Jump to content

How to punish computer criminals


Student of Trinity
 Share

Recommended Posts

Originally Posted By: wz. As
Originally Posted By: Eponymous Heroics
A p-zombie is something that behaves exactly like a human being but that does not in fact experience anything.

In short, it's nonsense, and no such thing could possibly exist, let alone actually exist.


That's a rather odd thing to say, considering that 20% of the people alive on Earth right now are p-zombies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

And hmm...we'll probably replace silicon with diamond eventually. We've found ways to grow diamond, so it should be practical in the future.


Not necessarily diamond doesn't necessarily make a good transistor. (To be honest I'm not sure one way or another)
The problem with diamond is that it is flammable and when your computer heats up and your cooling system isn't adequate then your computer could catch fire.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can prove that, many opponents of solipsism are all ears.

 

—Alorael, who thinks it's quite possible that p-zombies exist. They're rather hard to disprove, and while they might seem implausible, you have a sample size of real persons equal to one, just like everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Thuryl
Originally Posted By: wz. As
Originally Posted By: Eponymous Heroics
A p-zombie is something that behaves exactly like a human being but that does not in fact experience anything.

In short, it's nonsense, and no such thing could possibly exist, let alone actually exist.


That's a rather odd thing to say, considering that 20% of the people alive on Earth right now are p-zombies.

you've stumped me. are you simply countering my ridiculous assertion with another?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a moderator I have to warn everyone in advance to post sensitively on this topic. Don't assume, just because it is outside your own experience, that it has nothing personally to do with anyone here.

 

Thuryl's 20% figure is probably pretty accurate, being based on inside knowledge. Thuryl is a p-zombie.

 

Of course, it would be very wrong of me to out him like this ... if he weren't just a zombie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: I need no introduction
Originally Posted By: I need no introduction
Originally Posted By: ☭
No, he did not. He said that a computer program accurately modeling every atom of the human body would be sentient, because it would pretty much be a human.

Who's to say that's not what we are? wink

we think therefor we are.

Originally Posted By: ☭
. . . Are what, though.

Meat that can feel emotions, or we are all products of our own imagination.


*facepalm*
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Thuryl
Originally Posted By: wz. As
Originally Posted By: Eponymous Heroics
A p-zombie is something that behaves exactly like a human being but that does not in fact experience anything.

In short, it's nonsense, and no such thing could possibly exist, let alone actually exist.


That's a rather odd thing to say, considering that 20% of the people alive on Earth right now are p-zombies.

or posibly 99.9999999999 are p-zombies and there is only 1 intelligent human on the Earth and everybody is the amagination of that one person.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: I need no introduction

or posibly 99.9999999999 are p-zombies and there is only 1 intelligent human on the Earth and everybody is the amagination of that one person.

That almost sounds as if you're familiar with the Imban gimmick, but I'm assuming you don't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dantius
Technically, there is no difference between a just-deceased corpse and the person that was just alive. They are identical, and yet you don't see them being compared.
Technically, you might argue that there is no difference between a ball that is just about to crack a window and a ball that has just cracked a window. There are mere nanoseconds between these two states, yet the ball is physically the same.

...or is it? It may look, sound, feel, etc the same, but there's at least one difference: momentum.

The same applies to your example. The difference lies in the internal momentum of the body. They may look, sound, feel, etc the same, but there is a slight difference, one which is sufficient to delineate life and death.

...though, I'd argue the line is not a fine as you claim, and that a person "fades" from life to death.

Originally Posted By: Dantius
No, I presumed that life on earth would respond in predictable ways. A sentient computer, if it existed, would not, as it would have to be fundamentally different than life on earth; it would be alien to us.
But that doesn't mean it is not sentient. It's perfectly possible, in theory, for something alien to be sentient.

Originally Posted By: Dantius
Absolutely incorrect. Are you saying that a dog or cat has different desires, fears, needs, etc, than a human? I don't think so.
Obviously you know very little about animals, because the dog or cat does have different desires etc than us, and also different than each other.

Originally Posted By: Dantius
We're moving the goalposts here. I initially asserted that it was impossible for a computer to become sentient, and now you are talking about how a computer could be programmed to behave like a human. Of course they could, all you would need is a clever programmer and a set of premade responses. It would not be sentient.
Why not? If it behaves exactly like a human, then how is it not sentient?


