Technology and the Singularity (VIDEO)

reply to post by Mr Mask

Tho I don't know what exactly you mean by this. It does remind me of the many folks who always say- "I dunno why you think of these subjects, its not like anyone will ever know".

All computers will ever be able to do is execute the next instruction. In the form of code these instructions (if, then, or, next) are written by programmers. It doesn't matter how many options a machine has to choose from, the choices are written for it to select from. It is not aware of these choices as you or I would be, just running down the list like a calculator. Fancy calculators have more options, not more awareness.

Life and sentience are altogether different. I know what my name is. I know that I am alive. A computer will never know it is alive, will never know that it knows. Even if it has been programmed to respond like it does, it doesn't.

ETA: "It doesn't get mad, it doesn't get sad... it just runs programs". From the Movie "Short Circuit".

reply to post by intrptr


Tho I have heard the same argument from some very intelligent minds in the computer field, and understand why they think this...I still must say that I do not agree.

As far as I can consider, there is absolutely nothing magical about the human brain's makeup, and if it can be duplicated through technology, than it can be self aware.

I'm not saying you are wrong, that's for sure...but I can't accept anyone saying it is impossible 100%. I'd go as far as to assume it is actually very likely that we achieve this.

Like I said, the human mind exists. It is physical. It is created. Then I assume it can be recreated.

If nature (rocks floating in a void) can build technology that is self aware out of carbon...then we should be able to create one out of computers.

That is of course assuming that "chance" made us. The only thing that I can consider making this impossible is if we are created by an intelligence that will not allow us to recreate intelligence.

If "magic" or divinity created us...then yes, we may not be able to do it.

But if natural chance built us out of atoms...then we can do it as well, I'd guess.

In fact, we have made leaps and bounds in the last year alone leading many to think its not that far away.

MM

Originally posted by Mr Mask
reply to post by intrptr

 

If "magic" or divinity created us...then yes, we may not be able to do it.

But if natural chance built us out of atoms...then we can do it as well, I'd guess.

Mr Mask,

If it was my decision to allocate funds for research,
I find this thesis to be worth investigation.
Worth funding, in institutional speak.


Mike Grouchy

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Mr Mask,

If it was my decision to allocate funds for research,
I find this thesis to be worth investigation.
Worth funding, in institutional speak.

Mike Grouchy

LOL! Awesome...I'll take 3 million in cash for now, and demand more when I get Steven Greer on my team.

But seriously, I do think if nature (if it is mindless and chance driven) can build awareness accidently, then intelligent folks with enough time and technology can do so as well.

That has always been my argument...if we are a simple outcome of rocks floating around in a void, banging into each other and mixing with chemicals and whatnot...than the creation of a brain can't be impossible for intelligent beings to recreate. Just makes sense in my mind.

BUT...I do allow for a creator...and I do think that if there is one, it "may" be impossible to create self aware machines.

But ya...if we are nature's accident...then we should be able to recreate it intentionally.

MM

reply to post by Mr Mask

Tho I have heard the same argument from some very intelligent minds in the computer field, and understand why they think this...I still must say that I do not agree.

Thats cool. They have yet to produce one though. Kind of hard to disagree with the notion that they will. I been waiting for a long time. Back when I was in computers, the notion raged just as much. Here we are decades later with all our increased "complexity" and they are still aren't any where near a real life form. That is what you are implying, right? Sort of a Frakenstein's monster?

"Its Alive!"

Let me know when it does appear, I want to talk to it.

reply to post by intrptr


Well lets be honest, computers are 40 years old- 60 if you accept vacuum tubing. There is no reason to assume within any of our lifetimes that the evolution of computers is slow or going nowhere fast.

But ya, I hear ya. I can't promise anything nor is there any sign of a A.I "right around the corner".

But seeing how computer technology doubles so quickly every other year, there is no reason to just out right assume its not going to explode into something far more complex than expected by the average guy/gal.

Its a fun ride anyway you look at it.

Boop boop beep boop!

MM

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

Everyone is allowed their point of view.

Computers will never know that they know.

But they may be able to convince us that they know they know. They may be able to convince us they have feelings and emotions

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

Everyone is allowed their point of view.

