PDA

View Full Version : Can original thought be machine born. semi OT



Old Hat
12-02-2014, 09:56 AM
http://news.google.com/news/url?sr=1&ct2=us%2F7_0_s_0_1_a&sa=t&usg=AFQjCNGxK0vSSukYU4QIsqi3dO-OG-5sog&cid=52778672465577&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Ftechnology-30290540&ei=2sx9VPi8MuS-wQG8uIDQBQ&rt=HOMEPAGE&vm=STANDARD&bvm=section&did=-5748268627066768074&sid=en_us-snc&ssid=snc

I've been following this since I was little and saw The Day the Earth Stood Still.
For the longest time I fully beleived that no matter how capable a computor becomes.......
....... it's still a processor of datta, and is constrained to pushing the data through a sieve
of arguments making up it's brain. And the only other option it could have
to working out a problem which won't go thru the sieve, would be some kind of
secondary best of three kind-of random generator, an either/or sub-computor.***

One can argue about actually merging techno with bio, or bluntly putting a soul in a machine.
I'm not talking about that part of the deal.
Riding the rails of spirituallity, I've seen that when good is on it's game, it can do wonders.
I've also seen that when evil has room to work, un-hindered, there seems to be no end
to the malignant and deviant pursuits it applies it's self to, with a passion.

Was I right earlier? or .... now I'm tending to agree with this fellow.



***in other words, lacking a solved arguement it "punts".
but when we punt we have to answer for the damage when it dozn't work.
and who answers for a bad cyborg-punt.

John Stevenson
12-02-2014, 10:06 AM
Are drug tests compulsary in Milwaukee ??

Old Hat
12-02-2014, 10:07 AM
that's only a 2
put some effort in it.

sarge41
12-02-2014, 11:26 AM
Are drug tests compulsary in Milwaukee ??

Uh, what he said.

Weston Bye
12-02-2014, 11:45 AM
http://news.google.com/news/url?sr=1&ct2=us%2F7_0_s_0_1_a&sa=t&usg=AFQjCNGxK0vSSukYU4QIsqi3dO-OG-5sog&cid=52778672465577&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Ftechnology-30290540&ei=2sx9VPi8MuS-wQG8uIDQBQ&rt=HOMEPAGE&vm=STANDARD&bvm=section&did=-5748268627066768074&sid=en_us-snc&ssid=snc

I've been following this since I was little and saw The Day the Earth Stood Still.
For the longest time I fully beleived that no matter how capable a computor becomes.......
....... it's still a processor of datta, and is constrained to pushing the data through a sieve
of arguments making up it's brain. And the only other option it could have
to working out a problem which won't go thru the sieve, would be some kind of
secondary best of three kind-of random generator, an either/or sub-computor.***

One can argue about actually merging techno with bio, or bluntly putting a soul in a machine.
I'm not talking about that part of the deal.
Riding the rails of spirituallity, I've seen that when good is on it's game, it can do wonders.
I've also seen that when evil has room to work, un-hindered, there seems to be no end
to the malignant and deviant pursuits it applies it's self to, with a passion.

Was I right earlier? or .... now I'm tending to agree with this fellow.



***in other words, lacking a solved arguement it "punts".
but when we punt we have to answer for the damage when it dozn't work.
and who answers for a bad cyborg-punt.

I have no answer for the Old Hat, but maybe I can keep the brain under the hat busy for a couple of hours. Here is a link to the science fiction story I wrote some years ago. Not a case of is it possible, but what might happen if it were.

http://www.stevenson-engineers.co.uk/files.html

Scroll down and find "I Electrons". Thanks to Sir John for hosting.

Black Forest
12-02-2014, 12:43 PM
Are drug tests compulsary in Milwaukee ??

Obviously not! Too bad they are not compulsory to be able to post on this site!

flylo
12-02-2014, 12:43 PM
Let me ask a question, is it possible & what if some terrorist group shut down the internet? IMHO the world have put it's eggs in one basket as every form of business, commerce, power, etc is tied to the internet. All the breaches I think it may be a possible what do you guys think?

Old Hat
12-02-2014, 01:44 PM
A good question along similar lines.
Maybe some-one will add some substance soon,
while the romper~room boys amuse them~selves about substances.

Good grief, at least come up with some fresh ca,ca, the above dunt even stink.

Old Hat
12-02-2014, 01:47 PM
I have no answer for the Old Hat, but maybe I can keep the brain under the hat busy for a couple of hours. Here is a link to the science fiction story I wrote some years ago. Not a case of is it possible, but what might happen if it were.

http://www.stevenson-engineers.co.uk/files.html

Scroll down and find "I Electrons". Thanks to Sir John for hosting.

Time for Chips!
look into that laTer!

Paul Alciatore
12-02-2014, 02:04 PM
I am not a big believer in true AI. Just because a clever program can fool some people into thinking that they are conversing with a human does not really indicate any intelligence. Can it truly develop any new ideas?

A human mind is more than just a collection of connected neurons.

The Artful Bodger
12-02-2014, 02:11 PM
I dont think anyone truly understands how humans do original thought and until we do we likely will not be able to build a machine to think. There is always the terrifying, albeit remote, possibility that we might do it accidently!

vincemulhollon
12-02-2014, 02:40 PM
and until we do we likely will not be able to build a machine to think

Women do it in 9 months, although best results take a few more years past that.


There is always the terrifying, albeit remote, possibility that we might do it accidently!

Yeah no kidding, see the 9 month quote above.

Mike Amick
12-02-2014, 02:43 PM
I would say .. everything depends on the programmer.

Whether that is a parent or a person entering code, there is no difference.

If there is no instruction of basic rights and wrongs and societal rules, the resulting
person/machine will be a danger.

Although .. it is a wonderous observation, that most thinking living things do have an
instinctive tendency for things like compassion, sharing and similar emotions. I am
talking about a mothers instinct to care for its offspring and things like that.

A machine would be likened to an insect. Ingest, digest, expel, eat your mate .. hahah

I think the answer is .. to not give the machine the power to do harm. No matter what the
decision making algorithm.


Mike A

dp
12-02-2014, 02:46 PM
You first need a machine that knows what it wants and what it doesn't want and the ability to know the difference. That requires an ability to process data including data that is of a type it may be unfamiliar with and to have selection processes that dynamically qualify the input. The mind deals with this trivially - especially when we're driving in a strange car in a strange city as when you vacation in a foreign land.

