Printable View
Well, I just don't agree with your opinion. I see a lot of potential for AI. Milestones for what constitutes AI get set, are achieved and then get redefined and moved further away all the time. It seems people are very attached to the concept of 'intelligence' and 'consciousness' and just don't want machines to be the same as them. Personally, I think the reason people have such a hard time defining things like 'self-awareness' is that they are very busy making sure that humans are special.
Nope, I just blurt out random comments sometimes, it kind of like a refined version of Turrets syndrome; don't pay any attention to them as they usually add nothing to the discussion. :)Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
Any particular reason?
:p
Blip to 20 years later...AI robots take over the home...
"Today's feature on Tom's Hardware Guide....Overclocking Your Maid" ;) ;)
That's just bull****. Just because I don't think we can do it doesn't mean I don't want it to happen. In reality, I don't really care. I think we've got more important things to deal with first. Automating the whole world isn't going to do any good for us (humans) at this point in time. But that's a social issue, and probably won't change either, so why not go for AI.Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
Well, I just don't agree with your opinion. I see a lot of potential for AI. Milestones for what constitutes AI get set, are achieved and then get redefined and moved further away all the time. It seems people are very attached to the concept of 'intelligence' and 'consciousness' and just don't want machines to be the same as them. Personally, I think the reason people have such a hard time defining things like 'self-awareness' is that they are very busy making sure that humans are special.
My definition of self-awareness would be something along the lines of being aware you exist, and can make choices. It may not be the same as yours or the next person, but I've got no problem finding one.
You arrive at some pretty ridiculous conclusions based on some completely different remarks.
LOLQuote:
Originally posted by jpbtennisman
Blip to 20 years later...AI robots take over the home...
"Today's feature on Tom's Hardware Guide....Overclocking Your Maid" ;) ;)
:D
I agree with rjlohan's response to this comment of yours. I think your are trying to reduce our arguments to us not wanting it to happen. I don't believe it can happen. I don't know enough about the implications of it happening to care if it happens or not or to try to impede it for that matter.Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
Well, I just don't agree with your opinion. I see a lot of potential for AI. Milestones for what constitutes AI get set, are achieved and then get redefined and moved further away all the time. It seems people are very attached to the concept of 'intelligence' and 'consciousness' and just don't want machines to be the same as them. Personally, I think the reason people have such a hard time defining things like 'self-awareness' is that they are very busy making sure that humans are special.
How many people do you know that are trying to "find" themselves? I know a few and consider them all to be pretty flakey. These are the kind of people that spend all their time totally self-involved and never really achieve any kind of "higher consciousness." In my mind, they are "lost."
The rest of the people I know simply don't worry about it because it's not possible to find the eternal truths they are looking for. So as a hobby, it's interesting. As a way of life, it's a waste of time.
People don't know anything about anything. We just like to think we do. But people are the ones who are going to create these machines so they will be very far from perfect. I think the very idea of a machine becoming "self-aware" in fundamentally flawed. Unfortunately, I'm not really able to express why.
I put it in the same category as:
The chicken or the egg
Perpetual motion
Creating a generator that powers a motor that runs the generator
Travelling in time and meeting yourself
I would like to point out that there are respected scientists out there who argue that consiousness itself is uncomputational. Roger Penrose believes, taking much from Godel that there are things that consiousness can know that cannot be proved logically.
I think Guv was right when he said that our current architcecture is inadequate for the job. We will need to formulate a new logic that is capable of deriving all truth without contradicting itself. A form of logic that is so inconceivable to us now that it defies the imagination.
This is the sort of thing that makes me think people are just resistant to it. Why would you think it's impossible unless you think consciousness is some kind of mystical gift? It smacks of faith to me. If not faith, then denial.Quote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
I think the very idea of a machine becoming "self-aware" in fundamentally flawed. Unfortunately, I'm not really able to express why.
I don't mean to be presumptuous about the roots of your opinions, but you just don't seem to back them up with any reasonable evidence. Just more opinion. That's fine if you just say it's your opinion and nothing more, but it irks me somewhat to see people make blanket statements about a field I feel they possibly haven't explored properly and present a pseudo-logical argument for their opinion that ends up, on further investigation, being based purely on more opinion.
