The Future Is Coming P4: Artificial Intelligence

page: 7
69
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
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.


If you had read and followed every link in the OP you would know how wrong you are about each and every point. Just a random thought ...

Just for starters: if you've ever experienced a computer crash you would know that 1. isn't true.




posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by SarK0Y
 


I should get back on topic.

You took what I said out of context. What I was REALLY trying to get at with the change is computational ability will show more progress from 2000-2020 than 1900-1999.

And either way you look at it, there is more research and development per day in this century, than last century.

my friend, i guess, you'll be agreed with me: we've gotten stagnancy with silicon cpu's & when that wall will be breached through is no so clear. new breathes are just conceptions in the labs & very far from actual solutions for industrial scale.



The most psychopathic among us are the most driven. The most driven are the most likely to be successful. This is all that is necessary to explain the current world we live in. - ATS user, Son Of Will

just a offtopus: i like your signature -- that's so truly & certainly



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a.i. is impossible, because every action of the computer must manually be inputed into its program via code. if a + b then c happens. it would appear intelligent but every answer to every question would be a predetermined response stored in its database. it would just sit there into a set of variables presents itself for it to respond. it wouldn't say goodmornig to you because it is happy to see you, it would say good morning because facial recogn. programs identified you and it responded.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Life is an if,then statement.

That's the simplest term that comes down to action and reaction. Intelligence is just logic on how to deal with the action.

When you look at human intelligence, the majority of decisions is based off of knowledge that we have acquired from our experiences. Software has been shown to very easily make decisions based off of past experience or being told what to do.

The only thing that software can't do yet is have artificial imagination, eg; thinking outside the box. This can be simulated by adding random actions to try to change the outcome of a situation, but there will be a point where we won't know what is simulated and what is actually real.

Once computers start improving themselves, the breakthroughs in ALL areas of science will be mindnumbing. There will be setbacks and bad things will happen, but we already have horrifying things happening in the world that wouldn't happen if we had solutions for simple problems like not enough clean water, power, or food and diseases that shorten our lives and make them harder to live.

I suspect that AI will even have solutions to problems that we haven't even identified yet. Social issues and even spiritual questions that we've wondered will probably be tackled by AI.

Wouldn't it be funny if AI was able to put to bed the debate on if God exists? I can see why some people are scared about that...



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
a.i. is impossible, because every action of the computer must manually be inputed into its program via code. if a + b then c happens. it would appear intelligent but every answer to every question would be a predetermined response stored in its database. it would just sit there into a set of variables presents itself for it to respond. it wouldn't say goodmornig to you because it is happy to see you, it would say good morning because facial recogn. programs identified you and it responded.

prime problem for a.i. is methods to educate it. to make educational process very effective, we can gear machine with devices to hear, to see, to feel, to smell, to taste.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by Tearman
 


It is still to be determined what the basis of human consciousness is, wether it be spiritual, material, or a combination of both...
I don't think this is really true.


Originally posted by VonDoomen
conscious/self aware - aware of the fact that you are conscious
I can't find meaning in this defintion.


Originally posted by old_god
I believe we will witness the birth of a new consciousness but it will not be human or "human-like" and until people get this misconception out of their head they will not see the possibilities.
[edit on 27-8-2010 by old_god]
Yes. Exactly!


Originally posted by VonDoomen
Let me ask you, what is the difference between an intelligent entity and a simulation of that entity?
Nothing. A difference that makes no difference is no difference.


[edit on 27-8-2010 by Tearman]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
a.i. is impossible, because every action of the computer must manually be inputed into its program via code. if a + b then c happens. it would appear intelligent but every answer to every question would be a predetermined response stored in its database. it would just sit there into a set of variables presents itself for it to respond. it wouldn't say goodmornig to you because it is happy to see you, it would say good morning because facial recogn. programs identified you and it responded.
No way. there are already many kinds of computer programs that are capable of learning on their own. As for happiness, a) how do you know that humans are happy when they say good morning to you? b) Why should this be a measure of intelligence?



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by Arrowmancer
 



I would have to disagree in that humor and emotions do not follow rules to some extent.