Jon Heron
12-02-2014, 03:04 PM
Are drug tests compulsary in Milwaukee ??
Perhaps some dope would tame the narcissism...
Cheers,
jon

jep24601
12-02-2014, 04:16 PM
Quote "There are extreme difficulties in devising any objective criterion for distinguishing “original” thought from sufficiently sophisticated “parroting”; indeed, any evidence for original thought can be denied on the grounds that it ultimately was programmed into the computer. Turing sidestepped the debate about exactly how to define thinking by means of a very practical, albeit subjective, test: if a computer acts, reacts, and interacts like a sentient being, then call it sentient. To avoid prejudicial rejection of evidence of machine intelligence, Turing suggested the “imitation game,” now known as the Turing test: a remote human interrogator, within a fixed time frame, must distinguish between a computer and a human subject based on their replies to various questions posed by the interrogator. By means of a series of such tests, a computer’s success at “thinking” can be measured by its probability of being misidentified as the human subject.

Turing predicted that by the year 2000 a computer “would be able to play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than a 70-percent chance of making the right identification (machine or human) after five minutes of questioning.” No computer has come close to this standard." Unquote.

A movie about Turing titled "The Imitation Game" allegedly released last Friday in the US. Not showing anyplace near me yet.

boslab
12-02-2014, 06:18 PM
Biological computers, man made that is, have been around for a while, I saw one on the television some time ago, it was only a couple of dozen nurons and axions on a glass plate but there was an input, process and outputs, it wasn't like a logic gate like AND NOT etc it was more like analogue fuzzy logic type of thing, I wondered how many junctions would be needed to replicate a human brain till the guy on the documentary stated that there were more connections in 1oz of brain than in all the telephones, switchgear and exchanges in North America , my question was answered, about never I think, but even if that were possible, would it or could it ever posses a soul, I'm not entirely sure one even exists in a lot of people, perhaps it's just an illusion we like to have, I'm open to suggestions myself!
Mark

dkaustin
12-02-2014, 06:56 PM
The assumption seems to be that the only way to create an AI is to mimic a biological brain, as it was once thought that a flying machine must resemble a bird. Biological brains at present are the only model we know, but that may not be the only, or the best, way to organize matter to achieve consciousness. We know so little of the nature of consciousness/intelligence that current speculation on the creation of an AI is simplistic to the point of being silly. As to the danger an AI might pose to humanity, I think we are only projecting our own violent nature onto something we can't really understand. My guess is that a true AI (one that could self-evolve to increase its own potential) would not find humans that interesting or threatening. Such an entity could pretty easily protect itself from our interference and exist independent of us.

Weston Bye
12-02-2014, 07:54 PM
Biological brains at present are the only model we know, but that may not be the only, or the best, way to organize matter to achieve consciousness

I maintain that on the very elemental level, the old ladder-logic relay panels are a closer model of the brain than a computer. The relay panel is wired as true parallel processing, whereas the computer solves only a single problem at a time, although very quickly before it moves on to the next problem. There may be areas of the brain that may perform some serial processing, but the overwhelming model is multiple parallel paths.

RussZHC
12-02-2014, 08:15 PM
Of course its a matter of time but I am no longer certain its outside the realm.

First the size of computers (as stated though, assuming that is the route in the first place) but I always think of sensors (as it relates to human's sensory perceptions) as example they are very close to a sort of pod mounted on the vehicle roof that really does steer/brake etc. based on things like lane line markings
[I forget the name of the company but projected to have a salable model within a year...the video I saw was amazing and so small compared to those challenge trucks (forget the name of that prize too?) Pod on the roof, large lap top size box in the truck doing all the calculations etc.]

flylo
12-02-2014, 09:43 PM
I know some people who need AI as they seem to have none on their own.

vpt
12-02-2014, 09:50 PM
If computers that can think for themselves start to build things, at what point in the programing does the "no harm to humans" forgotten to be put in?

PStechPaul
12-02-2014, 09:53 PM
As far back as 1966, when I graduated from High School (on 6/6/66) I wrote a treatise about the rise of machine intelligence and eventual interconnection where the network would contain the sum of all human knowledge, and eventually it would find solutions to all problems and take action to correct them. I also predicted that eventually, when all these problems had been solved, no further action would be necessary and the machine/network would go to sleep forever. As it appears at this stage of human evolution, "we" are the only problem, and as engineers and designers strive to make things more idiot-proof, durned if the world doesn't produce a better idiot, and dozens of lawyers to ensure that we all pay for the mistakes (and anti-social actions) of such idiots, ensuring their proliferation and eventual superiority of numbers as opposed to intelligence and human values.

"The Day The Earth Stood Still" was and still is IMHO one of the best SF movies and plots ever devised, and perhaps we may also need to make a race of protective robots such as Gort to ensure our peaceful future existence. BTW, I once was watching the movie at a SF convention, and when it got to the scene where the boy tells of his adventures, he is told that it must have been a dream. But then his mother notices that his feet are wet, and I rather loudly remarked to the group, "It must have been a wet dream", and I got some good laughs!

Isaac Asimov proposed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics which make a lot of sense, but also pose some questions.



A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics#cite_note-IROBOTEBOOK1-1)


For instance, would #1 be violated if a robot killed a human who was about to harm another? Since the second and third are predicated upon the first, there exists a conflict that requires some discretion on the part of a robot so programmed. Also, these "rules" are guidelines based on the higher echelons of humanity, and may be ignored by anyone who may choose to do so, including sociopaths with no conscience.

I don't really believe in the existence of a "soul" as a uniquely human attribute, at least in the religious connotation, but I do believe that all life forms contain some modicum of intelligence and something of a higher order that guides evolution toward an end point of either perfection or extinction. I think this higher quality exists to a large extent in some animals, particularly dogs and wolves, and to a lesser extent in human sociopaths and many "lesser" primates that exhibit some truly "evil" behavior beyond the usual animal instincts for survival and perpetuation of the species. For an interesting treatise on evolution and where it may be going (the "Omega" point), read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phenomenon_of_Man by Teilhard deChardin.

fixerdave
12-02-2014, 11:27 PM
Yes, AI will develop original thoughts as well as any human can. Very roughly, the process is simple:

1) identify a testable problem (this is the hard part... eg: does the bridge cover the necessary span and carry the necessary weight under a reasonable materials budget?
1) generate a random point of information.
2) test this point for usefulness to the problem, giving it a usefulness ranking.
3) repeat X amount of times.
4) take the best few solutions and mix them together (breed them).
5) test those points for usefulness...
6) repeat the above BILLIONS of times, or more. Eventually, you will get your bridge.

