Science Thoughts on Artificial Intelligence

[Quick_Nick]

I keep reading about how we could emulate human intelligence on a machine, but apart from it feasibility, would it be desirable? Our current computers can only do computational errors due to hardware or software defects, crash a lot and lose our precious pr0n collection. Do we really want to make a machine able to do stupid judgement errors and, most humanlike of all, defend those mistakes or put a spin on them?

And let's assume we do make such a machine. How do we determine its intelligence is humanlike? Someone mentioned the Turing Test but the Turing Test is fundamentally flawed. Can you tell from my posts that I'm not some kind of machine? Can you tell if I'm one or more persons hiding behind the same nickname?

What about self-awareness? That can't be measured because it's subjective and it's not even a constant. Are you self-aware when you're sleeping? Maybe you are when you're dreaming but how can you tell someone is self-aware or not? And it's already hard when considering humans, a machine would be a whole different pair of socks.

And in the end, what is our definition of intelligence? Who is more intelligent, the boy genius who can slice through college at 15 or the 15-year old slacker who doesn't like math but can save his own and everybody else's bacon in an emergency situation because he can adapt to the environment faster than anyone else? And let's not even consider intuition which is yet another headache.

Humans and other animals are wired for survival and reproduction. It would probably be a rare case where you want robots to worry about reproducing on their own. (humans can take care of making more robots and adjusting software) Today, even humans hardly need all the hormones and functions that help in survival. They aren't needed nearly as much as they were a few thousand years ago, but they still exist in us. A robot shouldn't need to increase its chance of reproduction by trying to impress other robots. It can spend more time focusing on other tasks.

Don't forget that we do have computers all around us today. A car for instance has many functions controlled by computer.

Regarding a post by Urwumpe: Don't forget that we can already produce chains of DNA. We just have yet to put them to use and we have yet to produce them accurately and consistently.

 

[eveningsky339]

I think it is easy to forget that even the most advanced computers are extremely "dumb" machines. They can do nothing unless they are "given" their 1's and 0's. I find it hard to see AI advancing much beyond the point where it is (requires human input for virtually everything).

 

[Moonwalker]

The reason I stated the bit about the brain chemistry is because I just wanted to point out that our brain is nothing "special" in terms of its makeup. So it could possibly be the silicon and metal and plastic could eventually become like our human brain.

No. Silicon, metal and plastic is death matter. Our brain is made of organic matter. A DNA is something totally different compared to a death piece of silicon and plastic.

But human beings don't only consist of a brain anyway. The belly is the second most important part. Scientists call it belly brain. But you don't even have to be a scientist to be aware that there is way more than just the pure brain. Body and mind are connected inseparably more than rather obviously. Both grow, both age. Just the pure brain is pretty much nothing without its connections to the body and sense organs. It is fatally false thinking to separate the brain from the body. To replicate a human being, we have to understand way more than just the brain. It's not that simple than some IT nerds tend to think and to reduce human beings to neurons.

AI is possible of course. We already have it and we'll extend it. But replicating human beings by machines is nothing more than nonsense to be honest.

 

[Andy44]

No. Silicon, metal and plastic is death matter. Our brain is made of organic matter. A DNA is something totally different compared to a death piece of silicon and plastic.

"Death matter"? "Life matter"? Sounds like a zombie film.

Molecules and atoms are just molecules and atoms. Cut you up into small enough parts and you are made of "death matter", too. Water, protoplasm, etc.

 

[Linguofreak]

"Death matter"? "Life matter"? Sounds like a zombie film.

Molecules and atoms are just molecules and atoms. Cut you up into small enough parts and you are made of "death matter", too. Water, protoplasm, etc.

I think he means "dead".

 

[Kaito]

Protein in itself isn't alive. Nor is fat. Just because something is organic doesn't mean its alive.

 

[Andy44]

Life is ill-defined in any case. Is a virus alive? It acts like it is, but not always. It's more of a self-replicating device than an organism. A man-made von Neumann device would be similar.

 

[Kaito]

Life is ill-defined in any case. Is a virus alive? It acts like it is, but not always. It's more of a self-replicating device than an organism. A man-made von Neumann device would be similar.

Virus' bridge the line between life and death. They are "alive" because they carry DNA/RNA, but they are "dead" because they cannot replicate without a host.

 

[Quick_Nick]

Virus' bridge the line between life and death. They are "alive" because they carry DNA/RNA, but they are "dead" because they cannot replicate without a host.

Heh. Not the best way of putting things. By that, this wasp among other creatures isn't alive.
But yes, viruses are kind of 'on the edge'. They work by chemistry and physics and a bit of 'coincidence' (i.e. if their structure were slightly different, they wouldn't function the same). Some might consider them very simple life. (but then you'd have to call many artificial machines life)

 

[Ghostrider]

But they don't make for a very interesting conversation because they don't even remember the subject of last sentence.

They're all the grandkids of ELIZA, which was a psychiatrist simulation. It couldn't hold a meaningful conversation, it never gave a definite answer and always seemed detached and incapable of fully understanding what you were saying.

In short, it was the perfect psychatrist simulation...

 

[T.Neo]

Perhaps the definition between life, and non-living things such as machines should be defined by whether they arose naturally or were built by people, aliens, other machines, etc.

Current robotics does not nearly match the complexity of life, and I'm sure at least early nanorobotics will be the same.

 

[cjp]

Neuron hardware is not very fast or small, when compared to silicon, but it has one advantage: it is three-dimensional. Modern computer chips contain several layers of electronics, but they're still fundamentally two-dimensional. Worse, in many designs, they are used as almost one-dimensional pipelines.

