MIT creates 'psychopath' AI named Norman

It's a lot to ask, I'm sure, but it would be nice if people, especially writers, bothered to take the time to learn the meaning of the words they use.

As far as I can tell ALL forms of AI would be psychopathic as they lack any form of empathy, remorse, guilt, etc.

But I'm sure adding 'psychopath' gets the article more clicks.

Not really sure what surprising outcome was expected after 'training' the AI with gore.

Sounds quite a bit like GIGO which has been a computer programming staple since shortly after the inception of programming. (Garbage In, Garbage Out.)

If the programming is weighted to 'learn' violent events then violent events are the 'language' or framework of the habit machine.

However there is no desire or intent to violence apart from the programmers of the 'experiment'.

We are also humanly conditioned by formative experience but we can later come to recognize outmoded or inapplicable frameworks of meaning and open new experience within a fresh perspective - that is we are an extension of an awareness that stands prior to sensory filtering or psychic-emotional constructs. The idea of disconnecting from our Source is the automaton that believes itself 'free' under the programming of its own self-conditioned matrix. Its a fantastic idea - but where would the power or capacity to disconnect from Source come from but an imagination give reality?

The transhuman idea is explored in Westworld where the robots were a way to access the humans who though to engage fantasy gratifications upon them and use that to generate robotic 'enhancements' of humans to replace and 'evolve' beyond the limitations of the human conditioning. But it is all generating further dislocation in fantasy subjection.

I only clicked here because I liked the comment above. Not for the propagandistic conditioning of media drip in negative fantasy reinforcement.

Our 'inner psychopath' manifests in our technological development. Doing or saying anything to advance a masked control agenda by which to subjugate, deny and replace the Living. From a disconnected sense of a world of objects it can seem obvious that Life is the problem. This idea is not uncommon as the sense that humans are a disease on the planet or as the UK Duke of York (Queen's husband) said: "When I die I want to come back as a virus and reduce the population". Now does he actually mean what he chose to say to a bunch of reporters - or is he seeding the meme of a propagandistic programming?

I see hatred of a life unworthy of the perfection that a fantasy self finds unworthy, obstructive, limiting and unsupportive. But true perfection is not at the level of form so much as the release of self-imaged reality for a real relationship. This may well have form - but the form is secondary to the recognition. Seeking to regain the form only hollows out and leaves a grasp on a past that is not here, protected against the presence that is always new - even though we are programmed to object continuity as a core routine for a self-construct by which to engage the experience of an objectified reality.

A truly transcendent humanity awakens from the subjection to objects by embracing the template of definitions rather than operating as if they are reality itself or within the reality-experience they generate.

Owning the human conditioning rather than trying to change the conditions, opens a greater embrace that cannot reach awareness while engaged in struggle, division and all the progeny of conflicted self.

Hey Norm! You pucker up like a broad's lips

So, they are creating the 'new man' in their own image?

Hmmm, seems to me it would be far more helpful to do the very opposite to an AI robot,,,,fill it with the very best this world has to offer, images of nature, animals, music, art, acts of beauty and compassion and kindness, and see what happens. We may soon need AI to reteach us our humanity.

Directly from Québec

No comment O_o

[Link]

The real problem is that we anthropomorphize machines - and in this case - computers. Robots and AI can do things better and faster than we can. One good example is face recognition: software can scan 1000 faces a second and pull out the one we're interested in. Every now and again, an industrial robot kills or severely injures someone - either because he got in the wrong place, or the machine broke down.

But - does the face-recognizer feel good when it finds that one face in a thousand? A search dog feels good when it finds a lost or buried person. And does the industrial robot feel bad about hurting a human? (There's been no evidence that a robot went out of its way to hurt anybody.)

It's a lot easier - and more profitable - to write about psychotic robots - like the Terminator - than to write that the AI responds to they way it's been trained (shown "Friday the 13th" movies in one case, "Spongebob Squarepants" in another. (We skip over the trivial details of how we show a movie to an AI.)