Topic: Artificial Intelligence possible?
✄----- !ZSNgHQb5Ig started this discussion 15 years ago #901
If the possibility of chemical computers exists and our brains could be considered a chemical computer. With the mass increase of computational power do you think Artificial Intelligence is possible and probable?
| Poll option | Votes | Percentage | Graph |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 4 | 50% | |
| No | 4 | 50% |
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later[^] [v] #17,670
You type like a 12 year old.
Anyway, what exact type of AI are you referring to? Be more specific.
Anyway, what exact type of AI are you referring to? Be more specific.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #17,672
@OP
You seriously have to define what you consider AI to be, as the term has been something of a moving target since it was first seriously considered.
You seriously have to define what you consider AI to be, as the term has been something of a moving target since it was first seriously considered.
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #17,674
The question is: Do they have souls? We must first answer this and other absurd ethical quandaries as the rest of the world overtakes us technologically.✄----- !ZSNgHQb5Ig (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #17,676
The ability for a computer to develop the ability to store, learn and adapt to information it sees, hears and possibly feels? For the computer to understand itself as we understand ourselves and the ability for it to program itself (think freely).
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #17,681
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
LOL
LOL
Anonymous C double-posted this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #17,687
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
Why would we need a LISP-like language? LISP was handy for a lot of early natural language stuff back when something like Eliza seemed like magic, but I'm not sure why we would need a clunky language like that now.
Also, with the explosion of things like blogging, emoticons, and Twitter, the Earth is running dangerously low on parentheses. If another LISP-like language becomes widely used, we may finally run out.
Why would we need a LISP-like language? LISP was handy for a lot of early natural language stuff back when something like Eliza seemed like magic, but I'm not sure why we would need a clunky language like that now.
Also, with the explosion of things like blogging, emoticons, and Twitter, the Earth is running dangerously low on parentheses. If another LISP-like language becomes widely used, we may finally run out.
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #17,688
@previous (C)
I'm stockpiling mine someplace safe.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
I'm stockpiling mine someplace safe.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
✄----- !ZSNgHQb5Ig (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #17,689
✄----- !ZSNgHQb5Ig (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #17,696
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
I see no reason english can't be used? If we can teach computers now to turn written documents into spoken audio then a computer powerful enough to think freely will be able to speak any language so long as it can take recordings of sounds or first listen to them.
I see no reason english can't be used? If we can teach computers now to turn written documents into spoken audio then a computer powerful enough to think freely will be able to speak any language so long as it can take recordings of sounds or first listen to them.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #17,700
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
I can certainly see where something like that might be useful. I suppose it would depend on how the eventual AI was implemented.
Assuming the kind of strong generalized AI/Artificial consciousness that scissors mentions finally came about, I wonder how it would be implemented. Would it be a collection of different specialized systems, each built to handle a specific set of tasks like language, visual recognition, learning, goal setting, etc. that were all linked together? Would it be modeled on a human brain and just be a massive connectionist system that we would have to raise and teach during its early years? Would it be achieved through some approach that we haven't thought of yet? Would AI development follow several different paths and different AIs would use differing combinations of these approaches?
I can certainly see where something like that might be useful. I suppose it would depend on how the eventual AI was implemented.
Assuming the kind of strong generalized AI/Artificial consciousness that scissors mentions finally came about, I wonder how it would be implemented. Would it be a collection of different specialized systems, each built to handle a specific set of tasks like language, visual recognition, learning, goal setting, etc. that were all linked together? Would it be modeled on a human brain and just be a massive connectionist system that we would have to raise and teach during its early years? Would it be achieved through some approach that we haven't thought of yet? Would AI development follow several different paths and different AIs would use differing combinations of these approaches?
✄----- !ZSNgHQb5Ig (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #17,701
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
They have to be told how to do this now... but we dont have artificial intelligence now. The whole point of artificial intelligence is that they don't need to be told, like a baby that copies sounds and learns language through context a machine can directly copy any sound presented to it within its output frequency so is more set to learn multiple languages than a human.
A computer at its simplest level is a yes or no calculation with chemical computers allowing many more calculations to performed at the same time is there any reason a machine cannot understand and learn a new language just from hearing you speak it and seeing your actions? A machine can store much more data than you ever can not only could it learn a language but every word within that language without risk of forgetting anything. A machine with the ability to think freely is a lot more set to learn a language than you. Why do you think it cannot learn English when a machine can already take a bunch of 0s and 1s and reconstruct the way light falls in a scenario as if it were each individual ray of light then output that information as an rendered image?
They have to be told how to do this now... but we dont have artificial intelligence now. The whole point of artificial intelligence is that they don't need to be told, like a baby that copies sounds and learns language through context a machine can directly copy any sound presented to it within its output frequency so is more set to learn multiple languages than a human.
A computer at its simplest level is a yes or no calculation with chemical computers allowing many more calculations to performed at the same time is there any reason a machine cannot understand and learn a new language just from hearing you speak it and seeing your actions? A machine can store much more data than you ever can not only could it learn a language but every word within that language without risk of forgetting anything. A machine with the ability to think freely is a lot more set to learn a language than you. Why do you think it cannot learn English when a machine can already take a bunch of 0s and 1s and reconstruct the way light falls in a scenario as if it were each individual ray of light then output that information as an rendered image?
✄----- !ZSNgHQb5Ig (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #17,704
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
Also I think it is important to consider that to learn a language you also had to be told how to, you go to school you are told how to think in certain ways and solve things no different from a computer being told how to interpret something. Yet your intelligence isn't considered artificial.
