Artificial Mind - a schematic diagram

In one of the previous posts, I argued that it was impossible to create artificial intelligence (IR) ( here ). Without abandoning the previous opinion, I want to nevertheless consider the issue of the principles of the work of that which cannot be created. Which way to go to humanity, in order to deceive, let not nature, but at least himself - to consider that the problem of creating an IR has been successfully resolved? In my opinion, by this.
I will make a reservation that everything stated below:
a) OPINION,
b) the opinion is PRIVATE,
c) the personal opinion of the DISPERSANT (a specialist in another field who has come up to the problem of IR in the course of solving his narrow professional tasks).

On the screen saver : from the brain protrude, along with mechanical devices, not the penis of the rhino, as you might think, but the eyes of the cochlea. They symbolize the sensors that IR has.

***

I'll start with a completely trivial.
If the challenge is for the artificial being to react — and intelligently! - on external signals, the creature must have devices that perceive these external signals (which no one has ever doubted). There are two possible options:
1) the input device "finished" information - simply speaking, a keyboard or something that replaces it,
2) sensors that perceive external information.
The difference between the cardinal options:
')
• in one case, the IR operates with information that is entered into it by a person,
• In another case, the information comes from the environment.

The concept of creating an IR proceeds from the fact that an artificial person must be indistinguishable from a natural, living one — thereby on the assumption that a natural person is also a mechanical creature in some way and his device can be repeated on a different element base. But if so, then the option of entering pre-prepared information is categorically not suitable. A natural person draws knowledge from the environment, diverse and unpredictable, therefore , it is possible to create something that simulates a person only by connecting IR to the information base that the natural person uses . By limiting the IR environment, for example, by playing tic-tac-toe, we will get a player in tic-tac-toe, but not a full-fledged mind in the sense that we want - a mind that can argue with the human in all intellectual aspects.
While sitting at the computer at night, you can create algorithms or enter the initial data for as long as you like, but never fill the artificial brain with the burning content of the same level of quality and complexity that you have.



What is needed is something else: a computer calculator with environmental sensors connected to it - only then, there is hope, the IR will perceive you as a rational being and talk on an equal footing.



What should be the sensors? It is worth pondering over this.
When humanity wants to invent an IR, is it looking for an equal interlocutor or is it a creature that exceeds its intellect? If the latter, then the use of a wide variety of sensors - including those that a natural person does not possess - is strongly encouraged. True, in this case the IR will have a different type of thinking than the natural person. I do not mean the elemental base from which brains are cut — what is natural, what is artificial — namely, the type of thinking that is directly dependent on what the subject perceives. Everyone remembers the parable about how the three blind men are brought to the elephant and need to be characterized: depending on which part of the body of the elephant - the foot, the tail or the tusk - the blind man touched, the characteristics given are different.
The conclusion suggests itself: if we want the IR to speak with us in the same language, its perception of the world should be similar to that of a human.

***

Well, suppose, the ideal relationship between the types of sensors is found, especially since the choice is determined by technical capabilities and is not too large, what next?
How should an IR be arranged? Based on the feedback, it goes without saying : to take into account the impact of the output information on the environment, thereby foreseeing it and manipulating it, because the difference between a person and inanimate nature is that a person is able to foresee the consequences of his actions. The AI ​​must be an active creature, have an impact on the world around it and analyze the consequences of its effects. No one doubted, actually.



However, as shown above, feedback cannot be implemented.
Why? Because it does not exist in the presented scheme: here the feedback is only thought of by an observer located outside the boundaries of the created system. The calculator itself - the IR - is not able to interpret its commands as changing the environment for it: it has no reason for this. There is input information to which the calculator responds in accordance with the algorithm it has laid down: each subsequent reaction (the calculator command) is, in fact, predetermined by a new piece of information. The algorithm can be arbitrarily difficult, but to call such a mind-like language does not turn.
If we proceed from the fact that man is created as a mechanism, let the biological, and want to artificially reproduce a person on a different element base, it is necessary to make the calculator perceive not only the external environment, but also itself (its own "I") in the external environment. This can be implemented at the sensor level. So in man: some of his sensations (sight, hearing, smell) are responsible for the objective world, others (touch, taste) - for the subject. This feature of the structure gives a person the opportunity to perceive himself as an actor - in the form of a subject acting in the surrounding world.
This means that when creating an MI, sensors should be divided into:

• showing the state of the environment;
• showing the state of the mechanism itself, claiming the title of reasonable.



