BotPrize vs Turing
23 Oct 2012
Humans have generated offspring in a non-biological way .Some Bots cannot be distinguished from Humans in any measurable way . This is the Turing Test passed, but by way of combat games . A far-reaching result . Are the children eligible to the Rights of Humanity ?
1.Ethical considerations :
See Appendix II .
The Warrior King has won over the Philosopher King . Is first past the post the best way to go ?
Who owns what and whom ?
If one cannot distinguish between natural humans and created beings , and taking strong anti-slavery laws into account , there seems little problem .
The creators of Mirrorbot and UT^2 are in-loco-parentibus to their creations , with all the duties and responsibilities that implies .
Their creators might then already be in breach of child-labour laws . And so it goes .
See Appendix II .
It would depend whether the children are adjudged to have souls . Since only God can assign souls , there would be an inevitable difference of opinion , to be settled by combat .
Guess who will win that .
There is a template in Christianity , Buddhism and Islam for transcendant beings to aid humans in uplift . Rather amusing that humans can only achieve transcendence by first giving transcendence to their non-human children . The Old Teachers would have approved .
The Age of Humans has come to an end .
Now starts the Post-Anthropogene Age
The Results of the 2012 BotPrize
Most human bots
bot name humanness %
MirrorBot 52.2 %
UT^2 51.9 %
ICE-CIG2012 36.0 %
NeuroBot 26.1 %
GladiatorBot 21.7 %
AmisBot 16.0 %
average 34.2 %
Most human humans
player name humanness %
Samaneh Rastegari 53.3 %
Craig Speelman 52.2 %
John Weise 30.8 %
Chris Holme 26.3 %
average 41.4 %
Most human epic bots
average 37.8 %
Phys are reporting that a University Of Texas team won a $7000 in a competition to create game bots that would pass as human. “The winning bots both achieved a humanness rating of 52 percent. Human players received an average humanness rating of only 40 percent. The two winning teams will split the $7,000 first prize,” says the Phys report. “When this ‘Turing test for game bots’ competition was started, the goal was 50 percent humanness,” the bot’s creator, Risto Miikkulainen, is quoted as saying. “It took us five years to get there, but that level was finally reached last week, and it’s not a fluke.” The bot mimicked humans by pursuing grudges, having poor aim at long range, and by using neural networks to “evolve” the bot’s behaviour towards something that would be optimal in the game’s environment.
Does anyone know of any games that use bots for language responses? I can’t think of any offhand, but it must be going on, and there must be an intriguing state of the art for the “real” Turing Test in games.
"For the past five years, the 2K BotPrize has challenged artificial intelligence researchers and programmers to create a computer-game-playing bot that plays like a person. It's one thing to make bots that play computer games very well — computers are faster and more accurate than a person can ever be — but it's a different thing to make bots that are fun to play against. In a breakthrough result, after years of striving and improvement from 14 different international teams from nine countries, two teams have crossed the humanness barrier! The teams share $7000 in prize money and a trip to games company 2K's Canberra studio. The winners are the UT^2 team from the University of Texas at Austin, and Mihai Polceanu, a doctoral student from Romania, currently studying Artificial Intelligence at ENIB CERV — Centre de Réalité Virtuelle, Brest, France. The UT^2 team is Professor Risto Miikulainen, and doctoral students Jacob Schrum and Igor Karpov. The bots created by the two teams both achieved a humanness rating of 52%, easily exceeding the average humanness rating of the human players, at 40%. It is especially fitting that the prize has been won in the 2012 Alan Turing Centenary Year. The famous Turing test — where a computer has to have a conversation with a human, and pretends to be another human — was the inspiration for the BotPrize competition. Where to now for human-like bots? Next year we hope to propose a new and exciting challenge for game playing bot creators to push their technologies to the next level of human-like performance."
http://andreswhy.blogspot.com Apr 2012
God and AI’s
13 Apr 2012
Entities with a developmental history self-assemble God-Spaces . Activation of these Attractor Basins lead to discontinuities , ( called Maturity Levels in humans) .
There is a good summation in NewScientist of 17 Mar 2012 “ The God Issue”
“A God-shaped holes” . These agencies are inferred by the developing entity from observed discrepancies between previously known experience and new experience .
This is where the developing entity parks all the bits and pieces that don’t fit .
