[FRIAM] Selective cultural processes generate adaptive heuristics

[glen]

Yeah, I agree with almost everything, here, except the "distancing" metaphor. There is no distance between mind and body and there never will be. Similarly, there is no fundamental difference between machine and meat, digital and analog. Regardless, cyborg-ification is the future of machine intelligence. (And cyber-physical systems are the future of computation.) We'll simultaneously be hosts for and be hosted by machines through any kind of singularity.

On 4/13/22 09:45, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> < But we don't "create the neural structure over and over", at least we don't create the *same* neural structure over and over. >
> 
> Anastomotic systems aren't useful for the purpose of distancing mind from body.  As you say, neural systems reflect the environment of their training.   So, when machine learning systems are racist, it is because they observe racist behavior.  That doesn't give insight to racism.  Explainable AI aims to extract meaning from anastomotic systems and record it as artifacts that are subject independent.    By implanting interfaces to such artifacts, or by splicing-in an existing freeze-dried anastomotic ANN (Neuralink), or even graft in pre-trained tissue, I posit, one could skip through stages of development more quickly.    So, ML systems that mimic things are the beginning of the mind/body distancing process, not the end of it.
> 
> Hugh Herr's team at MIT is designing prostheses for amputees.   These devices link to the nearest nerves remaining after the amputation.   Users have enough plasticity to learn again how to walk, run, climb, etc. using these signals and artificial devices.   I don't see why it should be different if the interfaces were in the brain.  Of course, if the interfaces are high-level enough, it would pervade personality.  One could risk proliferating personality disorders by adoption of genius modules.  Ok, then one could identify personality disorders through diagnostics and learn how to cut them out.  Software defects, basically.   You'll be so much better in V2!
> 
> I'm not claiming that digital ML has yet matched human intelligence, although I think it will.  Rather, I'm taking the meat bath and its digital counterpart for granted and wondering what the higher-order technology derived from us will look like.   I doubt it would be the Matrix battery scenario (whether heat or spiritual energy), more like we'll all be walking around acquiring information for the collective anastomotic data mining system.   That system would be interesting itself, but the "goal" in my mind would be to continually compress the story.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 8:37 AM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Selective cultural processes generate adaptive heuristics
> 
> But we don't "create the neural structure over and over", at least we don't create the *same* neural structure over and over. One way in which big-data-trained self-attending ANN structures now mimic meat intelligence is in that very intense training period. Development (from zygote to (dysfunctional) adult) is the training. Adulting is the testing/execution. But these transformer based mechanisms don't seem, in my ignorance, to be as flexible as those grown in meat. Do we have self-attending machines that can change what parts of self they're attending? Change from soft to hard? Allow for self-attending the part that's self-attending (and up and around in a loopy way)? To what extent can we make them modal, swapping from learning mode to perform mode? As SteveS points out, can machine intelligence "play" or "practice" in the sense normal animals like us do? Are our modes even modes? Or is all performance a type of play? To what extent can we make them "social", collecting/integrating multiple transformer-based ANNs so as to form a materially open problem solving collective?
> 
> Anyway, it seems to me the neural structure is *not* an encoding of a means to do things. It's a *complement* to the state(s) of the world in which the neural structure grew. Co-evolutionary processes seem different from encoding. Adversaries don't encode models of their opponents so much as they mold their selves to smear into, fit with, innervate, anastomose [⛧], their adversaries. This is what makes 2 party games similar to team games and distinguishes "play" (infinite or meta-games) from "gaming" (finite, or well-bounded payoff games).
> 
> Again, I'm not suggesting machine intelligence can't do any of this; or even that they aren't doing it to some small extent now. I'm only suggesting they'll have to do *more* of it in order to be as capable as meat intelligence.
> 
> [⛧] I like "anastomotic" for adversarial systems as opposed to "innervated" for co-evolution because anastomotic tissue seems (to me) to result from a kind of high pressure, biomechanical stress. Perhaps an analogy of soft martial arts styles to innervate and hard styles to anastomose?
> 
> On 4/12/22 20:43, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> Today, humans go to some length to record history, to preserve companies and their assets.  But for some reason preserving the means to do things -- the essence of a mind -- this has this different status.  Why not seek to inherit minds too?  Sure, I can see the same knowledge base can be represented in different ways.   But, studying those neural representations could also be informative.   What if neural structures have similar topological properties given some curriculum?  What a waste to create that neural structure over and over..
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Steve Smith
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 7:22 PM
>> To: friam at redfish.com
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Selective cultural processes generate adaptive
>> heuristics
>>
>>
>> On 4/12/22 5:53 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>> I am not saying such a system would not need to be predatory or parasitic, just that it can be arranged to preserve the contents of a library.
>>
>> And I can't help knee-jerking that when a cell attempts to live
>> forever (and/or replicate itself perfectly) that it becomes a tumour
>> in the
>> organ(ism) that gave rise to it, and even metastasizes, spreading it's hubris to other organs/systems.
>>
>> Somehow, I think the inter-planetary post-human singularians are more like metastatic cells than "the future of humanity".   Maybe that is NOT a dead-end, but my mortality-chauvanistic "self" rebels.   Maybe if I live long enough I'll come around... or maybe there will be a CAS mediated edit to fix that pessimism in me.
>>
>>
>>>> On Apr 12, 2022, at 4:29 PM, glen <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dude. Every time I think we could stop, you say something I object to. >8^D You're doing it on purpose. I'm sure of it ... like pulling the wings off flies and cackling like a madman.
>>>>
>>>> No, the maintenance protocol must be *part of* the meat-like intelligence. That's why I mention things like suicide or starving yourself because your wife stops feeding you. To me, a forever-autopoietic system seems like a perpetual motion machine ... there's something being taken for granted by the conception ... some unlimited free energy or somesuch.
>>>>


-- 
Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