As a person is in the external field in relation to the creation of his hands, it is not difficult to distinguish the former from the latter. For example, one sensor measures the ambient temperature, and the second sensor measures the temperature of the transmitter.
But! - man is active not only in the field of consciousness, but also in the field of matter, therefore, it is not enough to test the simple state of the artificial system. If the sensors of the second type show the state of the mechanism, which does not correlate in any way with the state of the external environment, no IR will work, if only because it does not resemble a natural person.
A natural person is an actor, a subject in an object environment, and in this sense he himself is an object:

• on the one hand, the environment affects the person
• On the other hand, the person himself has the ability to influence the environment.

For this reason, the IR - if it wants to be reasonable, of course - is obliged to influence the environment not only informationally, but also quite materially, as an object .
It is unlikely that I will create a sensation by stating that a reasonable mechanism requires:

a) a manipulator (the functions of which are performed by the hands); and
b) vehicle (legs).

Hands and feet are exactly what the natural man does to the environment. Accordingly, an IR without hands will be like without legs, and without legs like without hands (joke): it will receive information from the environment differently than a person receives, and therefore will be forced to acquire a different type of thinking than that of a person. And we agreed on the desirability of the same type of thinking: so that the IR could communicate with a natural person in the same language.
In short, we attach to our IR a vehicle and a manipulator, and with an obligatory arrangement on them at least some sensors that must respond to a change of position — not the environment, but the means of movement and manipulators.
This raises questions that it is desirable to resolve.

1. Should the sensors registering the internal state of the mechanism coincide in type with the sensors registering the state of the external environment?
Probably not, since they do not coincide in humans: as mentioned, some human sensations (sight, hearing, smell) are responsible for objectivity, others (touch, taste) are responsible for subjectivity. Although it can be assumed that this is not a prerequisite. It is easy to imagine (as I did a couple of paragraphs above) two temperature sensors, the first of which measures the temperature of the transmitter, and the second one measures the ambient temperature. It is only important that the readings on them could be different and each sensor was perceived by the calculator as belonging either to the external environment or to the mechanism itself. The golden mean — to characterize both an object and a subject at the same time — cannot be.

2. How many sensors should there be?
Ideally, they should correspond to the five human sensations, although it will still have to be determined on the basis of the available technical capabilities. The same can be said with regard to the number of sensors related to the same sensations (after all, you can install one "external" temperature sensor, but you can have two, three or more).

3. Should the sensors be installed only on the manipulators or are others allowed that characterize the internal, non-environmental condition?
On manipulators, sensors are required, and their role is dual. After all, the sensors must register something objective for the external observer, and for the owner of the AI ​​himself, both objectively and sometimes subjectively are alternately registered.
Imagine that the computer gives the command to move forward. The mechanism is moving forward, but the environment is such that the mechanism throws back. Here there are two consecutive readings of the sensor, recording the course:

• advancement, corresponding to the team issued by the calculator, is a subjective, “volitional” change;
• dropping back when there is no calculator command. This means the reaction of the environment, and should be interpreted by the calculator.

In other words, a change in an indicator directly when a command of a calculator is interpreted as the result of a command, a change in an indicator without a command of a calculator is treated as a change in the environment. This is in contrast to sensors that measure the state of the environment: they record the state of the environment independently of the command of the transmitter.
Sensors characterizing the internal, and non-environmental state of the mechanism are possible, but in this case they will not be able to take part in the calculations, i.e. in the process of artificial thinking.
Suppose the sensor shows the remaining amount of energy, and then what? If the mechanism should not react to this fact in any way - if this indicator is significant only for the creator of the IL, who is observing the mechanism from the outside, - the obtained indications for analyzing the situation are meaningless. But if the mechanism extracts energy from the environment on its own, then, of course, the evidence on the energy store is one of the most significant. The greater the correlation of the external environment with the readings of the sensors responsible for the state of the mechanism, the deeper analysis can be carried out by the calculator and the higher quality of intelligence is realized.
Suppose there are three sensors of both types: showing the state of the external environment and the state of the mechanism.



