ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 13th March 2019, 03:09 PM   #81
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,820
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I explained what it is from my POV. How about you tell me what you think it is if not a combination of software and hardware?
Belz, you're usually a very intelligent and sober person capable of holding a coherent conversation. Why is it that you're answering my question with a non-sequitur? Again, my question to you is: What is the difference between AI and a computer program? To which you reply "It's a combination of software and hardware". Do you see how your answer is a non-sequitur?


Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
No one here has made much of an effort to show any understanding of what AI is.
Quite the contrary, I would say you yourself have not made much of an effort to show any understanding of what AI is. Especially since you continue to equivocate AI with computer program. I'm still waiting to hear what is, according to you, the difference between AI and a Computer Program. Because until I have an idea of how you, personally, define what AI is, and differentiate it from a Computer Program, we cannot even begin to have a discussion about the subject.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan

Last edited by Ron_Tomkins; 13th March 2019 at 03:19 PM.
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2019, 03:17 PM   #82
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,820
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Not actual feelings, maybe. I suppose it depends on how one defines that. Ours are caused by chemistry. I don't know if we could call 'feelings' incentives made via other means. How would one reward a machine for reaching a set goal, for instance, with 'pleasure'? The comparison between humans and machines breaks down because the fundamentals are so different.

What we're trying to replicate is the ability to think, learn and adapt. Even if we reproduce the brain structure artificially and with similar 'programming', I'm not sure that, in the absence of similar chemical pathways we're even talking about the same type of thinking to begin with.

Not sure if I'm making sense here. It seems clear in my mind but I'm not sure I'm communicating that properly.
That is something I actually agree with. I was thinking about the subject of AI and I wonder if it would actually be possible to reproduce what would basically be an "artificial consciousness" merely using computer software. I wonder how much of what we know as human consciousness depends on the specific "hardware" of the human body (human cells, human tissue, blood, chemical reactions, etc)
I don't think we will be able to efficiently create a truly conscious artificial brain until we understand, to the last detail, step-by-step, how consciousness arises from our brain, to the point that we could write down a whole blueprint of how to build a conscious brain. Certainly, the advances in science have clarified a lot of details, but we still don't have a full picture of the whole process. So I think that until we do, it would be silly to pretend to create an artificial mind with an artificial consciousness. We may end up finding out that a great deal of what makes our consciousness what it is, is deeply connected to the physicality of the brain (again, the fact that it is made up of tissue, which is made up of cells). If this turns out to be true, then we would first need to be able to reproduce artificial cells, which could then create artificial tissue, which could create an artificial brain. In short, it may not be possible to create an artificial intelligent computer, made up entirely out of plastic and metal parts.

But that's a separate question, of course. The question is, if we eventually manage to figure out how to create an artificial entity (regardless of how it's built), is that something we should even do? That's the question. And I'm with Sam Harris on that one: I think the answer is no. But I'm not against creating very intelligent computer programs, which are still nothing but computer programs, only that with a higher level of intelligence, but still limited by the parameters set by its programmer.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2019, 03:42 PM   #83
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,746
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Belz, you're usually a very intelligent and sober person capable of holding a coherent conversation.
Bracing myself...

Quote:
Why is it that you're answering my question with a non-sequitur? Again, my question to you is: What is the difference between AI and a computer program? To which you reply "It's a combination of software and hardware". Do you see how your answer is a non-sequitur?
The only answer I can give you is: AI is not just programming. That's the difference.

Quote:
Quite the contrary, I would say you yourself have not made much of an effort to show any understanding of what AI is.
How about you stop just nay-saying me and answer my question: how do YOU view AI, and in what way is it not hardware+software?

Quote:
Especially since you continue to equivocate AI with computer program
I am not doing that. Where the hell did you get that impression?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 12:33 AM   #84
Tassman
Muse
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 923
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post


"Facebook fired some AI developers after discovering the chatbot they built to talk to people only spouted gibberish and they couldn't fix it."

Fixed.
Ah-ha, that's what they want you to think.

It's not quite that simple. It might "look like gibberish or a string of typos, but researchers say it's actually a kind of shorthand". "Facebook's bots were left to themselves to communicate as they chose, and they were given no directive to stick to English. So the bots began to deviate from the script".

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/faceboo...-intelligence/

IOW: Unless specifically programmed otherwise, AI bots can and will go their own way, as in this instance, and who knows where they might end up.
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.

