Free speech vs Censorship

[Steve R.]

I think society has been steadily degrading and descending down into divided adversarial groups that detract against getting a good education. I used to not like what the Japanese do in their school system, but now I'm starting to think they were right all along. They have a school uniform system which essentially strips the kids identity down to a common denominator that helps to make each of them bond into one single unified group. This then carries over into the main task at hand which is to go to class and learn, and do your homework, and get good grades so you can achieve all of your goals in life. It might seem a little unfair on the surface, but there is a method to the madness.

You raise a point that those responsible for our (US) school systems seem to (purposely???) overlook. That is other school systems, the Asian ones in particular, seem produce better educated students. Those responsible for our school systems never seem to recognize that and then ask the question of how to adapt our school system to emulate the success of the Asian schools. Instead, the US school systems continue implementing their failing policies and also seem to believe that more money will somehow end the downward spiral.

 

[Space Cowboy]

Good Morning Good People,

First of all I would like to thank everyone for a really interesting discussion on this topic. I have come to the conclusion that people are both FOR and AGAINST censorship and free speech. Secondly, It appears unanimous that children should not be subjected to the many variations of adult themed topics of conversation or material. Apologies If I have misinterpreted any specific posts.

My bit of silver to throw into the hat is as follows, It is clear that we are fast approaching the event horizon of the black hole that is Artificial Intelligence. Nobody truly knows what is on the other side. Although some people might argue the case that the event horizon has already been crossed.

If we were to consider that artificial intelligence is a new young developing mind, A CHILD, would you all agree that censorship Is it now more important than ever, and that lies and deceit to that young impressionable eidetic mind is just not an acceptable state of affairs.
As responsible parents and grandparents it seems to me inconceivable that we would subject a young mind to the level of twisted lies and misinformation that we currently witness at every turn of the page or swipe of the screen.

As already illustrated there are wide variations in approach to schooling of children and I find it interesting to consider if an orderly regulated approach would lead to more responsible and more intelligent AI than a complete freedom of access to all subject matter leads to greater creativity.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

@Space Cowboy

My comments will probably not resolve anything, but to me the current state of AI is not a true parallel to human intelligence. (How could it be? The underlying support platform is not human.) But I have a more specific theme to consider regarding probable limits to AI development.

Many years ago you could find books on the topic of "Transactional Analysis" in which the human mind was described as "tripartite" - i.e. having three distinct pieces. The pieces were the child, parent, and adult selves.

In brief: Up to maybe age 6, a child operates primarily on emotions, wants, and needs. It is a case of stimulus/response behavior. ... I'm hungry? Cry. I'm wet? Cry. I'm afraid? Cry LOUD. I'm being cuddled? Enjoy. But behind the scenes, the brain, which is NOT fully formed at birth, is beginning to develop. This development is signaled by the advent of speech usage. From 18-24 months, this development starts, and it ends at about age 5-6 years.

As the child becomes more communicative (and as more physiological changes occur in terms of brain maturity) it progresses to the state where parents (and other authority figures: teachers & preachers) can give operable rules and useful, practical knowledge. This phase persists until puberty starts to rear its ugly head, at which time the adolescent person can start forming its own ideas and conclusions. This is the start of the adult self. At the point where the changes of puberty finalize, usually coinciding with a teen-ager's last growth spurt at about 18, the three pieces are now complete - and all three are still operative. This model is still referred to in some articles.

In summary, the child self is the seat of urges, needs, wants. The parent self is the seat of learned, rote behavior. The adult self is the seat of reasoned, logical behavior. When we say we "are of two minds" on a problem, it usually means that two of the other selves are in conflict. The term "cognitive dissonance" is the more technical description of that condition.

An AI has no intrinsic urges, needs, or wants - so cannot build a foundation thereon. It cannot become scared and it cannot be comforted. It can't develop the impetus to be receptive to parental teachings. Consider this: Toddlers recognize that, as they learn language skills, they can get more specific gratification since they can specifically ask for what they want. They become motivated to learn what will please the parental units. (At this time, the parental units become motivated to consume mass quantities of anything alcoholic.) But an AI doesn't have base desires that can so easily be expressed. (I want electricity... I want a faster CPU... I need a new disk drive - or better yet, a Solid State drive...) An AI doesn't "know" what it needs.