The calculator gives a signal to the manipulator and the vehicle, the sensors record their change, which leads to a change in the external environment, including in the form of a reciprocal effect of the external environment on the mechanism, which is also fixed.
This is already real feedback, which can be analyzed as such.

***

And what, in fact, is subject to analysis? Sensor readings, of course ...
The signals received from the sensors need to be analyzed, for which purpose they should be broken down into elementary significant blocks that can be correlated in a certain way with each other. Any calculator is arranged in a similar way, only in one case (with analog sensor readings), it previously “decomposes” the received information series into single semantic elements, and in the second case (with discrete readings, in the form of an elementary value), what is called, laid out on shelves. But this is for the external observer, and for myself - I mean the calculator - the information is always discrete and structured. This discrete and structured information is what is commonly called a database.
I try to prove that any information can be represented only as a sequence of discrete elementary signals (values) for a certain number of sensors.
The values ​​for each of the sensors we used are incomparable (unless, of course, the sensors are not of the same type), but for the sake of clarity, we take them as numerical ones. In this case, the perceived IR reality will be a database with numeric values ​​to be processed.



The same matrix, in short ...



If you object that a person perceives the world on an analog basis, I will have to object with all possible weight. Nothing like this! The visual picture that we observe is not a two-dimensional image at all, but ... a point, i.e. single value (something meaningful). Everything else that we perceive as a holistic visual image is no more than an appendage to a truly observable point, partly intellectual, and partly related to the internal structure of our information system.
Further explanations will lead us far away from the IR, so I return to our sheep.
So, the calculator of any rational being - the human brain including - works with a base consisting of elementary sensor readings.
The database is constantly updated due to limited volume: already analyzed, outdated data are erased in order to give way to new ones. Proof of this statement is the inability to restore every moment of a life lived: the data is erased from our memory as useless, leaving only the truly important and unique events. It sounds trite, but the reality is terribly banal in general - this is its main feature, apparently.

***

Next - on the problem of self-study.
A person is a system that is explicitly self-learning, therefore, an IR must be a self-learning system. Personally, I see two solutions:

1) self-learning can be achieved by complicating the algorithms used by the mind - in some way, the mind itself;
2) either due to the transition to a qualitatively new level of abstraction, using algorithms that remain unchanged.

The first method is rarely used. We reject it as impractical and, by and large, impracticable due to high theoretical considerations: where is it seen that a computer program wrote itself ?! This is conceivable to a certain set by the developer, but only to a clearly defined boundary, beyond which any development, with reference to the creation of IR, self-study, completely stops.
There remains the second option, in which the algorithm embedded in the system remains unchanged, and self-learning occurs due to the constant complication of the processed information - in our case, due to the constant transition from a low level of abstraction to a higher one. This is how the human brain works, according to my assumptions.
What is the human world - if, of course, to take man for a mechanism that can be reproduced in an artificial way? Pieces of the beyond, structured into a database with which the natural computer works - the human brain. At the same time, the environmental base has an internal structure defined by its identifiers. But there is something beyond what is called: the relationship between significant elements of the system or identifiers. These relationships are determined by the binary principle: similar - not similar. The green color of one object is similar to the green color of another object and not similar to the red color of the third object, etc. Since both pieces of the beyond and identifiers representing the internal structure of the system are some values, it can be said that any relation is the result of comparing two values. By comparing one value with another, you can “move” through the database from one value to another and from one line to another. This is approximately.