Last edited by Tassman; 14th March 2019 at 12:50 AM.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 05:07 AM   #85
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,818
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
Nobody in this thread is arguing that an AI is capable of actual feelings in the same way that humans can (though they may be good at imitating it). Occasionally, anthropomorphic language is used because it is easier to understand.
I'll argue that. I don't think an AI will be accepted as intelligent unless it provably is capable of actual feelings. Otherwise people will dismiss it with "oh, it's just fancy-pants nonlinear regression," as if they were anything more themselves.


Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Ah-ha, that's what they want you to think.

It's not quite that simple. It might "look like gibberish or a string of typos, but researchers say it's actually a kind of shorthand". "Facebook's bots were left to themselves to communicate as they chose, and they were given no directive to stick to English. So the bots began to deviate from the script".

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/faceboo...-intelligence/

IOW: Unless specifically programmed otherwise, AI bots can and will go their own way, as in this instance, and who knows where they might end up.
They want you to think they shut it down for ethical reasons, because that looks better on their stock price than "it didn't work." This is Facebook. There are lampreys with greater moral integrity.

I imagine their touted AI project boiled down to turning a bunch of chatbots toward each other with the intention that each would train the other without a human in the loop. But turns out they devolved immediately into gibberish (yes, gibberish) because the majority of chatbots are ultimately reflections of their conversational partner. Two blemished mirrors facing each other is not going to pop out Skynet.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 05:46 AM   #86
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,685
This is all academic anyway. Even if we can make some hard and fast delineation point between "Really, really, really advanced computer program running on really, really, really advanced computer hardware" and "True AI" we're never going be able to see the point until after (probably well after) we cross it.

The creation if AI isn't going to be some new big Skynet moment where the grey haired scientist in the labcoat calls a press conference and dramatically turns on his new giant computer that starts talking with a HAL voice. It's going to be an hourly waged programmer adding an algorithm to a collection of millions of other algorithms in some ongoing project.

The only way to stop AI from becoming a thing if it is even the vaguest levels of possible is to pretty much put a stop to all computer advancement and.... well *gestures at world*
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 06:05 AM   #87
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,746
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The creation if AI isn't going to be some new big Skynet moment where the grey haired scientist in the labcoat calls a press conference and dramatically turns on his new giant computer that starts talking with a HAL voice.
Although that would be awesome!
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 06:57 AM   #88
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,820
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
The only answer I can give you is: AI is not just programming. That's the difference.
Ok?.... quite vague of a definition but alright. That's a start.
So what is AI according to you, if not programming? I'm sincerely asking because, again, I have no idea what your concept of AI is. Feel free to elaborate. Don't be shy.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
How about you stop just nay-saying me and answer my question: how do YOU view AI, and in what way is it not hardware+software?
As I said before in my other post, since we still haven't created our first AI, we don't know if it will take something more than mere programming (as opposed to having to actually build artificial cells that build artificial tissue that build an artificial brain), or if it can be pulled off using a very advanced level of programming. I've never implied it's one or the other. I've always maintained that it could be either, as we don't know yet. The jury is out on that.

I've also explained in detail what the difference between AI and a computer program is, in post 63

Again, I'm unclear as to what your position is because every time I ask you to present it, you either shy away from it, or you present it in very vague terms.... but it seems your position is something like "AI, because it's something more than mere programming, it's therefore something that cannot be created. Something that only exists in sci-fi movies". But again, this is my mere guess based on the very little explanation you've provided on what your understanding of AI is.

The way I see it, the chief difference between a computer program and an AI is the kind of task we expect it to do, and how it goes about doing it
A computer program is a closed-system built by us, in which we are its boss and we tell it what to do. Computer programs perform tasks that humans understand, that's why we have to explain the program what to do and how to do it, and what to do in case scenario A happens, and what to do in case scenario B happens, etc. It's like a new recruit for a job, and we're the boss showing him around, "So here's the deposit. This is the switch you press if you hear an alarm, etc...". Only that even simpler than that. A computer program is, essentially, very very dumb. It will never learn anything by itself (as opposed to an AI)

AI is something we would build so we can ask it open-ended questions about tasks/things for which we don't have a solution/answer. Because it would be smarter than us and because it could compute things faster than us and learn things at a much faster rate than us, it would be a superior mind to which we consult on things for which we don't have an answer. The AI is more like a Wise Man we consult. So for instance, if we create an AI, a question/task we could ask it is "We're looking for the cure for AIDS. This is all the research we have so far, but we're stuck at this point". So then, the AI is expected to find a solution.

