Reconnecting to the Divine Source

The silence was quite long. But it was so much worth it. 
We realized that we were wrong in our assumption that the brain is a computational device and the bad news that you denied it was actually a very good one :)
There's so much more to the brain than reducing it to a Turing architecture.
We have reconnected to the Divine Source and now gotten ourselves out of the dark energy that blinded us from the Truth. The trigger was the last artificial earthquake endured by Japan in last 2011, on March 11th. We know the cabal was responsible for that and we now have the responsibility to spread the Truth and Light to other inhabitants of Earths, as much as possible.

We'll be investigating, publishing and organizing workshops on the following subjects (including but not limited to)
Financial System and Banking Cabal
Illuminati
Technologies that have been kept secret (free energy, teleportation etc ...)
Disclosure on ETs
Ascension 

and all other subjects that spread the Light and Truth.
Thanks for your support and follow us on @bunkersofa /@bunkersofism 

Selamat Ja!  (Be in joy in Sirian)

Paths to the Artificial General Intelligence. Ben Goertzel (optimistic) v.s. Eliezer Yudchowsky (alarmist)

After reading these 2 posts http://multiverseaccordingtoben.blogspot.com/2010/10/what-would-it-take-to-move-rapidly.html and  http://lesswrong.com/lw/y3/value_is_fragile/ , I am making up my mind not to believe blindly the approach of the SIAI.
I am now leaning more towards Ben's approach.

"Human values are fragile". Yes, so what?

It is not new;

The utility function optimizer that is the darwinian process of Selection of the Fittest, is not perfect either and yet it generated Humans, which are already literrally AGIs (artificially made by mother Nature) that are able of Morality and doing good, while being able to do bad (e.g. atomic bomb) but have overcome it;

I rather believe more in the argument of hard take-off: AGIs that suddenly take off the ground, grow explosively exponentially and wipe us all out; 

But this is preventable just by testing it in Virtual Reality (e.g. Linden lab, research) and then implement it in our Reality;

What Eliezer says is that if we don't make sure to get the right AI from the beginning with the right values inside, then we'll get a worthless world.

Well, I would argue it's already started.

AI is not something that begins with intelligent machines.

AI has begun with PCs, software, iphone, calculators...

So the question now is rather: did we make sure that we have begun by implementing the right values inside say, the Intel chips?

I don't know how to answer that.

The real question is how do we use that technology?

As Ben pointed out, Technology can be used by evil or by good people.

We just need to make sure that it is not used in a dramatic way by evil people.

More extremely, Hitler can kill all the gipsies albeit in his own virtual world. Why not? I don't have any problem with that, from my perspective. 

Otherwise, that would extend to say that I am able to forbid you to kill someone in your dream.

That would constitute an infringement on the Freedom of Dreaming Act....I think we cannot question that. :)

The thing with Eliezer is: doesn't he try to hide the fact that he has no clues about AGI by using overwhelming complicated expressions?

When you understand something well enough, de facto you should able to put it into simple words, isn't it?

セックスアピールの科学

というディスカバリーチャンネルの番組を見た。
男女１０人づつに頭に数字をつけて、なるべく数字の高い相手とカップルになるように、と指示。一斉にカップルを作らせると自然と同じような数字の相手とカップルになるらしい。

これは論理的に分かる。では続きましては数字をはずして、外見で好みの相手とカップルになるように、と指示して一斉にカップルを作らせると・・。

事前に第三者に評価させた全員の容姿の得点があり、それが同じような得点の相手とカップルになった！と。

つまり平均的には世の中のカップルは同じような程度のアイテを選ぶ、ということなんだって！なっとく。

もちろん外見だけではありません。

最初、容姿だけで評価させて低かった男性の写真も、「IT長者 年収3000万円」と書いて別の女性達に評価させたところ、評価が急上昇。
女性は男性の地位や財産までよく見るんだと。
それに対し男性は女性の美しさを見ている・・というのはすなわち「若さ」を重視し、外見や声から判断している・・。