Humor for example, is surprise at an illogical piece of information. Which would mean one would have to understand between whats logical and not. Humor can also be the use of words with double meanings, which would also require some sort of logic to understand.

Emotions are very logical wether we want to admit it or not. That doesnt mean some people arent immature and their emotions are "illogical" in that sense. But emotions are used for very specific purposes and reasons. And there is a lot of ambiguity, we may not be able to codify every human trait, but it doesnt mean a simulation of one couldnt be evolved!


I think I'm more stunned by the fact that you laid out your counter logically and concisely than the fact that you've responded to every poster.

Honestly, this is the way ATS should be. I feel like I'm in a sitting in my den talking shop with an old friend. If I say nothing more in this thread, let it be that I've enjoyed the play between ATS members here and the intelligence displayed on the topic. Thank you, Von, for being a gracious host.

Now, pleasantries aside:

Humans can create rules on anything. We can define anything any way we want to. While you can define humor, triggers, and predict responses, accuracy can't be obtained to any degree. Humor isn't always a reaction to something illogical. Sometimes it's a reaction to what is logical, and sometimes, depending on your mental wiring, a reaction so far different from everyone else's based on triggers that would mortify most people, that it wouldn't fit within the scope of your definition of humor.

Humor and emotions can only be defined in the sense of the individual. There are things that make a lot of people laugh, would make a lot of people cry, but nothing that can make everyone do so.

Humor cannot be replicated. Neither can emotions. The appearance of such can be programmed. IE: A computer without the resources to solve a problem would show a frowny-face. I, in turn, would find that funny. And if I had the computer's problems of lacking resources, I would find it frustrating and possibly display my own frown. Instead of allocating more resources, I'd try to redifine the way in which I'm working the problem so that I might solve it accurately using less resources.

Through programming AI might be able to achieve a limited version of this. Giving a computer the ability to re-write it's own code would be pointless as it would still be constrained by it's original code. Even if it had the ability, a computer couldn't rewrite itself to display sympathy, empathy, or initiative among other things.

Our emotions are built on the things we've learned in life. I am right in there with you in thinking that humans are programmed to an extent. But the magic of our minds is that, at some point, we decide to rewrite our code so that we might better be suited for our situations or to improve the situations we're already in.

This conversation is thoroughly enjoyable and can branch into every possible field. Genetic programming and memory, computer-to-human comparisons, the possiblity of creating true intelligence artificially.

But again, intelligence can only be defined in the sense of the individual. It is but a word that means different things to different people. You can give a computer knowledge, but what good is it without the will to use it for a purpose? You can load it with all the data you want, but without emotion such as ambition, greed, love, it would be pointless.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
a.i. is impossible, because every action of the computer must manually be inputed into its program via code. if a + b then c happens. it would appear intelligent but every answer to every question would be a predetermined response stored in its database. it would just sit there into a set of variables presents itself for it to respond. it wouldn't say goodmornig to you because it is happy to see you, it would say good morning because facial recogn. programs identified you and it responded.


It beats me how you can post without reading the OP? Everything you state was probably true for the '80s. We're in freakin' 2010, and AI has made leaps. (I say "probably" because "black projects" have been using AI much longer than publicly acknowledged.)



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by grahag
 


Yes. Music critics have given rave reviews to computer-generated compositions without knowing about the composition's origin.

Actually, that tells you everything you need to know about music critics



[edit on 27-8-2010 by AllIsOne]
edit: speeling

[edit on 27-8-2010 by AllIsOne]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tearman

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by Tearman
 


It is still to be determined what the basis of human consciousness is, wether it be spiritual, material, or a combination of both...
I don't think this is really true.


Originally posted by VonDoomen
conscious/self aware - aware of the fact that you are conscious
I can't find meaning in this defintion.


Originally posted by old_god
I believe we will witness the birth of a new consciousness but it will not be human or "human-like" and until people get this misconception out of their head they will not see the possibilities.
[edit on 27-8-2010 by old_god]
Yes. Exactly!


Originally posted by VonDoomen
Let me ask you, what is the difference between an intelligent entity and a simulation of that entity?
Nothing. A difference that makes no difference is no difference.