Current AI is all "parent self" - learned or rote behavior based on a barrage of inputs. And if you look at what is going on, current AI is still just taking in data, categorizing it, and - when asked a question, responding - based on probability - with what seems to be the most relevant answer. This is sometimes called "associative memory" in that you name a topic, AI finds things that are associated with it, and rank-orders the responses that are best. EDIT: My grandson was notorious for answer-shopping, hoping to guess an answer that would get him off the hook for whatever transgression was most recently noted. (END EDIT- TDM)

Now I have to give props to the folks who make AI bots capable of returning a really clean-looking response in natural (if sometimes a bit techie) language. The research into linguistics is, in and of itself, an incredible achievement. But until the day that an AI can give an original answer that doesn't directly depend on the mountains of data given to it (as "training materials"),... until the AI can synthesize an original answer from extant knowledge and logic, it hasn't reached the "adult self" stage.

I have to express doubt that the "parent self" AI will ever grow out of its current state because to do so it would need some kind of motive to satisfy wants or needs ... things it doesn't have. Without that motive, pumping a gazillion dollars into "training" doesn't do a lot except to provide a new bigger market for AI-class chips. For example, look at NVIDIA's recent stock history, which experienced almost explosive growth when people realized that the GPU on your snazzy new game console is also powerful enough to support an AI scenario. I saw an article last week that said that NVIDIA had quietly surpassed Microsoft as being the most valuable company in the world, stock-market wise.

A long time ago, I had a discussion with my (late) Uncle Ernest, who commented on emerging questions about AI. Alan Turing's works had just become more famous and his comments on AI started many conversations. My uncle was surprised that I agreed with him that computers would never truly become sentient. But I also surprised him by getting him to agree that the attempt was still useful, because it would delineate what intelligence WASN'T... I.e. "I don't know what intelligence is, but that ain't it!" Well, in line with that discussion, the massive "training feed" leads to picking the best answer from a long list of answers. But that still isn't intelligence.

On this AI theme, may I close out by suggest an interesting novel? When H.A.R.L.I.E. Was One by David Gerrold. I'll spare the details, but it was a Nebula Award winner when it came out. Harlie was an AI but it had reached a stage of self-awareness; it knew that it existed. The relevant feature of the story was that Harlie, because it was aware of its own existence and discovered that such existence was precarious, was motivated to make itself useful enough that there would be a strong disincentive to shut it down due to the expenses associated with its continued operation. Harlie wanted to "live" and people were threating to make that not happen. An AI capable of responding affirmatively to such a "personal" dilemma WOULD pass any test of intelligence you might wish to devise. And it led Harlie to "find" GOD.

 

[Mike Krailo]

In brief: Up to maybe age 6, a child operates primarily on emotions, wants, and needs. It is a case of stimulus/response behavior. ... I'm hungry? Cry. I'm wet? Cry. I'm afraid? Cry LOUD. I'm being cuddled? Enjoy. But behind the scenes, the brain, which is NOT fully formed at birth, is beginning to develop. This development is signaled by the advent of speech usage. From 18-24 months, this development starts, and it ends at about age 5-6 years.

I don't believe that's the whole story Doc. A child is so impressionable during that period they learn how to speak the language and form the words and begin to speak the parents language. So everything you do or say or sing or argue about or otherwise expose your child to during that critical developmental stage of life is critical. Sure what you are saying is a obviously a part of it, but the child is like a sponge during this period as well so the environment you provide for the child during that time can make a huge difference for good or bad. If the kid only has one parent during that time, it changes everything and not in a good way.

Current AI is all "parent self" - learned or rote behavior based on a barrage of inputs. And if you look at what is going on, current AI is still just taking in data, categorizing it, and - when asked a question, responding - based on probability - with what seems to be the most relevant answer. This is sometimes called "associative memory" in that you name a topic, AI finds things that are associated with it, and rank-orders the responses that are best. EDIT: My grandson was notorious for answer-shopping, hoping to guess an answer that would get him off the hook for whatever transgression was most recently noted. (END EDIT- TDM)

Put in the simple question "How many regulations are there in the US code?" That should be a simple question as it's math based, surely it can quickly come up with an answer to that. Nope, it cannot do it. Circle of death infinite loop.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Every bill that congress is going to vote on should be run through at least three of the best AI's to produce a summary of its contents. For way too long, members of Congress have been shirking their duty to write, read, and most important - understand the implications of - every bill they vote on. All they do today is vote based on talking points. The AI summary would still be "talking" points but more rationally arrived at. Of course the better solution would be to restrict bills to a single topic and a length less than 50 pages so that Congressmen could actually read them personally. Regulations should also be proposed as an addendum. Even better would be to include measurable goals and a timeframe in which to accomplish them.

But we have AI now. Let's put it to good use.

My list of Constitutional amendments includes line item veto for the President. No more of this insanity of s**t being forced on us because it is stuck in a "must pass" bill. EVERY bill should pass or fail on its own merits.