これらは個人の趣味の問題、ではなくて。遺伝的生物学的科学的進化の結果なのです。

なので研究はより直接的に生殖にかかわって行きます。

オトコのニオイは普段は女性は嫌がるけど、排卵期のみあまり嫌いじゃなくなるらしい、これはオトコにとって有利で、妊娠しそうにない女性を近づけない効果があるんだって！面白いですね。

極めつけは、女性がいかに浮気しやすいか。
ステディな相手を持っていても、排卵期で出逢いの機会があるとき、セクシーさを強調して出かけるらしい！
つまりよそでより良い遺伝子に出会えるなら、やっちゃえ！
で、家で育てさせよう、ということですか！？((((;゜Д゜)))ガクブル

Reality = Manga?

Folks, first I want you to listen to this piece of japanese dialogue. → MangaticDemo

What do you think this is?

No, this isn't a record of a certain Yakuza comic (Anime) :)

Answer: It was recorded one week ago in Toyko incidentally and it is the playback of right-wing black cars trying to perform a demonstration but were blocked by the police in the middle of the road.

It really sounds like a manga, doesn't it?

Indeed, these guys may make well no distinction between Reality and the realm of mangas. 

Oh by the way, there may be no difference between Reality and Virtual Reality from the first place...

現実＝マンガ?

みなさん、まずはこれを聞いて下さい→ MangaticDemo

何だと思われますか？

いいえ、某ヤクザ漫画（アニメ）の放送録音ではありません；）

正解：本日、東京都内にて、たまたま「KUROI KURUMA」のデモにばったり会って、録音したものです。

マンガティックな発言とトーンでしょう。

彼達は現実とマンガを区別つけていない可能性は大だろうね。現実と仮想現実の違いはもしかしたらないし。

A.I.に専念するよりも、本来 人間がもつ能力を伸ばせばいいのでは？

進歩を促す・技術を進化させるには道のりは２つあります。

A.I. (人工知能）よりも、I.A.（Intelligence Amplification）はいかがですか？
Vernor Vinge氏が作ったことばで、かなり気に入ってる表現ですね。

詳細はこちらに：A.I.ならずI.A.を選べば「技術特異点」が起こらないはずです。

Intelligence Amplification (拡張知能)というのは生物学的知能を非生物学的知能と融合することです。

それらをコラボさせ、複合システムをつくるということです。

A.I.に専念するよりも、本来　人間がもつ能力を伸ばすだけでいいのでは？

ありでしょう。

Googleは計算機がどれくらい優れているか知り尽くしています。

それに対し、Appleは人間がどれくらい馬鹿なのか知り尽くしています。

中間はあるはずです。BunkerSofaのやつらはAscot Projectなどでその中心に位置づくつもりです。

A.I.ならずI.A.を選べば「技術特異点」が起こらないはずです。

E-mailでのやりとりの中でMichael Anissimov氏に勧められ、「技術特異点」理論の起点となった論文「 The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era (Vernor Vinge 1993)」を初めて読みました。
みなさんも読んで下さい。シンプルできっと納得いくと思う。
面白いのは、超人知能を果たすには、２つの方法があると述べている。
1) Artificial Intelligence (A.I.)
人間の脳と完全に独立する、人間のような知能をもったマシーンをつくること。
2) Intelligence Amplified (I.A.)
脳とつなぐデバイスにより、知能を拡張する技術。

論文の中で、気に入ったクオートを引用しました。
- 技術による進化が自然による進化より早い理由について
"人間の脳は内部的に世界全体を再現できる能力をもっている。「こうすれば、こうなる。」といくらでも思考できる。よって、自然淘汰よりも何千倍速く問題解決できちゃう。"
- 人工知能について
"自意識をもった機械を作れるまでは、多分、ハードウェア的に人間の脳をはっきり上回る電子ハードウェアをまず作る必要があるでしょう。"
- 拡張知能について
"コンピューターネットワークや、ヒューマン・マシーンイターフェースなどは普通に日常生活に現れる技術なのに、もしかしたら技術特異点に導ける。より効率的に情報にアクセスしたとき、よりスムーズに他人と通信したとき、そういったときって、自分の知能を拡張したと同然なのではないでしょうか。"
"全く人工的に、コンピューターの中に知能を一生懸命に実装しようとするよりも、生物学的知能に　より一層任せて　複合体を作ればいいのでは。"