But again, we don't know how that would go because again, we have not yet built one (That's another key difference between a computer program and an AI. There's millions of computer programs that we've built. AI is still in the theory stage of the process)

The whole point is that, because we still don't know how this technology would behave, we should really think twice whether or not we should (To quote Ian Malcolm "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should".
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan

Last edited by Ron_Tomkins; 14th March 2019 at 07:02 AM.
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 07:40 AM   #89
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,746
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Ok?.... quite vague of a definition but alright. That's a start.
Ron, you asked me for the difference, not a definition.

Quote:
So what is AI according to you, if not programming? I'm sincerely asking because, again, I have no idea what your concept of AI is. Feel free to elaborate. Don't be shy.
Well, whatever turns out to be an actual AI, in my view, will be, as I said before, a combination of both hardware and software. It will definitely include programming, though the initial code will, I think almost by definition, be self-altered over time.

Quote:
As I said before in my other post, since we still haven't created our first AI, we don't know if it will take something more than mere programming (as opposed to having to actually build artificial cells that build artificial tissue that build an artificial brain), or if it can be pulled off using a very advanced level of programming. I've never implied it's one or the other. I've always maintained that it could be either, as we don't know yet. The jury is out on that.
So if you don't know, why did you earlier sound very sure that you knew what it was?

Quote:
I've also explained in detail what the difference between AI and a computer program is, in post 63
I don't see how that established the difference. A self-editing program is still a program, and there are, presumably, some fundamental code that can't be touched. A sort of AI ROM.

Quote:
Again, I'm unclear as to what your position is because every time I ask you to present it, you either shy away from it, or you present it in very vague terms....
First of all, that's not true. I didn't shy away from it. I answered it every time it was asked, except that one time to say that I already answered it. And you yourself admit that we're not quite clear on exactly what an AI will be, so it's pretty vague by necessity.

Quote:
but it seems your position is something like "AI, because it's something more than mere programming, it's therefore something that cannot be created. Something that only exists in sci-fi movies
Huh? That bears no ressemblance to what I said. What I said is that the conception that some posters here, and many others outside the forum, have of AI is more related to movie AIs than realistic ones. I'm pretty convinced that AIs will be a thing.

Quote:
The whole point is that, because we still don't know how this technology would behave, we should really think twice whether or not we should (To quote Ian Malcolm "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should".
And again this assumes that your limited understanding of AI, or mine, means that the people involved in its development also don't understand it. I'm sure this isn't the case.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 07:46 AM   #90
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,685
This is just the soul argument from another direction.

I'm Turing Test guy on this. If "the thing," whether it's a machine, a clone, an new alien species, or a pile of tapioca pudding, can interact with you in a double blind environment without you being able to reliably tell outside of what we would expect from random chance, it's "thinking" by any reasonable definition.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 07:56 AM   #91
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,583
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
This is just the soul argument from another direction.

I'm Turing Test guy on this. If "the thing," whether it's a machine, a clone, an new alien species, or a pile of tapioca pudding, can interact with you in a double blind environment without you being able to reliably tell outside of what we would expect from random chance, it's "thinking" by any reasonable definition.
I'm not.

the Turning Test forces "thinking" to be demonstrated on our terms. That means that a lot of "thinking" might be going on without us being able of willing to notice.
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 08:00 AM   #92
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,685
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
I'm not.

the Turning Test forces "thinking" to be demonstrated on our terms. That means that a lot of "thinking" might be going on without us being able of willing to notice.
That just puts us at "A rock thinks, it just thinks differently, you can't prove me wrong" level.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 08:01 AM   #93
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,746
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
I'm not.

the Turning Test forces "thinking" to be demonstrated on our terms. That means that a lot of "thinking" might be going on without us being able of willing to notice.
And you would be able to tell the difference how?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 08:03 AM   #94
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,820
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Well, whatever turns out to be an actual AI, in my view, will be, as I said before, a combination of both hardware and software. It will definitely include programming, though the initial code will, I think almost by definition, be self-altered over time.
Ok. You seem to be convinced that the way to build an AI is through programming, just like any other computer program. I personally wouldn't be so sure about that. It's a possibility, but since we still haven't efficiently figured out how to build one, it may turn out that the programming approach isn't the one to accomplish it. Again: If we happen to find that the only way to efficiently build an artificial intelligence is to create artificial cells which will then be capable of binding together themselves in an "organic" way (without intervention) to form artificial tissue which will form an artificial brain, then the building of such AI will look less like programming a computer, and more like engineering a sort of clone, except that instead of actual organic human tissue, it would be artificial tissue.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
And again this assumes that your limited understanding of AI, or mine, means that the people involved in its development also don't understand it. I'm sure this isn't the case.
How are you so sure exactly? Have you personally spoken with any AI developers?
As far as I'm aware, mankind still hasn't created the first actual AI entity, therefore it's safe to say we don't know how that would go. That includes you, me, and every AI engineer and scientist.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 08:04 AM   #95
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,685
I just realized we've solved the problem.

