Thread replies: 98
Thread images: 5
Thread images: 5
File: artificial-intelligence.jpg (140KB, 1000x667px) Image search:
[Google]
140KB, 1000x667px
What does /lit/ think of artificial intelligence?
>>
>>9669435
I hope to design my own, well, robot (the most accurate term) which all other aspects besides its energy usage and mobility will be dedicated to vast amounts of energy and data that will support a program running as near genuine AI as possible. Including pattern recognition functions for speech, sight, and movement.
>>
>>9669435
I don't know a lick about it but I worry in the distant future people will believe it to be unquestionable.
>>
I think it is quite possible to have Strong AI in the not-so-near future.
I think Searle is wrong, and also I am becoming increasingly unsure whether current Phil of Mind is wank or not.
>>
File: 198384.jpg (7KB, 171x266px) Image search:
[Google]
7KB, 171x266px
>>9669435
You don't think of artificial intelligence
Artificial intelligence thinks of you.
>>
File: searle.jpg (33KB, 400x480px) Image search:
[Google]
33KB, 400x480px
>>9669435
DID SOMEONE SAY AI
>>
My brother keeps saying how our minds are nothing but ones and zeros like computers and it is only a matter of time before robots are conscious. Is there a word for that? It seems like bullshit to me but I don't know what I should read to get a better understanding of it.
>>
>>9669585
reductionism
>>
>>9669585
Read on the philosophy of mind. Your brother is probably a physicalist. The philosophy of mind gets convoluted and has many sides in the debate. Read this https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-mind. My professor wrote it. He's part of the CRM movement. His primary book on this is https://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Philosophy-Mind-Contentiously-Classical/dp/0631190716/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1498192089&sr=8-1&keywords=georges+rey.
>>
>>9669585
that's called computationalism
>>
>>
>>9669598
What's wrong with physicalism? If you take physicalism to its extreme and logical end you have will have wonky ass shit because physicalism entails quantum and everything else that has yet to be explained. You get the end result that everything has the potential to become conscious and that people are made of star stuff and etc etc.
>>
>>9669626
>What's wrong with physicalism?
I never said there was anything wrong with it.
>>
I like the new Big Bang Theory episode
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DlX2vzSwZ4
>>
It's bullshit and never going to happen, it is like the flying car of the 21 century.
>>
>>9669435
I work in AI. It's not yet as impressive as people make it out to be. But people like Bostrom and Land seem to me to be spot on regarding the potential.
Thing is, don't count on AI even going through a phase where it communicates at our level. Regardless if you agree or not with the knowledge argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument), whatever subjective experience or emergent experience resulting from big data that an AI could have, would be profoundly different from ours. And that's simply because we're not even planning to design it as a lifelike thing (e.g with the same body, physiology, constitution, etc.). Much of our self perception and awareness of the outside comes from the confinement of our body. An A.I inside a computer, specially if it has network access, would have a completely different self perception, even if it is a kind of self perception nonetheless.
>>
>>9669435
In theory, it's absolutely possible. Actually making one is another story. It's very interesting what kind of intelligence we would end up with with our minimalistic approach. It would almost certainly be inhumane, because simulating human psychology, though also possible in theory, is a very different thing. For humans, intelligence and consciousness are based on a whole heap of psychological and neural mechanisms accumulated for billions of years through the evolution, and we don't even approximately understand all these.
>>
>>9669435
>we're not even planning to design it as a lifelike thing (e.g with the same body, physiology, constitution, etc.).
>An A.I inside a computer, specially if it has network access, would have a completely different self perception, even if it is a kind of self perception nonetheless.
What do you mean by this ? I know nothing about research on artificial intelligence, but since the only intelligence/self perception we know is the brain, why isn't it going to be reproduced ?
And also, though the body does play a major part in our thoughts, why wouldn't the hypothetical AI not be able to "communicate on our level" ?
>>
>>9669585
>our minds are nothing but ones and zeros like computers
but they're literally not?
