Automatons

[six7s]

It's logical to assume that processing power will continue to progress and that someday, scientists will take advantage of it by developing advanced AI.

You're leaping (over one missing link) to a conclusion

It's logical to assume that someday, scientists will understand what intelligence actually is and then be able to model it in an artificial manner and then take advantage of it by developing advanced AI.

 

[Jimbo07]

You're leaping (over one missing link) to a conclusion

It's logical to assume that someday, scientists will understand what intelligence actually is and then be able to model it in an artificial manner and then take advantage of it by developing advanced AI.

You've lept to your own.

It's logical to assume that someday, by developing different models of intelligence and developing increasingly more advanced AIs, scientists will come to have a broader understanding of what intelligence actually is!

 

[the PC apeman]

Additional processing power would certainly make the Blue Brain approach more interesting.

PC

 

[six7s]

You've lept to your own

Won't be the last time, either

...by developing different models of intelligence

I have a hunch that you're erroneously conflating the term intelligence to encompass both the process(es) and the effects

Please note: I have done very, very little in the way of modeling (and none whatsoever in the field of AI)... but... I have found that until I gain a thorough understanding of the real processes, then attempts at modeling are futile.

developing increasingly more advanced AIs

I think (i.e. I don't know) that, currently, the I in AI is a misnomer...

ABC (Artificial Bloody Cleverness)? Sure

AI? hmmm... how could we know?

 

[Jimbo07]

I have a hunch that you're erroneously conflating the term intelligence to encompass both the process(es) and the effects...

No. Just the opposite, in fact. I'm suggesting that from our attempts so far, the effects seem to be independent of processes. We believe that computers and humans play chess differently, but they both still win games.

I have found that until I gain a thorough understanding of the real processes, then attempts at modeling are futile.

Again, not at all. How an AI gets to a work of art may wind up being quite different from how a human gets there. We're having trouble asking dolphins about their reflections upon intelligence as well, but they seem to have some.

AI? hmmm... how could we know?

Can of worms, much?

 

[six7s]

Maybe... or maybe it's a can of turtle soup

Anyhoo... it's a serious question...

 

[Brian-M]

HAL was supposed to be functioning by 2001. It was almost taken for granted that Moore's law would be enough. It clearly wasn't.

Back then it was widely believed that intelligence could be emulated with a fairly simple algorithm. In the intervening time, AI researchers have discovered that intelligence is far more complex than they ever expected.

 

[Toady]

You're leaping (over one missing link) to a conclusion

It's logical to assume that someday, scientists will understand what intelligence actually is and then be able to model it in an artificial manner and then take advantage of it by developing advanced AI.

Given the time between now and when the solar system no longer exists, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that such understanding is inevitable.

 

[bokonon]

It may be unreasonable to assume that intelligence will be around until the end of the solar system.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Back then it was widely believed that intelligence could be emulated with a fairly simple algorithm. In the intervening time, AI researchers have discovered that intelligence is far more complex than they ever expected.

H.A.L.

Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic Computer.

...and Heuristics constitute a "fairly simple algorithm," where, exactly?

(Currently leaning toward biological, "machine." Still leaning away from, "automaton," towards, "autonomaton.")

 

[Mitchell314]

I'm struggling with the ramifications of being an atheist. If there's no soul and no afterlife, does that not make us cell-based automatons, going through the motions with the illusion that we're making decisions?

Yes. But who's to say illusions aren't part of our reality? Just because it doesn't sound appealing doesn't give it reason for it not to exist. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics didn't sound appealing to me at first, but that didn't make it wrong or right.

 

[westprog]

I don't see why the fact it hasn't happened yet means it won't ever happen. It's logical to assume that processing power will continue to progress and that someday, scientists will take advantage of it by developing advanced AI.

The assumption is that a sufficiently powerful computer, correctly programmed, would be equivalent to a human being. We don't know that to be the case. It might be that it is, in fact, impossible, no matter how powerful the computer.

It is likely that, in principle, we could create something that is exactly equivalent to a human being, when we discover exactly how a human being works at all levels. Given unlimited time and resources, I think that's a reasonable assumption.

But we can already create something that is exactly equivalent to a human being. We know it's possible because even very ordinary people can do it.

 

[Beerina]

I'm struggling with the ramifications of being an atheist. If there's no soul and no afterlife, does that not make us cell-based automatons, going through the motions with the illusion that we're making decisions? What are your thoughts?

You're that even if God exists. So is God.

 

[Jimbo07]

You're that even if God exists. So is God.

Interesting thought. I'm much more amenable to the idea of Deist kind of God than I am to an afterlife or soul or any other such thing...

 

[Toady]

The assumption is that a sufficiently powerful computer, correctly programmed, would be equivalent to a human being. We don't know that to be the case. It might be that it is, in fact, impossible, no matter how powerful the computer.

Assuming humans had the technology and knowledge required, why would it ever be impossible? Do you believe there's a non-physical quality, like a soul?

 

[Mark Felt]

The assumption is that a sufficiently powerful computer, correctly programmed, would be equivalent to a human being. We don't know that to be the case. It might be that it is, in fact, impossible, no matter how powerful the computer.

It is likely that, in principle, we could create something that is exactly equivalent to a human being, when we discover exactly how a human being works at all levels. Given unlimited time and resources, I think that's a reasonable assumption.

But we can already create something that is exactly equivalent to a human being. We know it's possible because even very ordinary people can do it.

Correct, we can create a human being.

We'd like to be able to create the software without having to have the wetware present. Do you think that this is a worthy goal?

Do you think that there is a non-material component to the human intelligence?

 

[immaterial]

What makes you think that decision making and free-will is not compatible with deterministic biology? If hypothetically someone (ie, a god) could predict every decision I might make, would this mean my decisions were any less free?

If you can't override the prediction, do you have free will then? (at least not absolutely free will).

--

 

[immaterial]

You're that even if God exists. So is God.

And God created the illusion of diversity and thereby choices, to create the illusion of free will.

--

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Correct, we can create a human being.

We'd like to be able to create the software without having to have the wetware present. Do you think that this is a worthy goal?

[mode="silly_but_essentially_true"]
Artificial Intelligence.
↓
Artificial Coffee Breaks
↓
Artificial Labor Unions
↓
Artificial Wildcat Walkouts
↓
Artificial Unemployment
↓
Artificial Welfare and Entitlements

Meh. We've got enough of that already.
[/mode]

On the other hand, it would be... just... I dunno...
unbearably cool!

Do you think that there is a non-material component to the human intelligence?

Assuming humans had the technology and knowledge required, why would it ever be impossible? Do you believe there's a non-physical quality, like a soul?

Maybe not immaterial, but maybe unreproducible.

In some cases, the material determines the capabilities. If we use unlimited resources and unlimited time, can we produce a plain-ol' silicon glass laser?

I have no idea. It may be that the only way to build a human mind is to build a human brain.

As I said, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[westprog]

Assuming humans had the technology and knowledge required, why would it ever be impossible? Do you believe there's a non-physical quality, like a soul?

I don't think that "We don't know" can be reduced to a belief.