Originally Posted By: wz. As
Originally Posted By: Eponymous Heroics
A p-zombie is something that behaves exactly like a human being but that does not in fact experience anything.

In short, it's nonsense, and no such thing could possibly exist, let alone actually exist.
Yay for modal logic, where such a statement actually makes sense.

Originally Posted By: Master Ackrovan
If it can reason and comprehend it's surrondings like we do, then it's human. If not, then it's like any other tool (animals for instance) of mankind, and should be treated accordingly.
Animals are not tools. They are animals. Completely different.

Originally Posted By: Lord Safey
Not necessarily diamond doesn't necessarily make a good transistor. (To be honest I'm not sure one way or another)
The problem with diamond is that it is flammable and when your computer heats up and your cooling system isn't adequate then your computer could catch fire.
I'd think it would just melt... though I guess it depends how much oxygen is available.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diamond doesn't combust at a temperature I would expect to find in a computer. Wikipedia says that Diamond "burns above 700°C in air."

 

And I am surprised that all of you p-zombies can replicate all of the logic in my head. Of course, the internet is just a figment of my mind, and nothing is real unless I conceive it as such.

 

When you think about it, humans are just long series of code. Our genes dictate how we react to given stimuli. How is this any different than a computer? Sentience is a bit different, but then is a computer program as much alive as a non-sentient organism? My computer responds to stimuli faster than the tree out my window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Master1

When you think about it, humans are just long series of code. Our genes dictate how we react to given stimuli. How is this any different than a computer? Sentience is a bit different, but then is a computer program as much alive as a non-sentient organism? My computer responds to stimuli faster than the tree out my window.

but Humans can chose how to react were computers can only react based on there program. The base program for humans would logically be to survive long enough to breed but not all humans follow that program. here is an exempal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Excalibur
That almost sounds as if you're familiar with the Imban gimmick, but I'm assuming you don't.

Fun fact: That gimmick referred to Zxquez before it referred to Imban.

Originally Posted By: I need no introduction
or posibly 99.9999999999 are p-zombies and there is only 1 intelligent human on the Earth and everybody is the amagination of that one person.

See "solipsism" above.

—Alorael, who would also recommend checking math, except now it has to be checked with something other than Google. Wolfram Alpha, perhaps?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Lord Safey
The problem with diamond is that it is flammable and when your computer heats up and your cooling system isn't adequate then your computer could catch fire.
Do you know how hot you have to make a diamond before it'll combust? If not, you may want to check here or here.
Originally Posted By: ☭
What about a computer programmed to make choices?
I believe you just defined the "If" statement, which is just about as old as computer programming itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: The Mystic
Do you know how hot you have to make a diamond before it'll combust? If not, you may want to check here or here.


The Wikipedia page on Diamond doesn't say, or at least I couldn't find it. However, if you go to the article about material properties of diamonds, it places the heat of combustion at something like 700°C (like I said earlier).

And as for humans making decisions: this can be argued. One could say that what seems to be a conscious decision is governed by our genes and how they make us react based on prior experiences. Even if you don't accept this, most organisms don't make conscious decisions. Do trees think about whether or not to grow a new root or branch?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Master1
Originally Posted By: The Mystic
Do you know how hot you have to make a diamond before it'll combust? If not, you may want to check here or here.


The Wikipedia page on Diamond doesn't say, or at least I couldn't find it. However, if you go to the article about material properties of diamonds, it places the heat of combustion at something like 700°C (like I said earlier).
That was the only Wikipedia page I found on diamonds (not that I looked all that hard), and it does mention something like that under "Material properties."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

About diamonds

Quote:
Diamond, it turns out, is a geek's best friend. Not only is it the hardest substance known, it also has the highest thermal conductivity - tremendous heat can pass through it without causing damage. Today's speedy microprocessors run hot - at upwards of 200 degrees Fahrenheit. In fact, they can't go much faster without failing. Diamond microchips, on the other hand, could handle much higher temperatures, allowing them to run at speeds that would liquefy ordinary silicon. But manufacturers have been loath even to consider using the precious material, because it has never been possible to produce large diamond wafers affordably. With the arrival of Gemesis, the Florida-based company, and Apollo Diamond, in Boston, that is changing. Both startups plan to use the diamond jewelry business to finance their attempt to reshape the semiconducting world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: I need no introduction
Originally Posted By: ☭
They made sense to them. A computer could be made that also made sense of them. wink

but for a computer to have something illogical make sense to them they must be somewhat intelligent instead of just a program.