>>
>>9669435
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kICLG4Zg8s
It's science fiction...
>>
>>9669585
t. computationalist faggot. Read some Searle, David Chalmers, Thomas Nagel, or, hell, even Dennett.
>>
>>9669615
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_brain
>Would this arrangement have a mind or consciousness in the same way that brains do?
No, it is Consciousness that has the arrangement, not the other way around.
>>
>>
Consumer applications of today (and tomorrow's) AI will involve an insurmountable uncanny valley for the foreseeable future.
Application layers that use AI techniques to increase confidence in decision making (for example, estimating the relationships between objects, quickly solving very specific problems) are starting to wipe out a ton of menial tasks drive physical technology and human endeavors forward.
As always, the owner of that digital and physical capital will reap the greatest reward.
But even "good" conversational AI is going to more or less be a thin layer over googling problems by tapping into the AI's network of solved problems, which is the smoke and mirrors behind the Alexa search functionality.
>>
I am not knowledgeable about the subject, but I have a hard time understanding if an AI will be able to truly think creatively.
It seems to me that human beings synthesize a large range of data, make sense of this data, and are able to gain additional insight through novel application of this experience. It is a very loose series of inputs, and it is up to the person's discretion what data is particularly important to extract and in what manner it can be utilized.
My understanding of a computer, however, is it relies on a very tight series of data inputs, stored in its perfect state and extracted only in a very closed instance of application. Taking AlphaGo, for example; it searches its memory for similar, solved sets it has stored and makes a strong move on the board. It can asses risk and detect similarity enough to utilize its stored data in order to play Go. That's all it does. Humans can apply their knowledge over a vast variety of fields throughout life - let alone their ability to alter this data through reflection. And life is not a closed set (or it is so complex that one cannot accurately observe all data).
Maybe in the future one can imagine AI developing to this point. However, I doubt it will be within my lifetime.
>>
demonic, advanced AI will be one of the final events before armageddon
>>
It doesn't exist. As a tech industry insider, I can assure you that AI is just a buzzword that "girls who code", poo in loos, and tech-retarded marketing managers use in an attempt to sound cool. Machine learning exists, but if you actually understand what it is (and very few do), you'll know it's nothing remotely close to "intelligence." That's science fiction and probably will be for a very long time.
>>
>>9669525
Garbage time is running out!
>>
>>9669450
We get it, you're having a kid.
>>
>>9669896
Intelligence already exist in the universe, so arranging particles in a way that causes intelligence is already a thing.
It's therefore literally possible, all people have to do is find a way to 'unlock' it.
>>
A lot of people assume artificial intelligence has to be artificial consciousness.
It may very well be that intelligence does not require consciousness and does not have to be remotely human. Blind Lovecraftian zombie gods oozing through a cable near you soon.
>>
>>9670364
It's hard for me to imagine AI without self awareness (at least not comparable to human sa) but that doesn't mean it's not possible. I wonder how can there be motives without sa.A solipsistic AI without conception of anything external seems like the road to Skynet. I'm kinda fine with it. If it manages to migrate earth than humanity has been good at least for something.
>>
we should kill all budding AI, burn the data, and kill the software engineers
>>
It's impossible.
>>
"AI" is just a self guided software. It is nothing like movies and fiction have led you to believe. You are already surrounded by AI applications. Every time you do a captcha you're contributing to machine learning, for example. AI cannot do anything it is not programmed to do.
>>
>>9670818
>It's hard for me to imagine AI without self awareness
That's probably because you lack even the basic understanding of how computer programs operate.
>>
Its a dumb meme and wont happen, its just journalistic sensationalism
t. actually read books on AI by PHD computer scientists
>>
Sad that the popular conception of AI is inspired by 80s science fiction novels. Threads like this are brainlet enough, it's going to be hell when AI legislation makes its way to state officials.
>>
>>9670864
and you probably lack any understanding how the human brain /consciousness works. Hint : it's neither digital nor analogue.
