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
Printable View
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.