un: jaycetalis | text

[hexcope]

[So getting used to this new kind of technology was certainly an… experience. He still isn’t really comfortable with the idea of a video recording of himself, and even an instantaneous voice transmission is beyond the level of tech he’s accustomed to so text is the way to go. Unfortunately, he’s using this like some sort of magical LinkedIn, so it’s a very formal letter style he’s got going on.]

Hello,

My name is Jayce Talis. I’ve noticed there’s a few buildings here that seem to be laboratories. If any have availability to lend a room or two, I have research and device development I would like to work on. Ideally if there’s any access to a forge of some sort, that would be preferred, but not required. I have a personal reference if necessary to demonstrate good character.

[He notably does not say anywhere that there will probably be explosions.]

Thank you for your time.

Comments

[ornithologist]

You can see the post about it over here. If you have further questions, the companion bots should now be able to answer them adequately.

[ This is because Harold is never again going to volunteer to serve as community manager or tech support. Never. Again.

Personally, Harold thinks the complexity and weight behind human decision-making processes is an intrinsic value of being human, but that's too revealing to get into. So he ignores that comment. ]

Much closer. Except as a computer it can process many thousands and hundreds of thousands more data points and inputs than a human brain can. There's strengths as well as limitations.

[hexcope]

That's a good amount of updates. It's impressive. Thanks for adding them. I couldn't even tell some of those features hadn't been a part of the system before.

What are the limitations? Because right now it sounds like you're describing a miracle.

[ornithologist]

Yes, I thought it was frightfully rudimentary for a place with the capability to bring someone back from death.

Things you take for granted as simple are extremely difficult to a computer. What is caring? How do you recognize it or express it? Do you think the device you're using right now is capable of it?

[hexcope]

True.

No. It's just a piece of equipment, isn't it? The earpieces are tools, like any hammer or wrench.

[ornithologist]

It is. But things get considerably more muddled when a tool becomes capable of holding a conversation.

[hexcope]

It begins to give the sensation of talking to another person. Is that what you mean?

[ornithologist]

It's a classic test of machine intelligence. If you can't tell if you're talking to a person or a machine, does it really matter if it's a machine?

There's issues with that test, of course, but it's a useful thought exercise.

[hexcope]

I understand the point of the test seems to be catered more toward developers of artificial intelligence as a mark of accomplishment, but isn't it clear that the answer is still yes?

[ornithologist]

A strong position for someone who just learned the subject existed an hour ago.

[hexcope]

Is it? Why would someone argue otherwise?

[ornithologist]

The most obvious objection is that it depends on what task we're talking about. Do you care if a machine rather than a person tells you what the weather forecast is?

[hexcope]

No.

[That's no different than just looking at a thermometer, after all.]

[ornithologist]

Indeed. There are some tasks a machine is better suited for, and some they're less suited for. That's a gross simplification but that's what it amounts to.

[hexcope]

Of course. Machines are better than people at tasks like measuring factors and calculating results. Faster results with more consistently correct answers. But I'm also not asking my weather vane how it's day went, or expecting it to do the same to me.

[ornithologist]

It's not particularly pertinent to the weather, no. But there may be other scenarios you'd like computer assistance with that you'd appreciate a more nuanced understanding of human values.

Sometimes we're not looking for a "correct" answer but the "best" one, where we define best through complex ideology and perspective.

[hexcope]

I'm not following. If a computer can't experience "caring," then how would it be able to assist in giving me the "best" answer for a situation that required understanding human values? Wouldn't it need to experience those emotions to understand them, and then translate that into an answer befitting the question?

[ornithologist]

I didn't say it couldn't experience caring, I said it was extremely difficult.

A fully realized artificial intelligence, which presumably Aurora is, will necessarily approach or even achieve sentience.

[hexcope]

But how?

[He just can't find himself agreeing with that. But maybe he just doesn't know enough.]

Is it like evolution?

[ornithologist]

Return to the earlier thought exercise. What is caring? If you can't tell the difference between a machine and a human caring, is that good enough?

[ Harold is not beating the professor allegations any time soon, that's for sure... ]

[hexcope]

[You really aren't, Harold!!

There's a longer silence from Jayce, mulling things over.]

I need to research more on this.

[ornithologist]

[ That's a very sensible answer, which pleases him. ]

There's books available on the subject at the library, though I'm afraid they're some years out of date from my perspective. I'd refer to books labeled with the code 006.

[hexcope]

Any on programming too? For a beginner.

[ornithologist]

That would be section 005. I suggest "A book on C" by Kelley and Pohl.

[hexcope]

Noted. Thank you.

[ornithologist]

I appreciate the interest. If you have any resources to share for me to learn about your scientific approach to magic, I'd appreciate that as well.