Artificial Intelligence

[Westside]

The problem with A.I. is that it needs to be programmed.
A robot can´t learn, the best it can do is react based on his program, and programs will always have bugs.
Also...last time I saw they barely could walk.

I doesn't need to be a walking talking thing. It is artificial INTELLIGENCE. As I said, a chip can be A.I. Also, a program can be programmed so that it can recieve information, it could be said that it's am early stage to learn.

Oh and Double D or Azu something... sorry... That would be more difficult to do than A.I.

whats easier, changing body parts or teaching an inanimate object to think?
We are already seeing applications of cyborgs nowadays, prosthetics... its only a matter of time till we figure out how to trap brain synapses onto other media and transfer that from place to place.

And as lagman was saying, for something to qualify as intelligence it must be able to interpret variables outside of what it is 'programmed' to. Nowadays computers like deep blue do nothing but learn new details on something which is already programmed. Like its famous chess playing, if it was really intelligent then merely showing it a chess board and talking to it will cause it to learn the rules just as any human would.

Even though progress is slow, i still dream of cyborg babes

Look, double D, I see what you're saying, butt... Transferring our braing will be the most difficult tasks. You can have a machine with only a human brain easily compared to transferring the info from the brain to a machine. Then that will defeat the purpose of being an immortal cyborg, cuz you will die when the brain dies.

 

[lagman]

Let's not start a war shall we?

I've been through bootcamp and know the 17 steps of battle procedure and been taught basic idea of tatics and war strategies.

Â

What I'm trying to say is saving information. Like a chess game made by deep blue actually recieves data from what moves the player made and the mistakes it made to imporve its skills. I think that is an early step to A.I.

I might be wrong, I hope I´m.... this Seaman guy....he´s boring

 

[Jeda]

Yes it does have a lot to do with creating life. Just image what the dreamed for end result would look like. Take the Turing Test for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

So what happens if the AI gets good enough that a human couldn't notice the difference between talking to it and talking to a human? It would be a small step to build an organic body around such an AI. It would still be different from a human. Or... would it?

And: Yeah we've still a very far way to go in that part of science. Just never say never.

You didn't read the whole post, did you? Artificial intelligence is by definition a human like mind made by humans. You cannot actually make a life without borrowing it from something that already lives, then it would not be A.I. A well built computer that teaches itself and have the ability to judge is an A.I. by definition. Human can not creat life, period.



Hmm I wasn't replying to you, but the post before yours, but the content is similar.
Yes I did read the entire thread. Not sure why you assume the opposite. Assume that I don't know as much as you do about the subject instead. I read a lot of "by definition" in that post. I agree on the first one, this was also what the thread is about. What I can't really agree with is that AI/Life will necessarily be two different things in the future.

Westside

However, machines are possible, but that does not count as life. Take biology and look up the scientific definition of what life really is.

Well aparently there is no universal definition of life. I would call van Neumann maschines life, you wouldn't. But... no term war right?!?

 

[Westside]

Let's not start a war shall we?

I've been through bootcamp and know the 17 steps of battle procedure and been taught basic idea of tatics and war strategies.

Â

What I'm trying to say is saving information. Like a chess game made by deep blue actually recieves data from what moves the player made and the mistakes it made to imporve its skills. I think that is an early step to A.I.

I might be wrong, I hope I´m.... this Seaman guy....he´s boring

That was the most random post I saw today.

Yes it does have a lot to do with creating life. Just image what the dreamed for end result would look like. Take the Turing Test for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

So what happens if the AI gets good enough that a human couldn't notice the difference between talking to it and talking to a human? It would be a small step to build an organic body around such an AI. It would still be different from a human. Or... would it?

And: Yeah we've still a very far way to go in that part of science. Just never say never.

You didn't read the whole post, did you? Artificial intelligence is by definition a human like mind made by humans. You cannot actually make a life without borrowing it from something that already lives, then it would not be A.I. A well built computer that teaches itself and have the ability to judge is an A.I. by definition. Human can not creat life, period.

Hmm I wasn't replying to you, but the post before yours, but the content is similar.
Yes I did read the entire thread. Not sure why you assume the opposite. Assume that I don't know as much as you do about the subject instead. I read a lot of "by definition" in that post. I agree on the first one, this was also what the thread is about. What I can't really agree with is that AI/Life will necessarily be two different things in the future.

However, machines are possible, but that does not count as life. Take biology and look up the scientific definition of what life really is.

Well aparently there is no universal definition of life. I would call van Neumann maschines life, you wouldn't. But... no term war right?!?