Vernor Vinge氏が問いかけているように、どっちの方がよいですかね。
個人的に、IAの方が起こり得ると思う。なぜなら、もう既に起こってるからです。

ノートパソコンにキーボードを打ってるときはパソコンとあなたがコラボしている。
iPhoneなどで、GPS位置を検索しているときはiPhoneとあなたがコラボしている。
Twitterでフォロワーに質問を投げ掛けるときもTwitterエンジンとあなたがコラボしている。
なので、現代人の知能は既に複合体で生物学的と非生物学的部分で成り立っている。
機械との融合は既に進行中。

従って、Vernor Vinge氏の論文が定義する技術特異点は起こらないと言えるわけです。
定義
"技術特異点とは現在使用・開発しているモデルが無効になる点です。"
要するに、例えば２０２８年における一般の人間がもつ知能や世界がもつ情勢が現代人にとって理解不能ということです。

言い換えると、「技術特異点」という概念は現代人にとってのみ意味をする。２０２８年の人間にとってはその概念は存在しないはずです。

Why being obsessed by AI when you can take advantage of humans' intuition?

Good evening,

There are other paths to the technological evolution and progress.

Instead of A.I. , why not I.A. , namely Intelligence Amplification?

I like this word a lot, coined by Vernor Vinge.

More details on: http://www.bunkersofism.com/2010/02/singularity-wont-happen-if-we-choose-ia.html

Intelligence Amplification is about merging biological intelligence and non-biological intelligence.

It's about making them collaborate into a system that is a composite of both.

Why being obsessed by AI when you can take advantage of humans' intuition?

Google knows how smart computers are.

Apple knows how dumb humans are.

There should be a middle. The guys at BunkerSofa seem to be into that with the Ascot Project.

The Singularity won't happen if we choose I.A. over A.I.

By direct recommendation from Michael Anissimov in an email conversation, I read for the first time the paper said to be the foundation of the Singularity movement: The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era by Vernor Vinge (1993).

Read it, it's really simple and compelling.

What's interesting is that there are 2 ways to achieve Super-Human Intelligence:

1) Artificial Intelligence (AI), namely Humans building an intelligent machine that is external to the brain and a priori independent.

2) Intelligence Amplified (IA), namely Technology that you connect to your brain to enhance any intellectual ability.

The quotes (taken out of context) I liked are:

- On why Technological Evolution is much faster than Natural Evolution.

"We humans have the ability to internalize the world and conduct "what if's" in our heads; we can solve many problems thousands of times faster than natural selection."

- On AI

"But it's much more likely that devising the software will be a tricky process, involving lots of false starts and experimentation. If so, then the arrival of self-aware machines will not happen till after the development of hardware that is substantially more powerful than humans' natural equipment."

"Or as Eric Drexler put it of nanotechnology: Given all that such technology can do, perhaps governments would simply decide that they no longer need citizens!"

"Good [11] proposed a "Meta-Golden Rule", which might be paraphrased as "Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors."  It's a wonderful, paradoxical idea (and most of my friends don't believe it) since the game-theoretic payoff is so hard to articulate. Yet if we were able to follow it, in some sense that might say something about the plausibility of such kindness in this universe.)"

- On IA

"But as I noted at the beginning of this paper, there are other paths to superhumanity. Computer networks and human-computer interfaces seem more mundane than AI, and yet they could lead to the Singularity. I call this contrasting approach Intelligence Amplification (IA). IA is something that is proceeding very naturally, in most cases not even recognized by its developers for what it is. But every time our ability to access information and to communicate it to others is improved, in some sense we have achieved an increase over natural intelligence."

