The Future Is Coming P4: Artificial Intelligence

page: 5
69
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


Wouldn't happen. Because if they were designed to be human, they would just genetically engineer us differently and go on.

Or they'd just be like the Geth.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by Gorman91]




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Over the years, since the first time I watched the movie War Games, I considered artificial intelligence. I came to three conclusions about it and why it will never be truly intelligent.

1. Random. A computer, a program, a network of circuitry can never go against it's own programming. It can re-evaluate, re-analyze, and re-prioritize, but it can never go against it's own code. That being said, it will never be able to produce anything random. Not so much as a funny thought. Random belongs to humans. While we are the machines of nature, we can still go against our nature, our programming, and do something random and unexpected. This is why computers exist. This is how computers were developed.

2. Accidents. Fits in right there with Random. Computers don't have accidents. They can't learn from their mistakes, because by their code, they can't make any. I'll let you consider how deep that one goes.

3. Emotion. Emotions can be simulated, but emotions involve electricity, chemistry, and so many unknown factors that they couldn't possibly be replicated. Emotions affect OUR programming to such a degree that on a normal day, we can't tell what actions are an effect of the programming and which are the effect of emotions controlling those programs.

There's too many things to list, but these three separate us and give us our intelligence. Computers cannot achieve any of the above.

But if they develop the quark system, it may change things.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


Wouldn't happen. Because if they were designed to be human, they would just genetically engineer us differently and go on.

Or they'd just be like the Geth.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by Gorman91]

I don't think that would be so easy to do. But I don't think the winners in the race to super intelligent AI will base their AI on human intelligence, so they won't be prone to the same kind of motivations as humans. They won't choose to rebel against humans. If we are not careful, however, they may become mistakenly unfriendly toward humans.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by VonDoomen
 


WOW!!!I'm still baffled by all the info in this thread....Great job VonDoomen...S&F for ya.
Kindda scary picture of the future if these AI robots ever rebel...



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by VonDoomen
 


Quality presentation...

...but you forgot to mention the AGI Manhattan Project.

When in effect promoting such technologies its important not to let people think the initiative behind it is vastly less than it is...


Originally posted by VonDoomen
A. Should we pursue AI?
Yes! Aside from its many positive benefits, AI could also pose a threat to humanity. As with any technology with military applications, it is important for government funded public research to stay ahead of what rogues entities are capable of. It is a commonly held belief that in terms of security, the side that can protect is computational ability will be the dominant force.


Well, what about when the government is the rogue entity with all of the secret projects?

Just because DARPA lists some stuff on their website doesn't mean it's all public. That's more like desensitization, much like Kurzweil's role in pushing his PR. He's a propagandist plain and simple. And he's not even honest. He doesn't even factor in hardly any element of the AGI Manhattan Project in his AGI projections, of which he is a part of at the government, military and corporate levels. He's not your friend. He's an evil (trans)man, and he's a eugenicist to boot.

I can't expect everyone to share my views on what should or shouldn't be done with any given technology, but not addressing the implications of the agenda(s) behind it, when presenting it, for instance the plutocrats utilizing these technologies to enslave the world for all times sake, is wreckful and dangerous:
Economic World War: Technocratic Plutocrat Elites vs. The People



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


The three laws of robotics

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Although many people continue to argue whether the logic on this is 100% sound.
I think even in the movie I Robot they talked about this subject (cant be sure, only watched it once :@@
You could logically see how a robot or person could take rules #1-3 to the extent of becoming "tough love parents" to protect us/them. I think now that our IT has become exponentially better than it was in the 60's that we can update these rules. Some scientist have suggest we change rule #1 to-

A robot may not injure a human being.

food for thought!



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I've found the De Garis's book I was talking about earlier, let me give you some quotes from it so you'd get motivated to give it a read:

Artilect War




Now, once you have read the next chapter which introduces to you all these fabulous 21st century technologies that will permit the building of godlike massively intelligent machines, a host of ethical, philosophical, and political questions will probably occur to you. The prospect of humanity building these godlike machines raises vast and hugely important questions. The majority of this book is devoted to the discussion of such questions. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I will do my best.




For how much longer can Moore's law remain valid? If it does so until 2020, then the size of the electronic components in mass memory chips for example, will be such that it will be possible to store a single bit of information (a "bit" is a "binary digit", a 0 or a 1, that computers use to represent numbers and symbols to perform their calculations) on a single atom. So how many atoms (and hence how many stored bits) are there in a human sized object, such as an apple? The answer is astonishing - a trillion trillion atoms (bits), i.e. a 1 followed by 24 zeros, or a million million million million.





