| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 03 2012 08:44 xmungam wrote: exactly, we would never be able to create something smarter than ourselves. Don't be silly. Every time you read a book you create something smarter than yourself. | ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
On October 03 2012 08:14 HowitZer wrote: A machine can be described as a set of logic gates that takes input and gives predictable output. At best, pseudo randomness can be simulated by automatically changing the machine based on environmental factors. I completely fail to see how a machine can ever do anything that we cannot understand when we built them and they are not alive. All parts in the brain derive their function and program themselves by their surroundings. This is kind of proven by people recovering from strokes, for example, where parts in the brain reprogram themselves to replace the lost parts. Imagine someone's brain successively being replaced by more and more artificial parts that learn from their surroundings what they should do, the process being done slow enough that the person's character does not noticeably change. Accomplishing this process theoretically only depends on engineering a tiny artificial part that can replace and interface with neurological tissue. At the end you would have a human person, with a completely artificial brain, and no one would have had to know how to create an actual AI. | ||
|
zefreak
United States2731 Posts
On October 03 2012 08:44 xmungam wrote: exactly, we would never be able to create something smarter than ourselves. also think about the possibility of linking up all human minds, that would be so much more powerful than any stand alone computer we could build. what makes tools powerful is the user, this applies to weapons And the internet. What makes you guys think human brains are different? We are just incredibly complex machines, and our brains are incredibly complex computers. The thought that human intelligence is even close to the upper bound of possible intelligences is untenable. | ||
|
eshlow
United States5210 Posts
That's pretty much what is going to be the determining factor, as that will increase processing power and storage to an enormous degree | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
"we will not assume that human-level intelligence can be realized by a classical Von Neumann computing architecture, nor that intelligent machines will have internal mental properties such as consciousness or human-like “intentionality,” nor that early AIs will be geographically local or easily “disembodied.” These properties are not required to build AI, so objections to these claims (Lucas 1961; Dreyfus 1972; Searle 1980; Block 1981; Penrose 1994; van Gelder and Port 1995) are not objections to AI (Chalmers 1996, chap. 9; Nilsson 2009, chap. 24; McCorduck 2004, chap. 8 and 9; Legg 2008; Heylighen 2012) or to the possibility of intelligence explosion (Chalmers, forthcoming). For example: a machine need not be conscious to intelligently reshape the world according to its preferences, as demonstrated by goal-directed “narrow AI” programs such as the leading chess-playing programs." The quote specifically was referring to the Chinese Room Objection by John Searle, which states that machines can never truly "understand" the processes which they undertake. However, understanding, experience, feelings are all subject to HUMAN intelligence. There are multiple types of intelligences that can reach us to the technological singularity, even intelligence that does not resemble us in the slightest. It is rather inevitable, that we will see this singularity occur before the end of the 21st century due to the progress in raw computing power/hardware we make each year, so software is the actual bottleneck and if we don't invest in research of SAFE AI (who cares about safety amirite?), it will literally be the end of humanity. | ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
Many many many times more likely is nuclear annihilation within 100 years. Sorry.  | ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
New advances will come in the form of alternative media (biological, massively parallel synthetic, quantum, (photonic/feyman?)), and will require new ways of thinking about computing. There are plenty of great ideas that have already been researched, but the cost of bringing them to market is extremely steep when traditional hardware gets the job done. You'll see cheaper -- more ubiquitous -- machinery in coming years, but the problems of complexity are still wide open. But keep in mind that economic realities hinder the development of new technology, as well as limit access to technology. Everything has a price. | ||
|
Nevermind86
Somalia429 Posts
| ||
|
dannystarcraft
United States179 Posts
On September 28 2006 18:30 travis wrote: Just imagine the behind the scenes technology that exists in the millitary. From reading Ray's Book(he's one of 3 or 4 advisors to the millitary regarding the budgeting of money for technological research), I know that the millitary is very close to having nanotech shots that can enhance muscle performance for soldiers, allowing them to carry huge guns or machinery for long distances. And this kind of technology is just the start. STIMPACKS!!! It will be OP in real life too ^^ I still don't thing we will reach the singularity. As people in the thread previously have stated there might be a machine that can reason faster than a human, but never reason in a way that a human cannot. | ||
|
Aerisky
United States12129 Posts