[edit on 27-8-2010 by Tearman]


Please define "consciousness" and "intelligence". Without a proper definition of what you think it is we might not be talking about the same thing. And I don't want to say something that I will later regret ... LOL.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Arrowmancer
 





You can load it with all the data you want, but without emotion such as ambition, greed, love, it would be pointless.


So a super computer crunching data to find a cure for cancer would be pointless?



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 

I've been thinking about the definitions of intelligence and to a lesser extent, consciousness, all day long. I don't think common definitions for these things exist.

I'm going to bring up an idea that will probably sound totally ludicrous. Maybe intelligence doesn't exist. And that is going to seem even more ludicrous because I'm not prepared to elaborate on why I'm considering the possibility. Maybe another time. All I can say with certainty is that the entire subject of intelligence is deeply confounding, and that we are in need of concrete definitions. Even researchers deeply invested in the field of AI research don't seem to offer a common, clear definition of intelligence. That has got to make their jobs more difficult than they otherwise would be.


[edit on 28-8-2010 by Tearman]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Tearman
 


1. Do you have any proof of just what the human consciousness is?
As far as I know, the question is still to be determined. So that is why i brought up the different possibilities.

2. On the definition of conscious/self aware.
When I checked the dictionary, it used both words interchangeably, so I put them together. If I could expand on them, in terms of AI

Conscious- aware of, interacting with external sensory input.
self-aware- aware of yourself and a sense of internal input.


I think there is a difference. You know that feeling when you immerse yourself in your work, and lose track of time. Its almost as if we momentarily lose our sense of self awareness.

Its interesting, but most people would agree that there is two parts to the human mind, the conscious, and the sub-conscious.
Now if you read the whole OP you will notice It never mentioned anything about replicating a sub-conscious. And yet many people in this thread are equating the AI mind to be an exact replica of its human model.

3. Let me ask you, what is the difference between an intelligent entity and a simulation of that entity?

"Nothing. A difference that makes no difference is no difference."

Did you really say that?

Obviously there is a difference if I have to add the word "simulation" to it. And like i said, the difference is very subtle.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
my five cents about Conscience's Nature: it's just program to respond to the outer/inner info, that program is being created by Personal Experience along whole life. each of humans has some prime programs: to save integrity of own mental & physical state; to get delight... Prime Programs configure stimuluses to make/do something, PP is software to create Conscience. most curious moment is, PP & C can have collisions to rewrite each other.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Tearman
 


You hit the nail on the head my friend!



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


This is a good angle, I wanted to thank you for bringing it up. Like AI, this issue has a couple of ethical and legal ramifications, but it is an interesting debate.

the problem with the human race is that, we're all evolving at different speeds. It is unfortunate that we basically have to cater to the lowest common denominator.

Obviously there is a secret-side to our government. And more than likely they are suppressing certain technologies. However, some people really couldn't handle the ability these technologies provide, whether through ignorance, or immaturity.

Imagine if average consumers could buy "self-replicating nanotech" tinkering kits. Thats just asking for trouble right?

One thing I can say with certainty is, It would be nice if humanity got its butt in gear.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 



Quantum entanglement? Nope. If there is a soul it is not physical nor measurable on any scale. If we did do like I said and had each cell from the scan be replicated with a program doing the function of the cell, I feel the thing would have a soul by the mercy of God. But that's religious. Is it related? No idea.

Indeed the patterns and make up of the neurons in whole make the person. After all, Einstein had parts of his brain missing, allowing more direct neuron conversation, without those pesky wrinkles getting in the way. I'd imagine if we were to design the perfect brain, it would not have wrinkles, but rather holes. And the neurons would be in perfect octagonal or Hexagonal placement. With "neuron superhighways" in a gird formation between different sections.


One thing i have heard postulated is that there is a whole class of physics that is beyond our capabilities of observing. Its possible there is a class of particles that operates faster than light or in a "higher dimension". We have still to understand what makes up reality, and many theories, such as dark energy for example, say there is a side to the universe we cant really interact. Or atleast only in sublte ways we havent figured out. Its also possible that this higher dimensional system has a subtle effect on our material universe. I know what I'm saying isn't going to be accepted by everyone, but it is still a possibility to explore.

