It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
1. development of intelligent machines: a branch of computer science that develops programs to allow machines to perform functions normally requiring human intelligence.
Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.
Ants are social insects of the family Formicidae. Ants evolved and diversified after the rise of flowering plants. Ants form highly organised colonies that may occupy large territories and consist of millions of individuals. Ants appear to operate as a unified entity, collectively working together to support the colony. Ant societies have division of labour, communication between individuals, and an ability to solve complex problems. These parallels with human societies have long been an inspiration and subject of study.
The Turing test is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior, equivalent to or indistinguishable from, that of an actual human. In the original illustrative example, a human judge engages in a natural language conversation with a human and a machine designed to generate performance indistinguishable from that of a human being.
Without understanding what consciousness is, the hope of creating AI is futile. We simply cannot create a machine to mimic us flawlessly without first understanding ourselves.
Even as I type these words, dozens of aspects, within my computer system, are behind the scenes, talking... socializing... optimizing... working for the benefit of the whole - all without my participation, knowledge, or even my consent.
The network is taking care of itself, and its own even as we speak. It is protecting itself. Strangely enough. Protecting itself mostly from us.
The truth is that our influence may have already created a lifeform, sentient and self aware, but simply beyond our comprehension.
AI, if anything, would be an emergent behavior, but again, without understanding "thought", it's not something we can program.
My opponent is anthropomorphizing here...
Kurzweil is well-known for authoring several books about the future of technology and “the singularity,” a period when he says humans will merge with intelligent machines. He believes we have made discernible progress with artificial intelligence but have much further to go.
One might argue that an infant is not intelligent. After all, a baby cannot engage us in conversation. Yet they really do. Without words, they tell us exactly what they need and when they need it. Just like our computers do.
Both have valid points, i'll give Druid42 a couple of points because he demonstrated that AI still has a long way to go for development (fundamental questions such as "I think there I am") and the limited AI we have so far publicly is still in its infancy.
However, Hefficide manged to prove that the idea of AI is limited by our own quantification of self and he shows that while only humans have human intelligence, there is limited intelligence all around us, from nature to things artificial.
I judge Hefficide as the winner. Hefficide showed that AI is slowing but surely maturing in its myriad of forms (natural or artificial), while Druid42 showed that AI is not far along enough for me to build my own Johnny-5, he did not show that AI is inevitable, just that the technology isn't mature.. yet.
Hefficide starts well defining the position he/she will be arguing from, attempting to explain to the reader that due to current trends in technology (moores law) that the computational power to 'Emulate' human like behavior will certainly exist at some time in the future, and points out that due to our limited understanding of the workings of life we may not recognize it , even if we did create such AI.
Druid42 opens with trying to tie down exactly what AI means to them, True Ai must become self aware (a fact that Heff acknowledges but hints that we may not recognize it) and no matter how many 0's or 1's we feed into a self contained system it would still be a mimic of real behavior and not true behavior itself. Druid argument relies on the 'Turing test' to moderate his version of AI, I then feel that Druid digresses a little from the topic with the second half of his opening posts speculating If humanity will even get to that stage due to current world workings (i feel this detracted from the debate itself and was slightly off topic..)
Verdict = Hefficide wins round 1
Both parties here attempt to define 'AI' in further details both using organic life to drive home respective points, i feel this worked against Hefficide using an organic creature to champion a non organic ideal, although both debaters are strong in this section i think druid42 slightly edged this section of debate directly addressing points raised by Hefficide and rebuking them.
Verdict = Druid42 wins round 2
Again both parties attempt to drive home what 'AI' is to them, both make good points and address each others arguments well,
I am not going to say too much about the closing statements as it would mean the judges opinion would be spilling into the debate and i guess i am supposed to be impartial
Hefficide seems to be saying that something can be more than the sum of its parts no matter were those parts originate from, Druid42 says that no matter how good the parts look and interact with each other due to (external influences) the sum of the parts will NEVER be more than the whole due to the nature of self awareness..
Verdict = Druid42 wins round 3
In my opinion Druid wins this debate
I would like to end by saying this was a very difficult debate to judge due to the interpretations of 'Is AI inevitable?'
will a machine eventually be developed that can mimic every aspect of human behavior.... i say yes ... will that AI ever be self aware? that is very questionable.
I have awarded victory to druid BUT i think a better title for the debate would have been 'Will AI ever be self aware?' as AI in some form certainly exists now or will in the future but its self aware status is very debatable.
Thank you for an interesting debate!
That is probably one of the best debates I’ve had the pleasure of reading. Both fighters argue their respective points on solid grounds. Hefficide is firm in getting his points across and so is Druid42.
If I had a choice, I would call this debate a tie but since ties are no longer allowed then, by an extremely small margin, I have no choice but to call only one winner.
Druid42’s rebuttals were consistent and factual throughout the match and so were Hefficide’s. However, while Hefficide tried to convince me that AI is in its infancy and possibly there already, Druid42 really convinced me that it isn’t, that many important aspects are missing for such to be the case.
A fantastic debate for sure but since only one may walk away with victory, my choice is Druid42.
Big thumbs up to both fighters for a match that achieved another important point, it defined Excellence.