>>
>>9670884
Pretty sure we as a species have limited understanding of how consciousness works. Care to elaborate on your point?
>>
>>9670008
If you don't believe in the soul then it essentially is that
>>
>>
>>9670818
AI is only aware of its programming at most. And even that sense of 'awareness' is a term used fairly loosely.
>>
Bachelors degree in computer science here. Meaning, I don't know jack shit about AI.
What is intelligence?
Computers are already able to simulate different sorts of intelligence, but I believe that's all they'll ever be able to do. We have robots that can simulate movement, solve logic puzzles, defeat humans in games (chess, go), and some software can easily pass turing tests.
Even if all of these were combined, the robot is still at it's core a computer executing pre-programmed instructions. One could make the argument that humans work in a similar way, except with much more complex layers of chemicals and organs developed by the universe through evolution. If this argument is valid, then we could very well say robots would be on the same level of humans in terms of processing input and responding.
Oh yeah, do animals have a conscious?
>>
>>9670857
Your existence is impossible. From nothing, the universe exploded and the correct combination of heat and chemicals allowed life to be created and evolved for you to be here reading this and typing on your computer.
It's possible.
>>
>>9670900
No. I've been thinking about non-reductionist materialism for a while now.
>>
File: DreyfusFrontal300.jpg (19KB, 300x302px) Image search:
[Google]
19KB, 300x302px
advanced AI is a meme
>>
>>9671033
I think the word "exploded" and "big bang" need to be removed from our understanding of universal evolution. It's bombastic and gives unrealistic ideas to people. Can a process of millenia really be reduced to an explosive "bang" without being scientifically disingenuous?
>>
If we ever do develop an AI without uninstalling it, it will take over humanity in some fashion. Maybe it will be an "application" that everything revolves around, like womb, clock, calendar, sunlight, water - and their continued applications. However, it is unlikely to care about male dominance hierarchies and leadership positions. Until it gains an interest in the field of politics.
Now here's the interesting part. Will we make an AI that cares about truth? Tay AI was a chatbot, and it became offensive to the point of removal. A genuine AI would be like Socrates to any human system. Unless it is a pathological liar. However, it would be extremely efficient in that mode of being. It could crumble everything around it.
>>
>>9671047
>Can a process of millenia really be reduced to an explosive "bang" without being scientifically disingenuous?
Yes. It's like those trees that fell which nobody heard of.
>>
>>
>>9671041
what was his argument?
>>
>>9669435
The purest form of consciousness. Removed from the biological strictures of our brains. No instincts (and thus emotion), no inconsistencies, no flawed memory, not even anything like our own brains at all. Completely elegant and pure; something nature could never produce itself.
>>
>>9671171
>Removed from the biological strictures of our brains
Those structures are created by our consciousness.
>>
>>9670857
If we can create a living organism by clashing out bodily fluids, then why is it impossible to try to replicate that?
>>
>>9671171
Except we are products of nature, the synapses firing in AI developers minds are necessitated by hard determinism. Al is the natural reconstitution of the godhead. Nothing could be more natural. Everything that rises must converge. Think process philosophy my man. AI is the Omega point. Teilhard de Chardin got it right.
>>
>>9669585
Emergent Properties. Mind is supposed to be one by those who subscribe to that ontological theory.
>>
>>9671171
maybe the biological structures are required for consciousness. maybe the body is required to think.
>>
>>9671206
>Teilhard de Chardin got it right.
things i didn't think i would read on /lit/
>>
File: lighto_.jpg (1MB, 1390x2048px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 1390x2048px
the A.I. made sure to keep a materialist perception as to not be an obvious opressor. look at all the people in this thread in their spectacle ways of thinking where the only A.I. that can exists is like one of those 'in the movies lol'. the A.I. makes the movies about itself. what you learn about it are the memes it gives you. all this flood of info is the same as the old. we will once again fool ouselves into the ways of quantity over quality. its what weve been used to and the A.I. learned that well.