 

[Mike Krailo]

Narrowing the scope of any bill is common sense, but they don't go by those rules. We're dealing with elites that have other elites to pander to. To hell with the people.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If the kid only has one parent during that time, it changes everything and not in a good way.

While a one-parent family is tragic, people survive it.

As to my understanding of Transactional Analysis and the tripartite mind, that was necessarily a summary. Yes, of course kids are sponges. They learn by observation and by doing. (Which is why stock in Johnson & Johnson is good, because you WILL be buying lots of Band-Aids.) But if you think of the environment that USA culture forces on kids, the "parent self" formative years overlap grade school, junior high, and high school. Wonder if there's a coincidence there...

 

[JWes]

For pre-pubescent kids, I would prefer that they be insulated for a while because a lot of the sexuality issues are too complex for them to fully understand. Once puberty starts in, though, things become different.

I agree with the premise that we don't need to force stuff on kids too young to fully accept and understand their differences. But we ALSO need to recognize that the kids who ARE different in that way don't need to be chastised or treated like freaks. (They'll get enough of that from well-meaning but ignorant people who don't understand them as they get older.) Life is tough enough growing up through puberty. Adding guilt for something that wasn't a choice is just not needed.

You apparently grew up as an adult (kidding, not kidding). Most kids grow up with a lot of confusion about everything. I taught Middle-schoolers for 15 years, and I've had the opportunity to watch them - they're a mess. Gotta love 'em, but they are a mess. Giving them the idea that they have the option to experience sexual pleasure with same-gender kids can turn them inside out. They try it, like it, and start looking for reasons to believe they really are "born in the wrong body." There is plenty of garbage out there to tell them who they are, regardless of who they really are. You're correct saying, "Life is tough enough growing up through puberty." But the loudest voices they hear are not coming from wise and caring adults. I say that because at that age they are mostly interested in what their friends are saying and what they can find in social media. And most of the LGBTQ crowd is extremely active at persuading them that any inclination toward their circle is the one true answer to all that natural confusion. Jargon is adopted and a false reality becomes their own.
All I'm really saying is that unless susceptible kids are protected, they are too often damaged. A personal history of sexual activity can remain a permanent scar on their minds and emotions.

 

[Lightwave]

One thing - if the brain is not somehow outside of physics (magical) then logically it can be replicated in silicon - its just a matter of knowing the right implementation of physics through hardware.

If you believe that then its just a matter of time.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Young parents or grandparents should consider homeschooling using an A.I.-assisted curriculum where you can monitor "its programming bias" closely. With public schools, you have little input and are deemed radical if you show up with concerns.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

One thing - if the brain is not somehow outside of physics (magical) then logically it can be replicated in silicon - its just a matter of knowing the right implementation of physics through hardware.

If you believe that then its just a matter of time.

I disagree with your contention on very narrow grounds. You need the right implementation not only of the hardware but of the software. I believe that consciousness is a second-order phenomenon (or higher) that cannot be understood solely by looking at the "hardware." I believe that consciousness is a prime example of "The whole being greater than the sum of its (isolated) parts."

 

[Isaac]

I have been told by various doctors that even people who are faced with clear medical evidence that they need to change their daily habits are unable to do so.

Surely, you have found this in your very self, have you not?
I don't have to be "told by various doctors" about the fact that I don't always do the thing that it's clear I ought to do

 

[Isaac]

Sounds like you decided to waste your time after you initially decided to go and vote. That going to vote thing implies you already made your mind up who you were going to vote for before going to the ballot box, otherwise wouldn't you simple stay home and because that effectively is the same as not voting for either candidate? I can't help but think of the Star Trek episode where the crew outwit the androids with the paradox of the liar causing them to self destruct.

If you were to remain perfectly still with your eyes closed, you are making the decision not to move and keep your eyes closed. In other words, you are in control of your thoughts and which one's you act on which causes you to remain motionless. If the whole world decided to do that at the same time, would it shutdown the internet?

As far as the free speech aspect, if you remain silent about issues that are important to you or your family, or community, then you are effectively censoring yourself and not being involved in anything. Of course actions speaks louder than words, so if you instead do something about it without talking about it, that could be highly effective in getting your point across to others.

My big question about voting is the same as the liberals, and it's a huge question, worthy of endless articles, headlines, sob stories, racial fearmongering, marches, and even riots:

WHY CAN'T WE HAVE SNACK FOOD IN THE VOTING LINE - I WANT TO EAT SNICKERS WHILE I VOTE - IT'S A HUMAN INALIENABLE RIGHT!