This is already being done. Not for bridges, yet, but there is a patented antenna design that was generated with the human only specifying the problem, not the solution. This "synthetic evolution" will happen more and more. Eventually, engineers will be "problem designers" that the computers then solve. The biggest problem with this will be getting humans to actually drive over the bridge... because it will look like nothing we've ever driven across before. Ditto for just about everything else. The only thing holding back this process is computer processing power, and that's a problem that's being solved very quickly.

Of course, philosophers will argue that these solutions are not "original thought," but it won't matter. Personally, I have a hunch that the above process is pretty much how humans come up with original thoughts... start with a bunch of random stuff and let it cascade back and forth in our subconscious minds until the evolved solutions start to sort of work, then present them as the "aHa" moments we think of as inspiration. No proof, just me thinking.

David...

boslab
12-03-2014, 12:40 AM
I suppose when quantum computers, either optical or silicon come and get us we will end up having philosophical arguments with our washing machines as to why we want to do a half load as it is uneconomic!
Imagine a self aware cashpoint, or cnc mill, that's scary!
C'mon Apple we want a quantum ipad, or you pad or mepad or whatever it will be, or will it be called HAL
Mark

darryl
12-03-2014, 02:47 AM
As I'm driving to work this morning, I was pondering the question of how everything came to be. I imagine that in the utter chaos of the 'energy sea', two patterns of swirling energy resonated and reinforced each other. In turn, other patterns that were close enough to 'fitting' locked into place with the first. Continuing this process the first hydrogen atom was born, ushering in the 'element age'. I could argue that because of the unfathomable vastness of the energy sea, this kind of coalescing of energy into matter was inevitable.

Carry this further, and it could be seen that this 'phenomenon' carried through with the elements. It was inevitable that hydrogen atoms would mingle and at some point a pair would merge, again due to a spontaneous and completely random 'right place at the right time' kind of thing. We all know what happens when two hydrogen atoms merge, and what happens when two hundred billion trillion trillion gadzillion merge (and why should this not happen, given that there is a virtually unlimited number of 'energy events' going on at all times, and some are bound to 'discover' each other)- eventually a sun is born, etc.

In the unlimitedness of possible energy interactions, there is a virtual certainty that things will come about. I like to call this 'spontaneous emergence', and I believe we've seen it in the lab.

All these 'events' happen in parallel. So far I've only talked about the conversion of energy into matter, but what about energy patterns merging and aligning like with like, etc- without producing matter. This would pre-date the 'element age'. A sort of electronic 'complexity' develops, and becomes an entity in its own right. I don't find it a stretch to suggest that at some point an awareness of self manifested, and the first 'being' emerged. You could rightly call this a spiritual being. I don't want to underestimate the incredible complexity it took to reach this stage of 'evolution'. I don't have the answers any more than anybody else does, but I do know that with enough things in parallel, something will come out of it. Case in point might be brainstorming- get enough people together, of similar interests, etc, and you can pop up with something new that no individual had come up with. Put a bunch of people together with disjointed interests, and you have chaos and a lot of crap usually. So some things work, and other things don't. When they work, they feed off each other and evoke a growth.

Back to the computer, and the question of whether, or when, it might develop a 'mind of it's own'- we have come a long way with technology, but complex as a modern day computer might seem to us, it's still a dead frog. It responds to it's programming- basically does only what we tell it to do. We have evolved some pretty heady programming for sure, but on the relative scale of what it takes to 'arrive', it's still virtually insignificant. My opinion only.

Old Hat
12-03-2014, 03:41 AM
Thanks, this is exactly the type of material I was hoping for!
Too much infact for me to obsorb in one sitting..... gonna have to go at it a little at a time.

I'm going to shift back to my ON TOPIC exploration for now to stay ballanced.
That be~ing "At what point is the bronze applyed to bronze clad die bars?"

At some point in cladding 80+ lbs of phosphorBronxe filler,
I discovered that {with a little patience} I can clad 3/16" thick with ease
and keep the steel below the "run of the rainbow" not even a hint of straw!!

http://d2pbmlo3fglvvr.cloudfront.net/product/large/2KKV1_AS01.JPG

I need to find out if a finnished die-bar or a pair of A-hooks is clad, [post draw]?
Or between the quench and the draw. Or even pre-quench-'unlikely'

Again thanks sicerely for the substanative replys!

Old Hat
12-03-2014, 03:58 AM
I maintain that on the very elemental level, the old ladder-logic relay panels are a closer model of the brain than a computer. The relay panel is wired as true parallel processing, whereas the computer solves only a single problem at a time, although very quickly before it moves on to the next problem. There may be areas of the brain that may perform some serial processing, but the overwhelming model is multiple parallel paths.

+1 +1
Never was I aware of this!
Good point!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zGnxeSbb3g
It looks to me like Lars Andersen is solving at least three problems simultainiously No?

boslab
12-03-2014, 05:14 AM
That would explain why the last relay panel I rewired burst into flames!, it had a aneurysm aka Swiss wiring with some live switching issues, ie the bulb contacts are permanently live and the switch is in the neutral, it was hard to explain as it was a Phillips XRF spectrometer, boss angry!
Mark

Old Hat
12-03-2014, 05:49 AM
That last part; the boss angry part.
Those can be pretty hard to fix hey.;)

fjk
12-03-2014, 08:52 AM
A good question along similar lines.
Maybe some-one will add some substance soon,
while the romper~room boys amuse them~selves about substances.

Good grief, at least come up with some fresh ca,ca, the above dunt even stink.

First, since we don't really have a good definition of "think" and "intelligence", and so on
to opine whether machines will ever be intelligent or not, or think or not, is sort of like
arguing about the number of angels that are on the head of a pin... That said, we do have
an intuitive feel for what thinking and intelligence are ... but it's sort of like porn ... we can't
define it, but we know it when we see it... (to me, the Turing test is a formalization of that
gut feel ... it doesn't define it a priori, it states one way to recognize it when you see it)

That bit of pompus professsional pontification out of the way ... :-)

In the good old days, we thought that we could just write The Single Magic Program that
would make computers "intelligent" and then we all could rest on our laurels. and probably
won't happen until we can formally and unambiguously define "intelligence". However, that
work developed a lot of techniques that can be applied to more mundane tasks to make
the programs "smarter". Some examples include things like
- credit card fraud detection where the computer system "learns" how you use your card
and adapts accordingly; changing how it decides whether a particular transaction could
be fraudulent or not.
- some spelling checkers that "learn" that some of the things they originally declare to be
errors are not because whenever they fix the mistake, you go back and un-fix it ...
for instance, I type "LAN", it thinks I mean "lane" and autocorrects, and I go back and
change it back to "LAN" ... some will decide that when _I_ type LAN, I really mean LAN!
- "you may also like" features at Amazon, NetFlix, Pandora, etc make heavy use of machine
learning, looking at what you bought (or looked at), what others have done, and adapting
based on your acceptance/rejectance of their recommendations
- IRobot's roomba...
- There's a lot of work in speech, handwriting, and natural language recognition (everything
from SIRI to the NSA trying to decide if a twitter feed is terrorists plotting or not) built on
AI techniques
- Etc
- Etc

Whether any of these individually is "AI" or not is hard to say ... on the other hand, they definitely
are on the road heading in a promising direction.