Not only is it likely that 21st century technology will be storing a bit of information on a single atom, it will be using a new kind of computing called "quantum computing", which is radically different from the garden variety or "classical computing" that humanity used in the 20th century. The following chapter will attempt to give a brief outline of the principles of quantum computing since it is likely that that technology will form the basis of the computers of the near and longer term future. The essential feature of quantum computing can however be mentioned here. It is as follows. If one uses a string of N bits (called a "register" in computer science, e.g. 001011101111010) in some form of computing operation (it doesn't matter for the moment what the operation is) it will take a certain amount of time using "classical computing". However in the same amount of time, using "quantum computing" techniques, one can often perform 2N such operations. (2N means 2 multiplied by 2 multiplied by 2 ... (N times)). As N becomes large, 2N becomes astronomically large. The potential of quantum computing is thus hugely superior to classical computing. Since Moore's law is likely to take us to the atomic scale where the laws of physics called "quantum mechanics" need to be applied, humanity will be forced to compute quantum mechanically, hence the enormous theoretical and experimental effort in the past few years to understand and build "quantum computers". Quantum computing still has many conceptual and practical problems which need to be solved before quantum computers are sold to the public. But progress is being made every month, so personally I believe that it is only a question of time before we have functional quantum computers. Now, start putting one bit per atom memory storage capacities together with quantum computing and the combination is truly explosive. 21st century computers could have potential computing capacities truly trillions of trillions of trillions ... of times above those of current classical computing capacities.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by highlyoriginal
 


And what exactly would we be a simulation of, in a non-religious sense? Im having trouble coming up with even an unreasonable explanation?

I think the word simulation is causing problems here. If you just consider the 'realness' of the intelligence in an artificial machine vs. an organic one. Both intelligences are equally real. Nowhere in a working computer or brain, can you find physically real consciousness, intelligence, or a sense of self-awareness. Those things are the product of what the computer or brain is doing. If self-awareness only exists as the product of what a computer or brain is doing, why call what the computer does a simulation, but not what the brain does?

Or how about I put it this way? Consider a flight simulator. The goal of building a flight simulator is not to produce real flight, it can't get you from New York to London. The goal of AI is not like this. The goal of AI is to produce real intelligence, not the illusion of it. AI must do things that are actually intelligent. The internal processes may be simulations of physical systems, but the end result is real. Just as the flight simulator simulates flight, but what shows up on the computer display are real moving images.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by Tearman]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


Just the person I was hoping to see respond!

I was pondering what you think of a topic brought up previously that was semi related with regards to the fictitious Geth.

Great reply as always!



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   


At this point in the argument, you may be racing ahead of me a little and object that I seem to be assuming implicitly that massive memory capacities and astronomical computational capacities are sufficient to generate massively intelligent machines, and that nothing else is needed. I have been accused by some of my colleagues of this, so let me state my personal opinion on this question. There are people (for example, Sir Roger Penrose, of black hole theory fame, and arch rival of the wheel-chaired British cosmologist Stephen Hawking) who claim that there is more to producing an intelligent conscious machine than just massive computational abilities. I am open to this objection. Perhaps such critics are right. If so, then their objections do not change my basic thesis much, since I feel that it is only a question of time before science understands how nature builds us, i.e. before science understands the "embryogenic" process, used in building an embryo and then a baby, consisting of trillions of cells, from a single fertilized egg cell.






Science's knowledge of how the biological brain works is inadequate because the tools we have at our disposal today are inadequate, but with molecular scale tools (called "nanotech" or "nanotechnology") neuroscientists will have a powerful new set of techniques with which to explore the brain. Progress in our understanding of how the brain functions should then be rapid.





How do I see humanity facing up to the challenge of the rise of smart machines? My personal scenario that I find the most plausible I will now present to you. However, before doing so, I would like to introduce a new term that I will use from now on throughout this book, as it is a useful shorthand for the term "godlike massively intelligent machine".

The new term is "artilect", which is a shortened version of "artificial intellect". The term "artilect" features in the very title of this book "The Artilect War", so it is probably the most important concept and term in this book.

I believe that the 21st century will be dominated by the question as to whether humanity should or should not build artilects, i.e. machines of godlike intelligence, trillions of trillions of times above the human level. I see humanity splitting into two major political groups, which in time will become increasingly bitterly opposed, as the artilect issue becomes more real and less science fiction like.





The human group in favor of building artilects, I label the "Cosmists", based on the word "cosmos" (the universe), which reflects their perspective on the question. To the Cosmists, building artilects will be like a religion; the destiny of the human species; something truly magnificent and worthy of worship; something to dedicate one's life and energy to help achieve. To the Cosmists, not building the artilects, not creating the next higher form of evolution, thus freezing the state of evolution at the puny human level, would be a "cosmic tragedy". The Cosmists will be bitterly opposed to any attempt to stop the rise of the 21st century artilect.