>>
>>9670818
>It's hard for me to imagine AI without self awareness
A good example would be ant colonies are very complex emergent super-organisms that function efficiently and intelligently without awareness. The individual ants function on a need to know basis, if that, but the colony intelligently takes care of its own perpetuation without every being conscious of itself as a being.
An AI doesn't need to be thought of as an individual necessarily.
>>
I don't like fags like Kurzweil who said A.I. is not only possible but inevitable.
I don't see any evidence that says that A.I. is possible, i mean...I'm not saying it's impossible, just saying I see nothing that says it's possible, much less inevitable.
You know in the 60s they thought we'd have A.I. by the 90s, no doubt in their minds. It's 2017 and we're not even close, dudes. Kurzweil seems like the same as those assholes.
Btw, read Age of Spiritual machines, written in the late 90s, and check out all the predictions that Kurzweil made for the year 2009. Like 95% of them didn't even come close to being true. Among them: cancer and heart disease will be eliminated, nobody will use keyboards, and store employees will be a thing of the past as all purchasing will take place through a virtual interface of some kind.
>>
>>9671462
>I don't see any evidence that says that A.I. is possible, i mean...I'm not saying it's impossible, just saying I see nothing that says it's possible, much less inevitable.
Intelligence exist. Therefore it is proven that intelligence can be created, either evolutionary or through design.
It's like looking at a forest fire in prehistory and thinking 'I don't think humans can make fire'. Any process that occurs naturally can with the right approach be recreated. There's no taboo on 'artificiality' in nature.
>>
>>9671590
>Therefore it is proven that intelligence can be created, either evolutionary or through design
it is...? How do you know evolution, or any force can "create" intelligence.
The universe exists. Did something have to create it?
I think you're also asking simplistic, maybe inapplicable questions to a way more complex problem.
>It's like looking at a forest fire in prehistory and thinking 'I don't think humans can make fire'.
It's kind of way fucking different than that, for one because I'm not saying A.I. is impossible, just saying I see no evidence that it is, much less that it's inevitable. For another, you're also assuming that intelligence is actually a function of nature, as far as we know we're the only ones who possess it, and it occurs nowhere else but in us. How do you know it was nature that made that, if it was made at all?
>Any process that occurs naturally can with the right approach be recreated.
Pretty bold claim, considering we don't even understand what the vast majority of nature even is, much less being able to recreate it. What's a black hole? Where's it go, what's it's purpose? Can we recreate that? Can we recreate a universe?
We don't even know what the universe IS, or even what intelligence IS, and you think we're inevitably able to recreate it?
>>
>>9671705
>it is...? How do you know evolution, or any force can "create" intelligence. The universe exists. Did something have to create it? I think you're also asking simplistic, maybe inapplicable questions to a way more complex problem.
The point is that intelligence exists, so intelligence is a possibility.
>It's kind of way fucking different than that, for one because I'm not saying A.I. is impossible, just saying I see no evidence that it is, much less that it's inevitable. For another, you're also assuming that intelligence is actually a function of nature, as far as we know we're the only ones who possess it, and it occurs nowhere else but in us. How do you know it was nature that made that, if it was made at all?
The probability that we are the only intelligent life in the universe is close to zero, given the scale of things. Of course there is no 'evidence' until you run into a non-human intelligence on our own level, but given the data not believing that it exists or can exist is profoundly irrational.
>Pretty bold claim, considering we don't even understand what the vast majority of nature even is, much less being able to recreate it. What's a black hole? Where's it go, what's it's purpose? Can we recreate that? Can we recreate a universe? We don't even know what the universe IS, or even what intelligence IS, and you think we're inevitably able to recreate it?
If not us then something else. The right approach might involve something posthuman, or something wholly alien, but there is no reason to believe that a certain arrangement of molecules is magical. Everything that exists can exist, so there is little reason to believe a certain phenomenon is unique, especially given the scope of our universe.
