Skynet Lives: Artificial Intelligence and the Battle for Humanity

They don't, by being part of a network, form a consciousness.

Actually, networks of knowledge form social understanding and reinforce the capitalist lifestyle that you live and I live. Without even realizing it, millions of consumers are buying blood DVD players and sweat shop water bottles. The economic machine that Myk describes produces a social consciousness in which it's OK to exchange human life (property humans) for goods.

Social consciousness and an "actual" consciousness are two different things. A group of rules is all that a program is... just because something is a program doesn't necessitate the label of AI. I am certain that international business couldn't pass the "Turing Test" if it was applied logically for the scale involved. You couldn't carry on a logical conversation with the social consciousness of any group of people. Sociologically, you couldn't even get an accurate description of the whole from any one member. To say that the group defines the whole is not possible. The groups you are speaking about are comprised of whole entities with their own rules, however similar, they are still separate entities independent of unified control. The embodiment of a life-form is a group (programs, energy, organic matter) that has a unified control over the whole. Each bank has different rules, languages, and processes... or laws they must abide by. I am sure you are not even going to say the process for buying a car in Europe is exactly the same as it is in the US. Last I checked, Experian only tracked US credit card history. There is a whole other organization that tracks EU credit card history... however similar in nature, they probably do not share data (something a cognitive life-form would have to be able to do).

It's all flow-charts. AI works perfectly as a metaphor.

The info goes in, if\then, else;, and comes out in a specific way with very little variation. Every so often a bureaucrat in the system acts with compassion or personal greed or some such and must be fired for it. That's called an error. Whatever happens the coding of the corporation cannot be defied (though on occasion it can be changed)

What, pray tell, is the difference between a corporation and a selfish AI?

That's exactly what I am trying to say though. An AI (artificial intelligence) is more than a program (or group of rules). Its MUCH more than a simple process of if/else statements with little variations. That would belittle the very impressive amount of research done into the concept of artificial intelligences. There is strong AI, and weak AI. What you speak of might be base coding for EXTREMELY weak AI. Strong AI, which is implied by the article (vis-a-vie Skynet) is so complex it would take a hundred page paper to explain weak AI inception as a program in C.

I think the disconnect is where AI is more than a program (and different from simple rules in the business world). We can ignore strong AI (because that isn't even a comparison). Weak AI has the ability to create new processes from two paths of learning... experience and other programs in its base code. Programs become inefficient (if efficiency is part of the AI's codebase) and must be re-engineered (this can be compared to a bank law that is outdated or un-ethical). The AI itself, if written to be able to do this, has the ability to modify SPECIFIC portions of the inefficient code. This is called adaptable code. More or less it is equivalent to the business/legal world. However, there isn't a equivalent for the next part. Reintegration, and recompilation. The code is saved... ie. the rest of the consciousness (other programs involved in the consciousness) become aware of the changes. And the entire mind is in essence recompiled to run in machine language (bits) whereas the effects of the modified program become part of the whole (and effect other parts of the whole simultaneously). This is where a difference is clear between AI and the comparison you site. There is no recompilation as a whole of business law. There is not a process of saving changes. Some business become updated, others keep their old practices. New businesses can stay separate from the whole (.com era) for sometime before being integrated into the whole. This is a big difference between weak AI and the business world. Integration of new industries or new processes is not seamless and fully realized as it would be for an AI (whose changes would constantly be reflected by its changes in behavior).

Aren't you a philosophy major? I would expect you to know the differences between major and minor sociological groups. They behave completely different, and a single person is more likely to be a suggested AI than a group could ever be...

Don't get me wrong I see the comparison, and I get it. It is a big machine... but it doesn't make it smart... or AI.

Ah. I see now. Thank you. So when all of the rules and regulations of the business world are put into a computer, made into an AI with all changes being instantly realized by all parts, that can reach into the material world: Then we have a Skynet. Right?

YES! The business world must become completely self-aware of its existence (which it is not) as a single entity unified in the world and relaying data to and fro regarding each independent part to relevant portions of the whole. This happens on a small scale with specific portions of the whole, but internationally (for all of the business oligarchy) this doesn't happen as AI would (revolving and automatic).

Very much agreed. This is not AI. It's more akin to group think or social networking. AI requires both artificial and intelligence. While a corporation is an artificial entity, it is really nothing more than a group of people. Therefore there's nothing artificial here.

The AI itself, if written to be able to do this, has the ability to modify SPECIFIC portions of the inefficient code.

Corporate lobbying?

Its just a very efficient machine, capable of modifying specific processes for better performance... it can make up simple new processes, but the distinction is completely new processes, merely from experiences (ie. that don't apply to any situation that has arisen). Corporate lobbying always has a purpose, you never see lobbying for an undeveloped market (or non-existent one) as would be the case with a strong AI (capable of finding potential problems in code, and fixing itself before a problem arises... ie. no errors).

Aren't you confusing strong AI with smart AI? There's no reason that artificial intelligence should be particularly intelligent.

I think at this point we are having a terminology debate. And take five seconds, re-read what you write and see if it makes any sense to you... "There's no reason that artificial intelligence should be particularly intelligent." ... Um, I would hope that an AI would be capable of demonstrating "intelligence" at any level. Weak AI is no more than a highly complex program that can modify itself. Strong AI is capable of expanding, creating new processes based on experience and likely needed processes that may arise. A good comparison is the real-life DEEP BLUE (a weak AI) and the fictional SKYNET (a strong, self-aware AI). Here is a good link at wikipedia (if you dare). The dividing line between strong and weak AI is self-awareness or self-consciousness.

I'm talking about a system of decision-making algorithms that are capable of adaptation in a competitive environment.

But that's just the distinction you are making that nullifies it as AI. I understand the metaphor but it is fundamentally inaccurate.

I get that the corporate world is like a big machine, a program (even a very well designed program that can modify specific portions of itself) but like I said before that doesn't qualify as AI, it just isn't self-aware.

The point is, corporate banks and whatnot already have control over our lives, now they just need the power to end them as they see fit (some would argue they already do, as evidenced by 9/11). I see where you are going but the true problem is that we have let this monstrous creation of humanity (this program/system of immense power) get out of our own control. We need to find a way to... pull the plug ASAP.

HA! Now I totally undersatnd MGS2. Damn, that was such a great revelation i need a cigarette.

Yes, I would say we're pretty much on the same page here. I was basically trying to say the same thing you did in your article, but in only two paragraphs. Mykola, you should read Djehuty's article for an expanded and far more effective version of my comment.

Thanks Mykola. I agree about regulation, my main concern is that the system almost inevitably weakens regulation as corporations get more influential. There is a power imbalance which makes the organised and energetic (ie: the corporations) prevail. People have better things to do with their time until things get rather out of hand.

Thanks for that I'd never heard it before, it is possibly a function of a classic business and finance education. *smirk*