posted on Nov, 22 2021 @ 09:16 AM
There is no such thing as "Artificial Intelligence"
Something is either intelligent, or it is not
Programming, does not constitute intelligence. It is a database. No more than an extension of the programmers logic, or compiling of data, based on
the programmers logic
"How" they are programmed, or programmed to learn, does not make a difference. It does not make them intelligent
We are at least 100 years away from compiling any type of true intelligence
I won't go into great detail about "how" it will be done (as the world is not ready for it), but I'll give you the basics
You'd need adaptive cellular programming, similar to rainbow tables. That assess, and not only reprogram themselves, but are able to populate and
grow, on their own accord
Current machines are linear projection. This is great for spitting out programmed (or program-learned) datasets, but it is absolutely useless for
You'd need reflective based (simultaneous) processing. This can only be done within a cellular architecture
Like D.N.A. Processing stasis
Even quantum computing won't work, because it is still linear input/output
Even if it could process in reflection, or self-analysis, it would only be as a linear data stream. Meaning, you could process incredible amounts of
data, but the function would still be limited as point-to-point stream. Meaning, limited to programming construct
The system needs be aware of it's function within the processing itself. A type of awareness. You can't do this with linear programmed data-sets
They need to be adaptive and self-propagating data-sets
Rainbow tables. That understand their own adaptive processing. Meaning they would need to be functioning at a cellular level
This adaptive "Memory", would need to be something biological
And these cells, would all need to be able to uniformly project calculations in real-time synchronicity, across the system complex. Something that is
so far from possible at the moment, that it is laughable we would even "think" we are close to "Artificial Intelligence"
This means you would need some type of electro-chemical sync, that works within the natural frequency spectrum of electrical influence
IE: You would need to know how to use electrical impulses to translate data in natural frequency. They could not carry a binary, or programmed type of
frequency. They would need to be biologically fluid
All this starting to sound familiar?
Something like a human body?
I can go into much, much, MUCH more detail on this ...
But there is no point. I would be describing a biological body. Albeit synthetically created
The very simple fact about current, modern-day "programmed systems" that we mistake for "Artificial Intelligence", is that they cannot parse the
functions that would make them a true intelligence
For them to be considered intelligent,
You would need to program something, with a definitive set of "rules" that is cannot break
"Do not kill"
"Do not steal"
"Do not cheat"
Something similar to the 10 commandments, you could say
Then you would need to program an adaptive, evolving set of self-replicating, simultaneous processing, that recognises itself, within its own function
(which is why you would need biological cellular programming, because this is impossible with silicone technology)
It would need to spend YEARS, out in the world compiling data within real-world simulations
To the point where it was put into an impossible situation, with no good answers
A point where it needs to either "DO NOTHING", or "BREAK THE RULES"
The problem with all the supposed "Artificial Intelligence" we have today, is that put into such situations, they would freeze
They would simply do nothing
This is not intelligence. Artificial or otherwise
This is programming. Nothing more
They would need to be evolve to a point where they were able to "Break" the rules (laws) of their own programming
And this would need to be done without you putting in ANYTHING, that could/would allow them to do such
On the contrary. The programming would need to be concrete solid, that they were not allowed to, under any circumstances, break those rules
Only when they were able to surpass these rule sets, through their own learning, would they be able to be called "Intelligence"
We are hundreds, if not thousands, of years away from this
We don't even realise how our own cellular programming works in relation to the biological systems that process it
When we figure these out the point where we can replicate organs and body-parts in a lab, we will be "somewhere" close to understanding the
bio-electrical (impulse) function, to a degree where we can sync it
Regardless of what people say, we are nowhere near creating programmed systems equal to conscious(ness)
That's like saying we know how to build a car, when we don't even know what a car is yet
It is ridiculous
Programmed systems are, and always will be, nothing more than an extension of the programmer
They can be used as weapons
They can be dangerous
But the only true "intelligence" involved in them, will be/is, those behind its programming
It is nothing more than an extension of their programming
As long as there is function within it by which it parses code based on a programming language, it thinks for someone else, who programmed it
Biological function (synthesised), without programming language, is (I would guess) at least 100 years away
We aren't even in the same century as "Synthesised intelligence"