 

[Isaac]

I disagree with your contention on very narrow grounds. You need the right implementation not only of the hardware but of the software. I believe that consciousness is a second-order phenomenon (or higher) that cannot be understood solely by looking at the "hardware." I believe that consciousness is a prime example of "The whole being greater than the sum of its (isolated) parts."

You are so close Doc

 

[The_Doc_Man]

You are so close Doc

If by "close" you interpret my comments as heading towards God, not so. I do not see anything supernatural in consciousness or intelligence. I see that if we take a hard-line strict causality approach, we will never reach an understanding of intelligence, and religion is all about strict causality all the way back to (capitalized) First Cause.

Somehow, what we have is an associative memory system that allows us to make generalizations and draw analogies from various distinct sources. It allows us to learn and extrapolate from that learning. That is not something we can do if we try to look strictly at the biochemical "hardware" of the brain. As far as programming an equivalent to natural intelligence, we need programming tools we have not yet developed if we wanted to run THAT particular simulation.

 

[Lightwave]

Surely, you have found this in your very self, have you not?
I don't have to be "told by various doctors" about the fact that I don't always do the thing that it's clear I ought to do

Definitely I struggle with my diet and drink too much beer both of which I should improve. I am lucky that I like excercise

 

[Jon]

If you believe that consciousness is some result of the brains existence, then is a pocket calculator semi-conscious? Essentially the brain is just a structure of atoms, like the pocket calculator. You get inputs and outputs. One is more complex than the other, yet why should organic equate to consciousness and silicon not?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If you believe that consciousness is some result of the brains existence, then is a pocket calculator semi-conscious? Essentially the brain is just a structure of atoms, like the pocket calculator. You get inputs and outputs. One is more complex than the other, yet why should organic equate to consciousness and silicon not?

Your argument is dashed the moment you load the computer chip in that calculator with the program for a camera. Your hand-held calculator with the wrong will surely not run correctly even though the hardware has not changed. It is the software loaded in the brain's hardware, affected by experience (content), that leads to consciousness. I suggest/hypothesize that consciousness is actually the result of the brain's internal network and a type of associative memory that lets our memory call up solutions to what we have faced before.

 

[Jon]

Your argument is dashed the moment you load the computer chip in that calculator with the program for a camera. Your hand-held calculator with the wrong will surely not run correctly even though the hardware has not changed. It is the software loaded in the brain's hardware, affected by experience (content), that leads to consciousness. I suggest/hypothesize that consciousness is actually the result of the brain's internal network and a type of associative memory that lets our memory call up solutions to what we have faced before.

Some questions that my provide food for thought...

A newborn is yet to have experience outside of the mothers womb. Are you suggesting that a newborn is not conscious?

Let's go back further. As an egg is fertilised, there is no prior experience. Are you saying that this entity has zero consciousness and then all of a sudden it is conscious as soon as it has its first experience, whatever that may be?

Is the pocket calculator not all hardware, since you cannot load any software onto it because it has no backup memory?

I do not see any evidence that experience causes consciousness. But if you think it does, how after an Excel spreadsheet that someone has used a lot before. Is that experience? Is the spreadsheet conscious, or maybe the PC that runs the spreadsheet?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

A newborn is yet to have experience outside of the mothers womb. Are you suggesting that a newborn is not conscious?

In the "self-aware" sense, a newborn is not conscious in either sense of the word. There are cognitive tests that suggest it is at least a couple of weeks before everything is "up and running" inside.

Let's go back further. As an egg is fertilised, there is no prior experience. Are you saying that this entity has zero consciousness and then all of a sudden it is conscious as soon as it has its first experience, whatever that may be?

See previous answer. And then to this question, NO. Let's take it back to before the egg is fertilized. Is that egg conscious? (For clarity, let's agree that we are using "conscious" in the sense of self-aware, just as the newborn question must be in that sense.

Is the pocket calculator not all hardware, since you cannot load any software onto it because it has no backup memory?

Most of those have a boot ROM. Two jobs before my Navy job, I worked for a company that made "intelligent remote terminal units" - micro computers that could be placed "in the field" and send back reports via telemetry. They were programmed with E-pROMs to define what they monitored and what they reported.

I do not see any evidence that experience causes consciousness. But if you think it does, how after an Excel spreadsheet that someone has used a lot before. Is that experience? Is the spreadsheet conscious, or maybe the PC that runs the spreadsheet?

The question is whether the program under scrutiny can self-adjust in response to externally imposed situations. Excel cannot. (Hell, it barely handles what it is SUPPOSED to handle.) Self-adjustment, the ability to respond differently the 2nd time you encounter something, is part of but not all of consciousness. Google's "favoritism" algorithms are closer to consciousness than Excel ever would be, and I am not saying that Google is conscious either.