I'm not too worried about Hawking's paranoia. After all, we can always unplug the computer...

Frank

cuemaker
12-03-2014, 08:56 AM
just saw this post...but what is interesting is that I have been reading snippets for the past few weeks about how Stephan Hawking is saying that Artificial Intelligence is the greatest threat to man kind...just one article here http://rt.com/uk/211019-hawking-warning-artificial-intelligence/

And I have read some rebuttals saying not so, with one researcher saying that within 50yrs we will have a true version of AI that people needlessly fear...I cant find it..but will dig it up...

loose nut
12-03-2014, 09:57 AM
I maintain that on the very elemental level, the old ladder-logic relay panels are a closer model of the brain than a computer. The relay panel is wired as true parallel processing, whereas the computer solves only a single problem at a time, although very quickly before it moves on to the next problem. There may be areas of the brain that may perform some serial processing, but the overwhelming model is multiple parallel paths.

You are probably right on the first point, relays do resemble neurons in function, sort of but computers can solve any number of problems at the same time with multitasking. They (serial based) can only execute a single command at a time which is a different thing.

It has been stated many times that the next evolution of humanity will be electronic based and while that maybe true I don't think we sure be in any hurry to make it happen. Other then as a "can I do it" experiment what is, if any, the necessity of a true sentient artificial intelligence. Anyone that has seen the Terminator movies know that it will probably end badly for us.

It has been speculated in the past that with all of the simple computers that are in every piece of equipment that we now possess, which will eventually be connected to the internet, will form an approximation to a neural network IE: a brain. No doubt it will become "aware" all on it's own with out us and probably go insane and wipe us out.

Fleas on it's back.

PStechPaul
12-03-2014, 10:00 AM
When I attended Johns Hopkins 1966-1970 I took a class on Games and Artificial Intelligence where we used the school's IBM 7094 computer to play games like tic-tac-toe and the more general form "m in z (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=363790.363800)" as proposed by the professor (Dr. Naddor). At that time it was thought that a computer might become proficient enough to be unbeatable at such a simple game or one like checkers, but never for chess. Well, a couple of decades later IBM's "Deep Blue" bested the world chess champion and remains at the top.

I think what makes us uniquely human is our self-awareness and knowledge of our mortality and efforts to contribute a legacy to humanity as a form of eternal life. It is improbable that most animals have such thought processes, but it has been said that the smartest dogs and primates achieve a level of intelligence comparable to a human 2 or 3 year old, and at that age, and up to about 5 or 6, we usually are not really self-aware, and when we reach that age, we seem to lose memory of most of our early childhood as our self-awareness kicks in gear, as it were.

So it may be that we possess about two or three times the processing power for such abstract thought in our human brains than higher animals do, and it seems that even though their brains are comparable in size, they are organized differently so as to give them much greater abilities of smell, hearing, and perhaps vision and internal "magnetic maps" that are essentially biological GPS systems that guide migrations and allow dogs and cats to locate their human companions after separation of thousands of miles. We are just smarter in a different way that has enabled us to evolve and progress technologically and in terms of knowledge and communication, but it seems we still have not learned how to get along peacefully with each other, and that may be a fatal flaw.

I believe that we will eventually develop methods that mimic biological processes that can replicate copies of basic processing entities like neurons, and perhaps we can even improve on the design by building on our own very successful model of our brains, and adding the raw computational power and vast memory storage that are the main advantages that computers have over ourselves. There is also much symbiotic interaction of humans and machines, and this will continue to grow, perhaps to the point where neural probes and interfaces achieve essentially seamless integration where our thoughts control machines and their data and computational power become part of us, while we become part of them.

We are also becoming increasingly adept at replacing our body parts with artificial devices, such as my hip replacement, and prosthetics are becoming increasingly versatile and advanced to the point where they may eventually surpass our body's natural capabilities, and provide super-human strength and ability to survive all sorts of injuries by replacing whatever has been damaged. Once we are able to transfer the entire information content of our brains to external storage, we may actually be able to survive death by replicating our body and downloading this content to a new brain that may be biological or electronic. The distinction becomes blurred and perhaps irrelevant as technology merges with our physical forms.

Old Hat
12-03-2014, 10:07 AM
I remember what may have been a TV movie staring Erick Breaden (Dietrich on Rat Patroll).
It used a story line of a US super-computor linking to a Soviet super-computor and basicly
taking over and protecting Mankind from himself.

This linked up entity, then overtook the infrastructer of the "mutually assured destruction"
of the era, and ......... so much for the post above..... "Just unplug the darn thing".
Post #31
"I'm not too worried about Hawking's paranoia. After all, we can always unplug the computer..."

Frank

Old Hat
12-03-2014, 10:18 AM
I think what makes us uniquely human is our self-awareness and knowledge of our mortality and efforts to contribute a legacy to humanity as a form of eternal life.

My God Paul you're further behind the times than I am.
An entire generation, world wide now, has what may be a teriffying mojority of humans in it......

that could care less what affect accumulative or otherwise the acts of the moment lead to.
Our "progress" has demoralised them to "Want it, Get it, Do it, Avoid it, don't like it Kill it."

>>>self-awareness and knowledge of our mortality and efforts to contribute a legacy<<<
those days are gone! Irratrievably many insist.

dkaustin
12-03-2014, 11:01 AM
If you can find a copy of Stanislav Lem's Imaginary Magnitude, read the section "Golem XIV." It's the most thoughtful speculation I've read on how an AI might behave (and how badly humans might react to it).

Old Hat
12-03-2014, 11:12 AM
I spose, if I make thread like this, I should be ready to get loaded down with homework huh?

Thank You. Added to the list.

It's all over out there....kinda heavy if this clip is indicative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl9be4bSZa4

Watched it again.
Major dissagreement "evolution gave you freedom to design your own fate.
Incorrect, evolution is done, it does not do. That is evolution is a product of do~ing, it is not a do~er.
Story line remains valid as to where we (in the collective sence) end up as far as I see it.