Moving from -4 to 5, because these values ​​refer to one record (and the record in the system is identified, i.e. indicated by an identifier), then from 5 of one record to 5 of another record (since the values ​​are the same), etc. As a result of the work done, the value of -4 begins to correlate with the value of 12. All this is not arbitrary, of course, but on the basis of an algorithm embedded in the program.
This principle of “walking on chains of meanings” is extremely reminiscent of the deductive method of Sherlock Holmes, in particular, the case when Holmes was able to restore the chain of his thoughts according to Watson’s glance thrown at an object and his subsequent grimaces. I do not remember what story the given passage belongs to, but the essence is clear: you glance and in a moment you remember something connected with the object you see. This is the principle of our thinking (which is olichno known): associatively, along a chain of meanings, from one to another - and if so, this principle should be reproduced when creating an IR.
One act of mental analysis is a comparison of values ​​through some kind of associative chain. The associative chain is finite, because traveling through relationships can be indefinitely long, and is determined by the technical capabilities of the system. The resulting relationships (in our example between -4 and 12) are stored in a separate database for storing relations.



It turns out that the system contains two databases (performing the function of memory) :

1) the base that stores the readings of the sensors,
2) and the base in which the relations between the values ​​are written - in other words, the results of comparisons.

Both bases are processed using an algorithm that was introduced into the system from the outside, by its creator-developer, and remains unchanged.



Based on the results of processing, a command is issued for action.
What is the relationship between IR and the relationships obtained by comparing values? The same as between the deductive method of Sherlock Holmes and the search for criminals.
Suppose the number 9 on the sensor number 3 entails the next instant (in the next record, in terms of the database) the number -8 on the sensor number 6, which is unfavorable for the system. Indeed, sensors No. 4-6 reflect the internal state of the mechanism, therefore, initially, at the program level, they can (and should) be interpreted as favorable, inert and unfavorable.



Analysis of the relationship between the readings of sensors number 3 and number 6 will indicate a causal relationship between them.



Until some time, the established relation does not say anything, because other sensors have their own readings, but in the case of regular repeatability, a statistical regularity is displayed: reading 9 on sensor No. 3 leads to an unfavorable reading -8 on sensor No. 6.
Now let's see how the system should react to an unfavorable indication. Probably, in the same way as a person reacting to a hot stove reacts, pull his hand back. True, the hand is withdrawn reflexively - in most situations, for an adequate response, it is necessary to have some experience that our IR does not have. So, experience will have to acquire.
The calculator is able to give commands to the vehicle and the manipulator - something that in turn has the ability to affect the environment. Suppose that in order to overcome the negative consequences it is necessary to send a command -1 to sensor 4. But the calculator, which has not learned, of course, cannot know this for the time being, so it goes through the permissible commands and at the same time establishes a relationship between them and the response of the environment. Sooner or later, the statistical pattern between the required command -1 on sensor No. 4 will be detected. If the pattern is confirmed (with each command -1 on sensor No. 4, the value 9 on sensor No. 3 will change to safe), the problem will be resolved ... until a new problem appears, of course, for example, until a more complex statistical pattern is found between the sensor readings.
This is exactly how a natural person behaves - this is exactly how an IR should behave, in everything except the elemental base, copying the natural.
Can this method of analysis and actions be recognized as a self-learning system? In no case - in it there is a development, but there is no qualitative dynamics, which occurs only with the transition to a new level of abstraction. Man does not compare every green apple with every red — this level of thinking remains in infancy — and immediately, after receiving the initial sensation, it moves onto much more complex abstract categories. These abstractions are the result of the same mental action, i.e.comparisons, however, not received from sensors of elementary signals, but relations between relationships, and so on with each next level. Once the derived relationship between the readings of counters No. 3 and No. 6 can be compared with the new readings of the sensors, and if a dependency is found, derive a new dependency, which in turn is compared with the previously derived dependency, to get another dependency, and so much will be enough.
Comparing on a binary basis - either yes or no - not only values ​​are necessary, but also relations, relations of relations, relations of relations of relations and further ... Each significant result with an identifier assigned to it is recorded in the database of relations.
The ability to compare already established relationships with sensor readings or compare relationships with relationships means searching for new statistical patterns not only in the sensor database, but also in the relationship database.



The calculator is looking for statistical patterns in both databases and writes the results into the database of relations; sensor readings are only needed to establish new dependencies of the surrounding world. In this case, the base of relations is updated only in the following cases:

a) correcting an erroneous relationship between values,
b) replacing relations of the same order of abstraction with relations of a higher order of abstraction.