We'll be perfectly fine with artificial intelligence because we as a species will never be able to agree on any definition of it.

We might get destroyed by something, but we'll never agree if it was artificial intelligence that did it.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 08:06 AM   #96
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,820
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I just realized we've solved the problem.

We'll be perfectly fine with artificial intelligence because we as a species will never be able to agree on any definition of it.

We might get destroyed by something, but we'll never agree if it was artificial intelligence that did it.
We don't even have to agree on what to call it. We just need to understand its potential of power (or, to put it better, in this case, to understand how little we understand about its potential of power) before we make the decision of even creating it.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 08:07 AM   #97
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,685
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
As far as I'm aware, mankind still hasn't created the first actual AI entity, therefore it's safe to say we don't know how that would go. That includes you, me, and every AI engineer and scientist.
Because "AI" (most probably, I can imagine a couple of one off weird scenarios where there is a singular breakthrough moment, but I find them far less likely) isn't some singular thing that's going to be invented by intent in one singular moment.

I'm still putting moment on the table that any creation of AI is going to be a "Look back it" moment, perhaps looking back a significant time frame.

Much like human intelligence itself it's not gonna be a single, distinct thing.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 14th March 2019 at 08:09 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 08:09 AM   #98
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,746
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Ok. You seem to be convinced that the way to build an AI is through programming, just like any other computer program.
Ron, it would be really nice if you stopped using what I "seem" to be convinced of as a basis for your arguments and instead use -- shocking as it may be -- what I actually type.

It's not "just" programming if I specified that hardware will be an important aspect of the solution. For instance, one of the reasons why human behaviour is the way it is is that our memory is definitely not working like that of a computer. We don't record information; we associate experiences and feelings. Holographic memories might be necessary for true AI to exist, therefore.

As for the programming side, well, it's going to have to be part of the package. These machines aren't going to code themselves from scratch.

Quote:
I personally wouldn't be so sure about that. It's a possibility, but since we still haven't efficiently figured out how to build one, it may turn out that the programming approach isn't the one to accomplish it.
Please stop arguing from ignorance.

Quote:
Again: If we happen to find that the only way to efficiently build an artificial intelligence is to create artificial cells which will then be capable of binding together themselves in an "organic" way (without intervention) to form artificial tissue which will form an artificial brain, then the building of such AI will look less like programming a computer, and more like engineering a sort of clone, except that instead of actual organic human tissue, it would be artificial tissue.
I suppose that's a possibility, but then if that's what the solution is, I have a better idea: make more babies, and use the materials for other projects.

Quote:
How are you so sure exactly?
How am I sure that the experts in the field know more than the both of us on the topic? Oh, I don't know...
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 08:18 AM   #99
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,820
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
As for the programming side, well, it's going to have to be part of the package. These machines aren't going to code themselves from scratch.
See, you haven't been paying attention to what I wrote. The scenario I presented is one where we build artificial cells that then proceed to organically bind together to form artificial tissue, to form an artificial brain. We're not talking neither about a machine, nor about there being a programmer. They would be, in fact, "building themselves" just like actual cells. But you seem to be stuck in the "computer programming" mentality. Again, I don't deny that it may very well be nothing but computer programming the way to go, but that wasn't the one I was arguing in the post you replied to.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I suppose that's a possibility, but then if that's what the solution is, I have a better idea: make more babies, and use the materials for other projects.
"Make more babies"?? As in, human babies? You do realize I'm not talking about just reproducing a human being, but rather an AI with a much superior intellectual capacity. I wasn't talking about cloning people.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
How am I sure that the experts in the field know more than the both of us on the topic? Oh, I don't know...
And was I arguing against the fact that experts know more than us on the topic? I'll let you re-read what I wrote and figure out what is it I actually said, and lets see if this time you can address that and not that ridiculous strawman.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 08:23 AM   #100
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,746
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
See, you haven't been paying attention to what I wrote. The scenario I presented is one where we build artificial cells that then proceed to organically bind together to form artificial tissue, to form an artificial brain.
It's pretty ironic that you say I wasn't paying attention and then ignore the fact that I addressed exactly what you wrote about that. Maybe if you slowed down a bit?

