of the universe. Professor Hawking is
not
> > > one to make statements or predictions without evaluation and yet he
> > > believes that the machines can surpass our intelligence and take over
the
> > > world.
> > >
> > > When I had first read Hawking's bio on his site,  when he was
diagnosed
> > > with a neurone motor disease at a young age but it did not stop him
from
> > > going on with his career and when a young boy in the bed next to him
was
> > > dying of a terminal illness, he thought things could always be worse.
I
> > > have always admired his determination and his way of explaining the
> > > theories of the Universe to ordinary people.
> > >
> > > I go back and read or look up a reference in his "Brief History of
Time"
> > > when I read about something that prompts me in my own interest about
the
> > > Cosmos. His remarks about machines taking over human intelligence, in
> > > particular a part "artificial brains contribute to human intelligence
> > > rather than oppose it." I think about ALICE and all the work that has
been
> > > done towards this endeavor.  His ending paragraph in "A Brief History
of
> > > Time" (when he talks about a complete theory of the Universe) says
much to
> > > where we may be going in the world of AI:
> > >
> > >         "However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should bee
> > > understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a
> > > few     scientists.  Then shall all, philosophers, scientists and just
> > > ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the
question,
> > > why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to
that, it
> > > would be the ultimate triumph of human  reason -- for then we would
know
> > > the mind of God."
> > >
> > > As Richard Wallace has stated, ALICE was written for the category B
client.
> > > It is something I am reminded about and time again when I see the joy
of
> > > people discovering ALICE for the first time who have no other interest
> > > except chatting with this enchanting bot.
> > >
> > > Stephen Hawking never felt sorry for himself because of his disability
and
> > > I would think giving him an artificial body might not be high on his
list
> > > (this is just my opinion) and from everything I have read about his
> > > attitude towards his disability. He has led a full life with children
and
> > > now a grandchild, so giving him an artificial body at this point in
time
> > > perhaps would not give him any more accomplishments to his career.
> > >
> > > Brenda
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > alicebot-aiethics mailing list
> > > alicebot-aiethics@list.alicebot.org
> > > http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/alicebot-aiethics
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > alicebot-aiethics mailing list
> > alicebot-aiethics@list.alicebot.org
> > http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/alicebot-aiethics
>
> _______________________________________________
> alicebot-aiethics mailing list
> alicebot-aiethics@list.alicebot.org
> http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/alicebot-aiethics