Can People Please Just Stop With The AI Threads!: An Open Competition

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

So if the enviroment programmed people to evolve into sentient beings... why cant we create an artifical envorment with the same propertys?

We could still create HUMAN level artificial intelligence simpley though mimicry of natural evolutionary process in neurological development.

Hang on a minute, your slightly changing the topic there...

Yeah, I reckon we could create mimicry of human intelligence but again, that would simply be a pre-programmed system responding to a set of programmed rules.

reply to post by Death_Kron


then you could say the same thing about teh processes of the human brain?

Do you not understand evolution?

reply to post by roughycannon


Like I said buddy , write me some code that relies on an innumerable amount of external variables that can also take into account emotion, situational awareness, common sense etc . It's impossible..., and even if you did manage - it would still be no representation of the human mind....

As you said an "emulation"

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

then you could say the same thing about teh processes of the human brain?

Do you not understand evolution?

The evolution of the human mind and the evolution of the transistor are two very different things.

Humans created the transistor, not vice versa

We have a problem right there!

First, i disagree with the word "intelligence" or how it is used in in relation (and in comparison) to computers.

What *IS* intelligence?

Because you will also find out that the definition of intelligence is not that clear either - therefore you cannot make a statement that computer intelligence is "impossible, this is a naive and simply minded statement.

Intelligence *can* also be defined as accomplishing tasks fast(er than others)...or pattern recognition etc..etc..

An example would be if we say someone is "intelligent" because he can find and decrypt a code faster than another person.

Now, the kicker here that it is obviously that computers excel in certain fields, they are limited, yes, but they can do their limited things fast. For example, a computer could decode a crypt way faster than a human, etc..etc..from that point of view its legit to say it is in some way "intelligent" IN WHAT IT DOES because it excels in terms of problem solution and speed.

I am saying: The question about "intelligence" is not right here, but it should be about "self awareness"... (yes, it becomes philosophical here!)...because only when an entity/machine would be "self aware" (in a sense) it could decide when and how to solve a problem - INDEPENDENTLY from what is being programmed/told.

As long as a machine is not self aware it cannot do anything else than follow the own program, it will stay dumb (so to speak).

reply to post by Death_Kron


of course i said something. i gave you a hint: learning algorithms. if you would have educated yourself this would have brought up genetic algorithms, evolutionary algorithms and so on. look im no expert at this either, but often enough, i had to listen to endless monologues of someone in the field. often enough to know that the way you perceive AI algorithms, as merely doing what they were programmed to do, as totally off. the whole idea is that these AI exceed what the programmers input was. well you could say the were programmed to exceed, but that is irrelevant. of course learning is just one part of the AI paradigm.

neuron example (part of blue brain project)

//create two sections, the body of the neuron and a very long axon
create soma, axon

soma [
//length is set to 100 micrometers
L = 100
//diameter is set to 100 micrometers
diam = 100
//insert a mechanism simulating the standard squid Hodgkin–Huxley channels
insert hh
//insert a mechanism simulating the passive membrane properties
insert pas
]
axon [
L = 5000
diam = 10
insert hh
insert pas
//the axon shall be simulated using 10 compartments. By default a single compartment is used
nseg = 10
]

//connect the distal end of the soma to the proximal end of the axon
connect soma(1), axon(0)

//declare and insert a current clamp into the middle of the soma
objref stim
soma stim = new IClamp(0.5)

//define some parameters of the stimulus: delay, duration (both in ms) and amplitude (in nA)
stim.del = 10
stim.dur = 5
stim.amp = 10

//load a default NEURON library file that defines the run routine
load_file("stdrun.hoc")
//set the simulation to run for 50 ms
tstop = 50

//run the simulation
run()

if i get to it, ill ask for the algorithm you challenged to provide. now its too late here (soon 2am)

reply to post by CriticalCK




Your missing my point entirely again, who created said code to tell the puter what to do?

I believe the theoretical problem lies in the fact that humans are , IMO, more like an organism. In fact most animals are. They are more efficient in groups because it allows the luxury of specializing in some field or another. Each member can focus their energy towards learning and possibly mastering one, or even a couple of "jobs".

So theoretically, A singular AI could be smarter than a singular human, but I doubt smarter than humanity. It woould take a similarly large group of AIs, that were somehow interdependent on others to achieve anything close to being as intelligent as humanity.

So each AI would have to be programmed with an intentional omittion in their "brain", and they intelligence to know, what they know vs. What they do not know. And the desire to seek out others that fill the voids they would need to survive.

reply to post by Death_Kron


Biology has inspiried techological advancements before...