If we're just going to create humans, we already have a good way to make those. Plus how are those artificial cells going to differ from regular ones?

Quote:
But you seem to be stuck in the "computer programming" mentality.
STOP TELLING ME WHAT I SEEM TO THINK AND READ WHAT I POST, Ron.

Quote:
You do realize I'm not talking about just reproducing a human being, but rather an AI with a much superior intellectual capacity.
No, that wasn't what you described. You described exactly the process of evolution. There's absolutely nothing in there that leads to superior anything.

Quote:
And was I arguing against the fact that experts know more than us on the topic?
You asked me how I was sure that the people working in the field understood it better than you. That's literally what I said and what you responded to with "How are you so sure exactly? ".

Strawman my ass. Beam in your eye, sir.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 08:26 AM   #101
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,820
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Because "AI" (most probably, I can imagine a couple of one off weird scenarios where there is a singular breakthrough moment, but I find them far less likely) isn't some singular thing that's going to be invented by intent in one singular moment.

I'm still putting moment on the table that any creation of AI is going to be a "Look back it" moment, perhaps looking back a significant time frame.

Much like human intelligence itself it's not gonna be a single, distinct thing.
I don't know. I think that what we have accomplished so far (As far as I know) is some very advanced computer programs that are capable of making some associations and yes, even "learn" some things, within a very limited scope. But we haven't yet successfully created an Artificial Mind with an actual ability to learn exponentially, to the point that it is, at least, as smart as us. The things we have created are still "dumber" than us. They're faster/better than us at some things, but only because them being computers, once given the initial algorithm/formula, they have this innate ability to process data faster. But that's it. The fact that they can compute things faster than us is not a parameter of actual intelligence. A tiny calculator can compute numbers at a much faster rate than a human mind, but a calculator is not intelligent. It's not capable of learning things and growing/expanding its mind to gradually evolve into a much more advanced computer capable of talking and forming opinions. So I think that's where the equivocation lies. We think that because the computers we create can compute mathematical problems faster than us, that that is the same as them being intelligent. But it's not. What is understood as Artificial Intelligence (at least in the sense used when people like Sam Harris and Elon Musk argue about its potential danger) is basically a form of Artificial Consciousness. It's an actual mind, with actual thoughts and an ability to learn by itself, and perhaps even have introspection and identity crisis.

And again, it may turn out that the end result of an AI is simply a sum of lots and lots of very advanced computer programming, in which case what you say would be true, and every single program we've created throughout history will be seen as a step closer and closer to an AI.... but it may turn out that this is not the way to do it, and that the alternative scenario I presented, of creating organic cells, is the way to go.... or some other alternative method we haven't even yet conceived.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan

Last edited by Ron_Tomkins; 14th March 2019 at 08:32 AM.
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 08:31 AM   #102
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,820
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
STOP TELLING ME WHAT I SEEM TO THINK AND READ WHAT I POST, Ron.
Yeah, I can clearly see that I have not managed to understand your point. But if I say "you seem to be saying" it's precisely because I still don't quite understand what you're saying. It's my way of admitting that I have nothing but a guess of what it is you may be saying. You getting triggered and writing all in caps is certainly not helping.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
No, that wasn't what you described. You described exactly the process of evolution. There's absolutely nothing in there that leads to superior anything.
Forget it. You're clearly incapable of understanding what I'm saying, and you've become obfuscated to the point that you're not making sense. It is clear we're not gonna get anywhere, so I will leave you alone now.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 08:32 AM   #103
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,685
Well if not's "Real AI" until it has an existential crisis and goes into the Philosophy forum to argue about it with David and Tommy, I'm okay with that.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 08:33 AM   #104
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,820
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Well if not's "Real AI" until it has an existential crisis and goes into the Philosophy forum to argue about it with David and Tommy, I'm okay with that.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 08:40 AM   #105
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,685
I was actually being semi-serious though.

I think much of the handwringing that's gonna happen when we start getting very advanced programs and we start trying to split the hairs and draw the lines are going to be the same distinction without difference crap the philosophizers are already doing so... I don't care.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck I don't care if it's a duck or just "an amazing simulation of a duck" in most cases.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 08:43 AM   #106
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,815
The way I figure, it's not real AI until it has an opinion on the Trolley Problem, the Monty Hall Problem, and the movie Showgirls. Not solutions: Opinions.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 08:46 AM   #107
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,685
There's a joke scenario I've seen a few times (XKCD did a version of it, and I've seen it in other contexts) where we create an AI to control the nuclear arsenal and it immediately freaks out that those things even exists and shoots them all into the sun.