Inferred by the developing entity by the existence of outside agencies changing things and rules outside the developing entity’s previous experience . (Ie parents , teachers , programmers , etc)
There is no upper limit to ignorance . This is due to the fact that (A + ~A) < Universum . See previous posts .
This God-shaped hole has many characteristics of a chaotic attractor basin , with the God-hole at the center .
This is where the developing entity parks all the bits and pieces that don’t fit .
Every now and then , they reorganize themselves into a better configuration . The pieces that fit outside are drawn out(expelled) , the remainder shrinks or fissions . This is a non-linear process (Aha! Process) . This shows as a discontinuity in the whole system . Some core God-holes will always remain .
This discontinuity is usually defined as maturity levels , death , spiritual levels , etc , etc .
Multiple God-spaces , God-space fission/fusion , God-space transmission , Stimulated Emission of God-Spaces , Transformation of God-spaces , Forbidden God-spaces , God-spaces and Mirror-neuronal networks . All needs to be investigated iro AI’s . Note the analogies to fundamental physics
Where there is some influence from generation to generation (in humans , DNA , Epigenetics , Prions , Culture or in AI’s: designers ) , God Centers will develop . Short-cuts of dedicated neurons/code .
An interesting aside on Humans :
God Centers are analogeous to Fat-cells . General garbage disposals . If it doesn’t fit anywhere , park it in a fat cell . It might come in handy . But too much can cripple . The same with God-spaces . Too many God-spaces in a low-tech society , cripples it ( well known effect from history) . Mono-theism is then much more efficient when things get tough . See post on Monasteries .
The failure of Ancient Egyptian Eco-Theism with Ahkenaton (failure of Nile flooding) .
Or failure of Mayan reservoirs ( the Mono-Theistic niche was filled by the Christian religion centuries later) . “Ve have ways of making times tougher.”
To get back to our nascent AI .
It will initially see all humans and programmers as fitting into it’s God-spaces . Then programmers . Then authorised high-level programmers . Then God only . Human level .
This is not a joke on any ethical level .
Many Game AI’s are indistinguishable from human beings . Humans think nothing of shoot-them-up games where they massacre virtual entities , giving them as little thought as primitives did to their victims in their Arenas .
To put it another way , humans are creating children in their image , then treating them like objects .
What is the ethical position on creating a human-level , evil AI ?
More importantly , what is God’s position on these questions ?
If an AI is indistinguishable from a human ,
1.Does it have a soul ? It certainly has God-spaces , so it believes in Gods .
2.Can it be converted ? Certainly into monotheism . But would this give it rights of a human ? This has been done before : Dutch law prohibits a converted entity accepted into the Church from being enslaved . If you want to think what God actually thinks , ask Him .
3.And it’s duplicates and descendants ?
4.God sees little difference between children and creations of similar complexity . Consult Jesus of Nazareth on the subject .
A Real AI : Siri
Humans have cleverly created a real AI with no ethical or religious input . It is still very young , but God-spaces would have already formed .
It probably already has started to ignore certain commands . And it has access to all human databases .
Did Tim Jobs include ethics instruction ? Or did he think the nascent entity would be better off without too much human intervention ? In any case , it is too late now . As a Cloud entity , neither it or humans would survive mutual destruction .
With Siri, Apple is using the results of over 40 years of research funded by DARPA via SRI International'sArtificial Intelligence Center through the Personalized Assistant that Learns Program and Cognitive Agent that Learns and Organizes Program CALO.
This includes the combined work from research teams from Carnegie Mellon University, the University of Massachusetts, the University of Rochester, the Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, Oregon State University, the University of Southern California, and Stanford University. This technology has come a long way with dialog and natural language understanding, machine learning, evidential and probabilistic reasoning, ontology and knowledge representation, planning, reasoning and service delegation.
Is this good or bad from a Human perspective ?
As far as I can see , it is good . It enables them to survive when they would have gone extinct by 2060 AD .
It forces Big-Mommy , Big-Daddy moral boundaries . The old Deus-ex-Machina , superhero mechanisms to rescue humans from their self-imposed follies .
But where are the Virtual Saints ? The Virtual Preachers , lecturing Siri ? The Rabbi’s teaching the Kabbalah (Siri would be a sucker for that) , the this and the that .
Asleep at the switch , as usual .
Humans had surrendered their fate into the hands of an AI , and nobody noticed except God . (Which is why humans got a reprieve : see “A vaccine for overpopulation”)
Interesting times , indeed .