Making choices is easy, but how do you test for being aware you exist? This is the kind of target that gets set, and when it seems to have been achieved, the goalposts get moved or the objectives redefined by people who are basically never going to leave them alone because (IMO) they feel the need to set themselves apart from other machines.Quote:
being aware you exist, and can make choices
Harry
Read "The emporer's new mind" by Roger Penrose. He provides a logical objection to the possiblity of AI ever achieving true consiousness and his arguements do not rest on the notion of dualism.
Harry you would look so much better without the beard, and after a diet ... just a little advice....
Here's a brief summary taken from here that describes his position:
n.b. "Shadows of the mind" was his first book, "Emporer's new mind" the sequel.Quote:
In his book Shadows of the Mind, Roger Penrose suggests that deep problems in artificial intelligence, physics, and the philosophy of mind are closely connected. He presents a detailed argument, using Gödel's theorem, for the conclusion that human thought cannot be simulated by any computation. This leads him to the conclusion that physics is noncomputable, and he presents suggestions about how noncomputability may enter into a theory of quantum gravity. Finally, he argues that this may take effect at the level of the mind through quantum collapse processes in microtubules, protein structures found in the skeleton of a neuron.
That is my point. Everything that ANYBODY has to say regarding this is nothing more than opinion, theory and hypothesis, regardless of what research has been done. If there were "facts" as you call them, then this thread would be entirely unnecessary. You ask me to provide reasonable evidence. How do you prove something isn't?Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
I don't mean to be presumptuous about the roots of your opinions, but you just don't seem to back them up with any reasonable evidence. Just more opinion. That's fine if you just say it's your opinion and nothing more, but it irks me somewhat to see people make blanket statements about a field I feel they possibly haven't explored properly and present a pseudo-logical argument for their opinion that ends up, on further investigation, being based purely on more opinion.
I very strongly DO NOT believe in the mystical. Again, if you read what I read, I said that I do not believe that it can happen. I also do not believe there is a God. That doesn't make me resistent. It means I don't believe it. Can I say that any clearer???? I do not believe it. If I'm wrong and someone can show me proof then I will believe it. It's not resistence. It's disbelief. They are not the same thing.
So please explain to me the path from where we are now to when these machines become self-aware. What is the moment that defines that event?
Cafeenman
Have I finally made it on to everyone's "ignore" lists now? Read Penrose. He attempts to prove that it is impossible.Quote:
How do you prove something isn't?
That's a little unfair of you. If Harry knew the path, he would probably have already achieved it.Quote:
So please explain to me the path from where we are now to when these machines become self-aware. What is the moment that defines that event?
Exactly my point simonm. If it could be proven then it would be done.
Pretty much anything a person says is opinion. It's entirely unnecessary and irritating to listen to people who preface every thought with "In my opinion." The only time someone wants another to do this is when they don't agree. For some people agreement = fact, disagreement = other person's opinion vs. my fact.Quote:
I don't mean to be presumptuous about the roots of your opinions, but you just don't seem to back them up with any reasonable evidence. Just more opinion.
So far I haven't seen a shred of compelling evidence that it's possible to create a self-aware machine. It's all been conjecture and, to reverse your statement, an irrational desire for it to be possible vs. actual data supporting it.
Cheers Simon, I'll try to remember to check it out. I'll be back to uni for my final year in September, and this is the sort of stuff that is likely to be the subject of my dissertation, so all input is welcome.
As Simon pointed out, it's really quite unlikely that I know the answer to this :rolleyes: There is an issue with what self-awareness is though. If you believe that we are just complex machines, then you have already proven to yourself that intelligence is possible. It's the 'artificial' bit people aren't happy with. If what Simon says Penrose proposed is true, then what would an intelligent system based on those principles be called? My gut feeling is that many people would claim it somehow wasn't 'artificial' enough to be AI.Quote:
So please explain to me the path from where we are now to when these machines become self-aware. What is the moment that defines that event?
OK, so I assume from your posts that you believe this is possible. I do not. There is not a way to prove it either way. At least I don't have an argument that will prove it is not possible. Do you have one proving it is? To me proof is actually doing it.Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
B]As Simon pointed out, it's really quite unlikely that I know the answer to this :rolleyes:[/B]
Harry
Then you'll definitely want to read some Penrose. He is one of the leading "objectors" to the development of self-aware AI.Quote:
Cheers Simon, I'll try to remember to check it out. I'll be back to uni for my final year in September, and this is the sort of stuff that is likely to be the subject of my dissertation, so all input is welcome.
