Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Ethics & destiny of AI creations

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    That's a whole other bag of worms. Which is why I asked the question earlier about would an AI actually be what we term a psychopath? It would not necessarily have human empathy or even human like intelligence. It might end up not caring about humans if it could survive without them, or even being hostile towards humans if it felt we were illogical or irrational compared to the way it thought. Do we really want to let something with that potential control our entire technological society? Because such an AI probably would not be limited to a physical location but would have access to our entire networks.
    I honestly don't know. It's uncertain, to my knowledge, how much of our physiology is required for so-called sentience. All the examples on our world share certain basic functions. If these functions are intrinsic to sentience as we know it, it's entirely possible that a sentient AI wouldn't act terribly different than we do. Would it be a pyschopath? Not necessarily, lest you consider elephants and dolphins to be. Would it have different priorities than us? I'd expect the same priorities with different satisfaction requirements. Energy as food, reproduction as...comingling of code? Who knows. I definitely would not expect it to care any more for humans than we do for any other animal. That would probably relegate us to the role of dogs, or something...

    Sit, Sparko!
    Last edited by Carrikature; 02-12-2014, 08:33 AM.
    I'm not here anymore.


    • #77
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      This the cynical fear motivated 'opinion' response I object to, without references to justify this.
      Don't be such a wet blanket, Shunya. We're speculating and discussing about a very hypothetical future. I did find one documentary about Sparko's questions.
      ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...


      • #78
        Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
        Oh, Sparko!

        Here's a short list of what your erstwhile professors are saying about those actual limitations ...

        Artificial Intelligence
        Fuzzy Sets and Systems
        Neural Networks
        International Journal of Robotics Research
        IEEE Computational Intelligence Society

        Didja just say something about workable quantum computers?

        The Facts That Got Away
        JULY 17, 1969: On Jan. 13, 1920, Topics of The Times, an editorial-page feature of The New York Times, dismissed the notion that a rocket could function in a vacuum and commented on the ideas of Robert H. Goddard, the rocket pioneer, as follows: ''That Professor Goddard, with his 'chair' in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react -- to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.''

        Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th century and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error.

        As ever, Jesse
        Nice wishful thinking there Jesse. You are doing the same thing shuny is. using a "god of the gaps" type argument. Building a simple neural network doesn't equate to building a sentient mind, nor does it even mean such a thing is possible. Sure there are people working toward such a goal, but that doesn't mean they will acheive it, especially with what we know currently of the brain, or with the technology we have. Just like people back in the early 1900's were predicting android (human like) robots in 20 to 30 years, and we still don't have those. Where is my robot with a positronic brain? This is the future dammit! I want my flying antigrav car too!

        Your link to the quantum computer is interesting, but it is hardly more than a prototype and a very basic one at that, and it does nothing to show that a functional sentient mind can be created with one.

        Keep dreaming. I hope one day we actually DO have a good sentient AI. Then we can replace you and shuny and maybe nobody would notice, except shunybot would become more rational.
        Last edited by Sparko; 07-13-2015, 08:31 AM.


        • #79
          Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
          It could, I suppose. For myself, I just find it foolish to create something that would (probably) eliminate us.
          There is of course the scifi philosophy that this would be part of our evolution.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .


          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.


          Related Threads


          Topics Statistics Last Post
          Started by seer, 03-22-2023, 08:21 AM
          13 responses
          Last Post shunyadragon  
          Started by Machinist, 03-07-2023, 06:33 AM
          261 responses
          Last Post seer
          by seer
          Started by seer, 09-21-2022, 12:55 PM
          33 responses
          Last Post Diogenes  
          Started by Jim B., 08-04-2019, 03:18 PM
          78 responses
          Last Post shunyadragon