1. Post #161
    matsta's Avatar
    September 2009
    347 Posts
    Edited:
    as for it being verifiable, I'm really not sure how you can say that with a straight face when proposing any alternative like mind-body duality or souls or anything other than that which arises just from fundamental particle interactions

    if it comes from something outside physics then it is necessarily nonverifiable, not to mention ridiculously unlikely. please present me with the gigantic amount of evidence you need to even promote such an idea to be worth considering given its astronomical prior unlikeliness.

    Edited:

    when you have multiple hypotheses that all predict the same data, you go with the mathematically simplest one - namely the one that doesn't propose dualist voodoo

    I am not proposing anything. I am saying that investigations regarding the origin of consciousness cannot be scientific, ergo, you can't prove scientifically any proposition regarding the origin of conciousness.

  2. Post #162
    "I think that" and then just stating an established opinion of scientific community as if it's ripped straight from wiki.
    Um, no. A lot of what Michio Kaku says on TV shows and what not are bordering on fringe science. (He's a string theorist so that's to be expected)

    He didn't invent anything.
    He's one of the co-creators of string field theory.

  3. Post #163
    Gold Member
    thisguy123's Avatar
    August 2008
    6,822 Posts
    It is my firm belief that if a technology can be used fo greater benefit mankind, then we should.

    I personally would gladly swap out my own heart for a superior synthetic alternative. Empasis on superior, not as in anything synthetic is superior but if this perticular one was.

    On the same note, if an artificial intellegence construct could be used to benefit mankind and improve quality of life. Then, by virtue of "we sodding well built it so we can do what we want with it" we should. If making an ai do something that you would not make a person do, to help save human lives, then i believe we should.

    In my opinioun, an ai is something thzt is capable of problem solving and desicion making on a human, or near human level. Perhaps we could make one someday, but not for a while yet.

  4. Post #164
    Gold Member
    thrawn2787's Avatar
    April 2007
    8,291 Posts
    Um, no. A lot of what Michio Kaku says on TV shows and what not are bordering on fringe science. (He's a string theorist so that's to be expected)



    He's one of the co-creators of string field theory.
    just because he's a co-creator of string theory doesn't mean that he knows everything about anything. he does on go tv quite often and talks about... anything science related, not just stuff in his field

  5. Post #165
    just because he's a co-creator of string theory doesn't mean that he knows everything about anything. he does on go tv quite often and talks about... anything science related, not just stuff in his field
    That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said in my post

  6. Post #166
    Gold Member
    thrawn2787's Avatar
    April 2007
    8,291 Posts
    That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said in my post
    A lot of what Michio Kaku says on TV shows and what not are bordering on fringe science. (He's a string theorist so that's to be expected)
    I'd wager more than 50% of the stuff he talks about on popular TV isn't on string theory or things he's really familiar with, he's just kind of a narrator / host now.

  7. Post #167
    As long as a physicist isn't talking about some very specific area of research like aging phenomena or some shit, and they pretty much never are on those shows, they can be expected to know what they're talking about.

  8. Post #168
    matsta's Avatar
    September 2009
    347 Posts
    As long as a physicist isn't talking about some very specific area of research like aging phenomena or some shit, and they pretty much never are on those shows, they can be expected to know what they're talking about.
    Ad verecundiam fallacy

  9. Post #169
    Ad verecundiam fallacy
    Did you just try to jump into the discussion without reading because that's not an appeal to authority

    Edited:

    In fact the whole beginning point of the argument was me basically saying Michio Kaku talks out his ass a lot

  10. Post #170
    matsta's Avatar
    September 2009
    347 Posts
    Did you just try to jump into the discussion without reading because that's not an appeal to authority

    Edited:

    In fact the whole beginning point of the argument was me basically saying Michio Kaku talks out his ass a lot
    He does. Most of the things he says are not on his area of expertise. If youclaim that those things might be true because he is a string theorist then you are falling in the ad verecundiam fallacy.

  11. Post #171
    He does. Most of the things he says are not on his area of expertise.
    Again: read. Unless he is talking about very specific areas of research, which he generally is not, he is almost certain to be infinitely more educated on topics relating to physics than the layperson is.

    If youclaim that those things might be true because he is a string theorist then you are falling in the ad verecundiam fallacy.
    I didn't claim that at all. I claimed a lot of what he says is bullshit or likely to be bullshit, but that it's not because it he's overreaching his area of expertise. It's just because he's a little nuts.