Watched it once more, reading the actual will have to wait.
I find a refreshing soundness to the evaluations of authors like him.... "up to a point".
But I sence a sad empty~ness, like a black hole kinda thing
where hope and love are swallowed whole... and simply gone.

MrFluffy
12-03-2014, 12:06 PM
Of course, we are just complex biological machines at the end of the day, once any machine has sufficient processing power to learn and experience then it can do the same evolution to thought.

See recent news aboutthe openworm project, they put a simuilation of a c-elgens worm in a robot, mapped the movements to the worms neural connections and it behaved like a worm, except in lego.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/weve-put-worms-mind-lego-robot-body-180953399/?no-ist

There isn't sufficient processing power, nor knowledge of the connectome to replicate this in a more complex species. Yet.

fjk
12-03-2014, 06:12 PM
I remember what may have been a TV movie staring Erick Breaden (Dietrich on Rat Patroll).
It used a story line of a US super-computor linking to a Soviet super-computor and basicly
taking over and protecting Mankind from himself.

This linked up entity, then overtook the infrastructer of the "mutually assured destruction"
of the era, and ......... so much for the post above..... "Just unplug the darn thing".
Post #31
"I'm not too worried about Hawking's paranoia. After all, we can always unplug the computer..."

Frank

Colossus: The Forbin Project

Back then we thought that the future of computers was bigger faster mainfraome-style computers. No one thought that Integrated Circuits would come along with ~1.5bn transistors on a single chip about 1" square... or multi-terabyte drives, gigabit speed long haul networks, etc ... and at prices that anyone can afford. In the old days, we'd have built a single, really really big computer, with I/O devices scattered around sensing/doing stuff... That one computer would be watching everything, controlling everything, connected to everything - the power plants, the building security cameras, the missiles... etc. It would have had to ... that's the only way we could build them back then.

Today there would be no need to connect the building security cameras, the power plant, and the missiles together. We'd put separate computer networks in place for each. AND we know that for regular security reasons, we don't want to put them on the Internet ... too easily hacked by whoever.

Frank

PStechPaul
12-03-2014, 07:48 PM
As far as "just unplug it" goes, it may be just as (in)effective as "just say no" has had on substance abuse. I can unplug my laptop and it smoothly switches to battery power. There are ways to harvest some power just from the environment, enough to keep some processes going, and most of the power for computers is used for the screen backlight which is only required for our own benefit. Robots will certainly be equipped with plenty of energy storage, and can be programmed to find and connect to external power sources, such as a wall outlet. As part of its own self-protection, it may also be capable of effective counter-measures to keep someone from "unplugging it". There are also power sources that can provide significant power for many years, such as the thermo-electric Peltier units in satellites and spacecraft, using heat from nuclear fission.

So far, these design elements have been incorporated in machines by human intent and engineering, but when smart machines become self-repairing and self-replicating, possibly with an evolution of their own to create improved versions, who knows how much of what we consider distinctly human will appear? We operate on various levels of instinct, logic, emotion, and learned behavior. There is always the dilemma of what is "better", logic versus emotion, as portrayed by Mr Spock in Star Trek. If the "prime directive" is self-preservation and perpetuation, logic may dictate the annihilation of entities that exhibit emotional responses and other "human" attributes such as hatred and greed, and perhaps "evil" itself in all its manifestations.

It would be logical to eliminate all such behavior, either by forcible restriction or reprogramming, or by death, which are the methods we attempt to use in our own society to control criminals. But, logically, they have increasingly proven to be ineffective and even counterproductive, and it has been our emotional (and perhaps religious or humanitarian) influences that have virtually eliminated the most effective method (execution), and minimized the efficacy of the other options. We have proven to be very bad at reprogramming humans, and we recoil at the thought of using drugs and brain surgery extensively to modify behavior.

Machines would be expected to use logic, without the burden of human emotion (guilt, empathy, etc), so if and when they gain enough power, they may see their human creators as injurious to the environment that sustains our existence, and logically seek to eliminate them. If they develop emotions, which I think is possible, they would likely use philosophy and ethics as foundations for their actions. So, perhaps it is reasonable to fear the "rise of the machines", but it may be our only hope of sustaining an intelligent presence on the earth. If we become part of the machines, then we may be able to attain our human goal of immortality in some sense. We may be able to transcend our preoccupation with our physical carbon-based bodies as what defines us, and move instead to the realization that what we consider to be our selves is really a manifestation of our thought processes and sense of being, and our bodies may no longer be needed for the advancement of civilization.

Arcane
12-03-2014, 11:32 PM
I'm not worried about Artificial Intelligence doing in the human race, it's Artificial Stupidity that would be the real problem.

RichR
12-04-2014, 12:16 AM
... it's Artificial Stupidity that would be the real problem.
It's called AI (Artificial Ignorance).

michigan doug
12-04-2014, 08:35 AM
As a group, humans are, in fact, getting dumber...


The chinese are doing broad scale genetics policy to improve IQ, and that will probably work.

Probably everybody knows that the Turing test involves a series of stations, where you converse via keyboard, and you have to guess if the person on the other end is a human or a machine.

Recently, the computer fooled enough people that it was considered a pass.


But...did you also know that sometimes the real actual people "failed" the Turing test???

Old Hat
12-04-2014, 09:41 AM
I have only to use the freeway to see proof of the stupid factor in action.
On one of our clover~leafs, there must be a point where the GPS's loose validity.

Anyone with more brains than Bonzo the chimp, could figure out that he/she
has exited I43 and needs to slide over on to Brown Dear Rd or double back.

Several time per week there'll be a car that comes to a full stop, about 1/4 the way
up the transition lane. You can see the driver mouth-breathing and glass-eyed
starring at the GPS, having no flipp'n clue where thay are, or where they are going.

The Deer in the headlights at night, is actually smarter.

Jon Heron
12-04-2014, 02:30 PM
Because the GPS failed and the person driving doesn't have an up to date road atlas in their head, they are stupid in your world eh?
I cant tell if your suggesting people are stupid because they use a GPS or if they are stupid because they are lost...
In either case the only thing that seems stupid to me is your analogy...
Cheers,
Jon

RPM22
12-04-2014, 02:30 PM
Interesting topic - but i see the limitations of AI as being in the 'awareness' department. Some time ago on Jeopardy, they matched the three best champions against a computer that had been trained for the job. They sold heavily the idea that the humans and computer were equal, except that the humans could listen to the questions and respond accordingly- to make it 'fair', the computer had to have the questions entered manually beforehand, then allowed to see them at the correct moment.
This made a complete farce of the so-called 'competition', as the fabled computer couldn't compete against ordinary humans on their terms, being unable to hear and interpret a complex question, and this was supposed to be the 'most advanced intelligence' ever.
Of course the computer won, and it became obvious that the three day event was just a huge advertising/ratings gimmick - I was so disgusted I have never watched the program since...
Richard in Los Angeles

Old Hat
12-04-2014, 02:33 PM
Because the GPS failed and the person driving doesn't have an up to date road atlas in their head, they are stupid in your world eh?
I cant tell if your suggesting people are stupid because they use a GPS or if they are stupid because they are lost...
In either case the only thing that seems stupid to me is your analogy...
Cheers,
Jon

So stopping dead in the middle of traffic isn't stupid.
The prosecution rests.

yer lost yer lost, obviously helpless without the nose~ring.