Biology is the study of life, and if the study of life defines it that way, then so be it. You can call it a fake life if you want, even if you call it life, it is different than the life we know from the prespective of science. Does that even make sense.

However, if it's a war you want, YOUR ON!!!

I'll show you want an M16A2 Assault Rifle can do!!!

 

[Azimuth]

@Westside

What we are arguing on is immortality.

For humans we are always finding ways to prolong our lives, I find it unlikely that we will create artificial life before we have figured out a way to massively increase our own life spans, after all we are selfish creatures.

The cyborg with a human brain doesn't solve anything. The main reason for switching out the body for a mechanical(or virtual) body is to remove the aging factor. Virtual bodys are more suitable since we control all variables in the environment, we are already seeing immature applications of this(Second Life).

Thought transfer will also form the basis for AI.

thanks for arguing intellectually and not resorting to character attacks

 

[Westside]

Hey, I'm super bored. Need anything to argue with? I'm here.
I've been to many debate tournaments before. I was feared by many because I will argue about the smallest things.
I will argue with anyone including myself.
In conclusion, I'm a nerd... :'(

 

[lagman]

That was the most random post I saw today.

Did I win a T-shirt?

 

[Westside]

That was the most random post I saw today.

Did I win a T-shirt?

Here:

 

[Jeda]

we... have... a maschinegun smiley?

it is different than the life we know from the prespective of science. Does that even make sense.

Yes it does perfectly make sense to me.

Biology is the study of life, and if the study of life defines it that way, then so be it.

Yes, taking the definition of life, in the form as it is currently proclamed by biologists, a human is incapable of creating life.

QUOTE

I've been to many debate tournaments before. I was feared by many because I will argue about the smallest things.

omg say that before you start discussing. Maschineguns and past pro discussion experience...

 

[Bowser128]

I'm writing this at 03:55, so forgive me if any of this is poorly written, if there's anything majorly wrong with it I'll try to clear it up tomorrow.

And as lagman was saying, for something to qualify as intelligence it must be able to interpret variables outside of what it is 'programmed' to. Nowadays computers like deep blue do nothing but learn new details on something which is already programmed. Like its famous chess playing, if it was really intelligent then merely showing it a chess board and talking to it will cause it to learn the rules just as any human would.


What's the difference between explaining something visually and verbally to a person and explaining something to a computer with adaptive programming?

Artificial intelligence is by definition a human like mind made by humans. You cannot actually make a life without borrowing it from something that already lives, then it would not be A.I. You could try to arrange the organic matters by monomers, but that would take bilions of years, which the earth would expire or we would've already died with this much pollution and global warming. A well built computer that teaches itself and have the ability to judge is an A.I. by definition. Human can not creat life, period. However, machines are possible, but that does not count as life. Take biology and look up the scientific definition of what life really is.


Why would it have to be human like? Our collective minds are flawed, trying to base such things as AI on human equivalents is not an intelligent idea. Intelligence is just the capacity to learn, I don't see any reason why it should be the capacity to learn in a human manner.
Also, I don't know about the rest of you, but I deem intelligence the key factor in whether something is really alive or not. Plants are technically alive, and I have no issues with ending the life of a plant, but I refuse to engage in the murder (and often subsequent eating) of intelligent animals. That is because they have thoughts, which is far more important as a definition of life than "Contains respiring cells" and things along those lines.


QUOTE(bobrules @ Apr 14 2007, 01:41 AM)That will never happen, humans will always be smarter than computers.

I could name a few people that aren't as intelligent as the computer I'm using right now...

 

[Westside]

@ Bowser: When I say human like, I simply mean the intelligence part as in ability to judge an learn. Of course, it wouldn't be smart to copy our flaws too. However, as I stated before, we are not trying to create life with A.I.
Thanks Jada, but I never won anything in a debate tournament as I argue over unnecessary things. :'(

 

[Azimuth]

What's the difference between explaining something visually and verbally to a person and explaining something to a computer with adaptive programming?

Thats what I meant, the verbal thing was just an example. The level of present adaptive learning is too shallow to be qualified intelligent.

 

[NoSoulX]

Just think of it. You see your own hand. How can you explain to someone else what your hand looks like? Your perspective is different of the one the other ones see.

 

[bleep]

I dont like the thought of real AI. One day they'll be loadsa robots around like in "AI" and that one with will smith in.

Oh you mean the butler in Fresh Prince of Belair? ..I thought he was real.

 

[NoSoulX]

But as far as AI can go now it's probably safe to assume that Isaac Asimov's laws of robotics can be applied to AI as well:

1. A robot/AI may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot/AI must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot/AI must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.