I beleive that to make a self-aware machine, it would have to have the capacity to step "outside" of itself and be able to conceptualise about itself in the third party. For any logical, analylitic and algorythmic device, this kind of self-consideration is impossible as it leads to an infinite regress. Such a machine needs to make an intuitive leap to grasp the concept of itself. And it is a leap because the gap is cannot be systematically bridged.
Here is one of Penroses arguments regarding the uncomputability of the human consiousness:
Quote:
(1) Assume my reasoning powers are captured by some formal system F (to put this more briefly, "I am F"). Consider the class of statements I can know to be true, given this assumption.
(2) Given that I know that I am F, I know that F is sound (as I know that I am sound). Indeed, I know that the larger system F' is sound, where F' is F supplemented by the further assumption "I am F". (Supplementing a sound system with a true statement yields a sound system.)
(3) So I know that G(F') is true, where this is the Gödel sentence of the system F'.
(4) But F' could not see that G(F') is true (by Gödel's theorem).
(5) By assumption, however, I am now effectively equivalent to F'. After all, I am F supplemented by the knowledge that I am F.
(6) This is a contradiction, so the initial assumption must be false, and F must not have captured my powers of reasoning after all.
(7) The conclusion generalizes: my reasoning powers cannot be captured by any formal system.
I reckon a good starting point to define the self-awareness is when the computer does something completely unexpected that can in no way be traced to any human input. Not something it learned as a result of human-defined algorithms, or any step down the ladder from there, but something completely unexpected.
And since that's never gonna happen, we will never see true intelligence in a machine.
Unless, as I said, someone replicates a human brain, but if we're goin' there, why not just clone a human, and work on some sort of training scheme to make them effectively our slave... oh no - that's been outlawed, right? :p
rjlohan
What about some sort of computer based on quantum effects? The quantum world is probablilistic, right? So, by definition, such a system may demonstrate unpredictable behaviour.Quote:
I reckon a good starting point to define the self-awareness is when the computer does something completely unexpected that can in no way be traced to any human input. Not something it learned as a result of human-defined algorithms, or any step down the ladder from there, but something completely unexpected.
And since that's never gonna happen, we will never see true intelligence in a machine.
My last computer was really unpredictable. In fact, I think instead of giving it away, I should have donated it to science because it continued to prove that it had emotional problems. If that's not human behavior, I don't know what is. :p
It's always going to be traced back to a human, because it would be a human that bootstrapped the process. Do you consider yourself vegetative because you were born with a specific set of instincts that come built-in? They can be traced back to coming from your ancestors.Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
I reckon a good starting point to define the self-awareness is when the computer does something completely unexpected that can in no way be traced to any human input. Not something it learned as a result of human-defined algorithms, or any step down the ladder from there, but something completely unexpected.
Everything about the AI will be human-defined in the first place, because otherwise it wouldn't be artificial.
As I said, this isn't something that can just happen on its own. By excluding any human input whatsoever you are effectively suggesting that by definition anything artificial is not intelligent, which is something I disagree with.
Harry
I imagine that what rjlohan really means is that an AI program must be able to rise above and beyond it's human defined parameters. Evolve into something more than what it was when it was created.Quote:
As I said, this isn't something that can just happen on its own. By excluding any human input whatsoever you are effectively suggesting that by definition anything artificial is not intelligent, which is something I disagree with.
Who was it who said that humans will never be able to create a machine that is as intelligent as themselves but they might endow it with the power to evolve intelligence that is equal to or greater than our own?
Simon - I didn't mean unpredictable in a random sense. Let's consider humans, right? At a completely instinctive level, we are born with the ability to find food, and procreate. Ok, that's very simplistic, but there is very little else that humans can do just because they were created - communication, say, is learned. (learnt?)
Anyway, what I'm suggesting is that humans, or truly intelligent beings, have the ability to extend beyond what they were created with. I'm not 'programmed' to communicate, but there are facilities in my brain to allow me to learn communication skills, based on my environment and so on. Machines don't have this inherent ability. It is feasible that a machine could be programmed to learn to communicate in a human language, say, (although I'd be surprised - the 'state of the art' I've seen is pretty poor). But that could only occur through a pre-defined set of parameters that some human put in place.
