When does technology become artificial intelligence?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » When does technology become artificial intelligence? » When does technology become artificial intelligence?

When does technology become artificial intelligence?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

When does technology become artificial intelligence?

Nobody
Rien. Existe.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 26, 2003
Location: Lost In My Own Mind :\

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 190

Posted 08/20/04 - 08:55 PM:	#31
zinc115 wrote: I speak of the drive within all human beings. The urge to question and grow. Will an atomic connection of molecules passing information experience emotion? Ask questions? Be ethical? Further thought on this will hopefully shed some light. (I would go further but I'm tired) Most of the things you listed are only components of humans as they are today thanks to evolution. If you assembled an exact duplicate of myself, then it would still act normal without a "soul" being added (in theory at least) There is nothing to suggest that conscienceness or some "soul" exists outside of the human brain, rather, these things are all born within the mind, products of an extremely complex system of neurons and such. If we could make a computer think, it may not have these desires...unless we give them to it. A computer will not be competing for survival and be forced into the whole survial of the fittest chain like other organisms are (unless the method used to program the AI was one designed to do this) We would have to give them the human mind, at least the basic building blocks that we start out with, before it could develop further into something compariable to us.
-"Far too many live, and far too long hang they on their branches. Would that a storm came and shook all this rottenness and worm-eatenness from the tree!" -Nietzsche I was just thinking … that here we sit, all of us, eating and drinking to preserve our precious existence and really there is nothing, nothing, absolutely no reason for existing. -Sartre, "Nausea"

OnceFlewOver
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2004

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 32

Posted 08/23/04 - 06:24 PM:	#32
YadaYada wrote: The lesson from the chess-playing supercomputers is that machine 'intelligence' is quite different in nature than human intelligence, and that it has the potential to be enormously greater. Even at best we have limited memory, and linear logical thought, as much as we value it, is vastly inferior to almost error-free mechanical logic in both speed and depth. The AI theory and technology is incomplete, but it is moving forward little by little, as improving, affordable technology permits. Eventually, robots will have improved perception, including infrared, sonar, and others. Independent decision making will be built in. But emotions, volition, and intention are probably not desirable, and will differentiate the Borg from people. Wow... this thread has grown since the last time I was here. Been away for a while. But anyway, how would we "build in independent decision making"? Isn't that somewhat of a paradox? (Especially without emotions etc.)

OnceFlewOver
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2004

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 32

Posted 08/23/04 - 06:27 PM:	#33
zinc115 wrote: I think that if we are to automate the means of production so much to the point that no humans are even in the process at all, we as a society could become "slaves" to technology. In "I, Robots" you have 'intelligent' robots building robots and other things. If the technology ever gets to the point where it can further itself without human intervention, there could be problems. I do not believe that "A.I" would seek to destroy us, because A.I is based on a system designed to be perfect. A perfect sytem would seek to grow and understand, therefore, machines would seek to understand humans, which becomes impossible for them because of the irrational part of humanity, something a perfect system could not understand, but would seek to indefinitely. I really like your take on this subject. So shrinks are robots, eh?

OnceFlewOver
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2004

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 32

Posted 08/23/04 - 06:47 PM:	#34
YadaYada wrote: 1. Technology. How many people could explain 500 years ago HOW a hammer works? Probably none. But today we probably have over a million people who can explain the microwave to an acceptable level. 2. Intelligence has two components. One is inherited and unchanging, the other is cultural and depends on progress and education. Anyone on this board is a genius by medieval standards. We do it exactly that way. The only difference is in labelling one "choice", the other "just probability". 500 years ago was really pretty recent when looking at the big picture. There were far more advanced machines created and/or used in the 1500's than a hammer. After all, some of the most complex mathematical theories were formed by the ancient Greeks. And a hammer has what, four, five kinematic parts to it? (Of course there's an infinte number of ways of looking at a hammer, but not so many on a practical/useful level.) I'm not big on physics, but it's not that hard to understand. Now you might hang out with a quite knowledgeable elite crowd, but I really don't think that many people can explain a microwave, of the "average intelligence" anyway (whatever that may be). But, tell me more about this "inherited intelligence."

One Under The Ring
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2004

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

Posted 08/23/04 - 08:40 PM:	#35
I think this, because, if you look back in history, none of the things that we have created so far, have posed a treath to the existence of humanity. Experiements have been done and death did occur, but we were always one step ahead. Both material as mental. It seems to me that there have indeed been human creations that threatened human existence, most notably, atomic weapons... No doubt you will argue that we were sufficiently advanced (socially or otherwise) to know not to use these weapons in excess, but I think they could still be deemed a threat... I'm inclined to agree with a poster above that the most interesting aspect of this discussion is the question of whether or not 'human thought' is something that can be modelled, and is indeed based upon, programmable rules. This is a concept that we seem to naturally rebel against, and yet short of a religious argument, I can see no logical reason to discount it... Moreover, if one believes that the universe is constrained by sets of laws (such as the laws of Physics, or mathematics), then at some fundamental level, it seems to follow that our own thought processes would also be constrained by some relationship of these laws... ...Which in a round-about manner brings me to the Turing Test. I think it is valid in the sense that if 'thought' really does result from sets of rules, then the Turing test can be seen as a sort of threshold measure of similarity between one set of rules and another... In this case, the similarity between the rules governing 'human thought', and those governing the computer's reactions... If these are sufficiently similar, it seems reasonable to apply the term 'artificial intelligence'. Of course, if the test fails to cover a broad enough scope of investigation, you could argue that it is invalid, but to me, this is more a problem of poor implementation, and not a flaw in the test itself.