    Also, nowhere did I claim nor would I claim that something is true because an authority said it, that would be dumb. But it is perfectly reasonable to claim that something is more likely true if many authorities claim it is or could be than if just about all authorities agree it is not. That is an inductive argument. There's nothing wrong with talking about probabilities like that.

    Did you just take a rhetoric 101 class and you're trying to stretch your argumentative muscles or something because you really have a lot to learn, no offense.

  12. Post #172
    matsta's Avatar
    September 2009
    347 Posts
    Again: read. Unless he is talking about very specific areas of research, which he generally is not, he is almost certain to be infinitely more educated on topics relating to physics than the layperson is.

    I didn't claim that at all. I claimed a lot of what he says is bullshit or likely to be bullshit, but that it's not because it he's overreaching his area of expertise. It's just because he's a little nuts.

    Also, nowhere did I claim nor would I claim that something is true because an authority said it, that would be dumb. But it is perfectly reasonable to claim that something is more likely true if many authorities claim it is or could be than if just about all authorities agree it is not. That is an inductive argument. There's nothing wrong with talking about probabilities like that.

    Did you just take a rhetoric 101 class and you're trying to stretch your argumentative muscles or something because you really have a lot to learn, no offense.
    JohnnyMo1 posted:
    As long as a physicist isn't talking about some very specific area of research like aging phenomena or some shit, and they pretty much never are on those shows, they can be expected to know what they're talking about.

  13. Post #173
    Yes. Obviously I meant if they're discussing physics. Do I really have to point that out?

  14. Post #174
    matsta's Avatar
    September 2009
    347 Posts
    And actually the post regarding to what Michio Kaku said wasn't about physics.

    Edited:

    Michio Kaku believes currently that robots are more like insects. We'd have total control of them honestly, we'd use them to our own benefit. If they wanted rights or something we'd just disable or weaken them.

  15. Post #175
    And yet I never actually referred to that post.

  16. Post #176
    matsta's Avatar
    September 2009
    347 Posts
    And yet is it straight evidence that he overreaches his area of expertise.

    Edited:

    And yes, you have to point that out.

  17. Post #177
    But that's still not relevant to anything I was ever talking about so I don't know why you're still bringing it up. I was responding to the claim that he regurgitates popular opinions, which is patently untrue, and I was restricting my discussion to his claims about physics. Are you going to continue telling me what I've been talking about or can we drop this mostly off-topic argument now?

  18. Post #178
    matsta's Avatar
    September 2009
    347 Posts
    alright

  19. Post #179

    January 2012
    5 Posts
    If you could make a useful concious AI you could just program it to enjoy whatever it was we needed it to do as well. That's how animals work right now, so it's not hard to do as well or better(kind of like how healthy eating doesn't match up perfectly with what tastes good. Bad design right there.)

  20. Post #180
    If you could make a useful concious AI you could just program it to enjoy whatever it was we needed it to do as well. That's how animals work right now, so it's not hard to do as well or better(kind of like how healthy eating doesn't match up perfectly with what tastes good. Bad design right there.)
    the problem is to properly specify what it is "we want it to do"

    this isn't trivial.

  21. Post #181
    Motherfuckers's Avatar
    January 2012
    739 Posts
    AI is SUPER ETHICAL

    I mean no less ethical than child birth at any rate, the creation of sentient life for the the purpose of X.

    X being whatever.

  22. Post #182
    AI is SUPER ETHICAL

    I mean no less ethical than child birth at any rate, the creation of sentient life for the the purpose of X.

    X being whatever.
    but what if you fuck up

    that wouldn't be moral

  23. Post #183
    Mr_WOBBLeS's Avatar
    March 2012
    15 Posts
    In the case of Watson, I think that the extent of what that super computer could do is find facts and put them forward. I don't think there is really any truth behind computers becoming self aware except in science fiction literature and movies.
    I fully agree with this. There is no way that a logic-based system like a computer could develop a "opinion" of its own. That would be like making a string of binary with a 2 in it. Its just not possible.

  24. Post #184
    I fully agree with this. There is no way that a logic-based system like a computer could develop a "opinion" of its own. That would be like making a string of binary with a 2 in it. Its just not possible.
    "There's absolutely no way a carbon-based system could develop an "opinion" of its own. That would be like making a DNA string with a transistor in it!"

