Robot survival instincts

Curt Welch wrote:

That last point is the one which sums up the error:

Sooner or later our
machines will become knowledgeable enough to handle their
own maintenance, reproduction and self-improvement without
help. When this happens the new genetic takeover will be
complete.

This is just totally wrong. It's based on the false assumption that
"intelligence" = "a desire to survive". It's based on the assumption that
since humans use our intelligence to do all this complex stuff to help us
survive, that all intelligence will naturally work the same way. I don't
believe that. I believe "intelilgence" = "reinforcement learning machine".
Reinforcement learning machines have no desire to survive. They only have
the innate desire to produce behaviors which will maximize their reward
signal. The behavior the intelligent machine ends up producing will be
whatever it takes to make the reward system produce more rewards.

Our DNA gives us a complex reward system that motivates us to produce
highly advanced survival behaviors. And evolution and natural selection is
hard at working making sure that continues to be what happens.

We will build AIs that are as smart as we are, and once they get that
smart, they will be able to design and build other AIs for us, and they
will be able to maintain themselves. But they will NOT be built to
survive. [...]

Even Asimov's robots had survival instincts. The reason is obvious:
robots cost money. I think you had better find some other way to
express the point you are trying to make here in the future.

Anyway, I deny that a machine takeover would necessarily be
based around humans giving robots survival instincts. We
could get to a 99% machine society simply by using robots as passive
tools, with no survival instincts. The machines could become
numerous because they are useful - not because they have been
constructed with survival instincts.

The "survival instincts" can stay with the humans and the
companies, for the sake of argument. Or perhaps more
accurately, with the genes and the memes.

IMO, the key to understanding all this lies with memes:

Think of something like Linux as a memetic organism with
complex adaptations designed to ensure its survival. If
Linux was not concerned with its survival, we wouldn't
see it around. It will be the same with robots.

The blueprint in the robot factory is the robot heritable
material, and it is the survival of *that* (and _not_
individual robots) which must be considered. That /will/
have complex adaptations to ensure its own survival.
The survival of individual robots is of low relevance.
They are like worker ants: mere phenotype - genetic
dead ends - disposable soma.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@xxxxxxxxxxx Remove lock to reply.
.

Relevant Pages

  • We are the robots
    ... A powerful artificial intelligence won't spring from a sudden ... We are really sophisticated machines made up of billions and billions ... biological augmentation of the brain, genetic engineering, ... But I expect the AGIs of the future – embodied, for example, as robots ...
    (soc.culture.zimbabwe)
  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... being would agree that if robots are programmed to make other robots, ... machines is pretty silly. ... I am only pointing out that technology and biology have MANY ... The hypoth is NOT based on ALL being shared. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A request for information please.
    ... I don't think there really are any mysteries of consciousness to solve. ... I've not seen any reason to believe that one type of programing language is ... Most the machines we build however are not learning ... That won't make much sense until we get the robots nearly equal to humans. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Whats a Robot?
    ... order to sell "robots" rather than remote controlled toys we might ... What is Graupner (R/C stuff manufacturer) started to call ... for fast control surface positioning. ... sequence CNC machines that get old pretty fast. ...
    (comp.robotics.misc)