Or they could be programmed with a different definition of logic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: I need no introduction
but Humans can chose how to react were computers can only react based on there program. The base program for humans would logically be to survive long enough to breed but not all humans follow that program.
You could argue that humans have a program too. In fact, human programming probably involves self-modifying code, which would probably be helpful for adapting to new situations.

Oh, and there exist computer programs that can learn. I don't even think they are particularly complex.

Originally Posted By: I need no introduction
it depends how it (the computer) looks at the choices, i think it would probely choose the most logical or just randomly guess.


Originally Posted By: I need no introduction
some humans make stupid choices that make no sense but aren't a random guess (Hitler and religious fanatics).
For Hitler, at least, and possibly also for Creationists, this is an example of an argument that is logically valid, but logically unsound. That is, the choice follows logically from the person's assumptions, but the assumptions happen to be false in themselves.

Of course, humans also make choices that don't seem to follow logically from any assumptions.

Originally Posted By: I need no introduction
but for a computer to have something illogical make sense to them they must be somewhat intelligent instead of just a program.
Not necessarily; as mentioned above, some illogical things become logical if you have faulty assumptions (or axioms, if you like).




Nalyd: I don't think there is any other definition of logic. Unless you mean modal logic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Celtic Minstrel

Originally Posted By: I need no introduction
but for a computer to have something illogical make sense to them they must be somewhat intelligent instead of just a program.
Not necessarily; as mentioned above, some illogical things become logical if you have faulty assumptions (or axioms, if you like).

They become logical from the point of view of the person who has the false assumptions - but from the universal point of view, they remain illogical.




I don't quite get the particularity of that? If it's another one of Google's many quirks, then ... but otherwise it's just a bug in the calculator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: JadeWolf
They become logical from the point of view of the person who has the false assumptions - but from the universal point of view, they remain illogical.
Exactly, though I wouldn't call it the "universal" view – just a view with assumptions that are not provably false.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

About Google's surprising result for 100 - 99.999999999:

 

Google is, of course and as always, perfectly right. In reality there are quite a few tiny corrections to the simple arithmetic you learned in elementary school — from relativity, radiative corrections and renormalization, unit conversion factors, micro-fees, inflation, taxes, and so on. The modern precision of Google's calculator puts them in explicitly. If you want, you can usually ignore them, and stick with the crude rule-of-thumb addition and subtraction that does, after all, suffice for most practical purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: JadeWolf
from the universal point of view


ain't no such thing

Quote:
I don't quite get the particularity of that? If it's another one of Google's many quirks, then ... but otherwise it's just a bug in the calculator


okay so basically what the deal is with this is as follows:

when computers need to do arithmetic with numbers that aren't integers, or with numbers that are very large, they use something called a floating-point representation of each number. instead of storing the exact value as with integers, the computer can only store an approximate value for a floating-point number: this saves memory, but reduces precision. it's good enough for most purposes, but it turns out that subtracting one number from another number when the two numbers are either very close or very far apart is a good way to make floating-point arithmetic screw up.

this has been thuryl's comp sci theatre. i'll see you all next week when we discuss functors and dongles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity
About Google's surprising result for 100 - 99.999999999:

Google is, of course and as always, perfectly right. In reality there are quite a few tiny corrections to the simple arithmetic you learned in elementary school — from relativity, radiative corrections and renormalization, unit conversion factors, micro-fees, inflation, taxes, and so on. The modern precision of Google's calculator puts them in explicitly. If you want, you can usually ignore them, and stick with the crude rule-of-thumb addition and subtraction that does, after all, suffice for most practical purposes.
I dunno, it seems that Thuryl's explanation for Google's odd result makes more sense. That is, it's a result of Google's loss of precision due to storing in binary form.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you do have to take some advanced courses to learn about relativistic corrections to arithmetic. (Mine have only touched on it so far.) Among other results, it turns out that numbers which are purely real in one reference frame can become complex in other reference frames. That's why grade school students do their math work while sitting quietly at desks; being in the rest frame of the problems makes them behave classically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I said universal point of view, I was half asleep - i don't think "universal" was the word I was searching for. Seeing as dinner is coming up, I don't have sufficient time to find a proper replacement now - but I meant rather the point of view of most people, but this would depend on what example.