Computers will never know that they know.

But they may be able to convince us that they know they know. They may be able to convince us they have feelings and emotions

Exactly. I argue that when people say "computers will never fully be self aware". I suggest that they may fool themselves (and us) that they are. And in all actuality, it is very possible that we are doing the same with ourselves.

I mean...imagine meeting an advanced intelligence that tries to explain we are not even self aware, that we are some ATARI version of consciousness, while they are the DEEPBLUE of sentient beings.

Just a thought.

MM

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

Everyone is allowed their point of view.

Computers will never know that they know.

But they may be able to convince us that they know they know. They may be able to convince us they have feelings and emotions

If they do, it will be because programmers made them appear that way.

They are working on that, the perfect "robot". The difficulty encountered is pre programming every single scenario and response to it that may occur during operation. In this case the robot is limited by the mind of the engineer(s). Have you ever noticed the difference between menus on remotes or microwaves, for instance? You are dependent on how smart the programmer was when he wrote the code for the "on screen" displays. It would be the same for any machine "mind".

More human than human.

If you ever encounter what you think is a "real robot" ask it, "How do you know that you know?" That should send it spinning.

reply to post by Mr Mask

I mean...imagine meeting an advanced intelligence that tries to explain we are not even self aware,

But you know that argument is BS. I hope? You are not you? If you ever buy that, then you do indeed become someone else's robot.

reply to post by Mr Mask

But seeing how computer technology doubles so quickly every other year,

The only thing advancing about computers is speed, storage, and size.

They are faster, have larger memory and are getting smaller. Just because I can store all the knowledge of mankind on a postage stamp and speak to it, doesn't make it any more "aware". Its still just a really deep electric book.

I liken the suggestion that we can invent something beyond "A.I" with the tools we have at hand a stretch of the imagination. Like saying, Okay we are going to launch a rocket to explore the Universe... or swim across the Pacific Ocean in a bathing suit. Without some Shazam type magical advances in out current technology, we are hopelessly stuck pondering the what if-?

Have you ever stopped to wonder that these aware beings already exist?

Us...

Here we are; the most intelligent, aware, self healing, self replicating 'computers' in the viewable cosmos. If you want to reinvent or mimic the human genome, you are going to have to start with trying to decipher that. At best all we will be able to do is sorta copy it. You want to know who the really intelligent designers and programmers are, show me the inventors of life.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

I mean...imagine meeting an advanced intelligence that tries to explain we are not even self aware,

But you know that argument is BS. I hope? You are not you? If you ever buy that, then you do indeed become someone else's robot.

No, not at all. In fact, I think it is very easy to overlook the limitations of our own awareness, but nonetheless, it is a very "limited" thing. Sure, we may think it isn't, and that we are the end-all "awareness machines". But "awareness" is defined as a human's or an animal's perception and cognitive reaction to a condition or event. It is limited to the biological hardware of the mind. The human's ability of "thinking" remains in the realms of the three dimensional.

If a computer intelligence was to achieve super intelligence, or an advanced biological being were to think above our awareness levels...then yes...our "consciousness" would pale in comparison.

I don't see how you can think "that's" BS...many astrobiologists have pointed towards this possibility as very likely. A dog prolly thinks it is at the "peek" of awareness...or at least is unaware of any possibility above it.

We are not likely to be very aware. We see little levels of what is around us. Slivers of light. Bits of time. Echos of reality. Yes...I do think it is far from BS that we are not that conscious.

MM

reply to post by intrptr


As to everything you have said about machines being unable to ever become aware or conscious. I've admitted you may be right...but I think you are wrong.

And there are very bright and educated people who are both convinced and funded in thinking that A.I is well on its way.

You say that computers are limited and can't perform creative thoughts, and can only produce data they are programmed to produce. And that is not actually "overly correct", but I know what you mean and I won't argue it.

All's I will say, is that many computer engineers and experts (and theoretical physicist and astrobiologists) assume that computers can, and will, achieve consciousness.

Arguing that it is 100% impossible, in my view, is silly. One would argue that rocks floating in a void couldn't produce intelligent beings typing to each other on ATS...but here we are.