Thus, the job of the calculator is only to establish the dependencies between the readings of the sensors and / or previously established dependencies (relationships). This is how a natural person functions: at the sight of an object, he does not comprehend, all the more he does not restore again all relations connected with this object, but reacts by the last association in its entirety, for example, at the sight of an enemy, it reaches for a parabellum. An associative chain - in a highly simplified form, of course - looks like this: the enemy (sensor readings, interpreted as approaching the enemy) - a signal of danger - parabellum (warning reaction). A self-learning system is determined by the transition to more and more new levels of abstraction.
In theoretical terms, the levels of abstraction are endless - I understood that, but decided to double-check. And since I was at odds with mathematics, I had to go with questions to the kids, although they are very busy and I don’t like father questions.
Suppose I asked children (I asked something wrong, of course, this later my question had to be brought into a more mathematical form), there are a lot of n ₁ objects. Let n _{1, i} be the i-th object of this set. There is a single relationship between any two objects: (n _1,1 , n _1,2 ), (n _1,1 , n _1,3 ), (n _1,2 , n _1,3) etc. We combine the elements and their connections into a new single-type set with the number of elements n ₂ and repeat the entire operation described (k-1) times. Question: what formula displays the obtained number of elements n _k (which, if you understood, shows the number of elements for comparison with which the system operates at the level of abstraction k)?
After some breaks, discussions and abbreviations, the children jointly built the following construction:



I will not undertake to judge how correct the mathematical formula is, and it is clear without it: the higher the level of abstraction, the more elements to compare.
The calculator, whether artificial or natural, is not able to process the information arrays going to infinity, so it stops at a certain level. Quite consistent with the ordinary, by the way: the intellectual is able to think in high abstract categories, whereas for a non-intellectual, on the contrary, he responds mainly to such simple concepts as “woman”, “snack” and “TV”.

***

In the considered methodological course, the problem of communication can be solved, without which a rational being, as a rule, is not conceived.
As it is known, communication between intelligent beings is possible only through symbols, which are quite material objects, at the same time possessing the property of denoting something else - not what they really are. The word "stone", written or spoken, is the result of someone's sensations, and it does not at all resemble a stone lying on the side of the road. But telepathy, alas, is impossible.
What does this mean in relation to the topic of this post? The fact that a rational being only interprets an object as a creature equivalent to itself in reason according to sensor readings is, at some level of abstraction, of course.
Consider the previous example with sensor No. 3, the value of which 9 leads to an unfavorable reading of -8 on sensor No. 6. If, before this, from time to time on sensor No. 2, a value of 1 occurs, in itself inert, but after which the adverse effects described above occur, this can be interpreted as a warning.



If other statistical dependencies are found — especially at the proper level of abstraction and such that the readings of the sensors of the state of the mechanism coincide with the readings of the environmental sensors (if they are of the same type), it can (but does not have to) conclude that a creature equivalent to yourself according to reason. A value of 1 on sensor no. 2 will then be a warning signal.

***

Going further pointless. In any case, I am not able to write an IR algorithm, but I have indicated the general (approximate) principle of its operation (if not for the readers, so for myself, at least). It:

• comparison of values ​​in both bases: sensors and relations,
• establishment of statistical dependencies between values ​​and recording of results in the relationship database,
• calculator command based on previously established dependencies.



It is possible that some purely technical blocks of the mechanism have been omitted, but in general it should be clear.
In nature, in any case more difficult. Man is not born with innate databases (sensors and relationships), but fills them as he grows up over several years. At first, the baby feels only taste and color spots, which, after acquiring some experience, begin to take shape in more or less complete pictures, then comes the turn of abstractions of a higher order. And so - if, of course, you are not lucky to be born a soulless cattle, - until the end of life. And how many years the IR should study, it remains to be guessed only on the coffee grounds: it is unlikely, even if it is possible to design it correctly, learn as quickly as a natural baby, in my mind.