If person A is firmly confirmed Rudolf is a reindeer, having just heard the name Rudolf on the street when person B talked about their new pet, that is logical from their point of view (they are deluded into thinking Rudolf is a name uniquely for caribou), but most people would not have that preconception, thus would come to the conclusion person B has a weird taste in naming their cat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Celtic Minstrel
Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity
About Google's surprising result for 100 - 99.999999999:

Google is, of course and as always, perfectly right. In reality there are quite a few tiny corrections to the simple arithmetic you learned in elementary school — from relativity, radiative corrections and renormalization, unit conversion factors, micro-fees, inflation, taxes, and so on. The modern precision of Google's calculator puts them in explicitly. If you want, you can usually ignore them, and stick with the crude rule-of-thumb addition and subtraction that does, after all, suffice for most practical purposes.
I dunno, it seems that Thuryl's explanation for Google's odd result makes more sense. That is, it's a result of Google's loss of precision due to storing in binary form.


Either a terrible sarcasm fail, or you're on a wavelength of subtlety far outside my visible spectrum.

Edit: It seems my avatar died with geociites. *Sob*
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan
Arghhhhhhhhh. (Delurks.)

@Thuryl: No.

You can't actually do that.

You can't walk into a topic full of misunderstandings about artificial sentience, machine learning, and deterministic machines, and then make a Comp. Sci. Theatre about floating point representation.


Thank you for the reminder that Nalyd has no idea what he's talking about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Niemand
Well, you do have to take some advanced courses to learn about relativistic corrections to arithmetic. (Mine have only touched on it so far.) Among other results, it turns out that numbers which are purely real in one reference frame can become complex in other reference frames. That's why grade school students do their math work while sitting quietly at desks; being in the rest frame of the problems makes them behave classically.


I realize that adding relativistic velocities (for example) requires a formula other than simple addition, but that's hardly a correction to arithmetic. The other part I've never heard of.

...or is this supposed to be sarcastic again?
Originally Posted By: Lazarus.
Either a terrible sarcasm fail, or you're on a wavelength of subtlety far outside my visible spectrum.
Sarcasm fail, probably. It happens to me a lot.

Originally Posted By: JadeWolf
When I said universal point of view, I was half asleep - i don't think "universal" was the word I was searching for. Seeing as dinner is coming up, I don't have sufficient time to find a proper replacement now - but I meant rather the point of view of most people, but this would depend on what example.
Majority point of view?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Niemand
Well, you do have to take some advanced courses to learn about relativistic corrections to arithmetic. (Mine have only touched on it so far.) Among other results, it turns out that numbers which are purely real in one reference frame can become complex in other reference frames. That's why grade school students do their math work while sitting quietly at desks; being in the rest frame of the problems makes them behave classically.


The problem is that when you start getting twitchy, the calculations get harder, and this makes you twitchier ... and so on. In grade school this just makes the fidgety kids have a hard time with math, but in grad school ... well ... a good friend of mine started working after one too many espressos, and he went from twitchy to blurry in a matter of minutes.

Then he spontaneously combusted. I ... I can't talk about it any more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuzzy math is actually just a consequence of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. You actually can't know what the number is and why you're calculating it to an arbitrary precision at the same time.

 

—Alorael, who will give a hint. He isn't being sarcastic, but he is being humorous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
You actually can't know what the number is and why you're calculating it to an arbitrary precision at the same time.

Ah so if we have a math problem "Find the cube roots of -1: x^3=-1", and we define operators A and B which behave in this manner:
A |x> = "Because my math homework is due tomorrow" |x>
B |x> = {i, 1/2 + i*sqrt(3)/2, -1/2 - i*sqrt(3)/2} |x>
we inevitably find [A,B]!=0.
I'd be curious to know if you can derive representations of these operators which correspond to the observables 'value' and 'reason for computation', Alorael.
Also, are A and B really hermitian, given that their eigenvalues apparently include English phrases and sets?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...