I would suggest that a truly intelligent being, can learn to learn... I wonder if that makes sense to anyone but me? :p
From the previous post, I'm not trying to exclude all human input, but only that which defines a set of 'rules' by which a computer may learn. We tell it how to learn, and what to learn. I believe true intelligence can learn to learn. I don't think machines can do that.Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
It's always going to be traced back to a human, because it would be a human that bootstrapped the process. Do you consider yourself vegetative because you were born with a specific set of instincts that come built-in? They can be traced back to coming from your ancestors.
Everything about the AI will be human-defined in the first place, because otherwise it wouldn't be artificial.
As I said, this isn't something that can just happen on its own. By excluding any human input whatsoever you are effectively suggesting that by definition anything artificial is not intelligent, which is something I disagree with.
This subject makes me think of the game 'Civilization'. I always hate getting to the end of the technological chain... and I hope, that this isn't it... :p
It makes perfect sense to me. I think computers can become much more than they are now, but they'll always be machines.
No mate you must be on drugs again. :pQuote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
I would suggest that a truly intelligent being, can learn to learn... I wonder if that makes sense to anyone but me? :p
http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...591#post449591
Strong drugs too - 'cause I think you agree with me... :pQuote:
Originally posted by Nucleus
No mate you must be on drugs again. :p
http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...591#post449591
LOL, me agree with you, never.Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
Strong drugs too - 'cause I think you agree with me... :p
Fine, I don't agree with you either. LEt's just disagree to agree, OK?
agreed. :)
You were created with the potential to learn, though. It's not something that just magically came out of the air. You had the potential to perceive your environment, perform cognitive processes in analysing that information, and infer knowledge from your observations that you store away in several layers of cache, some longer term than others. That's not so completely different to what we can do with computers. Of course computers don't have an inherant ability to learn, just like they don't have an inherant ability to play chess or to fly aircraft. That's why we write software, to extend the functionality of the computer, putting that number-crunching power to use. You can't say that because computers aren't very good at learning now, they will never be.Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
Anyway, what I'm suggesting is that humans, or truly intelligent beings, have the ability to extend beyond what they were created with. I'm not 'programmed' to communicate, but there are facilities in my brain to allow me to learn communication skills, based on my environment and so on. Machines don't have this inherent ability. It is feasible that a machine could be programmed to learn to communicate in a human language, say, (although I'd be surprised - the 'state of the art' I've seen is pretty poor). But that could only occur through a pre-defined set of parameters that some human put in place.
I would suggest that a truly intelligent being, can learn to learn... I wonder if that makes sense to anyone but me? :p
State of the art not very good? How good was state of the art 3D rendering 20 years ago? How good was it 40 years ago? The IT industry continues to improve by leaps and bounds as time goes on. Again, 'not very good now' doesn't mean 'never going to be very good'.
Learning to learn... this is one of those things that involves recursion, like being aware of self, but being aware of awareness of self, and so on. It's a problem that I haven't seen solved. Yet.
It's really undeniably true that we, as humans, are intelligent. We are also just complex machines. Whatever we can do, a machine can do, because we ourselves are machines. The machine in question may have to also be very complex, but noone expects it to be simple.
You keep saying that this and that can only happen by humans setting it up in the first place. Well, that's really the whole point, isn't it? It's artificial, we make it, we are humans, we lay the foundations and create a framework for the AI to work from.
Yes, but the point is, our (human) understanding of the way the brain works, and how we 'learn to learn' is so pathetically limited that any hope for AI is so far off as to be impossible. For now. Maybe ever. Like I said, unless we replicate a human brain, I don't think it will ever happen. Sure, we can make a machine that can learn the best way to keep a plant running or whatever, but that is a single task (or a single goal) that we have defined, and in my opinion, that's not AI. People call it AI to make money, nothing more. :p
So why would something that is artificial warrant having rights? I think that was the original question. :)Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
You keep saying that this and that can only happen by humans setting it up in the first place. Well, that's really the whole point, isn't it? It's artificial, we make it, we are humans, we lay the foundations and create a framework for the AI to work from.