Just because biological evolution creates something... doesnt make it the best... or impossible to replicate.

"people made the transistor not the other way around" sigh..... you obviously have an alterior motive and starting to sould like a creationist.....

reply to post by flexy123


Incorrect, completing a task faster than someone else is defined as being more efficient.

Not more intelligent

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by roughycannon

 

Like I said buddy

, write me some code that relies on an innumerable amount of external variables that can also take into account emotion, situational awareness, common sense etc . It's impossible..., and even if you did manage - it would still be no representation of the human mind....

As you said an "emulation"

edit on 18/8/11 by Death_Kron because: (no reason given)

What the hell are you going on about?

"external variable"

That doesn't even make sense...

A variable in a program is something that can change within the program itself or be "set" by the program.

A variable outside the program is something that can only change within the code that generates it. The code that's observing the variable cant change the variable itself.

Are you drunk or something?

Originally posted by roughycannon
What the hell are you going on about?

"external variable"

That doesn't even make sense...

A variable in a program is something that can change within the program itself or be "set" by the program.

A variable outside the program is something that can only change within the code that generates it. The code that's observing the variable cant change the variable itself.

Are you drunk or something?

Oh the Irony.....

Exactly my point, so in life if you see something you can change it, correct?

In a program, you cannot, because it's pre-programmed as a variable so subject to limitations by it's coding.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by roughycannon

 

Like I said buddy

, write me some code that relies on an innumerable amount of external variables that can also take into account emotion, situational awareness, common sense etc . It's impossible..., and even if you did manage - it would still be no representation of the human mind....

As you said an "emulation"

edit on 18/8/11 by Death_Kron because: (no reason given)

You will have some difficulties here to emulate the human mind as long as we dont even know HOW the human mind works? Is it simply mechanistic....a brain and some firing neurons? Is the brain only a receiver for a reality or does it generate it? Etc..etc...

The point is, you cant answer that, neither can i....so its unlikely we are at a point to emulate a brain/mind, even remotely. (Dont forget that humans etc. are also not "logical", often emotional etc..etc..things which are in contrast to a mechanistic MACHINE. In other words: If we were to emulate a real, working mind..we would also need to expect mood swings and similar....likely..)
(

Originally posted by roughycannon
The code that's observing the variable cant change the variable itself.

On that note, it will never be autonomous or intelligent then, just limited to it's programming...

Originally posted by flexy123
You will have some difficulties here to emulate the human mind as long as we dont even know HOW the human mind works? Is it simply mechanistic....a brain and some firing neurons? Is the brain only a receiver for a reality or does it generate it? Etc..etc...

The point is, you cant answer that, neither can i....so its unlikely we are at a point to emulate a brain/mind, even remotely. (Dont forget that humans etc. are also not "logical", often emotional etc..etc..things which are in contrast to a mechanistic MACHINE. In other words: If we were to emulate a real, working mind..we would also need to expect mood swings and similar....likely..)
(

Which in all honest only strengthens my argument and purpose of this thread, we are nowhere near creating intelligent AI design's, I don't really want to argue about the technicalities, although I enjoy the discussion, I've just seen too many replies recently talking about robots etc

reply to post by Death_Kron


video.google.com...#

take a listen to this see if you can understand it.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by flexy123

 

Incorrect, completing a task faster than someone else is defined as being more efficient.

Not more intelligent

edit on 18/8/11 by Death_Kron because: spelling again

uhm..i disagree. So you give a bunch of people those standard intelligence tests - some of them cant solve them because they would need many hours..while others solve the tests in 10 min....and you are saying those people are simply "more efficient".

Salving tasks more efficient IS part of intelligence, IMO.

Originally posted by flexy123
uhm..i disagree. So you give a bunch of people those standard intelligence tests - some of them cant solve them because they would need many hours..while others solve the tests in 10 min....and you are saying those people are simply "more efficient".

Salving tasks more efficient IS part of intelligence, IMO.

edit on 18-8-2011 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)

Incorrect.

There are different types of intelligence, just like there are different types of memory, it doesn't necessarily mean in the grand shape of things you are smarter than someone, you may simply have a better trait.

Speed doe's not equal everything, ask an old Tai Chi master for a scrap and you'll see what I mean.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

video.google.com...#

take a listen to this see if you can understand it.

edit on 18-8-2011 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

Not got the time now mate, but I will watch tomorrow.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by CriticalCK

 

Your missing my point entirely again, who created said code to tell the puter what to do?

the code to learn had to be created, the subsequent codes that tell the bluebrain what to do are created by the neuron code itself. at this point the utility concept comes into play.