Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: What do Bytemaster and Stan think of this...?  (Read 542 times)

Offline luckybit

What do Bytemaster and Stan think of this...?
« on: April 10, 2015, 02:23:55 PM »

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/darpa-wants-to-make-a-computer-program-that-evolves-for-100-years

I think it can actually be built but I don't know why anyone would want to build an unrestrained, unleashed, totally autonomous evolving program. My guess is maybe it could be used by agencies like the NSA to autonomously infiltrate all electronic devices and provide intelligence or perhaps something far worse.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2015, 02:25:41 PM by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

Re: What do Bytemaster and Stan think of this...?
« Reply #1 on: April 10, 2015, 02:30:36 PM »
I do think a key feature of what Bytemaster and others are making is that the platform has maximum adaptability but in our case it's because of interaction with human beings.

This would mean Bitshares is never designed to be totally autonomous but semi-autonomous. Totally autonomous could become quite dangerous and doesn't make much sense unless it's designed to be so limited that it's nothing more than a toy that constantly changes colors or plays music which evolves forever.

https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2712
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BTS: Stan
Re: What do Bytemaster and Stan think of this...?
« Reply #2 on: April 10, 2015, 04:40:35 PM »
I don't think I will ever get involved in developing a system that doesn't obey Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics.  (I've consumed too many SciFi movies and books.)

In forty years of developing "autonomous systems" I have never encountered one that we didn't want to obey us.

In the case of BitShares, we want a system that will incorruptibility obey those it is intended to serve and no one else!
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline fuzzy

Re: What do Bytemaster and Stan think of this...?
« Reply #3 on: April 10, 2015, 09:34:13 PM »
I do think a key feature of what Bytemaster and others are making is that the platform has maximum adaptability but in our case it's because of interaction with human beings.

This would mean Bitshares is never designed to be totally autonomous but semi-autonomous. Totally autonomous could become quite dangerous and doesn't make much sense unless it's designed to be so limited that it's nothing more than a toy that constantly changes colors or plays music which evolves forever.

Has anyone ever thought that out of all cryptos, bitshares is the one most likely to fight back against the world of fully autonomous systems that humanity doesn't/can't control? 
If crypto is what I believe it is, then the powers that be would definitely want people to know as little about it as possible and respect it even less.
Manipulating crypto at this stage would take only the smallest fraction of dark funding....which means we might be looking at a big reason why, despite DPOS being far superior to nearly all other protocols,  bitshares seems like it is a ghost that only a few people see...and only in passing.

I know it is a bit tinfoil hat...but I believe bitcoin was meant to create a currency that can fill in all those little data point gaps that owould tie all their other Metadata collection together so well.

In my mind, any crypto that is very private and also puts human choice at the center stage (as opposed to a God protocol) would have a very tough time moving forward. Of course this is probably one of the only cryptos around that gives power to the community and we see all the weird occurrences that have held back bitshares...and seemed almost perfectly timed to do so...
« Last Edit: April 10, 2015, 09:41:05 PM by fuzzy »
BROWNIE==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits Welcome to  the Sharing Economy w/ BeyondBitcoin.org Partners--ShareBits.io & OpenLedger.info
TIP FORMAT: #sharebits "ForumHandleInQuotes" Quanity Token_Name

Offline luckybit

Re: What do Bytemaster and Stan think of this...?
« Reply #4 on: April 10, 2015, 11:25:17 PM »
I don't think I will ever get involved in developing a system that doesn't obey Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics.  (I've consumed too many SciFi movies and books.)

In forty years of developing "autonomous systems" I have never encountered one that we didn't want to obey us.

In the case of BitShares, we want a system that will incorruptibility obey those it is intended to serve and no one else!
+5%

I agree with you.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

Re: What do Bytemaster and Stan think of this...?
« Reply #5 on: April 10, 2015, 11:29:25 PM »
I do think a key feature of what Bytemaster and others are making is that the platform has maximum adaptability but in our case it's because of interaction with human beings.

This would mean Bitshares is never designed to be totally autonomous but semi-autonomous. Totally autonomous could become quite dangerous and doesn't make much sense unless it's designed to be so limited that it's nothing more than a toy that constantly changes colors or plays music which evolves forever.

Has anyone ever thought that out of all cryptos, bitshares is the one most likely to fight back against the world of fully autonomous systems that humanity doesn't/can't control? 
If crypto is what I believe it is, then the powers that be would definitely want people to know as little about it as possible and respect it even less.
Manipulating crypto at this stage would take only the smallest fraction of dark funding....which means we might be looking at a big reason why, despite DPOS being far superior to nearly all other protocols,  bitshares seems like it is a ghost that only a few people see...and only in passing.

I know it is a bit tinfoil hat...but I believe bitcoin was meant to create a currency that can fill in all those little data point gaps that owould tie all their other Metadata collection together so well.

In my mind, any crypto that is very private and also puts human choice at the center stage (as opposed to a God protocol) would have a very tough time moving forward. Of course this is probably one of the only cryptos around that gives power to the community and we see all the weird occurrences that have held back bitshares...and seemed almost perfectly timed to do so...

I'm aware of what we are involved with. I think Bitshares is overall for the good of mankind or I wouldn't be involved. I look at both the technology and the maturity of the minds behind it.

I also think Maidsafe/SAFE Network offer a choice to humanity and is also very well designed. I think SAFE Network is designed for the dystopian scenario you talk about while Bitshares still has to ride on the very vulnerable fully backdoored Internet.

So in a way Bitshares isn't as resilient as it could be. This is why I asked the question some weeks back about whether Bitshares will support Proof of Resource or something similar because we might need to build our own mesh network and private storage components but for now it's very possible to accomplish the same by ACCT.

I actually think having humans keep this technology on a leash is a good thing. It means at least someone is able to stop it. I think it is possible for a technology to be too private or too secretive. Take Bitcoin with Satoshi Nakamoto? For now we don't care who he is but if he was suddenly worth trillions of dollars then we would care. We would especially care if at the time Bitcoin is built up into what it could become.

But we need in my opinion an Internet of blockchains. We need many different designs to compete because we don't know which design is best. My concern with fully autonomous AI is that it's not on a leash and depending on how smart it is it might not ever be possible to put it back on the leash once it's made. It would depend on the rate that it can grow and evolve.

My own thoughts are that the human participants are the necessary component. I think AI should co-evolve with us rather than compete with us. I don't want to work on an AI which would compete with us or possibly hurt us. If you think about all the good that automation can do for mankind it can literally save the world. It can solve poverty, it can run our society, and do it in ways which could lead to thousands of years of peace for our species.

« Last Edit: April 10, 2015, 11:39:25 PM by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads


Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11958
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BTS: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: What do Bytemaster and Stan think of this...?
« Reply #7 on: April 11, 2015, 02:36:28 PM »
I feel like suddenly everyone left and we're back 16 months in time. Only now we know it is all possible.
I feel the ecosystem and the community are maturing .. slow but steady!
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH


 

Google+