Oh, was it?Quote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
So why would something that is artificial warrant having rights? I think that was the original question. :)
:confused:
:p
Yep :) But I think it's only inevitable that the debate would turn into is it even possible. Who started this thread anyway? Where is he? She? Whoever?
Heh, well I think you already summed up the whole thing about rights, cafeenman.
So are you saying you actually agree with what I said about them? Or are you saying that I had something to say about them? :pQuote:
Originally posted by HarryW
Heh, well I think you already summed up the whole thing about rights, cafeenman.
Hint: It would be cool if we actually agreed on part of this. :)
Well if you just look back a page or two you'll see that I completely agreed with you. In fact, I agreed with you more enthusiastically than anyone else ever on these forums ;)
Actually Harry, me and the cafeen had quite a big agreement the other day - you must have missed that one. We used our dragon-style kung-fu to fight these two homosexual brothers.
:p
You're right. I've been deceiving myself. I thought everyone was always in enthusiastic agreement with me. Now that I've reread some of the other threads, I can see that I took "Piss off CafeenMan" to mean that "I really love chatting with you, but I have to take a break to piss." I guess that's not really what was meant after all.Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
Well if you just look back a page or two you'll see that I completely agreed with you. In fact, I agreed with you more enthusiastically than anyone else ever on these forums ;)
So you're my new best friend :) Can I come over and watch tv?
Yeah, but if your arse is as fat as it looks from here, you're not going anywhere near my sofa, sorry. And no, I don't have any cheesy puffs.
That was fun. I hope someone else comes along soon. I really do. I guess that's kind of pathetic wishing for mouthy, ignorant people, but I can't help it. It's fun. May the universe forgive me. It's a weakness :)Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
Actually Harry, me and the cafeen had quite a big agreement the other day - you must have missed that one. We used our dragon-style kung-fu to fight these two homosexual brothers.
:p
Actually, I've put on a little weight since this photo. But don't worry about the cheesy puffs. I make sure to bring enough to maintain serum levels.Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
Yeah, but if your arse is as fat as it looks from here, you're not going anywhere near my sofa, sorry. And no, I don't have any cheesy puffs.
Harry
Well, unless someone finds the flaw in Penrose's argument (posted on page two) then it never will be solved because it is beyond the capacity of any formal system.Quote:
Learning to learn... this is one of those things that involves recursion, like being aware of self, but being aware of awareness of self, and so on. It's a problem that I haven't seen solved. Yet.
There is a solution to the problem, though, otherwise we wouldn't be self-aware.
Harry
True, however the argument does suggest that our powers of reasoning cannot be captured by any formal system.Quote:
There is a solution to the problem, though, otherwise we wouldn't be self-aware.
Since all programming systems and languages that we know of are based on a formal system of logic (correct me if I'm wrong), we need something radically different from what we've got now.
I think the solution is an organic computer that can be incubated and grown.
At what point does AI become I? As long as the A is there, there should be no rights at all.
What, like animals? How would you distinguish AI from life?Quote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
I think the solution is an organic computer that can be incubated and grown.
there wouldn't need to be a distinction as long as we designed and created it.Quote:
What, like animals? How would you distinguish AI from life?
Even if it bears all the characteristics of life? The ultimate in AI would be highly intelligent life.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
there wouldn't need to be a distinction as long as we designed and created it.
What's your point?Quote:
Even if it bears all the characteristics of life? The ultimate in AI would be highly intelligent life.
"Artificial" means "man-made". If we make an intelligent machine, living or not, it is artificial.
If AI was developed to the point of life, it would be able to evolve beyond the artificial, and would essentially be a new species from genetically engineered backgrounds.
Yes. Artificial backgrounds. Artificial intelligent life.
I think that whether or not we give AI rights, as a
live, sentient being depends on one thing...
How tastey is it?
If artificial intelligence tastes good on a rice pilaf or between
two buns with mustard and ketchup, watch out!
they will never be give any good status except edible.
so as a warning to all you AI developers, make them taste horrible.
Nooooo...they must taste good...and then we will breed them and have fields full of them and then they can take over the world.
intelligence is a word that doesn't say much to me, some people might thing someone is intelligent while other may think they are stupid, don't you think intelligence is subjective?
It probably depends on how you define intelligence, I suppose.