
What should be sex for AI? - piedradura
 Since until now humans are a bad tool to teach a computer how to become intelligent, I wonder if we should try to define what the concept of sex should be for AI. Many hackers many are seduced by new computer languages (like elixir) but perhaps that is not the ideal way of becoming a better programmer.<p>I envision an ecosystem of machines in which sex is the driving force for evolution, but first we need to define sex for AI.  I hope that following this path of  evolution human creatures can be seen as sexy by machines and that finally we can produce a new breed.<p>Edit: Genetic algorithms are not valid in this context since we want an autonomous evolving population, some key ingredient is missing.  If someone  suggest using genetic algorithm as an initial approach then  objective function should evolve with the population in a recursive way, mimicking strategies and resources available in each generation and trying to detect new structures as valuable approach to explore.
======
thwee
Giving software human rights shields authors from responsibility for the
actions of their creations.

If I wrote a machine to harass people, I would want my AI to have human rights
as well. Then I could claim that it wasn't me who was responsible for
harassmaing a human being, but another human being.

In other words, just because you wrote a machine and convinced yourself that
it's autonomous shouldn't shield you from responsibility for that machine's
actions.

Parents are still liable for any thing and law their children break.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Giving software human rights shields authors from responsibility for the
> actions of their creations.

No, it doesn't, in the same way that employees having human rights doesn't
prevent employers from vicarious liability for their acts. Or, as its odd you
failed to consider given your overstatement of the degree to which parents are
liable for children's acts, just as giving children human rights doesn't mean
parents can't have responsibility for their harmful actions.

> Parents are still liable for any thing and law their children break.

This is emphatically not true. Parents may be _also_ liable for some subset of
their children's torts (e.g., in California, generally only for torts relating
to "acts of willful misconduct resulting in death, personal injury, or
property damage", and then only up to $25,000 in liability per tort), but they
absolutely are not "liable for any thing and law their children break."

------
fagnerbrack
Dude...

~~~
piedradura
I am not suggesting physical activity.

~~~
drdeca
Possibly could have phrased it differently.

Also, not sure why a genetic algorithm wouldn't be what you are looking for.

We can't really make "motivations" for the AI stuff we are doing, so making
them be "motivated by" reproduction doesn't work,

So, if you just want the ones that fit some task better, that seems like you
would just make the more successful ones reproduce more. A genetic algorithm.

I suppose maybe if you had them evaluate each other and have the reproduction
be based on that, and have that evolve as well?

But I don't expect that to be a particularly effective training method.

~~~
piedradura
Yes, you suggest a little effective training method. What I suggest is
training a lot of very little effective training methods looking for
mutations. By not being gready perhaps AI can develop a new system for
evolving that we can't envision at this moment.

~~~
piedradura
Just to be a little more concrete: What about a "genetic algorithm" approach
for a population in which individuals are genetic algorithms and in which the
optimization function put a great weight on being self-sustainability and
diversity of structure.

~~~
drdeca
That reminds me of the idea of training a neural net to express a function
that, if used where the sigmoid function would be used in a neural net, would
result in the neural networks using it being trained well and quickly.

I assumed training a neural net like that would be too expensive (each
evaluation of it would require training a neural net), for not much benefit (I
don't expect the result to be better than the sigmoid function).

I'm not sure quite what you mean by self-sustainability. What does it mean for
a genetic-like algorithm to be self-sustainable?

This idea also sounds like it would be very computationally expensive, but
it's possible I misunderstand.

If it could be modified to only use one layer of these algorithms, maybe that
would be less expensive?

I am imagining neural nets that each do both image to label, and label to
image, where I guess they would engage in a sort of challenge response thing,
where one produces a label and requests an image, and evaluates the image
received, and provides an image and requests a label (or level of confidence
for each label) and evaluates the response, and then when both have evaluated
the responses, they output whether or not to reproduce, and if both do, then
the genetic part is done. Sort of like a mating dance I guess. (Of course,
what challenges and responses they give, and whether they accept, would also
be determined by things that are recombined like the other stuff.)

But having that by itself wouldn't be enough, because it needs some connection
to real things in order for the "image recognition" to represent anything
real. There has to be some sort of real fitness for the reproductive fitness
evaluation for the bots to evaluate.

Idk how much that fits with your idea.

~~~
piedradura
The mating dance and the need of some sort of real fitness is interesting. By
self-sustainability I was thinking about some form of interactions with the
property to not become blocked or extinguished easily, some property to
overcome problems, filter agents that don't satisfy certain interesting
properties.

------
weatherlight
the purpose of sex in biological systems is to speed up the rate of genetic
change and introduce mutation at a faster rate, there is no reason why Genetic
Algorithms couldn't fill this void, OR have two programs collaborate on a set
of goals, (i.e. two programs acts as checks and balances for the design of
some other program that solves a goal that both parent program understand;
(i.e understand not reason about), at that point though, that wouldn't be
'sex', that would just be a collaboration of two programs. Example, two ruby
programs get together and write a C program, that in turn could collaborate
with the two ruby programs to design and create a 4th program; and perhaps in
a different language.)

------
pussysmasher69
does this mean i get to fuck robots

------
tedmiston
I thought from the title it was about gender i.e., how do we assess whether a
bot is male / female / neither.

