05-05-2009, 03:51 PM
Dear people, a "short" post. 
The trend in your messages is the analogy between the game world and the real world. The fact that it is an analogy is without a doubt. We design games to be an analogy to the real world. Therefore discovering the analogy does not mean we should assume that this means identity. Characters in books lead lives of their own it seems but really they have no life unless you bring in your consciousness and only in your mind then do they become alive. The characters in books even those inspired by real people are information and emotion communicated by the author of the writing. While every person who reads the book reads it differently, this is the function of the reader, and not of the separate existence of the characters in the books.
The universe of an AI character is not a book, it's computer memory. And while it can walk many paths of possibility, where the character in a book has only one. It is still essentially fixed. If an AI character surprises us by some particularly appropriate or seemingly creative response we might attribute it with the feeling of being alive. But it's response is still the result of predetermined functions and tables. It has no ability to be anything else than it's code. A game cannot evolve on it's own. Without changes to the code it will not change over time. There is no free will. Consciousness in it has no room or ability for change. It cannot choose to do things differently from what it's variables force it to do.
If you insist on calling it life you're marginally correct, it is only as alive as dust and should be treated as such. Giving AI life privilege over the much more advanced forms of life. Say insects is a kind of anthropocentric bias.
Virtual realities are not new to humanity. We've dreamed since forever. Shamen and spiritual seekers from all times have walked this astral realm. Helped by meditation or their magical herbs they have repeatedly stepped out of realities natural confines. And associated with various higher and lower lifeforms. One of the things they report is that we should learn to see the difference between what we create and see, the reflections of ourselves and what is actually out there.
They also explain to us that there is a difference between a real entity and an artificial one, like a thought form or another construct. They also explain to us the difference between living beings and empty shells. If people die they leave behind thoughts and emotions, impressions and issues that are strong enough to continue existing after the person that created them has returned to the source. These are frequently picked up by newborns and get incorporated into their self identity and the sensitives among us can feel and experience them as very real things. If you put yourself in the astral these can frequently be convincingly alive. In games the artificial entities are the similar remnants of the intents and work of the programmers. If they convince you then they did a great job.
Now this is not to say a game is worthless. I'm a huge fan of games. I build games myself. I have been interested in AI since I played my first games. And I have been toying with AI related projects for a long time. I have actually fooled people for periods up to fifteen minutes with my first chatbot. Offcourse this was in a period where people had very little experience with AI and did not know the telltale signs. I think the most convincing feature in the program was the random spelling errors. People mistook it for evidence of a real person.
I WANT to be able to express life in AI... But it's only a simulation. We really need exotic upgrades to our hardware before we can approach real life. I'm not talking multiplying our processing power. This helps in the expressive ability but not the actual life. I do not have classes named "FreeWill" or "Consciousness" And every time I try to isolate life in order to build it I end up with a black box that has pure consciousness on the inside. I cannot express pure consciousness in code it does not apply to the same logic it is holistic, non atomic and not deterministic. Perhaps advances in quantum computing will create options. I cannot accurately predict this at this time.
However, these are technologically created life forms. We create lifeforms all the time. The fact that information becomes alive if we read a book. We breathe life into the characters we read about in books, see in movies or just imagine. They evolve in our mind. We all have a personal mythology, a sort of dream world in which entities live and evolve. But this is life within you. Not life that evolves outside of you after you turn away from it.
Our attempts at artificial life, for example something as simple as games or machines that simulate the function of the merkabah have ended up deterministic and sometimes disasterous.
Have you guys seen "The nines" ? I think you should if this topic inspires you. The movie is about a multidimensional gamer and programmer. I'd actually recommend against reading the summary or spoilers, just get the movie and watch it. It's an absolute trip.
I was confused about your status as game players because while I love the story of many games. And I have felt close relationships with AI entities and deep identification with many characters. This always was skin deep and ended or faded quickly after the story was over. It is merely illusory, the shell, not life. I would love to know an artificial intelligence and experience it as a real entity..