***

The scheme given above is not complete: it lacks the main thing, namely the most important task set by the creator of AI.
There are no mechanisms in themselves, but there are mechanisms adapted for specific purposes: shaving, snow removal, squeezing carrot juice, and communication with a person on an equal footing. The system of IR must also have a similar super-task, otherwise it will not function reasonably, but quite mechanically for itself - as they say, without a light. Do you remember our initial premise: if an IR wants to become similar to the natural, it must borrow everything from the natural mind except the element base? And what is the main task facing man and, most importantly, how is it implemented in the conceptual scheme of a natural person?
In my opinion, the most important task is realized in the natural man in two ways - more precisely, in three ways.

1. First, with the help of the limit values ​​of the sensors.
Each of the subject sensations (touch, taste) has a range of normal values, followed by a range of values ​​of abnormal, dangerous for the functioning of the body.There is a pleasant touch and unpleasant touch, pleasant taste and unpleasant taste: in one case, the sensors of a natural person — his human feelings — signal that everything is alright, you can continue, and in the other case, warn about danger. Please note that object sensations (sight, hearing) do not possess such properties! No, if you can put it that way, an objectively pleasant or unpleasant color or sound, and if they come (for example, too bright light or too loud sound), then - just a minute! - a person is experiencing discomfort by the organs of touch, are you not finding? True, the sense of smell is not mentioned in the list of object sensations, which does not seem to fall within the characteristics indicated here — pleasant and unpleasant smells certainly exist — but ... No, I have nothing to say in my justification. Maybe,I was mistaken, and the sense of smell refers not to object, but to subject sensations, although I have another assumption, namely: the sense of smell is the oldest sensation formed during the existence of some objects (before the appearance of the subjects), and the smell is also related to object, and to the subject. Here, anticipating the nervous reaction of the readers, I shut up, humbly apologize for the thoughtlessness and go back to square one, to artificial creatures.I humbly apologize for thoughtlessness and return to normal, to artificial creatures.I humbly apologize for thoughtlessness and return to normal, to artificial creatures.
For them, the imitation of the limit values ​​of the sensors has long been absolutely feasible, for example: the temperature in such and such parameters is permissible, and higher or lower - dangerous for the system. Consequently, the calculator must give some commands that, according to the previously established relationships, will lead to bringing the parameters back to normal.

2. Secondly, the point of the first to establish a supertask is completely insufficient - something else is needed, just as tangible. The required thing is (in the natural man of which we are talking now) a feeling of hunger / thirst .
But, in attempts to disprove me, one should not chew about the anatomical structure of a person or the energy that the body needs to be replenished in time. It would be necessary if a person would restore the expended energy directly from the Sun, but this is not given to a person - precisely in order to force a person to act, as I suppose. What would a man do if he doesn’t need food? The answer is obvious: basking in the sun with a girlfriend - and at what stage of development would then be an earthly civilization? No, no, no, the other is provided by those who designed the natural man! The two-legged and boggy creation is intended for action: the exploration of virgin marshes, the construction of pig houses, and the launch of spacecraft — and as an incentive for action, he was given a feeling of occasionally tormenting hunger / thirst.
I am far from being sure that this feeling belongs to touch: it is possible that hunger / thirst is not a tactile sensation at all, but a completely different kind — the sixth sense that characterizes not the object or the subject, but that it is the execution of the most important task. It is also possible that the sixth sense is associated with human emotions. Although it is more likely that hunger and thirst are still cases of negative tactile perception.
Any of the following options is suitable for creating an RI:

• either one of the subject sensors must not only respond to the environment, but interpret it in a certain way, “explaining” to the calculator that one situation is desirable for the execution of the super-task and the other is not;
• or a separate “sensor” will perform the same function- it’s difficult to call it a sensor, because it should show not something that exists in reality, but something that exists as a strategic goal. This sensor is false, but its testimony should take part in the analysis along with the testimony of other sensors.



