Chess Online

Play online chess!

From	Message
bobspringett 28-Aug-23, 02:23	Artificial Intelligence? G'day all! (That's Australian shorthand for "May God bless you all!") Does anyone have any ideas on how "Artificial Intelligence" might interact with our Christian faith? For, example, is it possible that one day machines will be more intelligent than humans? Will this imply that they might be more 'just' than humans if seated as judges in law courts? Or that they will be respected as better preachers or exegetes? Or even be given political authority, which would seem to some to be a way of eliminating human corruption from government, but to others might appear to be submission to enslavement? I think we need to start working on a 'Theology of Artificial Intelligence' as a matter of urgency. Does anyone have any ideas? I can't help but think that in many ways 'Artificial Intelligence' might be a useful way of filling in some of the more obvious shortages of Natural Intelligence that we all come across every day. Please, let's have a bit of brainstorming here, throwing all sorts of ideas onto the table to be discussed.
colinthepoet 28-Aug-23, 04:50	I thought I'd seen a Christian article on this subject recently, but I can't find it at the moment unless this was it: answersingenesis.org I think that the problem we will have is with secularists, who because they don't accept the existence of an immaterial soul, expect that sentience/consciousness will somehow emerge as a quality of a computer brain once it gains sufficient processing power. Given that belief, they will be open to the idea of allowing a robot to vote and exercise other civil rights, although in reality the robot will only be following a programmed simulation of independent decision-making. Or if it's got a really sophisticated "learning capacity" as we are now seeing with chatbots, it might be expressing a sort of composite view of fallen human thinking, but without having the ability to make a moral judgement about it. One thing I noticed during my time in the IT industry, is that there is a mentality of saying that if something can be computerised, then it should be. The possibility that it is psychologically or morally better for the task to be left to humans does not enter the discussion. If we are going to discuss topics which until recently would have been considered science fiction, I'm actually more concerned about the possibility that the culture is being readied for a deception which will appear to be contact by an alien species. I fear that this will play right into the misguided ideas of those who have compromised their faith along the lines of "we must follow the science" or "the elite are keeping things from us".
apatzer 28-Aug-23, 17:23	bobspringett There is an AI Jesus on Twitch. I think it is called ask Jesus. I sat and listened to it answering questions for about an hour. I was actually very impressed. When I was younger I had read a story about AI running everything including the courts and if they had any hint of a problem. They would got swap out the units immediately. Back then I thought that was a dumb idea. However I quickly started to agree with this premise. I think it is the only way to prevent corruption and power hungry people. A machine would be 10x a better servant. As our public servants seem to walk and talk like their kings. Very few act as or have a servants heart. It is difficult for us humans, dare I say nigh impossible over the long term. I am happy to have further discussion on this very important and interesting topic
bobspringett 28-Aug-23, 20:37	Colin 04:50 Thanks for the link to that AiG article. Once the right-wing misinformation is filtered out, it raises some very important points. INTELLIGENCE? <“Weak” AI, which is programmed to perform highly specific tasks, is already widespread. But “strong” AI, which would theoretically equal or surpass human intelligence, is still speculative. Weak AI relies mainly on “rote learning,” or memorizing information from past experiences to solve specified problems. Strong AI, however, would supposedly achieve general intelligence—the ability to apply knowledge from past experiences to solve new problems.> That is commonly said, but I have my doubts that 'Intelligence' is as prosaic as this snippet pretends. Even 'strong AI' in this passage is about 'solving problems' and is limited to 'past experiences' for the basis of doing so. But is intelligence no more than the ability to use experience to solve new problems? I hold that genuine intelligence can reach outside the limits of experience. Genuine intelligence is CREATIVE, not just combinatorial. TRUTH? <For all these reasons, humans must not fall into the trap of looking to AI as the ultimate authority for truth. Only the Word of our all-knowing, infinite, infallible God can fill that role.