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
See more
See less

"AI is a dream we shouldn't be having"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    It has been stated that the first step towards solving a problem is to understand it. Here you go ...
    We are 'closer' than we were 100 years ago in the sense that 100 years ago we were clueless about the sheer magnitude of what true AI would require. Only in that sense are we any closer.

    Jorge
    I wonder a bit on this. Do we really understand intelligence. Are we really closer to understanding it at the level you imply here than we were 100 years ago? Suppose one could write a system that could mimic human behavior in such a way that no matter what you did, no matter how one tested it, one could not tell the difference between how it responded and how a human would respond. Do we know enough to know it is not also self aware in the sense that we are?

    IOW, would the knowledge we now have make it any easier for us to draw that distinction than it would be for someone 100 years ago to do the same.

    Jim
    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      It has been stated that the first step towards solving a problem is to understand it. Here you go ...
      We are 'closer' than we were 100 years ago in the sense that 100 years ago we were clueless about the sheer magnitude of what true AI would require. Only in that sense are we any closer.

      Jorge

      correct.

      We know much more about how little we actually know.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        I wonder a bit on this. Do we really understand intelligence. Are we really closer to understanding it at the level you imply here than we were 100 years ago? Suppose one could write a system that could mimic human behavior in such a way that no matter what you did, no matter how one tested it, one could not tell the difference between how it responded and how a human would respond. Do we know enough to know it is not also self aware in the sense that we are?
        Turing test. Some people claimed success, iirc.
        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


        • #49
          Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
          You said, "I've seen robots that are actively learning." To which I respond, Learning is not sentience. Further you said, "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." My response is that memory is not sentience.

          In fact your post was not very responsive. I referred to sentience, which as you may recall, is the subject of the OP. You addressed intellegence, not sentience. You responded that we have an incomplete picture but that "I've seen robots that are actively learning." Learning, and responding to situations is simply more complex learning, is not sentience. What more do you have. I repeat Sparko's claim that we are no closer to a true sentient artificial mind. Unless you can describe what more we need to do to accomplish artificial sentience, you have done no more than repeat what might have been said 50 years ago.

          Originally I said: "The goal is definitely simulation. There is no actual explanation for sentience in existence. " You have not taken a single step to disabuse me of that opinion. How is Sparko's statement that "We are not any closer to a true sentient artificial mind now than we were 100 years ago," shown to be "downright false?"
          Nowhere have I claimed that learning or database-lookup is sentience. Your claim is that we are no closer to sentience. I gave a "long winded answer" that elaborates on what sentience is, what intelligence is, how the two are related, and most importantly how progress in artificial intelligence is also progress towards artificial sentience. I have taken 'a single step' (and then some), even if you choose to ignore it.
          I'm not here anymore.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            We know much more about how little we actually know.
            This I would definitely agree with.
            I'm not here anymore.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              I wonder a bit on this. Do we really understand intelligence. Are we really closer to understanding it at the level you imply here than we were 100 years ago? Suppose one could write a system that could mimic human behavior in such a way that no matter what you did, no matter how one tested it, one could not tell the difference between how it responded and how a human would respond. Do we know enough to know it is not also self aware in the sense that we are?

              IOW, would the knowledge we now have make it any easier for us to draw that distinction than it would be for someone 100 years ago to do the same.

              Jim
              We understand intelligence much more than many are aware of and/or are willing to admit. Of course, intelligence carries with it certain assumptions. The problems with IQ tests as measures of intelligence are the same with comparing all aptitudes. It would be folly to suggest we are more intelligent than some creatures simply because we can solve problems they cannot. They are quite capable of solving problems we cannot. Intelligence as a claim to ability is in the same boat as every other evolutionary outcome: success is relative. It's important, then, to express intelligence in terms of possessing certain components rather than insisting on an arbitrary metric of skill in one or more of them.

              For your hypothetical, I think you would be interested in Searle's Chinese Room Argument, if you're not already familiar with it.
              I'm not here anymore.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                sounds a lot like my background, but I never messed with robotic competitions, and wasn't much of a programmer, other than some simple programs and programming PLCs. I worked for a company that made automated cleaning machines, controlled by PLCs and some robotics (for loading and unloading the machines) - and I did electrical design and electronics repair. I have always been interested in sci-fi, neuroscience, AI, and such.
                I hesitate to reference a computer as an analogy but it's a useful one. Just as the computer has a central processor, a processor for graphics, and limited inputs from peripheral devices, so too does our brain. That much is readily understood in current neuroscience. The difference is that our brain is orders of magnitude more complex than the computers we possess today. So far as I can tell from my experience and understanding, consciousness emerges once a certain level of complexity is achieved (and we haven't found that threshold). That seems to be pretty strongly supported by our increased understanding of consciousness in non-human animals. There's not a magic threshold per se, but an increase in complexity pushes organisms ever closer to what we recognize as consciousness or sentience.

                I don't find that anything in current artificial consciousness research is close to what would be required. However, to reach that complexity requires refining and expanding upon our capabilities in all aspects of electronic communication and processing. In the same way that advancements in pattern recognition and speech processing are also advancements towards intelligence, so too are advancements in small-scale technologies pushing us closer to the ability to process ever more amounts of information both in terms of speed and in terms of multiple, parallel routines.