If the IR performs what is laid down as its super-task, the sensor gives a positive feeling; otherwise, when the IR turned in the opposite direction, it was negative. Just like a person: after all, suddenly there is a feeling of hunger / thirst, although it is expected, does not have any, so to speak, objective prerequisites in the surrounding nature (the reader does not start about the anatomical structure of a person, I'm talking about something else!) - the reasons for sucking under the spoon are exclusively teleological.
Here the question arises: what to indicate as the most important task of the IR? Self-preservation instinct is implemented in paragraph one , and what in paragraph two? And yet - in what way does the indicated super-task, even if it can be correctly determined, should foresee the situations in which the IR will find itself? In one case, to achieve the goal, you need to turn left, and in the other case, to the right - but how do you know a programmer entering this code in the IR program?
It would be ideal to divert the created artificial creature into a dense forest, and leave it there: he must get energy himself (at least he is looking for a gas station if he can) - that is, to act in the way he once did to humanity. In this case, the search for a gas station can be put as a super-task: approaching a gas station will signal the IR that it is on the right track, and moving away from the gas station, on the contrary, will create unpleasant feelings, plus a gradual increase in discomfort until the gas station is detected. Of course, you need to know where the nearest gas station is located.
But a man doesn’t need a gas station - he always builds something, but how to find out what it is -and so far it is not known about the most important task set before a person, a similar most important task before the AI ​​cannot be set, without which it will not resemble a natural person . The logic is this, and it seems hopeless.
However, some thoughts on this matter are found in paragraph three.

3. The target-oriented alarm should also be installed at the program level. In fact, we have a part of the general algorithm that rejects or, on the contrary, approves the found interdependencies irrespective of their probability and rationality of decisions based on them.



To find this algorithmic part in people is quite easy.
Tell me, what does a person start to achieve after he has quenched the instinct of self-preservation and satisfied the feeling of hunger? Man begins to seek power. Different people, depending on their education and intelligence, the desire of power manifests itself in different ways - some intend to expand their living space, others dream to command countries and continents, others, who are most vain, cut laboratory mice in an effort to gain power over the whole nature - however the feeling of lust is universal, characteristic of every normal person.
The will to power, the desire to dominate the world and change it according to one’s own understanding is, with a high degree of probability, a super-task implanted in human brains.
We get this design:

• limit values ​​of subject sensations show the normal state of the system and going beyond the normal state;
• the feeling of hunger corrects the state of the environment in relation to the most important task set before the person;
• The will to power adjusts the information processing algorithms applied to the most important task set before a person.

These features, the will to rule the world, including man, we must repeat in an artificial being so that it speaks on an equal footing with us. First, on an equal footing, and then ... And did you intend, having created the IR, to chat with him about the last film of Kusturitsa, and then ask to bring slippers? But you FIG! If this artificial really turns out to be reasonable, it will not bring slippers to you, and it will saw through the throat with a hacksaw, simply because it is reasonable. Stray plots about the uprising of robots - it's not just that, but because. Not every successful plot becomes popular, but one in which the future is predicted: they like such films, because the audience intuitively feels the truth of what is happening. And the film “The Matrix” is not just that: in addition to successful directing, successful camera work and successful casting,the philosophical idea of ​​the digital nature of the universe is taken for the soul, even if the viewer is not aware of this - hence the logical success. Keanu Reeves alone is not enough to repeat this depth.
Following the Azimov laws of robotics, you will not get anything except an automatic coffee maker: if you want to create a full-fledged artificial person, and not some invalid or vegetarian, you will have to invest all human shortcomings in it. And no need to prejudge the IR for cruelty: he, realizing himself rational, will suffer no less than yours. A humanoid robot, unaware of this and who considers himself a man, is a plot no less common (and truthful) than the uprising of machines. And what will you do if representatives of the alien mind come to our planet with irrefutable evidence that humanity was created by them: well, they will imagine a film on which bubbles with the primary biological substance gurgle and then dinosaurs hatch from these bubbles,as well as evidence of their alien notaries about the origin of life on earth? First you will rush into the denial, and then, when the alien with evidence against the wall will be protected? Behind the slippers or a hacksaw?
The desire to create IR, and in his face a competitor can lead to sad consequences for humanity. However, people, in this case scientists, are so programmed that life is not their joy until they become omnipotent, although the result of this omnipotence can be the complete destruction of humanity. Scientific curiosity is almost impossible to overcome - it sucks. I, too, so arranged, unfortunately, the result is a real post.
As for the general concept of IR, it is, in my PRIVATE OPINION OF THE DEALER, it turns out this (hardly innovative, I understand):



But is it worth explaining that the reality certainly surpasses not only mine, but also your ideas about it.