The trend in your messages is the analogy between the game world and the real world. The fact that it is an analogy is without a doubt. We design games to be an analogy to the real world. Therefore discovering the analogy does not mean we should assume that this means identity. Characters in books lead lives of their own it seems but really they have no life unless you bring in your consciousness and only in your mind then do they become alive. The characters in books even those inspired by real people are information and emotion communicated by the author of the writing. While every person who reads the book reads it differently, this is the function of the reader, and not of the separate existence of the characters in the books.
The universe of an AI character is not a book, it's computer memory. And while it can walk many paths of possibility, where the character in a book has only one. It is still essentially fixed. If an AI character surprises us by some particularly appropriate or seemingly creative response we might attribute it with the feeling of being alive. But it's response is still the result of predetermined functions and tables. It has no ability to be anything else than it's code. A game cannot evolve on it's own. Without changes to the code it will not change over time. There is no free will. Consciousness in it has no room or ability for change. It cannot choose to do things differently from what it's variables force it to do.
If you insist on calling it life you're marginally correct, it is only as alive as dust and should be treated as such. Giving AI life privilege over the much more advanced forms of life. Say insects is a kind of anthropocentric bias.
Virtual realities are not new to humanity. We've dreamed since forever. Shamen and spiritual seekers from all times have walked this astral realm. Helped by meditation or their magical herbs they have repeatedly stepped out of realities natural confines. And associated with various higher and lower lifeforms. One of the things they report is that we should learn to see the difference between what we create and see, the reflections of ourselves and what is actually out there.
They also explain to us that there is a difference between a real entity and an artificial one, like a thought form or another construct. They also explain to us the difference between living beings and empty shells. If people die they leave behind thoughts and emotions, impressions and issues that are strong enough to continue existing after the person that created them has returned to the source. These are frequently picked up by newborns and get incorporated into their self identity and the sensitives among us can feel and experience them as very real things. If you put yourself in the astral these can frequently be convincingly alive. In games the artificial entities are the similar remnants of the intents and work of the programmers. If they convince you then they did a great job.
Now this is not to say a game is worthless. I'm a huge fan of games. I build games myself. I have been interested in AI since I played my first games. And I have been toying with AI related projects for a long time. I have actually fooled people for periods up to fifteen minutes with my first chatbot. Offcourse this was in a period where people had very little experience with AI and did not know the telltale signs. I think the most convincing feature in the program was the random spelling errors. People mistook it for evidence of a real person.
I WANT to be able to express life in AI... But it's only a simulation. We really need exotic upgrades to our hardware before we can approach real life. I'm not talking multiplying our processing power. This helps in the expressive ability but not the actual life. I do not have classes named "FreeWill" or "Consciousness" And every time I try to isolate life in order to build it I end up with a black box that has pure consciousness on the inside. I cannot express pure consciousness in code it does not apply to the same logic it is holistic, non atomic and not deterministic. Perhaps advances in quantum computing will create options. I cannot accurately predict this at this time.
However, these are technologically created life forms. We create lifeforms all the time. The fact that information becomes alive if we read a book. We breathe life into the characters we read about in books, see in movies or just imagine. They evolve in our mind. We all have a personal mythology, a sort of dream world in which entities live and evolve. But this is life within you. Not life that evolves outside of you after you turn away from it.
Our attempts at artificial life, for example something as simple as games or machines that simulate the function of the merkabah have ended up deterministic and sometimes disasterous.
Have you guys seen "The nines" ? I think you should if this topic inspires you. The movie is about a multidimensional gamer and programmer. I'd actually recommend against reading the summary or spoilers, just get the movie and watch it. It's an absolute trip.
I was confused about your status as game players because while I love the story of many games. And I have felt close relationships with AI entities and deep identification with many characters. This always was skin deep and ended or faded quickly after the story was over. It is merely illusory, the shell, not life. I would love to know an artificial intelligence and experience it as a real entity..