Originally posted by Teallaura
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
"AI is a dream we shouldn't be having"
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
I found this really interesting.
For a short while - less than a year - I kind of thought along the same lines (AI will "soon" be real). That was ignorance on my part. It was while working on theoretical PR of handwriting and face recognition that I realized that the problem was many orders of magnitude beyond what I had thought. Shortly after that I adopted the position that I carry to this day : IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN - not ever!
We can and will get progressively closer by way of Expert Systems combined with super-super computers but true AI is impossible. Why? For a similar reason why a natural origin of life is impossible - there is more to life (and intelligence) than bringing together the right chemical elements (or electronic components).
Of course, I am well aware that the Materialists believe otherwise (it is part of their belief system) and that's why they'll continue reaching for their Holy Grail. I will bet the farm ten times over that true AI will never be come a reality (but a close facsimile will).
Jorge
Comment
-
A light year is a unit of distance measurement, not time. Some AI systems would not make that mistake. Superior in at least one way than Jorge.The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu
[T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Comment
-
Using 'light year' as a metaphor for 'extremely far from goal' is perfectly acceptable in English vernacular."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostA light year is a unit of distance measurement, not time. Some AI systems would not make that mistake. Superior in at least one way than Jorge.
You actually think I don't know what a light year is?
Here's a hint: I completed 6 years worth of undergraduate and graduate study in Physics.
I MEANT 100 light years in the sense that "it is very, very far away - unattainably far away".
You may now return to your 'pipe'.
Jorge
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostUsing 'light year' as a metaphor for 'extremely far from goal' is perfectly acceptable in English vernacular.
These people are so rabidly fanatical in their anti-YEC (or anti-Jorge)
stance that even the simplest things must be explained. To be pitied!
Jorge
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostI've seen robots that are actively learning. Yes, we have really strong systems that are just database-lookup programs. In truth, part of intelligence is database lookup. It's more than that, of course, but you don't have inference and pattern recognition without remembrance of previous encounters.Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
-
Sorry, Jorge. I tend to think of possible future scientific advances (or evolution if you prefer) in terms of time away, not distance away. Makes more sense to me anyway. As for being anti-YEC, while I lean to the OE view, I still think it's possible that Earth, not necessarily the universe itself, is young in some ways. Who's the one who can say that it didn't happen the way God said in Genesis? We need more details than there are in it.The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu
[T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Comment
-
No one who works daily with today's computers and data centers can truly believe in the Singularity.
To be fair, both the hardware and the software is just not structured to do it in anything resembling human-level decision-making. Some crazy guys say that LISP machines (IIRC the only ones that did do machine learning properly and efficiently) may be the ones to look for, but programming in LISP is difficult and requires an understanding of how the underlying system works, which is way too hard to teach in a weeklong seminar, let along a TED talk.
Let it be known now-the worshipers of the Singularity will grown in inverse proportion to the actual ability of the underlying machines to bring it about.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostSorry, Jorge. I tend to think of possible future scientific advances (or evolution if you prefer) in terms of time away, not distance away. Makes more sense to me anyway. As for being anti-YEC, while I lean to the OE view, I still think it's possible that Earth, not necessarily the universe itself, is young in some ways. Who's the one who can say that it didn't happen the way God said in Genesis? We need more details than there are in it.
As for your stance regarding YEC v. OE/OU, keep in mind that the major conflict is theological, not Naturalistic/empirical. Stated another way, if OE/OU caused no theological conflicts in Orthodox Christianity, there probably wouldn't be a debate (more like a war!) over that subject. Most people aren't aware of that. Anyway, just food for thought.
JorgeLast edited by Jorge; 06-06-2014, 05:54 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostThere are suppositions.
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostLearning and memory are not sentience. You can lose the ability to remember and still be sentient.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostThere's a lot more than that. We're not modifying states of mind and behaviors on supposition alone. We're not initiating actions in mice (like stopping what they're doing and going to get a drink of water) based on supposition alone. We might still be lacking a complete explanation, but we've got a lot more than just supposition from which to draw.
I didn't say they were, Jed. Reread what I said, please, and this time pay attention to the two sentences that you cut out. Sparko's claim that "We are not any closer to a true sentient artificial mind now than we were 100 years ago." is downright false.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
|
48 responses
135 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
03-20-2024, 09:13 AM
|
||
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
|
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:12 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
|
6 responses
46 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:25 PM
|
Comment