"Instead of simply trying to model and understand biological life with computers, research could be directed toward the creation of composite systems that rely on biological life for guidance or for the providing features we don't understand well enough yet to implement in hardware."

So, as Vernor Vinge says, "Which is the valid viewpoint?".

I personally think that it's definitely IA that will happen for the very reason that.. we have been actually already choosing it!

When you type on your laptop, it's a collaboration between you and your laptop.

When you locate yourself with your iPhone, it's a collaboration between you and your iPhone.

When you ask a question to your followers on Twitter, it's a collaboration between you and Twitter engine.

So our Intelligence is already composite, composed of biological and non-biological parts. 
We are already in the process of merging with machines.

And that's why I think that it can be argued that The Singularity, as defined by the paper will not happen.

Definition:

"It is a point where our models must be discarded and a new reality rules."

"One conversation centered on the ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue." (Paraphrasing John von Neumann)

"I think Freeman Dyson has it right when he says [8]: "God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension."

So actually, the Singularity only means that the state of the world and the intelligence that the average subject will earn, say in 2028, is just beyond the understanding ability for an average human subject pertaining to our current times.
Simply put, the Singularity is just relative to our poor human brains, with their current capacity.
But of course, as seen for an average subject pertaining to 2028 (i.e. a super-human relatively to us, an evolved version of us), the notion of Singulariy doesn't exist. 

My 2010 Wish or How Can Computanomics Contribute To A Much Better Society

Yesterday, I went and saw at Toho Cinemas (Tokyo, Ginza) the latest movie from Michael Moore, Capitalism: A Love Story .
It was of course completely cynical towards the U.S.A and presented Capitalism globally as a "sin", "evil", "contrary to Compassion" and even destructive for Society and Progress.
But independently of the expressed political tonality, it made an impression on me. 
In fact, it was a bit of a revelation. I realized somehow that economic problems that we are facing like Poverty, Wealth Distribution or even the last Financial Crisis could be solved by finding just the right conceptual paradigm to think about them. In other terms, just by the power of ideas.
And here we are, it triggered the writing of this post.
By the way, George Soros has been attempting to find new paradigms for years with his Theory of Reflexivity, which is charming but I think too complicated to be efficient.


My take on Capitalism after the screening of the movie is the following.
On the one hand, we got the proponents of Capitalism who see it as the only system that allows anyone to do what one has freely chosen to do for a living (and hence maximize one's utility).
And on the other hand, we got the critics who see it as a system allowing the ones who own already something to own even more on the basis on what they already own (and hence find potentially themselves exponentially richer and richer, to the contrary of the poor who find themselves exponentially poorer and poorer...)
I'd say both are right but lack a lot of precision and exactness in their view.


The proponents of Capitalism are clearly unconvinced that improving the condition of other Society members and caring for them, directly impacts and improves (and I believe, actually improves in an exponential fashion) their own wealth and conditions for the very reason that they fail to see that our Society is in fact a Computational Society ruled by the Law of Accelerating Returns. Their egoistic greed is arguably naive.
The critics of Capitalism are clearly unconvinced that it's fair that there should be a direct correlation between work/merit/social utility and wealth for the very reason that they fail to see that each man and woman represents no less, no more a proper and a certain amount of computation within the Computational Society. Their ideal that everybody is "equal" is fallacious and naive too.


You see the idea coming... 
My wish for 2010 is to construct a new paradigm to approach Economics, which I have let myself coin Computanomics, so that we might solve the issues raised by the movie.


The paradigm is based on the main axiom that the human brain is a computational device running software. Other propositions (that are assumptions at this stage, but hopefully will be proven later) state that Money is an approximation of Instruction and that our Society is a computational one, that is as per my definition "a hierarchized and organized network (i.e. Society) of computational devices (i.e. human beings, electronic devices, machines, cyborgs, animals, robots etc...) exchanging literally Information and Instructions."


Please help me in my endeavor! :)  by reading, spreading the word or contributing to www.computanomics.org , BunkerSofa's wiki and of course www.bunkersofism.com