> This is a straw statement. To quote a famous Roman governor, "What is 'Truth'?". If we limit ourselves to a 'factual' concept of 'Truth', only statements that correspond to an observable and verifiable aspect of the physical universe can be considered 'true'. In that case, is the parable of the Good Samaritan 'true'? If so, in what way? If I could somehow demonstrate that the narrative as described by Jesus never actually occurred, would that mean that the parable is 'false'? This is the trap that too many Christians today have fallen into. They accept the 'scientific' definition of 'Truth' as 'that which can be demonstrated by observation, or which arises from observation'. The truth of the Bible is not primarily 'observational'. It is a record of inspired me who have wrestled with questions of purpose, meaning, what it means to be an authentic moral agent, etc. These questions that can't be answered by mere observation; the observer needs to interpret observation into these non-scientific categories and draw conclusions that need this moral, human dimension rather than springing out as purely logical consequences. In passing I also would raise a question about the phrase "Only the Word of our all-knowing, infinite, infallible God can fill that role." I totally agree with that as a bare statement. But I go on to ask "Which INTERPRETATION of the Word fills that role of providing ultimate 'Truth'? An infallible Word is not much use unless we also have an infallible understanding of what it means. CHURCH? <Church is the fully human body of Christ, who gather in fellowship around the worship, Word, and remembrance of our fully divine and fully human Savior. Robots do not belong either as participants in the pews or pastors in the pulpits.> Amen! This is what I see as perhaps the most important point of all. There is something about the Body of Christ that transcends biology, even transcends personality as humans understand it. And if you believe (as I do!) that humans were created to be in God's Image, then full humanity itself must also be transcendent. Even if AI can solve problems a million times faster and with infallible accuracy, that is not the same as knowing what love is. AI might learn how to act AS IF they love, but a replica is not an original. BUT!!! Having said all that, and concluding that AI is not 'Intelligence' in the fully-human sense, there is still the ethical problem of how we deal with AI. My dogs are pretty smart, but they are not human. That doesn't mean that I can be cruel to them, because they are 'not human'. So how will be live with AI?
apatzer 28-Aug-23, 20:45	Living with AI If we mix advanced quantum computing with AI it will being figuring out how to live with us. One of the fears is (deception) our emotions can be manipulated and used against us. To quote Stephen Hawkins... “Why are we so worried about AI? Surely humans are always able to pull the plug?” a hypothetical person asks him. Hawking answers: “People asked a computer, 'Is there a God? ' And the computer said, 'There is now,' and fused the plug.”
bobspringett 28-Aug-23, 21:22	Apatzer Hawkins is quoting an old sci-fi story. Apart from which, if all else fails you can just put a tick of dynamite under the computer. But there is an important point to this call for a 'Theology of Artificial Intelligence'. This would be a good proving ground for a 'Theology of Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence' if one is ever needed. I have in the back of my mind the germ of a sci-fi story in which humans land on a planet with a very high-level intelligent life form, but don't recognise it as such. There is also the possibility of intelligences that operate in radically different ways. Olaf Stapledon's 'Starmaker' featured a few of these. An excellent book, but a bit dated in style today (Written before World War 2).
colinthepoet 29-Aug-23, 14:25	Reply to Bob I think you've hit on a couple of weaknesses which the modern creationist movement fails to recognise in themselves. I've often noticed the tendency to equate truth with fact. I've used the same Good Samaritan example myself, to note that if God's inability to lie means that He can only speak facts, then He would have had to ensure the story actually happened before He was able to relate it. The classic proof text of 2 Timothy 3v16-17 gets used to argue that God could not inspire a false statement in scripture, but I think that the passage is placing far more emphasis on "profitable for teaching" than on inerrancy. "Inerrancy" is not even actually stated, it's deduced from "inspired by God". Of course there are important passages in the Bible where the facts have to be correct or else the teaching becomes nonsense. I find it interesting that Jesus might have side-stepped this issue, if He had introduced His parables with a statement such as "Suppose that ...". But for some reason He chose not to do so. I also agree with your point about interpreting the Bible. Again, there is a tendency in some circles to equate "my view" with "what the Bible says", and "your view" with "just your (faulty) interpretation". I think that we have to have enough humility to recognise that this is not necessarily the case. We're safe enough on the core doctrines where there are 2000 years of consensus to draw on, but need to be aware that we could be mistaken on some secondary issues. I want to live with AI by regarding it as a tool rather than a master.