  25. Post #185
    Splendor's Avatar
    December 2010
    284 Posts
    I think there is an important distinction to be made between self-improving artificial intelligence and whatever the fuck you call AI that do not have that capacity. The former is significantly more dangerous.

  26. Post #186
    I think there is an important distinction to be made between self-improving artificial intelligence and whatever the fuck you call AI that do not have that capacity. The former is significantly more dangerous.
    Exactly.

    Also, an AI that is significantly smarter than humans but non self-improving is still a threat as well.

  27. Post #187
    Slight's Avatar
    March 2011
    641 Posts
    I think there is an important distinction to be made between self-improving artificial intelligence and whatever the fuck you call AI that do not have that capacity. The former is significantly more dangerous.
    Like you fucking know?

    Is this seriously a thread debating shit we've heard about in movies? Reading the first 3 pages seems to say so.

    No group or collection of people have ever created anything resembling AI in the way that the OP describes it (a self aware being capable of learning and so on). Therefore, there are no design proposals to debate, no problems to discuss, and no actual substance to this debate at all really.

    If we somehow gained the ability to create an artificial (non-biological) neural network (provided of course we begin to understand neural networks to a point where we can solve complex problems with them such as the mammal brain does) that could be used in some way, we would already understand what we were building and what our machine would be capable of doing.

    Its not like some fucking mad scientist group is going to accidentally create a super-human like robot that can do everything better than humans unexpectedly. Step out of the cave and into reality for a split second and you'd see that.

    Every person who has posted here (excluding perhaps satane's post) has demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of how neural networks actually work and how you could never accidentally create a human-like AI being without understanding exactly what you're doing. There is also no foreseeable reason to ever want to create a human-like AI because the human brain has things that would be unnecessary to a robot designed for a specific task and again could not magically evolve those capacities should they not be designed to have them.

    We might as well debate which religion is more correct.

  28. Post #188
    Like you fucking know?

    Is this seriously a thread debating shit we've heard about in movies? Reading the first 3 pages seems to say so.

    No group or collection of people have ever created anything resembling AI in the way that the OP describes it (a self aware being capable of learning and so on). Therefore, there are no design proposals to debate, no problems to discuss, and no actual substance to this debate at all really.

    If we somehow gained the ability to create an artificial (non-biological) neural network (provided of course we begin to understand neural networks to a point where we can solve complex problems with them such as the mammal brain does) that could be used in some way, we would already understand what we were building and what our machine would be capable of doing.

    Its not like some fucking mad scientist group is going to accidentally create a super-human like robot that can do everything better than humans unexpectedly. Step out of the cave and into reality for a split second and you'd see that.

    Every person who has posted here (excluding perhaps satane's post) has demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of how neural networks actually work and how you could never accidentally create a human-like AI being without understanding exactly what you're doing. There is also no foreseeable reason to ever want to create a human-like AI because the human brain has things that would be unnecessary to a robot designed for a specific task and again could not magically evolve those capacities should they not be designed to have them.

    We might as well debate which religion is more correct.
    http://singinst.org/summary

    hurr

    Edited:

    it's like saying "nobody has ever created an atomic weapon before, so there's no point in worrying that it might ignite the atmosphere"

    Edited:

    also why are you privileging neural networks over other mind architectures?

    why would the mind architecture produced by evolution also happen to resemble the optimal one?

  29. Post #189
    matsta's Avatar
    September 2009
    347 Posts
    http://singinst.org/summary

    hurr

    Edited:

    it's like saying "nobody has ever created an atomic weapon before, so there's no point in worrying that it might ignite the atmosphere"

    Edited:

    also why are you privileging neural networks over other mind architectures?

    why would the mind architecture produced by evolution also happen to resemble the optimal one?
    In 1965, I.J. Good proposed that machines would one day be smart enough to make themselves smarter.
    Why should they do that?

  30. Post #190
    Slight's Avatar
    March 2011
    641 Posts
    I'm dumb

    also why are you privileging neural networks over other mind architectures?

    why would the mind architecture produced by evolution also happen to resemble the optimal one?
    As much as I don't want to respond to your effortless post I will out of boredom (and I the fact that I expected no less). I humored you and read the first 3 paragraphs of that website, checked the citations, and didn't look back.