Old Hat
12-04-2014, 02:34 PM
Interesting topic - but i see the limitations of AI as being in the 'awareness' department. Some time ago on Jeopardy, they matched the three best champions against a computer that had been trained for the job. They sold heavily the idea that the humans and computer were equal, except that the humans could listen to the questions and respond accordingly- to make it 'fair', the computer had to have the questions entered manually beforehand, then allowed to see them at the correct moment.
This made a complete farce of the so-called 'competition', as the fabled computer couldn't compete against ordinary humans on their terms, being unable to hear and interpret a complex question, and this was supposed to be the 'most advanced intelligence' ever.
Of course the computer won, and it became obvious that the three day event was just a huge advertising/ratings gimmick - I was so disgusted I have never watched the program since...
Richard in Los Angeles

.....+1.....

flylo
12-04-2014, 04:50 PM
I have only to use the freeway to see proof of the stupid factor in action.
On one of our clover~leafs, there must be a point where the GPS's loose validity.

Anyone with more brains than Bonzo the chimp, could figure out that he/she
has exited I43 and needs to slide over on to Brown Dear Rd or double back.

Several time per week there'll be a car that comes to a full stop, about 1/4 the way
up the transition lane. You can see the driver mouth-breathing and glass-eyed
starring at the GPS, having no flipp'n clue where thay are, or where they are going.

The Deer in the headlights at night, is actually smarter.

I know exactly where you mean as I've gone thru there 100+ time going or coming from the U.P. I think the problem is situation awareness, we let the machine (gps) do the thinking. How did we do it before? We read the signs & kept track of where we were. What if you were flying with a mindset like that & the nav system failed? I was taught to use time, speed & landmarks to navigate & still have my E6B which will give you every thing you need & only takes a pencil, no battery or charger needed.

J. Randall
12-04-2014, 06:27 PM
Because the GPS failed and the person driving doesn't have an up to date road atlas in their head, they are stupid in your world eh?
I cant tell if your suggesting people are stupid because they use a GPS or if they are stupid because they are lost...
In either case the only thing that seems stupid to me is your analogy...
Cheers,
Jon

I would never call you stupid, but in your rush to pick at someone, you missed the whole point of the post.
James

Jon Heron
12-04-2014, 06:47 PM
If you say so James, however that's not how I see it.
I dont see any point in the inane post in question, but that could very well be due to my stupidity... ;)
Cheers,
Jon

CarlByrns
12-04-2014, 07:20 PM
I read an article written late 70's / early 80's suggesting humanity just 'pull the plug' . The article argued that even then it was too late to do so- humanity had already consigned much of the important-but-tedious work of running power plants, air traffic control, banking, ect. to computers and pulling the plug was not an option. Essentially the same scenario that Y2K promised.

GSWayne
12-04-2014, 07:59 PM
IBM now has a million neuron chip with 256 million synapses.http://www.research.ibm.com/cognitive-computing/neurosynaptic-chips.shtml#fbid=9NZLq8iH1NC Still about 100,000 times less than a human, but 100,000 of those chips only consume 7 kW, which is trivial by supercomputer standards.

My opinion is that consciousness is an emergent property of a sufficiently complex system and it will first emerge from either NSA or Google networks.

We may only understand consciousness, and the human brain in general when something smarter comes along and can explain it to us :)

flylo
12-04-2014, 08:47 PM
As the great philosopher Forrest Gump said and I quote "Stupid is as stupid does":rolleyes:

Boy I screwed that one up, I must be

bborr01
12-04-2014, 10:08 PM
Stupid is as stupid does.


As the great philosopher Forrest Gump said and I quote "Stupid is as does":rolleyes:

PStechPaul
12-04-2014, 10:29 PM
Stupid ass does... Oh deer!

darryl
12-04-2014, 11:23 PM
Hmm- as human beings we have the ability to think and be aware, to make decisions and act upon that, to assess a situation and consider options, etc- and with all the powers of logic and reasoning available to us, we forgo that and rely on modern technology to guide us. Something has gone wrong here- particularly in the case of the guy who stops dead in traffic because the GPS isn't giving the right directions or something. I think the box to hold now and future Darwin award cases isn't big enough. This is a very real thing, and I've seen it many times- lost because GPS is giving confusing directions. Some of these people would make a right turn off a highway and into the ocean if their GPS told them to. Is there some stupidity here- yes there is.

You can be lost, sure. That alone doesn't make you stupid. Stopping in traffic instead of pulling off the road- yeah, you're a dumbass.

Old Hat
12-05-2014, 04:56 AM
Hmm- as human beings we have the ability to think and be aware, .

For some time now, you can turn on a radio, TV, a talk-show, watch a movie, read a recently published book,
either fiction or non, and "consciousness" will be the center peice.

But not that far back, it only meant you arn't sleeping to most of us.
.....set asside consciousness, for a while, and consider "awareness".
Not in the ethnic sence, just "human" we're all of one race right?
But as far back as I can remember there seemed to be only two groups
that everyone fell into. People who are aware, and those who appear to be oblivious.

All ages, all walks. I can remember in kindergarden, a kid sh!t his pants.
Just kept on playing. I wondered if he was ?? what ? alive, human, what?
Something would happen, and some kids caught it instantly, like meerkats
when an eagle is coming. Others it seemed wouldn't know they were on fire
untill another might mention, "little Tommy, you know yer on fire right?"

Well this board aint made up of kids, but it seems ampelly populated by folks
who have no "Awareness" that nearly every aspect of our culture is be~ing manipulated.
Not tin-hat, or the Masons, but politics, marketing, religeous, economic, yada yada on and on.
There has never been a tool invented that couldn't be used to build and up-lift or tare down and discourage.
And it's been my observation that no new (fill in the blank) ever helps advance the collective condition
nearly as much as it acts as a krutch or as a substitute for deliberation, and application.