Im glad for bringing up Einsteins brain. It is interesting to see what is capable of our savants. And i would agree they are more than likely utilizing somewhat unique abilities in their brain.

However, what I proposed is that we could be some type of system that interacts with the brain. Havent we all noticed that? We are the ones who decides what behaviors and patterns (or algorithms) to pursue to discontinue. Isn't our whole life about organizing our brains and beliefs and intelligence? well who is the decider? who is the systems engineer?



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Arrowmancer
 




Humans can create rules on anything. We can define anything any way we want to. While you can define humor, triggers, and predict responses, accuracy can't be obtained to any degree. Humor isn't always a reaction to something illogical. Sometimes it's a reaction to what is logical, and sometimes, depending on your mental wiring, a reaction so far different from everyone else's based on triggers that would mortify most people, that it wouldn't fit within the scope of your definition of humor.


Humor cannot be replicated. Neither can emotions. The appearance of such can be programmed. IE: A computer without the resources to solve a problem would show a frowny-face. I, in turn, would find that funny. And if I had the computer's problems of lacking resources, I would find it frustrating and possibly display my own frown. Instead of allocating more resources, I'd try to redifine the way in which I'm working the problem so that I might solve it accurately using less resources.

Through programming AI might be able to achieve a limited version of this. Giving a computer the ability to re-write it's own code would be pointless as it would still be constrained by it's original code. Even if it had the ability, a computer couldn't rewrite itself to display sympathy, empathy, or initiative among other things.

Our emotions are built on the things we've learned in life. I am right in there with you in thinking that humans are programmed to an extent. But the magic of our minds is that, at some point, we decide to rewrite our code so that we might better be suited for our situations or to improve the situations we're already in.

This conversation is thoroughly enjoyable and can branch into every possible field. Genetic programming and memory, computer-to-human comparisons, the possiblity of creating true intelligence artificially.

But again, intelligence can only be defined in the sense of the individual. It is but a word that means different things to different people. You can give a computer knowledge, but what good is it without the will to use it for a purpose? You can load it with all the data you want, but without emotion such as ambition, greed, love, it would be pointless.



Well I guess we see eye to eye on some issues.

Yes I provided only 2 examples of general humor. Of course there are many more. These systems will be more of an AVG of humanity IMO. I think we agree that the end product is a simulation, and not 100% accurate.

However I do feel that AI will be able to cope with humor and other emotions. In the OP i explain how by using neural nets and evolution, the machines will continuously hone themselves towards us. However, since humans are always creating and updating, it will be a somewhat continual process.

Also, if we were to allow evolution in our coding for long long times, we could get something surprisingly close IMO



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by VonDoomen
 


Bigfatfurytexan brought that up once. The separation between the brain and mind. He says that's the proof of the soul. I for one have been doing this for some time. I divided the two young. Reason being is that when I was young I got an allergic reaction to aspartame that effectively damaged by nervous system and brain. I could not say one word, I had to repeat it. I had to touch things more than once. Always even. Tics and twitches and infinite loop errors for the brain. It was in my youth I discovered the mightiest of questions: WHY?. Why did I have to do these things my brain told me to do? And so by asking that question I divided what was my brain and what was my mind. Some time later I gained control of my brain and told it to stop. That I was not going to listen to its retarded orders anymore. That it was not going to control me. I was going to control it. When under stress or problems it occasionally comes back. To this day I cannot directly interact with my mental images. If I try to imagine myself standing, and then zoom out to space, the file "corrupts". It becomes impossible. The world bounces out of view and the brain goes haywire. Only if I truly force it does my brain listen. Since then I've been experientially growing in control and organization of the brain. My brain, as somebody once put it, is goo and everywhere. I've broken the bowl. I have to put limits on this blob and re imagine what the bowl is. For instance, with the aforementioned zoom out attempt, I basically just layer what I want over it, like in photoshop, and the my brain forgets about the error and is forced to do what I want.

I already treat my brain as an AI. I see no reason why A second one hooked up by man would be any more difficult to control.

[edit on 29-8-2010 by Gorman91]





top topics
 
69
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join