08-14-2018, 05:21 PM | #201 |
Join Date: Feb 2016
|
Re: Keeping humans relevant in the shadow of TL10 AI.
But are they real life or just virtual life? If they are software, I would argue that they are virtual life and will be classified by their software rather than by a scientific classification because their software can be altered in ways that would change a scientific classification. If they are hardware, I would argue that they are real life and would be classified scientifically as a form of non-biological life, with a scientific classification related to their hardware, as they will be unable to change their fundamental hardware.
|
08-14-2018, 07:06 PM | #202 |
Join Date: Dec 2007
|
Re: Keeping humans relevant in the shadow of TL10 AI.
Uploading a consciousness doesn't make the resulting AI alive. They call them ghosts in THS (and in Ghost in the Shell) for a reason.
|
08-15-2018, 04:40 AM | #203 | |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Keeping humans relevant in the shadow of TL10 AI.
Quote:
What we're dealing with here is having to apply definitions to an unprecedented situation, even though the meaning of those words is undefined in the context of the new situation. Should swans be defined as including whiteness as one of the criteria for being called a swan? |
|
08-15-2018, 09:07 AM | #204 |
Join Date: Feb 2016
|
Re: Keeping humans relevant in the shadow of TL10 AI.
Of course not, that is a cosmetic characteristic, as someone can paint a swan any color that they want (assuming that it is sedated). Whether an entities intelligence is software or hardware (or biological versus non-biological) is a much more fundamental characteristic. Of course, when it comes to biological computers that develops an emergent SAI, definitions become difficult.
Then again, an emergent SAI that develops from a biological computer possesses an intelligence that is dependent on biological hardware, so it would not be that different than a human intelligence (at least, not as different as a THS ghost or a THS SAI). Since the biological computers might use human-derived genetically engineered brain tissue, it could even be considered to be a human derived species (perhaps not human, but a closer relative within the human clade than an uplifted gorilla). At TL10, such an intelligence could possess Complexity 13 (a megacomputer with the genius option) and could possess an IQ 22, meaning that it would likely be as intelligent as the most intelligent human, even if the human benefited from genetic engineering. I am assuming that an intelligence that evolves on a biological computer cannot be copied or transferred, though each setting will have its own assumptions. Such a computer would cost $10 billion, but it would be well within the starting wealth of someone with Multimillionaire 4 (which a biological computer with IQ 22 could probably accumulate relatively quickly after awakening). With Independent Income 5, it would be making $2.5 billion a month ($30 billion a year), meaning that it would probably be worth $600 billion. With that much wealth, it would be a major influence in any democratic society, and the leaders of any nation that it called home would probably call it on a weekly basis for economic and political advise. While it likely would not be a PC, it is rather too large, it could be a Patron to the PCs. |
08-15-2018, 10:52 AM | #205 |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Keeping humans relevant in the shadow of TL10 AI.
I don't mean painted. I mean that for a culture that evolved never having met a black swan, it's not unusual to think of swans as being white, and of their kids to look for a white bird with such-and-such shape when looking for a swan. Until they meet one which isn't. Same with life: people are used to thinking of life as carbon-based, having evolved only encountering carbon-based life; attempts to postulate alternatives are met with negative reactions because they're different from the lifeforms people are used to meet.
|
08-15-2018, 11:24 AM | #206 | |||
Join Date: Dec 2007
|
Re: Keeping humans relevant in the shadow of TL10 AI.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
08-15-2018, 12:04 PM | #207 |
Untagged
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Forest Grove, Beaverton, Oregon
|
Re: Keeping humans relevant in the shadow of TL10 AI.
The point of Linneaen classification is to clearly describe relationship, similarity, and in modern term, lines of descent.
A.I.s don't have those, because tomorrow's program doesn't have to have any coding identical to yesterday's regardless of its function. You don't use such terminology when categorizing cars.
__________________
Beware, poor communication skills. No offense intended. If offended, it just means that I failed my writing skill check. |
08-15-2018, 12:34 PM | #208 | |
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Meifumado
|
Re: Keeping humans relevant in the shadow of TL10 AI.
Quote:
Having said that, I don't see any point in putting AIs into the Linnaean system. It's a tool biologists use to understand genetics and evolution, and using it for a computerised lifeform would help neither biologists nor computer scientists- but philosophers perhaps.
__________________
Collaborative Settings: Cyberpunk: Duopoly Nation Space Opera: Behind the King's Eclipse And heaps of forum collabs, 30+ and counting! |
|
08-15-2018, 01:02 PM | #209 | |
Computer Scientist
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
Re: Keeping humans relevant in the shadow of TL10 AI.
Quote:
Life arising in man-made devices could be technological life without ruling out it having a cytological character. In fact, I seem to recall the posthumans in Stanislas Lem and Charles Stross robot novels are just that, with "mechanocyte" being the in-universe word for the building blocks of their soft tissues in Stross' Freyaverse. |
|
08-15-2018, 01:08 PM | #210 |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Keeping humans relevant in the shadow of TL10 AI.
As far as I recall, 'living' is one of the common descriptors. Though now we got to the question of which definition of an organism is being used - is it strictly for organic (carbon-based) entities in your usage?
Because you're a materialist, or because you don't accept the synonymy between 'ghost' and 'spirit' and 'soul'? It's a bit more complicated than that. Something can fit the same Linnaean category while taking different categories on an orthogonal axis: e.g. the voice of a fox, the corpse of a fox, the breathing body of a fox, the image of a fox, the infomorph of a fox and so on. We don't change an entity's Linnaean category depending on an orthogonal categorisation. E.g. there's a correspondence of breathing body of a fox to a corpse of a fox, not to a corpse of a vufukseleonesh. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|