However there is the distinct possibility that there may not be enough latent on energy obtainable on the Earth (i.e. the sun/available resources on our planet) for us to be able to do certain things, e.g. be self-sustaining over a prolonged period of time, or be able to travel to another habitable planet, or create AI. | ||
|
GnarlyArbitrage
575 Posts
| ||
|
Mataza
Germany5364 Posts
I find it more likely(and safe) to increase human memory with actual computer parts. Human augmentation all the way(Deus Ex>Metal Gear Solid). Imagine a world where you wouldn´t forget things you were just thinking about. Human creativity is way beyond anything any AI is ever expected to gain. However the human brain definitely has flaws. So the singularity, what is that supposed to mean exactly? That we get to a point where we cannot improve further or what? | ||
|
Alex1Sun
494 Posts
On October 03 2012 12:08 Mataza wrote: I still don´t know what he means by singularity. I could gather it is some form of future utopia. I find it more likely(and safe) to increase human memory with actual computer parts. Human augmentation all the way(Deus Ex>Metal Gear Solid). Imagine a world where you wouldn´t forget things you were just thinking about. Human creativity is way beyond anything any AI is ever expected to gain. However the human brain definitely has flaws. So the singularity, what is that supposed to mean exactly? That we get to a point where we cannot improve further or what? It is supposed to mean that humans will be entirely replaced by machines. With technology slowing down however I don't see it happening anytime soon. CPU cores are NOT getting much faster now. Moore's law no longer works for single cores, and simply adding more cores requires more energy and space. So this kind of growth will stop or at least dramatically slow down soon. Quite a lot of tech is even getting reversed. We are no longer flying to the moon. We don't even have Concords anymore. Energy is getting more expensive, since low hanging fruit of cheap fossil fuels (especially oil) has already been burned. What remains is harder and slower to get. We don't even have the expertise in nuclear energy anymore: the proponents of thorium or fusion will tell you how frustrated they are by barely any support in these areas. Is singularity possible? Perhaps... but definitely not this century. Likely not the next one either. | ||
|
xmungam
United States1050 Posts
On October 03 2012 08:45 sam!zdat wrote: Don't be silly. Every time you read a book you create something smarter than yourself. I don't create something smarter than myself, i simply Become smarter than i already was . really important point here: A book ISN"T SMART. A book, by itself can do Nothing. It is only when I, the reader, am able to look at this book does the information it holds become something that can be used. This is the same for computers in the sense that they are not real. A computer , no matter how smart it is, will NEVER go, unless we say "go". this is completely un true about humans who are SELF DETERMINED and can make choices for ourselves (even if we use the same process' as computers (eg 'gates')) So the singularity, what is that supposed to mean exactly? When "all" of humanity units itself... when "all" of us become one... when we all see the light... when 100% of people are happy. when we all understand everything + life + more. I find it more likely(and safe) to increase human memory with actual computer parts. So you mean like the 500 gigabyte harddrive on my computer? where i can store 10000000000000 definitions and statements and never have to look back? Or do you mean the internet, where i can type anything into google and get 10000000 results?? ok let me take a hit  brb | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 03 2012 16:48 xmungam wrote: I don't create something smarter than myself, i simply Become smarter than i already was . So you claim that, at t1, you are identical to yourself at t2? (edit: why would anyone want to bother making an artificial intelligences when there are already so many intelligences running around) | ||
|
xmungam
United States1050 Posts
Do you realize that we are communicating using mostly our minds? I am writing this down... and now you can read it and respond... what the fuck? we don't even know each other or have ANY idea where the other person is , and yet we can TALK and DISCUSS and LEARN -- RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!! LOOK AT REDDIT: literally millions of people log in and COMMENT , this is Undeniably a conversation happening at the scale of 100,000 people. W - T - F. I dream of a day, where everyone goes on the internet at once | ||
|
xmungam
United States1050 Posts
On October 03 2012 17:00 sam!zdat wrote: So you claim that, at t1, you are identical to yourself at t2? lol Reading(t1) = 5 R(t2) = 6 me(t1) < Me(t2) or intelligence ++ | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9752 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 03 2012 17:02 xmungam wrote: LOOK AT REDDIT: literally millions of people log in and COMMENT , this is Undeniably a conversation happening at the scale of 100,000 people. W - T - F. Ah, yes, but what are the discursive characteristics of this medium? (I think it is too much noise) | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 03 2012 17:03 xmungam wrote: lol Reading(t1) = 5 R(t2) = 6 me(t1) < Me(t2) or intelligence ++ error: function me() undefined | ||
| ||
|
|
IPSL
Sziky vs JDConan
OSC
Solar vs Percival
Gerald vs Nicoract
Creator vs ByuN
BSL 21
Sziky vs StRyKeR
Hawk vs Dewalt
RSL Revival
Classic vs Reynor
herO vs Zoun
WardiTV 2025
herO vs ShoWTimE
SHIN vs herO
Clem vs herO
SHIN vs Clem
SHIN vs ShoWTimE
Clem vs ShoWTimE
IPSL
Tarson vs DragOn
BSL 21
Tech vs Cross
Bonyth vs eOnzErG
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