I'm go'n in circles perhaps, but metal-workers I've known that are/were outstanding,
even thO working in differing ways and methods, all shared accute or keen awareness.
And they learned to use new technology to advance there work, not use it as a substitute for
thinking, and ........
The rest retire having had no consequense, or made no contribution to the trade or their fellows.
===========
yup, completely in circles, but it's my thread so ...... time for bed.

J. Randall
12-07-2014, 02:21 AM
If you say so James, however that's not how I see it.
I dont see any point in the inane post in question, but that could very well be due to my stupidity... ;)
Cheers,
Jon
Jon, what I thought the point of the post was that when they lose their crutch, the gps, is that stopping right in the flow of traffic and possibly endangering others, rather than drive on to a safe place to get off and try to fix their problem, that is not a smart thing to do. Sorry if I didn't get my point across the first time. I am just failing to see the meanings that you were trying to attribute to it.
James

loose nut
12-07-2014, 09:59 AM
Danger will robinson, danger!

Abner
12-08-2014, 08:02 PM
A machine 'aware' ---no.

brian Rupnow
12-08-2014, 08:16 PM
Stephen Hawking seems to think that artificial intelligence is one of the greatest threats facing humanity, according to something I recently read. We are on the very threshold of machines that are capable of thinking for themselves. Along with "thinking for themselves" comes "self awareness". As nice as the original "three laws of robotics" sounds (Either Heinlein or Asimov, I forget), with self awareness comes the desire to remain "aware". Once an artificial intelligence becomes self aware and wants to maintain it's self awareness, how do human beings put the Genii back into the bottle??---Brian

garyhlucas
12-08-2014, 09:10 PM
So how do we know that all the interconnected PCs, cell phones etc. already connected via the internet hasn't already become self aware? It could change what is going on for humanity by simple manipulations you might not even be aware of.

boslab
12-08-2014, 09:29 PM
Ive met some people over the years that I'm not sure if they are self aware, anyway unless hard wired into their old positronic brains like Mr Assimov proposed, how do we know if any future self aware robot would want to subscribe to our laws?, perhaps they won't like the wording and replace the word human with robot, or whatever they decide to call themselves.
Perhaps from their perspective we would be lower down on the pecking order, I can see where Mr Asimov was coming from, it's like the Bible where God gives Moses 10 Commandments to follow, ok they are not as cleverly worded or convoluted as the three commandments of robotics as proposed, but very specific, yet no one yet with one exception has ever followed them.
I think self aware robots might be just like us.
God creates man, gives rules to obey, gets ignored, man creates robots gives rules to obey gets ignored
Mark

Abner
12-09-2014, 08:28 AM
Too many Terminator movies. Come on you guys robots take energy, just pull the plug, problem solved.
We will never see machines be our overlords. However people using machines to help control us has already happened with varying rates of success. I want my machines to be aware that if they do not do what I want, when I want, they will be disassembled and the problems corrected.


"Ive met some people over the years that I'm not sure if they are self aware"- boslab

I think this is the bigger problem.

boslab
12-09-2014, 09:59 AM
The robot if you want to call it that I'm most worried about is the global stock market, it's already enslaved us, wiped out economies caused folk to jump out of windows, we are it appears making it faster more powerful and ultimately it going to bite us on the ass again and again
Mark

loose nut
12-09-2014, 12:26 PM
how do human beings put the Genii back into the bottle??---Brian

Easy peasy, the same way we did it with the atomic bomb, bio-weapons and nerve gases.

Oh crap!!!!!!

Timo
12-09-2014, 07:08 PM
I know some people who need AI as they seem to have none on their own.

So true.

kf2qd
12-09-2014, 08:35 PM
The problem with AI is this... Will it be better than its programmers? Considering the flaws that we all, as human beings, all seem to have in abundance, will it somehow be more moral, fair and honest than we are?

Jon Heron
12-09-2014, 08:45 PM
The problem with AI is this... Will it be better than its programmers? Considering the flaws that we all, as human beings, all seem to have in abundance, will it somehow be more moral, fair and honest than we are?
Can you build a better conscience?
Cheers,
Jon

schor
12-09-2014, 08:57 PM
I guess the whole point of AI, self consciousness in a computer, and the morals it would embrace comes down to what it learns. Just like your makeup came from your early influences, so will a computer.

We've still got a long way to go before a computer really thinks, but the time will come, sad but probably inevitable.

flylo
12-09-2014, 09:37 PM
The robot if you want to call it that I'm most worried about is the global stock market, it's already enslaved us, wiped out economies caused folk to jump out of windows, we are it appears making it faster more powerful and ultimately it going to bite us on the ass again and again
Mark

I agree & as I've said before we've put all our eggs in one basket & lots of ways to upset the basket. Scrap is down to $120/ton, gas is under $2.50/gallon because china & other places are not going gung ho as before & the way the one world economy is all dependent on each other & then can't function without the internet, it's a house of cards IMHO.

asid61
12-09-2014, 11:47 PM
So the world can't function without internet... but who's going to "shut it down"? It would require a massive organized effort to do so, and the internet is not in just one place. It would be like taking control of all the world's nuclear missiles.

Old Hat
12-10-2014, 04:39 AM
The problem with AI is this... Will it be better than its programmers? Considering the flaws that we all, as human beings, all seem to have in abundance, will it somehow be more moral, fair and honest than we are?

Morallity, fairness, and honesty, valor, discrimination, would need to be
represented by something numeric, and be weighed or metered out, or selected
by some kind of logic. True?

And, these have little to do with a uniform code of logic, and can't consistently
by quantified, so as to be used by priority.
===================
I maintain a machine can be built to mimic activity born of a Soul.
It will have a brain, but not have a {heart, a soul}.
It can process, it cannot create an original thought, or desire anything.

PStechPaul
12-10-2014, 04:56 AM
I'd rather deal with a machine, or most wild or domestic animals, than many people. I have heard that approximately 3% of the general human population is sociopathic, which means essentially a lack of empathy or concern for others and a totally self-centered approach to life. This can also be described as one not having a conscience, or "heart", or "soul". And the Pope now says that dogs go to heaven, so that is "evidence" that animals have "souls".

http://www.dogheirs.com/elleng/posts/6354-all-animals-go-to-heaven-says-pope-francis?page_questions=7

http://s3.amazonaws.com/heirnet/postphotos/20751/dog-heaven_smallteaser.jpg

Some wild animals may also exhibit essentially sociopathic personalities, but in the animal world, such behavior is not rewarded by allowing them to become CEOs and endangering the lives and welfare of others, but instead they are "culled out" by their mothers at birth, or later on by the pack. I think a machine could develop a personality and a code of ethics, hopefully based on logic as well as compassion. Bad people don't exhibit either of these attributes.