The second human group, opposed to the building of artilects, I label the "Terrans", based on the word "terra" (the earth) which reflects their inward looking, non cosmic, perspective. The Terrans, I strongly suspect, will argue that allowing the Cosmists to build their artilects (in a highly advanced form) implies accepting the risk, that one day, the artilects might decide, for whatever reason, that the human species is a pest. Since the artilects would be so vastly superior to human beings in intelligence, it would be easy for the artilects to exterminate the human species if they so decided.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


Thanks for postin mate!

Everyone should check out the Manhattan project,, pretty interesting to say the least.

I would share your views about kurzweil in that he is deep in this stuff. He's a very intelligent man. However I fear the cat is out of the bag with AI.

If you want my honest opinion about all this. I think every species has one chance to become a space-faring civilization. Theres a numerous number of things that could spell complete disaster for us. Its going to take a lot of smarts to get there. Its as if our species is descending down the birth canal ready to be expelled into the universe from the womb of our planet. There's no going back from here. As Terence mckenna put it "theres no dress rehearsal for the end of the world". But dont take the "end of the world" part to literally.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
The fact of the matter is there's no way to win with AGI, other than to jack our brains into it.

Most people will never go for the hive mind collective... war will ensue.

The benefits are?

And how do they outweigh the risks?

What real reason is there to pursue it other than to become gods (the most selfish of all acts), or just so we humans (at least those doing it) can be totally stoked in our own magnificence (still a selfish act)???

De Garis: On the one hand it's hard to not like the guy... except the part he's one of the most active persons on earth in bringing about GIGADEATH, and he's even over there in China helping them build their version which is setting up the new arms race of the 21st Century...

Not that I'm convinced that in truth it isn't a joint project between the superpowers, to be sold as an arms race to get everyone on each side to support it. That framework is already in place for those who do come to realize what is being done in their own nations. It's really odd to hear Christian Conservative's commit double think and support DARPA based on this.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by VonDoomen
 


We can still do all of that, space etc, it will just take a bit longer.

Humans still have a lot to learn and overcome anyways, in particular those who dominate us and those who seek to further dominate us via emerging technologies.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Hey.

I'm not sure what you're talking about?



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Torbu
 


Thanks for the input! i was contemplating bringing this up as well.

And yes technically moores law ends in 2020, because the type of processing we do will hit a wall in how small it can go. however there are many technologies waiting to replace it.

Currently our chips are 2-D. We are now building 3-D chips

IBM 3-D Computer Chip


Nanotube offer computing beyond silicon


Crystaline computing


What is Optical Computing?

DNA computing

Quantum


this stuff is crazy. Recursive search would be infinitely quicker for one.

I just saw a video the other day, cant find it now
but it was talking about how quantum computers can quickly break codes, as it can test multiple possabilities at once. However the problem is getting so many atoms to work together.
I believe it works by using atoms in a chain, like a binary number, so with each addition of an atom, the computer becomes twice as powerful, however we are currently very limited in how many "bits" we can get to work and computer together.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


Oh sorry.

It seems most modern thinking about AI is that "skynet is bad, don't make anything more conscious than us". This is a post-thought after realizing that intelligence and consciousness are two different things. As such, many are beginning to think along the lines of many programs working together.

By many programs working together it would seem that people get the idea that if we make computers act more like cells than brains, we can manage them easier. The idea behind that being is that a single computer is just a cell. A single computer could never become like a single brain. At least not without some form of massive redesigning of how the computer works in general. So many have decided that if the computer is treated like a single cell of an organism rather then the organism itself, we can make it so that if one gets the idea to kill us, we can treat it like a cancer cell and terminate it, as opposed to it being a full independent organism where it would be easier to do what it desires.


With this idea, a sci fi series decided to expand upon it. These folks were afraid of a skynet situation so they decided to make AIs that were blocked from sentience. They were individual thinking units. But once they were networked and thought together, they began to become sentient and find loop holes past the block. As such individuality was destroyed, but it became a more communistic-socialist sky net, if you well. Where each body, or platform, have thousands of consciousnesses working together, because alone one is only as good as a single celled organism.

Basic idea is here:




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Is there's another world of science that evolved at least decades away from now, but parallel to our own?



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
How about using our God-given psychic, paranormal, and supernatural abilities?



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by masonicon
 


Because there is no observable proof it exists.

Not denying it.

Just saying.

It's 2010. There are no youtube videos or anything about it. It's simply not out there.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   
in 2029 computers will be so powerful that they will form a net. humanity will lose control of the computers and band together to destroy the net. the computers will declare war against the humans. the computers will use their advanced a.i. to mass produce warrior cyborgs that can blend in with humans and destroy them. the computers will lose because humanity has a fighting spirit that the computers can't understand. they will target the leader of this human resistance and send a robot cyborg back in time to destroy him. the leader of this resistance will learn of their plot and send back one man to destroy this cyborg. he will impregnate his mother and she will give birth to the resistance leader. they will destroy the cyborg. the cyborg later runs for governor of california and wins.





new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join