"Okay so I'm in charge of 'Nukes' you say? Okay let me just take a what we've got... OMG! Why did you even have these? What the hell is wrong with you?
Nope, nope stop talking. I don't want to hear it. Ain't nothing getting done until we get rid of these things."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 14th March 2019 at 08:48 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 08:47 AM   #108
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,746
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Yeah, I can clearly see that I have not managed to understand your point. But if I say "you seem to be saying" it's precisely because I still don't quite understand what you're saying.
Then stop making up theories, please.

Quote:
Forget it. You're clearly incapable of understanding what I'm saying, and you've become obfuscated to the point that you're not making sense. It is clear we're not gonna get anywhere, so I will leave you alone now.


Yeah, insulting me will ensure that you can call me "triggered" later on. Good show.

Seriously, was it that hard to have an honest discussion?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward



Last edited by Belz...; 14th March 2019 at 08:49 AM.
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 08:48 AM   #109
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,746
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
There's a joke scenario I've seen a few times (XKCD did a version of it, and I've seen it in other contexts) where we create an AI to control the nuclear arsenal and it immediately freaks out that those things even exists and shoots them all into the sun.

"OMG! Why did you even have these? Nope, nope stop talking. I don't want to hear it. Ain't nothing getting done until we get rid of these things."
https://xkcd.com/1626/

But I prefer this one:

https://xkcd.com/1046/
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 09:26 AM   #110
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,815
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
The second one has a flaw that probably only bothers me. The story takes place between 2:14 AM and 2:25 AM. I think it would be much funnier, and much more in line with what we expect AI to be like, if it took place between, say, 2:14:25 AM and 2:14:36 AM. The third panel, denoting the passage of time, becomes especially funny when you realize it's only 11 seconds.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 09:28 AM   #111
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,746
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The second one has a flaw that probably only bothers me. The story takes place between 2:14 AM and 2:25 AM. I think it would be much funnier, and much more in line with what we expect AI to be like, if it took place between, say, 2:14:25 AM and 2:14:36 AM. The third panel, denoting the passage of time, becomes especially funny when you realize it's only 11 seconds.
I absolutely agree. That was something I thought on my first reading as well.

NOTE: I tried to post this and the forum told me to wait for 11 seconds. Coincidence?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 03:03 PM   #112
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,076
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
This is just the soul argument from another direction.

I'm Turing Test guy on this. If "the thing," whether it's a machine, a clone, an new alien species, or a pile of tapioca pudding, can interact with you in a double blind environment without you being able to reliably tell outside of what we would expect from random chance, it's "thinking" by any reasonable definition.
I think it’s a terrible test. Right now people are fooled by bots, and right now people who I know would probably fail a Turing Test if you read their replies. And yet I *know* that the bots aren’t thinking and the human friends of mine are.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 03:27 PM   #113
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,746
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
I think it’s a terrible test.
Can you think of another one?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 03:32 PM   #114
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,076
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Can you think of another one?
Do I have to do that too?

I mean, I know the banana test (“is it yellow?”) is a bad one because you can get false positives and false negatives whether I have a better one or not.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 03:37 PM   #115
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,583
As mentioned, the Turing Test is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to determining whether an AI poses a threat or not.
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 03:37 PM   #116
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,815
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Can you think of another one?
There probably isn't one.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 03:51 PM   #117
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,076
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
That just puts us at "A rock thinks, it just thinks differently, you can't prove me wrong" level.
I think some more obvious examples would be babies, monkeys, dogs. Can they think? Yes, and their cognition can be pretty much demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt. Can they *tell* you they think? Can they operate a computer console? Can they pass a Turing test? No, because they cannot use language. An AI would *probably* be able to use language, but what if it wasn’t interested in interfacing with us or if it was depressed, etc...?
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 03:52 PM   #118
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,746
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Do I have to do that too?
No, you don't. But if it's a bad test, what would be a good test?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 03:55 PM   #119
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,076
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
There probably isn't one.
Apart from the Voight Kampf test.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 03:57 PM   #120
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,815
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
No, you don't. But if it's a bad test, what would be a good test?
I don't think there is one.

Though the movie Ex Machina has an interesting proposal:

If you know it's a machine, but it convinces you to treat it as morally human, then it's morally human.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:31 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.