    Why are you bringing "other mind architectures" into the debate? Those don't exist yet. So yeah, neural networks being the only "mind architecture", they are default the most optimal. I used neural networks as solutions to problems that humans face because it is the current direction of the science and I also trust the billions of years of evolution that gave me the ability to type this sentence. Any type of learning machine will be subjected to all of my points anyway.

    Why should they do that?
    90% of the statements made or referenced by that website are complete speculation and fantasy, a lot of those authors are not even qualified to be making those statements (having a phD doesn't make you magically qualified to say anything you want). How can you make predictions about AI that doesn't exist and claim results of studies on artificial systems that don't yet exist? Its fucking insane.

  31. Post #191
    Why are you bringing "other mind architectures" into the debate? Those don't exist yet. So yeah, neural networks being the only "mind architecture", they are default the most optimal.
    ummmmmmmm

    no

    that's not how it works.

    think about the space of all possible minds, and then take the subset of that which satisfies these conditions:

    a) are buildable by humans
    b) are well suited for general problems, such as managing the earth's resources
    c) are self-aware, conscious, whatever you want to call it
    d) have the capability to self-modify

    neural networks aren't going to be in that, or even if they are, they're not going to be the best option. again, just because evolution spat them out doesn't mean we can't try to do better. neural nets are just the local optimum.

    I used neural networks as solutions to problems that humans face because it is the current direction of the science and I also trust the billions of years of evolution that gave me the ability to type this sentence. Any type of learning machine will be subjected to all of my points anyway.
    evolution isn't an upward path, holy shit

    it's a miracle that human brains can even count. the retina is built upside down and back to front. the reccurent laryngeal nerve loops around the heart.

    I'm not saying that neural networks can't be useful - they're just not practical for everything.

    90% of the statements made or referenced by that website are complete speculation and fantasy, a lot of those authors are not even qualified to be making those statements (having a phD doesn't make you magically qualified to say anything you want). How can you make predictions about AI that doesn't exist and claim results of studies on artificial systems that don't yet exist? Its fucking insane.
    um if you actually read the citations ...

    Edited:

    I can imagine some doppelganger of you, roundabout the stone age, saying that wheels were impossible to create and that we should construct needlessly complex bipedal machines.

    Or in 19th century, and saying that lightbulbs are poppycock and that we should use chemoluminescence because that's what nature came up with.

  32. Post #192
    Gold Member
    bdd458's Avatar
    March 2012
    3,450 Posts
    You all know about GLADoS, right?

    There is my main reason for not wanting human level AI. All the Neurotoxins...

  33. Post #193
    Gold Member
    Ekalektik_1's Avatar
    September 2008
    5,926 Posts
    Javik the Prothean said it best: "Organic life does not know its origins. Its purpose. But an AI knows both. We created it to serve its purpose. Given time, it will view our existence as pointless." Assuming AI like this is possible in our lifetimes, a SkyNet-type situation seems very likely.

  34. Post #194
    Slight's Avatar
    March 2011
    641 Posts
    Listen, I hate you too much to continue replying to your posts and still remain out of the refugee camp, so this is the last time I'm replying to your junk.

    ummmmmmmm

    no

    that's not how it works.

    think about the space of all possible minds, and then take the subset of that which satisfies these conditions:

    a) are buildable by humans
    b) are well suited for general problems, such as managing the earth's resources
    c) are self-aware, conscious, whatever you want to call it
    d) have the capability to self-modify

    neural networks aren't going to be in that, or even if they are, they're not going to be the best option. again, just because evolution spat them out doesn't mean we can't try to do better. neural nets are just the local optimum.
    Neural networks are all of those things fool. Neural networks created everything including the computer you're using.

    Human's are not the ideal neural configuration obviously, we are improving as the generations go on. I fully believe we'll posses the ability to even modify our own genetics directly in the future. (We already can to some extent)

    You are simply wrong, again.



    Oh and if you were wondering why I hate you, its basically that quote up there. You put words in my mouth by saying I believe evolution has the ideal solution for everything. But only after pretending to know what neural networks capabilities are like you're a fucking expert on their use and what their limitations are. Neural networks don't have to be biological either, but it sure as hell makes creating something we don't understand yet a lot easier when you have a living working reference of it to start with.

    When did I ever say that neural networks are the end-all solution?? I'm saying that's where we're going right now and its a promising field for so many realms of science. If there were other things that could do what neural networks do, then YES lets talk about those, but there isn't, so shush.

    evolution isn't an upward path, holy shit
    What is evolution Charles?

    it's a miracle that human brains can even count. the retina is built upside down and back to front. the reccurent laryngeal nerve loops around the heart.