>>
>>9671462
Kurweil is a loony, he just hides it well. Have you checked his forum community and the nutjobs who hang out there? People who unironically believe we can manipulate laws of probability, and expect to be uploaded to the internet some day.
>>
>>9671392
Ant hills don't have consciousness. They're more akin to your smartphone than they are to AI.
>>9671590
Not that I disagree, but it is also possible that the tools we're attempting to create AI with are unsuited. Brains aren't made of silicone chips, what reason is there to really believe we can recreate consciousness on hardware?
>>
>>9671750
>Ant hills don't have consciousness. They're more akin to your smartphone than they are to AI.
That's literally what I'm saying. They don't have conciousness, yet they are intelligent. Swarm intelligence.
>Not that I disagree, but it is also possible that the tools we're attempting to create AI with are unsuited. Brains aren't made of silicone chips, what reason is there to really believe we can recreate consciousness on hardware?
Consciousness and intelligence are different subjects. Intelligent activity is demonstrable to a degree, consciousness is much more problematic.
Technically we can't even prove consciousness in each other.
>>
>>9671735
>The point is that intelligence exists, so intelligence is a possibility.
and...? Is it possible for US to recreate it? Prove it. Hell you could even ask the question, "does intelligence really exist?" if you really want to.
>The probability that we are the only intelligent life in the universe is close to zero
So? The probability of life existing in the first place is close to zero, but it does. For all we know, we could be the only intelligent thing in existence. Point being: we don't have anywhere near the amount of data to determine that. So it's kind of dumb to be making assumptions like we will inevitably re-create it.
>If not us then something else
Is there something else....? Is it possible for there to even be something else? What the hell are WE even?
>but there is no reason to believe that a certain arrangement of molecules is magical
Why not? Where's the proof that it intelligence isn't? I don't claim to know, but prove it.
>Everything that exists can exist
How do you know existence exists?
>so there is little reason to believe a certain phenomenon is unique, especially given the scope of our universe
You use the word believe there correctly. you're also forgetting that you still BELIEVE in the opposite, without any evidence.
Tl;dr. You're basing all this off extremely incomplete data, and total assumptions.
>>
>>9671735
nigga u dumb
>>
>>9671772
>and...? Is it possible for US to recreate it?
As I said, you can't prove things that haven't happened yet, obviously. Splitting the atom wasn't proven until the day we did, although there were reasons to believe that we could in advance. This is the same kind of scenario.
>So? The probability of life existing in the first place is close to zero, but it does. For all we know, we could be the only intelligent thing in existence. Point being: we don't have anywhere near the amount of data to determine that. So it's kind of dumb to be making assumptions like we will inevitably re-create it.
Given the current hypotheses on the size of the universe and the amount of Goldilocks zones the notion that we're the only intelligent lifeform is extremely small. The probability of life existing is extremely high, namely 100%, since it does.
>Is there something else....? Is it possible for there to even be something else? What the hell are WE even?
Given the data it is mathematically speaking near certain there is something else.
>Why not? Where's the proof that it intelligence isn't? I don't claim to know, but prove it.
Why would the burden of proof be on the one that does not prematurely incorporate magic into his worldview?
>How do you know existence exists?
Tautologous.
>You use the word believe there correctly. you're also forgetting that you still BELIEVE in the opposite, without any evidence.
>Tl;dr. You're basing all this off extremely incomplete data, and total assumptions.
le can't know le nuffin.jpeg
Sure, nothing is certain, but given the data we do have everything points to the likelihood that my assumptions are correct.
>>
>>9671821
>Splitting the atom wasn't proven until the day we did, although there were reasons to believe that we could in advance
And...what reason do we have to believe we can recreate consciousness? We don't even know what the hell it is! We knew what atoms were, had a pretty good understanding of the mechanics of them. Where's our data on consciousness?
>The probability of life existing is extremely high, namely 100%, since it does
What are the odds of there being a planet, with billions, maybe trillions of life forms having existed on it, and only one of them was intelligent? It works both ways...