bobspringett 29-Aug-23, 15:22	Colin 14:25 You have opened up a couple of very important questions, which deserve theirs own threads. Too often people use words like 'Inspiration', 'Infallible', 'Truth', without making it clear exactly what they mean. I'll start up a thread about 'inspiration' for starters, and maybe move on to other catch-phrases later. Feel free to start up a different line yourself so we can bounce ideas around. Back to AI. "I want to live with AI by regarding it as a tool rather than a master." That's very much my attitude, too. But perhaps our grandchildren might be dealing with AI that is much more powerful and subtle than anything we will encounter in our own lives. Perhaps the answer is that AI might become neither tool nor master, but something more like a team member, like a hunting dog was to our ancestors. To be treated not as a mere 'tool', but with respect.
apatzer 29-Aug-23, 18:26	bobspringett You bring up a very good point. I believe all things and life should be treated with respect. If we treat AI the way we treat each other (as humanity has since the dawn of time) and the AI becomes sentient . That may be the end of humanity. However we should treat things with respect and assume the responsibility given us as caretaker of the garden.
bobspringett 29-Aug-23, 19:07	Apatzer I recall watching a television show in which a person said 'Thank you' to a dispensing machine. Someone asked her 'Why do you treat machines as if they are people?' She answered 'Because it prevents me from treating people as if they are machines.'
apatzer 29-Aug-23, 20:07	That is a great story. Thank you.
apatzer 01-Sep-23, 06:27	Artificial intelligence Perhaps a good use would be to do advanced searches with cross-references of historical evidence from anthropology or archeology. I could imagine filling out a field of parameters. With the truly massive amount of information available most of which is useless (to most people) having the ability to do very advanced searches would save a tremendous amount of time and energy.
bobspringett 01-Sep-23, 16:27	Apatzer 06:27 That's basically a database operation, which doesn't take 'intelligence' as such. But adding some AI into the process so it can follow connections or extend into related areas would be very helpful. The genuinely 'intelligent' part would not be in finding the data, but in ignoring the unwanted or irrelevant data. Otherwise the search would still result in such a huge pile of evidence that the searcher would be not much better off.
apatzer 08-Sep-23, 09:35	Another thing AI would be good at (if programed correctly) is removing bias in information processing. There have been several cases of implicit bias and situational bias that has effected machines. So I would assume AI would also be effected as well
colinthepoet 08-Sep-23, 10:33	But I think what we are seeing with Chat GPT is that it reproduces the bias in whatever source documents it finds. It's only a simulation of intelligence. If asked "Is Christianity true?", it can find and summarise the reasons why Billy Graham thought it is, and why Richard Dawkins thinks it isn't. That may be helpful to someone who is working through both sides of the argument to reach their own conclusion. But I don't see how AI can truly grasp that there are abstract concepts behind phrases such as "A creation requires a creator", or "a quantum singularity exploded in a Big Bang", and evaluate the two options. The AI could be programmed to ascribe 100% reliability to anything that it finds in the Bible, or for that matter 5% reliability, but then the answer you get is what the programmer believes, not an independent unbiased logical determination.
apatzer 08-Sep-23, 13:05	Colin I completely agree, thank you. I should have been more specific. I am currently at work and sometimes post quick thoughts that are poorly worded. I meant in experiments where large amounts of data need to be considered. Humans tend to ignore data that is contrary to preconceived notions. Even to the point of becoming blind to it.
bobspringett 08-Sep-23, 15:29	AI bias? Colin is right when he says AI will do no more than 'pass on' the bias in its sources. The role of data-crunching Apatzer described is not really 'intelligence', but simple calculation/tabulation. The interesting phase starts when we get to EVALUATION OF OPINION rather than demonstrable facts. This often requires some intuitive idea of 'what a reasonable person would think', and it would be difficult for a machine to do this. At best, it would probably follow 'what a reasonable computer programmer would think'. There would probably be some scope for AI to identify and flag 'confirmation bias' and unsupported assumptions, but AI evaluating these traits to formulate an answer would always be short of foolproof.