    I'm not saying that neural networks can't be useful - they're just not practical for everything.

    um if you actually read the citations ...
    Here's 1 of many papers to contradict "your" logic: recurrent laryngeal nerve is not evidence of poor design
    and the retina is not "built" upside down, where the hell did you go to school. Its built the exact way it needed to be built. You're acting like we're all built terribly wrong yet you don't know how we're supposed to be built. Again, insane.

    All of life is a miracle, just ask the Insane Clown Posse. No seriously, what's your point... So we're not calculators?

    So many inventions and discoveries were heavily inspired by nature I don't care to list them. Use your imagination.

    Nature has been the direct source of solution for many human problems.

    I can imagine some doppelganger of you, roundabout the stone age, saying that wheels were impossible to create and that we should construct needlessly complex bipedal machines.
    Oh cool, let me try.

    I can imagine some doppelganger of you, roundabout the stone age, speculating about the possible limitations, problems, and physics of vehicles when the wheel hasn't even been invented yet. You were a good story teller until my doppelganger clubbed you over the head and smeared feces all over your cave paintings.

    Or in 19th century, and saying that lightbulbs are poppycock and that we should use chemoluminescence because that's what nature came up with.
    The only funny thing about these analogies is how off they are.

    How does this apply to what I'm saying?

    I'm saying be practical because you're having wet dreams about some magical "mind architectures" that don't exist.



    I'm not seeing a lightbulb and saying, that's dumb.
    I'm seeing a guy talk about a glowing glass ball of light powered by magic in a world lit by the sun and saying, that's dumb.

    And it is, because theres fantasizing about the future, and then there's pretending like your fantasies are real and having a serious debate about them.

    You're worrying about problems that don't exist about inventions that don't exist.

    So please continue talking about your magical glowing ball of light and keep speculating how that glowing ball of light might get TOO BRIGHT AND BURN PEOPLES EYES OUT IF WE PUT TO MUCH MAGIC INTO IT OMG.

  35. Post #195
    Sphene
    Qaus's Avatar
    September 2010
    10,825 Posts
    I don't think it's immoral/unethical to create true AI. Destroying it is another story though.

  36. Post #196
    Robbi's Avatar
    March 2012
    1,001 Posts
    I don't see why not. As long as we use it as a tool for work and other stuff, not to create new humans or something. That would just frighten me and make me scared of them taking over (hurr).

  37. Post #197
    What is evolution Charles?
    Inefficient and stupid.



    Here's 1 of many papers to contradict "your" logic: recurrent laryngeal nerve is not evidence of poor design
    i actually cannot believe that you're referencing a paper written by a creationist

    and the retina is not "built" upside down, where the hell did you go to school. Its built the exact way it needed to be built. You're acting like we're all built terribly wrong yet you don't know how we're supposed to be built. Again, insane.
    actually no if I hired an engineer to build an eye, and they came up with a design structured like the human eye, I'd fucking fire them on the spot.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye#Evolutionary_baggage posted:
    The eyes of many taxa record their evolutionary history in their imperfect design. The vertebrate eye, for instance, is built "backwards and upside down", requiring "photons of light to travel through the cornea, lens, aqueous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells before they reach the light-sensitive rods and cones that transduce the light signal into neural impulses, which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain for processing into meaningful patterns."[32]

    The camera eyes of cephalopods, in contrast, are constructed the "right way out", with the nerves attached to the rear of the retina. This means that they do not have a blind spot. This difference may be accounted for by the origins of eyes; in cephalopods they develop as an invagination of the head surface whereas in vertebrates they originate as an extension of the brain
    http://lesswrong.com/lw/wk/artificia..._intelligence/

  38. Post #198
    Sphene
    Qaus's Avatar
    September 2010
    10,825 Posts
    i actually cannot believe that you're referencing a paper written by a creationist
    there are tons of creationists out there that pay attention to scientific facts, don't generalize.

  39. Post #199
    Robbi's Avatar
    March 2012
    1,001 Posts
    there are tons of creationists out there that pay attention to scientific facts, don't generalize.
    ....Pay attention maybe but do not believe them.

  40. Post #200
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    March 2007
    3,617 Posts
    einstein was a creationalist to some degree. he beleived that some higher force created the universe and its laws.