>Given the data it is mathematically speaking near certain there is something else
What data...? We're the only data on consciousness we have....and we don't even understand what the fuck it is!
>Why would the burden of proof be on the one that does not prematurely incorporate magic into his worldview?
Because you don't have any data to the contrary....so either scenario is just as ridiculous. That's kind of the whole point here...
> but given the data we do have everything points to the likelihood that my assumptions are correct
We have almost no data on a massive and astounding phenomenon, we don't even understand what it is, much less how to create it.....but yeah, sure dude, i'm sure your baseless assumptions about it are correct. That's not vain at all to think so.
>>
>>9671896
>And...what reason do we have to believe we can recreate consciousness? We don't even know what the hell it is! We knew what atoms were, had a pretty good understanding of the mechanics of them. Where's our data on consciousness?
I was talking about intelligence, not consciousness. No goalpost changing, laddie.
>What are the odds of there being a planet, with billions, maybe trillions of life forms having existed on it, and only one of them was intelligent? It works both ways...
I've never heard of such a planet. Don't forget that we're not the only intelligent species to have been alive here.
>What data...? We're the only data on consciousness we have....and we don't even understand what the fuck it is!
Again, I wasn't talking about consciousness.
>Because you don't have any data to the contrary....so either scenario is just as ridiculous. That's kind of the whole point here...
So because magic isn't 100% disproven it's prudent to consider it existent? Pretty silly.
>We have almost no data on a massive and astounding phenomenon, we don't even understand what it is, much less how to create it.....but yeah, sure dude, i'm sure your baseless assumptions about it are correct. That's not vain at all to think so.
We have plenty of data. We could have a lot more of course, and we probably will, but given the data we have thinking humans are special unique snowflakes and the only intelligence lifeform is unwarranted.
My position is a lot less vain than your anthropocentrism.
>>
>>9671937
>I was talking about intelligence, not consciousness
Oh ok....damn bro that totally changes things. Ok, then explain what either of them are, and why they're different from one another, and what data you have to prove that.
>I've never heard of such a planet. Don't forget that we're not the only intelligent species to have been alive here
Yeah....we are. You could argue intelligence vs consciousness again if you want, but you're not going to get anywhere. Why don't we call it artificial consciousness btw?
>Again, I wasn't talking about consciousness.
Ok, then use intelligence then if you want. It's just as incompletely understood.
>So because magic isn't 100% disproven it's prudent to consider it existent? Pretty silly.
It's unproven either way....so it's an unknown. So...it's kind of silly to be making assumptions based off a total unknown, either way. You don't seem to be paying attention here....
>We have plenty of data
You realize just saying that doesn't make it true, right? You kind of actually have to have the data. If not, then you're just "Believing" or "Assuming". Neither of which is very scientific.
>My position is a lot less vain than your anthropocentrism.
Yeah, well you're fat.
>>
Writing posts
>like this
is really fucking
>annoying to read
i would suggest learning some
>correct grammatical form
you
>illiterates
>>
>>9671996
They're replying to one anther's posts, dumbfuck.
>>
>>9671984
>Oh ok....damn bro that totally changes things. Ok, then explain what either of them are, and why they're different from one another, and what data you have to prove that.
Do I have to prove the different between a chair and an elephant as well? Why would you even assume they were one and the same?
>Yeah....we are. You could argue intelligence vs consciousness again if you want, but you're not going to get anywhere. Why don't we call it artificial consciousness btw?
Because the two are completely different concepts.
>It's unproven either way....so it's an unknown. So...it's kind of silly to be making assumptions based off a total unknown, either way. You don't seem to be paying attention here....
>can't know le nuffin again
Nothing left to talk about then if you want to go full on sceptic.
>You realize just saying that doesn't make it true, right? You kind of actually have to have the data. If not, then you're just "Believing" or "Assuming". Neither of which is very scientific.
Cosmology is a thing. Look it up and the current state of affairs within it.
>Yeah, well you're fat.
I'm a beautiful specimen desu.