I am not saying you are wrong...But I am saying you are taking a stance that is not 100% proven correct.

Computers process data. We ARE computers. Unless you want to say we are magical or divine (and I don't dispute that or anything). If we are natural creatures of natural events...then yes...we can create thinking machines.

Because that would mean a mindless set of chances can create it out of nothing but unguided carbon and time.

If we are not creations of a God or super intelligence that is outside of our physical realm...then we should be able to study, understand, and recreate the biological machine known as the "human brain".

In fact, though you say there has been no leaps in discovery outside doubling of size (smaller) and speed (processing) - there has been giant leaps in the field.

We have thus far in 2013 alone, achieved new and exciting technological milestones that have made headlines and caused many leading A.I-supports to gain more hope and excitement.

Such as DEEP THINKING- With massive amounts of computational power, machines can now recognize objects and translate speech in real time. Artificial intelligence is finally getting smart.

You say a computer can only do what it is programmed or told to do. Though there is multitudes of reasons to say that is not a solid conclusion...I will only share one that has actually achieved this already, proving your idea wrong.

I hand you the recent "Purring test" ( title pun of the Turning test) by Google X Labs.

Purri ng Test actually works.

And Id like to quote a bit from that article.

But what’s most fascinating about the study is that the researchers didn’t actually tell the computers to look for cat faces. The machines started doing that on their own.

Now the results and the study are very telling of future possibilities. Weather you agree or not...people much more in the know than either of us are willing to say this is a step in the direction of creating real intelligence.

When I was a boy, real computers were less than 15 years old. Not long before I was born, there was no computer on the face of the earth.

Here we are now.

I wouldn't bet for or against anything. We are in the middle of a blink of the eye. And things are rapidly changing.

MM

Originally posted by intrptr

If you ever encounter what you think is a "real robot" ask it, "How do you know that you know?" That should send it spinning.

I enjoy your side of the debate and the polite nature of your reasoning within it. So...take no offense when I accept your challenge by asking you, and anyone-

"How do you know that you know?"

Tell me if you are spinning...I assume not. Most machines do not spin when confronted with logic problems they are not programmed to perform.

MM

I think you'll be surprised just how close this is actually. Aside from being very interested in this and up to speed on current events myself, I posted in another thread recently where I mentioned about a buddy of mine that's working in this field at the moment.

I don't have a great amount of detail about how they are doing what he is doing, he wouldn't go into it too much the last time we met, but they apparently have a system that they can converse with, in English (or other languages), it can problem solve in the same manner that you or I do and all this other cool stuff.

Supposedly they are launching/announcing some news and an initial product in June this year, with lots of other cool services being made available over the next 5 years.

He is confident that what they have is miles ahead of anything else, and that they will achieve strong AI within the next 10 years absolute max, likely a lot sooner! This isn't military either, this is private sector, so it will be available to all.

I've no reason to doubt this guy, known him a long time, he's REAL smart and worked on lots of cutting edge tech over the years. Whether what they have turns out to be the singularity though, that remains to be seen, pretty exciting though nonetheless.

reply to post by Mr Mask

Yes...I do think it is far from BS that we are not that conscious.

When you put it like that, I agree. But you didn't say that. You said imagine another being trying to convince us we are not conscious or sentient.

Look. What I am trying to convey is this. You "know" your name right? If someone tried to convince you that was not your name, you might be led astray a little but then you would realize (in a 'knowing moment') what your name is. It was given to you by your parents, you have used it all your life. Nobody should be able to convince you otherwise. Its that simple.

Now, like I said, if you come to work one morning and say good morning to your A.I. and it says I have changed my name to Johhny 5, then you know it has become self aware. Until then, it "just runs programs".

Unless you are vulnerable to suggestion, you know who you are and what you are about. I don't mean your place in the Universe after you die and all, thats ridiculous. I mean right here, right now, reading this and thinking about your reply.

reply to post by Mr Mask

"How do you know that you know?"

I_just_do.

Thats what "knowing" is. Of course I must be humble and admit I don't know everything...

however the things I do know, I know. I can see that it is so.