Also I think it is important to consider that to learn a language you also had to be told how to, you go to school you are told how to think in certain ways and solve things no different from a computer being told how to interpret something. Yet your intelligence isn't considered artificial.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 47 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #17,726
No, humans, you are the AI.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 56 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #17,765
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #17,767
@previous (G)
Then, as there is nothing seperating man from machine, then man is machine, and man is the AI.
Then, as there is nothing seperating man from machine, then man is machine, and man is the AI.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #17,769
@previous (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
> there is nothing seperating man from machine
How did you jump to that conclusion? Machines can't feel emotions, they're not self-aware; they can't do anything we can! That has nothing to do with the fact there's no such thing as a soul.
> there is nothing seperating man from machine
How did you jump to that conclusion? Machines can't feel emotions, they're not self-aware; they can't do anything we can! That has nothing to do with the fact there's no such thing as a soul.
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #17,773
@previous (G)
But we can/will soon be able to program machines to have emotions. We can/will soon be able to program them to become "self-aware". We can/will soon be able to construct them to do exactly as we do. Think about it. With the inevitable boom of bioengineering when our current fuels expire, we will probably even program them to grow.
But we can/will soon be able to program machines to have emotions. We can/will soon be able to program them to become "self-aware". We can/will soon be able to construct them to do exactly as we do. Think about it. With the inevitable boom of bioengineering when our current fuels expire, we will probably even program them to grow.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #17,775
@previous (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
I don't think it will ever be impossible to program a computer to feel as humans do. Computers don't, and can't, have free will - they can only do what they've been programmed to do.
> But we can/will soon be able to program machines to have emotions
The concept of "feeling" can only exist in a living organism - computers/robots/AI are mechanisms; they'll never be able to feel like we can, so they will never possess emotions.
I don't think it will ever be impossible to program a computer to feel as humans do. Computers don't, and can't, have free will - they can only do what they've been programmed to do.
> But we can/will soon be able to program machines to have emotions
The concept of "feeling" can only exist in a living organism - computers/robots/AI are mechanisms; they'll never be able to feel like we can, so they will never possess emotions.
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #17,777
@previous (G)
I dunno, animals possess emotions. Why couldn't states of "mind" be written into a computer and influenced by internal or external processes?
I dunno, animals possess emotions. Why couldn't states of "mind" be written into a computer and influenced by internal or external processes?
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #17,780
@17,775 (G)
sight: thousands of light sensors divided into two units, interpreting the light readings from our environment through visual receptors.
Hearing: interpreting patterns of noise into a workable data. Depending on tones and pitches, we can "feel" who or what is making the noise, and its meaning.
Touch: thousands of microsensors all over our body pick significant touches and send data to our brain informing it of what it feels like according to how we manipulate it.
Smell: Well, I'm not sure how this one is emulated, actually.
Taste: Again, I'm not quite sure.
Using hearing and prior (see:programmed) knowledge, humans will react to sounds. Loud noises will frighten them, soothing voices will calm them. Words can have any effect, really.
Using sight we can gather data about our surroundings. A space where there is not much to see can invoke a feeling of being lost, while too much to see can make one feel anxious or trapped;restricted. We can use memories (pre-programmed) to determine our location, to find missing objects
Using touch, we can feel our environment. We gather data as infants as to what is harmful or dangerous, and when we feel them later in life, we know to avoid them. Also, touch can cause reactions of the body (sexual etc.)
sight: thousands of light sensors divided into two units, interpreting the light readings from our environment through visual receptors.
Hearing: interpreting patterns of noise into a workable data. Depending on tones and pitches, we can "feel" who or what is making the noise, and its meaning.
Touch: thousands of microsensors all over our body pick significant touches and send data to our brain informing it of what it feels like according to how we manipulate it.
Smell: Well, I'm not sure how this one is emulated, actually.
Taste: Again, I'm not quite sure.
Using hearing and prior (see:programmed) knowledge, humans will react to sounds. Loud noises will frighten them, soothing voices will calm them. Words can have any effect, really.
Using sight we can gather data about our surroundings. A space where there is not much to see can invoke a feeling of being lost, while too much to see can make one feel anxious or trapped;restricted. We can use memories (pre-programmed) to determine our location, to find missing objects
Using touch, we can feel our environment. We gather data as infants as to what is harmful or dangerous, and when we feel them later in life, we know to avoid them. Also, touch can cause reactions of the body (sexual etc.)
✄----- !ZSNgHQb5Ig (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 28 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #17,786
@17,775 (G)
Every move you make is because of data processed by your brain, we can teach machines to understand and calculate pressure to a degree further than any human, machines can listen to and deconstruct sound. We feel things because our brain tells us to, what is the difference between a computer and its processors telling it to feel?
Perhaps machines will never taste or smell, but I'm sure they will be able to understand taste and smell and mimic it. Free will is merely a decision engine, there are a number of options we can take we weigh them up and perform one, this is very much possible with a machine just there is not enough computational power at this time to do it efficiently as what we call intuition saves us working through all possible scenarios... but when a computer can it will be able to make decisions far more efficiently than any one of us you could stop calling it free will and call it true will.
Every move you make is because of data processed by your brain, we can teach machines to understand and calculate pressure to a degree further than any human, machines can listen to and deconstruct sound. We feel things because our brain tells us to, what is the difference between a computer and its processors telling it to feel?
Perhaps machines will never taste or smell, but I'm sure they will be able to understand taste and smell and mimic it. Free will is merely a decision engine, there are a number of options we can take we weigh them up and perform one, this is very much possible with a machine just there is not enough computational power at this time to do it efficiently as what we call intuition saves us working through all possible scenarios... but when a computer can it will be able to make decisions far more efficiently than any one of us you could stop calling it free will and call it true will.