MediaMan
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 01, 2003
Location: A hole in the wall.

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 50

Posted 08/23/04 - 09:00 PM:	#36
In principle, I think the Turing test is actually a pretty good benchmark for when AI becomes AI. However, the way we currently perform it isn't due to reasons already stated above. Still, above all the point of whether or not something has become intelligent and independently thinking should be whether, pragmatically, we look at this thing and cannot tell the difference. I used to think the very nature of the Turing test was inadequate because what it encouraged was not true intelligence and thought but just a simulation of such so convincing that people would not be able to tell the difference. But then I realized that I can't, technically, tell whether the people around me are truly intelligent either - I can't crawl into their thoughts and see for myself. The same would be for a computer. I wouldn't be able to read its mind to see whether it's really being intelligent or whether it's just simulating intelligence really well. Therefore, in principle, the Turing test, if we define it as just crafting a computer program to the point where it can indefiniately fool a human observer into thinking it's human, is a good benchmark because, when you get down to it, it's the same benchmark we use for human intelligence every day. We consider our family intelligent, for example, not because we genuinely KNOW but because through observing them we can usually make the assumption that this is so. So why deny this same standard to computers?

YadaYada
fool

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Location: in the past

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 316

Posted 08/25/04 - 04:14 PM:	#37
OnceFlewOver wrote: how would we "build in independent decision making"? Isn't that somewhat of a paradox? (Especially without emotions etc.) We are used to having our decisions be directed by emotions, a semi-autonomous part of our mind. Unfortunately, few AI experts are concerned with modeling emotions, since emotions are not well understood. How do we tell a machine when and how often it should feel anger, frustration, anxiety, or fear? Independent decision making in artificial intelligence has to be different in nature from what we are used to. Long term goals, objectives, and direction need to be pre-programmed (hard-wired) to take the place of emotions. Presuming that perceptual recognition and perceptual judgment can be designed and programmed, then long term memory of the results of previous action, and logical testing of randomly generated options can allow a machine to make decisions independently.
{}{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{}{}{ . . . We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates ~ Aristotle

YadaYada
fool

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Location: in the past

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 316

Posted 08/25/04 - 04:30 PM:	#38
YadaYada ... Intelligence has two components. One is inherited and unchanging, the other is cultural and depends on progress and education. Anyone on this board is a genius by medieval standards. OnceFlewOver ... But, tell me more about this "inherited intelligence." Inherited intelligence is the usual IQ, it is whatever that test measures. It is the natural difference between individuals, given approximately the same environment in upbringing to perform on an IQ test. In spite of often heard politically motivated criticism, environmental differences, such as cultural factors, are not enough to explain the significance of IQ. Cultural intelligence is the intelligence of a culture, and how well that culture transmits its intelligence to its individuals. You should have asked me about this, since, other than historical insinuations, the lack of a standardized inter-cultural intelligence tests makes it very difficult for me to explain this concept.
{}{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{}{}{ . . . We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates ~ Aristotle

Stencil
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 11, 2004

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 9

Posted 08/25/04 - 10:18 PM:	#39
Now you might hang out with a quite knowledgeable elite crowd, but I really don't think that many people can explain a microwave, of the "average intelligence" anyway I agree. Knowledge has become so specialized that people use a set of basic skills to construct very small parts of what we collectively know or use. With the parts spread out in front of them, almost no one could construct an internal combustion engine, a water heater, a computer, a t.v., a radio--some of the most basic technological components of contemporary society. Moreover, even if they were an engineer with the knowledge of all those things (and it's doubtful that one person could do all that), they would have a tough time making aspirin, penicilin, or performing a tracheotomy. A computer can contain the knowledge to do all those things, and a machine could be built to do them all. On the idea of dependence on technology, think about the people who will search for 15 minutes for the remote before changing the channel themselves or pick up a piece of garbage 3 times while vacuuming only to put it in front of the vacuum again rather than in the trash. That's dependence. But machines are no where near A.I. Sure, they already self replicate in the sense that they build other machines. They can be programmed to simulate fear, surprise, anger, lust, whatever. However, they lack consciousness, emotions, forgetfullness, and heuristic thinking. Programming that is essentially anti-programming.

Norseman
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 10, 2004

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 53

Posted 08/25/04 - 11:37 PM:	#40
Technology becomes artificial intelligence when it can do everything we can do but better.
"If Atheism is a religion, then health is a disease!" "A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle." "Jesus' last words on the cross were, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" hardly seem like the words of a man who planned it that way. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure there is something wrong here."

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.