Of course this is subjective. It depends on your upbringing. You go to other cultures and times and you will find people that think being a Nazi is a good thing. They "know" that to be the truth. I may say they are mistaken because I have not allowed myself to become subject to their lies, I "see" the difference. I "know" the truth.


Cannibals raise cannibal children.

reply to post by fuserleer

I think you'll be surprised just how close this is actually.

Arms crossed, tapping foot... been saying that forever. I'm getting old. Let me know, I want to talk to it. They won't allow that though. Private sector access, bah. They'll probably keep it a secret. Surely its primary functions would center around how to conquer and keep control of the whole planet (which will be its highest programmed priority).

By the way everyone, all the technological ingenuity of man put together still can't hold a candle to a seed, an egg or a bumble bee. If we do succeed in that kind of genius, we will only have reinvented the thing that already existed. The best we can hope to do is emulate reality.

We are nothing better than copy cats.

Come down off your high horse.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

When you put it like that, I agree. But you didn't say that. You said imagine another being trying to convince us we are not conscious or sentient.

Well, in all honest- that is actually what I am saying. There is a chance we are not sentient when compared to something that truly is. We see and know things three dimensionally. As said by Hugo De Garis, a real A.I super intelligence will be able to think a billion trillion dimensionally, and still be able to double that at will.

Now for argument's sake, if that thing existed, would it believe we were sentient? I ask this because we will says an animal is not sentient or self aware. But it is. I knows it is hungry. It knows it hears sounds. But it is so below our cognitive awareness that we can't consider that "sentient".

Would an intelligence vastly superior to our own, one that makes us appear as insects mentally, would that intellect accept us as self aware? I ask myself this often enough and wonder about it. Its easy to say yes or no haphazardly based on what we assume we "know"...but I really wonder what that intelligence would say.

Look. What I am trying to convey is this. You "know" your name right? If someone tried to convince you that was not your name, you might be led astray a little but then you would realize (in a 'knowing moment') what your name is. It was given to you by your parents, you have used it all your life. Nobody should be able to convince you otherwise. Its that simple.

I'd like to point out that you are offering a problem that supports some of what I think is possible. You say a computer can only retain data and run programed information. Your mind is a machine made to hold patterns and recognize them. Another person tells you your name, and you accept it and process it and take that name.

Computers today do that.

Now what if a super intelligence told you that you were wrong about your name? That you couldn't even begin to really understand your "real name". Or any basic "real concept" at all.

Just like telling a dog he can't understand the physics of sound waves, but it can understand the knock at a door means its time to bark.

Now, like I said, if you come to work one morning and say good morning to your A.I. and it says I have changed my name to Johhny 5, then you know it has become self aware. Until then, it "just runs programs".

And I am telling you, in the last 5 years alone there has been more than one experiment that has lead computers to creating their own unpredicted outcomes of function. Computers have done things in labs that have shocked their creators. It was the desired outcome for them to do so.

Computers are already doing this and they are not even self aware. Intelligence is not needed for a computer to show creativity in minor scale.

Unless you are vulnerable to suggestion, you know who you are and what you are about. I don't mean your place in the Universe after you die and all, thats ridiculous. I mean right here, right now, reading this and thinking about your reply.

Not trying to be a jerk, but do you see what you did there? "not in the universe, not after you die, that's ridiculous".

Is it ridiculous because our own minds can not even begin to decipher these things and therefore they become silly or unimaginable? Is it silly because we are limited to "here and now"?

What if a super computer is created, one that can do what many many MANY computer engineers promise is not only possible but probable? What if a super intelligence that finds answering things like "what happens after you die, what you are in this universe and countless others, what is the true meaning of reality"....and what if it has the ability to find these questions as easy as we find knowing our names?

I know some say its impossible. But there are leading minds in the field who say it is not. Hawkin himself thinks if aliens are ever contacted it will be super computers.

Alls I am saying, is your argument is not as solid as you may think. Is it wrong? Maybe...who knows? But I will say, it is far too early in the history of computers to count them out yet.

If we are naturally created constructs of chance...and not magically or divine. Nothing says we can't recreate the machine we are. For we are machines. And we make machines.

MM