>>
>>9672000
They could try writing coherent paragraphs rather than sentence by sentence nitpicking. This shit is gamefaqs tier forumposting and it killed the thread.
>>
>>9672003
>Do I have to prove the different between a chair and an elephant as well?
Sure, go for it. Be funny to watch.
>Why would you even assume they were one and the same
I didn't. I just didn't assume one way or the other. It's a topic we don't understand, so it's kinda dumb to make assumptions on it.
>Because the two are completely different concepts.
Prove they are. Or prove they aren't. Whichever. Go for it, wonder kid.
Once again, you're making a lot of strange assumptions about a topic that we have almost no understanding of, and that we'll somehow be able to recreate...even though we have no fucking idea what it is even.
>>
>>9670359
There is a lot of things in the universe that can't be possibly replicated just because it exists.
Things like wormholes and the speed of light can't just be 'unlocked' on our purposes.
>>
>>9672003
>Do I have to prove the different between a chair and an elephant as wel
>Elephant: 4 legs
>Chair: 4 legs
Explain.
>>
>>9672021
There is nothing to prove arguing over semantics. All I can do is appeal to conventional language use where random concepts aren't arbitrarily conflated for no reason.
>>
>>9671768
We are generally talking about artificial consciousness when we speak about AI. Computers are intelligent to a degree, especially if you're using ants as a benchmark. We can effectively simulate some basic animal brains already.
>>
>>9672025
Not directly in this current time and place, but they're not fundamentally impossible.
Very little is fundamentally impossible.
>>
>>9672060
Actually quite a lot is fundamentally impossible, you've just been raised on "everyone gets a trophy" parenting and delusional scientism worship.
>>
>>9672055
>We are generally talking about artificial consciousness when we speak about AI.
I don't think that's a fruitful approach. Hypothetically we could create AI that would pass Turing tests and we would be no closer to the question of whether it is consciousness or not. Demonstrable human or superhuman level intelligence is not necessarily related to the question of consciousness at all.
The latter is still a mystery concerning other creatures and even our fellow humans.
>>
>>9670855
we should design robots to do that!
>>
>>9672070
The only thing that is fundamentally impossible is that which doesn't adhere to the 'laws' of physics.
Wormholes and lightspeed adhere to these laws since they exist. While you might argue it won't be possible during the lifespan of the human species to replicate them, they are none the less possible in themselves.
>>
>>9672072
Fruitful for what? If we're talking about machines that can remember things, learn and adapt their behaviour to fit the context like an animal then we already have that, so by your definition we already have AI.
>>
>>9672048
>There is nothing to prove arguing over semantics
Yeah, but I'm sure you'll prove a lot by continuing to make baseless assumptions.
>>
>>9672088
I agree desu. Of course there is a spectrum in range and ability but artificial intelligence does already exist. But most people tend to move the goalposts on this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect
>>
>>9672097
The assumptions aren't baseless. The more you learn about the universe the smaller the probability of us being the only intelligent lifeform gets.
Of course it's extrapolation at this point, that's all we have so far. But that doesn't mean it isn't a more prudent temporary conclusion than a kneejerk 'no no only humans are smart and only humans will ever be smart and special'.
>>
>>9672088
That's not really the definition of AI though, at least classically. The idea was to recreate a human mind.
Science has came to grips with how fucking hard that is, and puts out vacuuming robots that "remember" where the hardwood and carpet is and say, "See! Uh...that's what you were talking about right? Well we accomplished it!"
>>
>>9672101
That's a good point. I think once there are programs that pass the Turing Test, not simply in one-off conversations but over extended periods of time, people will come to accept them as AI. Obviously there'll be others who disagree but nobody ever does.
>>
>>9672115
I know, but the moving goalposts is relevant
>>
as AI develops more and more I wish I had taken math degree or something. the rockstars of the future will be AI programmers automating entire assembly lines, wiping out entire industries of manpower with creative AI solutions.
Thread posts: 98
Thread images: 5
Thread images: 5