                I'd be the first to say that we're a very, very long way from achieving the amount of complexity required. I don't see any way in which "no closer" is a true statement, though. Some might say that it's an unattainable goal, and they might be right. The only obstacle I really see is time and effort.
                I'm not here anymore.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                  . . .I gave a "long winded answer" that elaborates on what sentience is, what intelligence is, how the two are related, . . .
                  I seem to have missed this part.
                  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


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                    I seem to have missed this part.
                    Ok.
                    I'm not here anymore.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                      I hesitate to reference a computer as an analogy but it's a useful one. Just as the computer has a central processor, a processor for graphics, and limited inputs from peripheral devices, so too does our brain. That much is readily understood in current neuroscience. The difference is that our brain is orders of magnitude more complex than the computers we possess today. So far as I can tell from my experience and understanding, consciousness emerges once a certain level of complexity is achieved (and we haven't found that threshold). That seems to be pretty strongly supported by our increased understanding of consciousness in non-human animals. There's not a magic threshold per se, but an increase in complexity pushes organisms ever closer to what we recognize as consciousness or sentience.

                      I don't find that anything in current artificial consciousness research is close to what would be required. However, to reach that complexity requires refining and expanding upon our capabilities in all aspects of electronic communication and processing. In the same way that advancements in pattern recognition and speech processing are also advancements towards intelligence, so too are advancements in small-scale technologies pushing us closer to the ability to process ever more amounts of information both in terms of speed and in terms of multiple, parallel routines.

                      I'd be the first to say that we're a very, very long way from achieving the amount of complexity required. I don't see any way in which "no closer" is a true statement, though. Some might say that it's an unattainable goal, and they might be right. The only obstacle I really see is time and effort.
                      I don't think it has to do with reaching a certain level of complexity. There is nothing to support that. In fact a lot of lower lifeforms, such as mice, have conciousness and self-awareness.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                        Ok.
                        I meant that I missed where you explained what sentience is. I even went back and reread all your posts. Can you explain that to me?
                        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


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          I don't think it has to do with reaching a certain level of complexity. There is nothing to support that. In fact a lot of lower lifeforms, such as mice, have conciousness and self-awareness.
                          Mice do not have self-awareness. Consciousness and self-awareness aren't the same thing. Most vertebrate animals are believed to have consciousness as defined by ability to experience suffering (and other emotions). However, it's a mistake to think mice do not have complex brains just because it's not as complex as our own. In order to see levels of complexity, you need to examine the entire spectrum from single-celled organisms to humans. Perhaps more importantly, the argument for complexity as a basis for consciousness relies on emergent phenomena in all manner of topics.
                          I'm not here anymore.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                            I meant that I missed where you explained what sentience is. I even went back and reread all your posts. Can you explain that to me?
                            Sentience is the ability to have a subjective sensory experience (qualia). The second paragraph of my post #35 goes into a lot more detail, but this is sentience in a nutshell.

                            Possibly barring a few carnivorous exceptions, plants aren't capable of sentience at all. They have no sensory apparatus. Single-celled organisms with eyespots might be considered capable of rudimentary sentience, but I doubt most people would call it such. Organisms like sponges are incapable of sentience. Computer programs are more than capable of receiving information from peripheral devices, but this would not be sufficient. Robots and other systems equipped with sensory apparatus like thermometers and cameras could be capable of sentience given some degree of autonomy. The biggest difference, afaict, is between instructed polling of peripherals and real-time sampling, processing and response generation. The iCub I mentioned earlier is getting pretty close to that last.
                            I'm not here anymore.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                              Possibly barring a few carnivorous exceptions, plants aren't capable of sentience at all. They have no sensory apparatus.
                              Hmmm. Plants may not be sentient, but they do have sensory apparatus. Most flowers can detect light sufficiently to turn towards the sun. Plants can sense the level of moisture and carbon dioxide in the air and adjust the size of the stomata in their leaves accordingly. Seeds sense temperature and moisture levels and germinate accordingly. Some plants react to the presence of chemicals released by their neighbours. Venus fly-traps aren't the only plants that react to their leaves being touched.

                              Plants may not be able to see or hear, but they can scent, taste and feel.

                              Roy
                              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Roy View Post
                                Hmmm. Plants may not be sentient, but they do have sensory apparatus. Most flowers can detect light sufficiently to turn towards the sun. Plants can sense the level of moisture and carbon dioxide in the air and adjust the size of the stomata in their leaves accordingly. Seeds sense temperature and moisture levels and germinate accordingly. Some plants react to the presence of chemicals released by their neighbours. Venus fly-traps aren't the only plants that react to their leaves being touched.

                                Plants may not be able to see or hear, but they can scent, taste and feel.

                                Roy
                                I stand corrected. Don't you think there's a difference between being the actor and being acted upon, though? I wouldn't have thought it accurate to describe seeds as acting, rather that the conditions have to be right for certain automatic processes to function.
                                I'm not here anymore.

                                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 Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X