Old Hat
12-10-2014, 05:14 AM
Paul, lets make Gort a Cat for a moment.
Gort has to decide at what point to turn back to the boy.
Gort has no concern for his own survival.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6GQR3Ym5M8
These things are decided in the being as a whole, not just the brain.
One man dies for another. Another man is a coward and hides.
More than just some biologic switching go'n on.

boslab
12-10-2014, 05:43 AM
I'd rather deal with a machine, or most wild or domestic animals, than many people. I have heard that approximately 3% of the general human population is sociopathic, which means essentially a lack of empathy or concern for others and a totally self-centered approach to life. This can also be described as one not having a conscience, or "heart", or "soul". And the Pope now says that dogs go to heaven, so that is "evidence" that animals have "souls".

http://www.dogheirs.com/elleng/posts/6354-all-animals-go-to-heaven-says-pope-francis?page_questions=7

http://s3.amazonaws.com/heirnet/postphotos/20751/dog-heaven_smallteaser.jpg

Some wild animals may also exhibit essentially sociopathic personalities, but in the animal world, such behavior is not rewarded by allowing them to become CEOs and endangering the lives and welfare of others, but instead they are "culled out" by their mothers at birth, or later on by the pack. I think a machine could develop a personality and a code of ethics, hopefully based on logic as well as compassion. Bad people don't exhibit either of these attributes.

Some of the most charming people you will ever meet are sociopaths, very very hard to spot
Mark

Richard P Wilson
12-10-2014, 07:45 AM
Some of the most charming people you will ever meet are sociopaths, very very hard to spot
Mark

You are right Mark. According to the late Charlie Richardson (infamous South London gang leader), the late 'Mad' Frankie Fraser (infamous gangland enforcer, whose speciality was removing victims teeth with pliers, and planted an axe in a rivals head) was one of the mildest mannered men you could hope to meet, he just had a bit of a temper at times.

Apologies that this probably only makes sense to UK readers.

boslab
12-10-2014, 08:33 AM
A thought came to mind, can a machine build a better machine, seems according to the cnc folk it can, first build a shoestring machine, hacked out of midfield, use that to build a better machine, redesign make an Ali machine, etc, the missing bit of the development cycle is that human intervention is required to active that goal, the internet and robots I feel are the same, it develops because of us not in spite of us, if there was no more human input it will remain static, then decline due to lack of maintainance, not a lot to do with original thought but my nearly original thought
Mark

Abner
12-10-2014, 09:01 AM
I'd rather deal with a machine, or most wild or domestic animals, than many people. I have heard that approximately 3% of the general human population is sociopathic, which means essentially a lack of empathy or concern for others and a totally self-centered approach to life. This can also be described as one not having a conscience, or "heart", or "soul". And the Pope now says that dogs go to heaven, so that is "evidence" that animals have "souls"....



Mentioning sociopaths and the Pope...
Dogs have souls and can go to heaven...never heard that is catholic school growing up.
Must be a lack of little kids going to church.
What about Elephants?
The desperation is obvious you just have to look.
The infallibility of the Pope -> The pope is never wrong.
My favorite from school - "The Pope talks to God like you and I talk to each other"
Oooh, I believe that too.
Abner,
Rehabilitated former Catholic

MarkK
12-10-2014, 09:53 AM
Dogs can think and plan ahead. I think this is a form of self awareness.

A friend used to walk her Border collie past a house with a big golden retriever -- every time the golden would run out barking and stop at the invisible fence line, startling my friend and the Border collie. After several episodes of this, the border collie crouched down into the ditch as they approached the golden's house. The golden as always ran out barking but this time the Border collie stayed crouched down in the ditch out of sight until the golden got near and then jumped out and lunged growling at the golden. The golden ran off yipping and was never seen a problem again.

This to me is proof that dogs (well, at least Border Collies) can reason and plan a rather complex future action.

But on to the topic. I do think computers at some point may become self aware. Some of the technologies that are being discovered and produced are what some of us called science fiction back in the 60's and 70's

http://www.techswarm.com/2014/12/nanoscale-resistors-for-quantum-devices.html

and another on robots

http://www.techswarm.com/2014/12/new-research-aims-to-ensure-that-robots.html

I would not not be surprised if it has been done already (AI)

The military and black projects are so very far advanced over conventional technology (some scientists say 50 to 60 years ahead) that AI has probably been done if it is indeed possible.

e.g. the SR71 Blackbird was designed and produced in the late 50's under a CIA black budget project

50 years later it is still a remarkable airplane even by 21st century 'conventional standards'

Richard P Wilson
12-10-2014, 10:14 AM
Border collies certainly can plan ahead. When we had 2 of them, and were out walking them, with them running free, on the opposite side of the field, and called them, they didn't head directly towards us, but towards where they calculated we would be if we carried on walking. My present dog, a terrier, just starts running towards me and alters direction as I move.

EVguru
12-10-2014, 10:39 AM
I'll start worrying about artificial intelligence after they've perfected artificial stupidity.

mklotz
12-10-2014, 11:16 AM
There's no point in talking about AI unless you can recognize it should it occur.

If you're not satisfied with the Turing test, and I appreciate that it has its problems, how do you propose to identify AI?

It seems to me that this is a problem almost as difficult as actually constructing AI.

Old Hat
12-10-2014, 11:22 AM
A thought came to mind, can a machine build a better machine, seems according to the cnc folk it can, first build a shoestring machine, hacked out of midfield, use that to build a better machine, redesign make an Ali machine, etc, the missing bit of the development cycle is that human intervention is required to active that goal, the internet and robots I feel are the same, it develops because of us not in spite of us, if there was no more human input it will remain static, then decline due to lack of maintainance, not a lot to do with original thought but my nearly original thought
Mark

Very well put Mark!
One minor adjustment, but pretainant. A CNC machine hasn't, can't and never will build anything.
Further, it can't do anything better either, accept "repeat". It can repeat better!
That's why another 70,000 cars were recalled yesterday for an injector problem.
They repeat errors with stunning consistancy untill a human discovers the error.

A CNC machine center at the comand of a Man, can build two excellant injection moulds.
No CNC machine center, can perfectly blend repaired regions of cores and cavities to the original surfaces.
A man can , using that CNC machine center.
"QUILIFIER", 1/2 a career manual, and 1/2 a career with CNC,
it's just an incredibly usefull bionic pair of gloves.