mo-oneandmore 10-Sep-23, 07:20	media hype We need to recognize that the media generally sees "good new as bad news and bad news as good news". That is: "Bad news" is talking about pretty flowers and such, and "good news" is stories about wars, hurricanes, earthquakes, murders, and the possible negative potentials of IA, etc.
mo-oneandmore 10-Sep-23, 07:24	Deleted by mo-oneandmore on 10-Sep-23, 07:24.
bobspringett 10-Sep-23, 14:50	Mo 07:20 You can understand why 'bad news' sells better. We have evolved to be wary of things that could harm us, but ignore things that don't pose a threat. So news about things that do harm will always catch our attention. That's why people gather around accidents. We are driven to know what dangers lurk around us, so someone who has suffered harm serves as a warning.
mo-oneandmore 12-Sep-23, 12:46	Bob On being wary of things. It's nothing new Bob. I believe ants, etc. evolved with pretty-much the same thinking, huh?
apatzer 14-Oct-23, 15:14	Here is an interesting use of A.I. www.iflscience.com
mo-oneandmore 15-Oct-23, 07:21	Apat Very interesting -- especially the early English speak. One must wonder how THAT might possibly have "evolved" to modern English. Also of note: The serene, comforting sound of the Mayan language that was like meditation or a prayer. There are, indeed, many valued uses of AI.
bobspringett 15-Oct-23, 13:43	Interesting, but I wonder how accurate it would be. There are so many variables that we wouldn't know unless we had a 'Rosetta Stone' of phonics to work with. That's how we know of the 'Great Vowel Shift'; some languages or dialects preserved the earlier sounds, some didn't. The same is useful in determining how Classical Greek and Latin were pronounced; by seeing how their words were transcribed into the alphabets of other languages. For example Celsus, the Roman governor of Greek-speaking Ephesus, had his name transliterated to start with kappa' ('K'); so the Latins must have sounded a 'hard' initial 'C' rather than as an 'S' or a modern Italian 'Ch'. From evidence like this it can be determined that 'Ceasar' was actually pronounced 'Kaiser'. But what Rosetta Stone is used for the very ancient languages with no reliable bridges? And specially for languages that used ideographs rather than alphabets? Of others such as Hebrew and Aramaic which had no letters for vowel sounds, but relied on the readers' familiarity with the language? These re-creations are interesting, but they are only as reliable as the data used to build them.
mo-oneandmore 16-Oct-23, 05:06	Bob Your "... ... Rosetta Stone ... ...". Might RS somewhat equal AI, Mate?
bobspringett 16-Oct-23, 15:30	One 05:06 A bit cryptic, mate. Please expand.
mo-oneandmore 17-Oct-23, 07:30	Bobo Although the Rosetta Stone is specific for a few dialects, Apatzer's link shows that AI software appears to have been effectively programed to act like a Rosetta Stone for a wide range of dialects-- Yes/No?
bobspringett 17-Oct-23, 14:19	Mo <AI software appears to have been effectively programed to act like a Rosetta Stone for a wide range of dialects-- Yes/No?> No. It has been programmed to make 'educated guesses', but those guesses are only as good as the data input. What phonics were input, and on what basis? Just the programmers' best guesses, so it still comes down to human judgement based on expert opinion and guesswork. No sound recordings have survived from anything more than a bit over a century ago to serve as phonic 'keys'. As an example, consider how some computer ten thousand years into the future, after the cockroaches have taken over the world, might 'reconstruct' how today's English sounded. Would it be Oxford English? or Yorkshire? or Cornwall? Or New Yorker, Alabaman, Texan? Or even (shudder!) New Zealander, South African, Sydney Westie or Strine?

GameKnot: play chess online, chess teams, chess clubs, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.