Heh. Not the best way of putting things. By that, this wasp among other creatures isn't alive.
But yes, viruses are kind of 'on the edge'. They work by chemistry and physics and a bit of 'coincidence' (i.e. if their structure were slightly different, they wouldn't function the same). Some might consider them very simple life. (but then you'd have to call many artificial machines life)

Viruses need other organisms for their reproductive machinery. But human beings need other organisms for their energy consumption: without plants, we'd all be dead. We are all parasites on plants'ability to use solar energy.

Reproduction is the most essential property of life. But the complexity needed for reproduction depends on the environment. Viruses are very simple, but they can reproduce when their environment happens to be a suitable host organism. Scientists have already created molecules that can reproduce themselves, when feeded with the right building-block molecules. The same has been done in robotics.

They're all the grandkids of ELIZA, which was a psychiatrist simulation. It couldn't hold a meaningful conversation, it never gave a definite answer and always seemed detached and incapable of fully understanding what you were saying.

I made several versions of such a program. One version remembered previous conversations, and sometimes used sentences from previous conversations instead of a fixed vocabulary. This made it more impressive, and for the average user it took longer to figure out the pattern.

Perhaps the definition between life, and non-living things such as machines should be defined by whether they arose naturally or were built by people, aliens, other machines, etc.

Then, when combined with creationism, only God is alive???

Some years ago I visited a presentation at IBM. It was said that 'present' supercomputers (2003?) have the computational power of a lizard's brain. I guess it will still take some time before they can pass the Turing test, but hopefully there will already be some interesting spin-off applications before we reach that point.

 

[Moonwalker]

Sure, molecules and atoms are just molecules and atoms. But in certain combinations they form food, plants, creatures but also toxic substances and, well, simply anything else. This does not take awaye the fact that computers and software simply consist of non-organic matter.

Protein and fat: isn't alive in the first view, yes, but it's alive as soon as you compare it with dead matter and take a close look. Organic matter has capabilities which dead matter does not have. I don't know a being that is made of plastic cables, ventilators, silicon and so on. There are certain reasons why we are made of organic matter.

I did not expect that especially orbiteers tend to suppress the difference between dead and organic matter.

 

[Eagle]

Sure, molecules and atoms are just molecules and atoms. But in certain combinations they form food, plants, creatures but also toxic substances and, well, simply anything else. This does not take awaye the fact that computers and software simply consist of non-organic matter.

Protein and fat: isn't alive in the first view, yes, but it's alive as soon as you compare it with dead matter and take a close look. Organic matter has capabilities which dead matter does not have. I don't know a being that is made of plastic cables, ventilators, silicon and so on. There are certain reasons why we are made of organic matter.

I did not expect that especially orbiteers tend to suppress the difference between dead and organic matter.

Well life is mostly chemical with some electrical characteristics (both are used in the brain). Computers are pretty much electrical.

Now life needs to replicate itself, hence the need for chemical processes. The chemical processes to create a computer are all external. But can't you simulate a chemical or even nuclear process on a computer?

I think its more of a mathematical problem than it is a technological one. Isn't it still artificial intelligence if you build something that can reason like a person even if it does so 100 times slower?

 

[Ghostrider]

Isn't it still artificial intelligence if you build something that can reason like a person even if it does so 100 times slower?

No, it's a state employee.

 

[Moonwalker]

Well, what is not chemical in the whole universe?

But life forms are fundementally different to dead matter, although everything consists of atoms (while we also should keep in mind that the atomic model is more or less just a working man-defined model).

There is way more than just a brain, electrical and chemical characteristics. There is something that we can not see, at least not yet. Something that exactly defines just everything. Even that we can think, what we think, and feel. Who or what defines DNAs for example? Does it all just happen by accident? Obviously not at all. Laws seem to exist and act almost everywhere, and that as a chain. I like the words of Apollo 17 astronaut Eugene Cernan, who says that there is just too much logic, and that there is something that stands above everything, but science and technology has no answer at all, which he realised during the Apollo 17 trip. And I think that this is the crux. If we want to build a machine that barely can "think" and act like a human being, we have to know way more than just a flyspeck...

 

[Eagle]

Well, what is not chemical in the whole universe?

But life forms are fundementally different to dead matter, although everything consists of atoms (while we also should keep in mind that the atomic model is more or less just a working man-defined model).

There is way more than just a brain, electrical and chemical characteristics. There is something that we can not see, at least not yet. Something that exactly defines just everything. Even that we can think, what we think, and feel. Who or what defines DNAs for example? Does it all just happen by accident? Obviously not at all. Laws seem to exist and act almost everywhere, and that as a chain. I like the words of Apollo 17 astronaut Eugene Cernan, who says that there is just too much logic, and that there is something that stands above everything, but science and technology has no answer at all, which he realised during the Apollo 17 trip. And I think that this is the crux. If we want to build a machine that barely can "think" and act like a human being, we have to know way more than just a flyspeck...

What about crystals? If a crystal exists in the right bath of chemicals it will grow, break off a piece and that grows.

OK, you say "well the crystal isn't consuming at all, its just precipitating." Well, what if my chemical bath doesn't contain the crystal, but the crystal acts as a catalyst breaking and reforming the chemicals into more crystal catalyst. Maybe some crystal catalyst doesn't form a strong connection to the mother crystal and floats off and grows separate?

Its sounding a bit like more like life. It eats and replicates asexually.

 

[Andy44]

Perhaps the definition between life, and non-living things such as machines should be defined by whether they arose naturally or were built by people, aliens, other machines, etc.

That definition is also lacking, since it's natural for humans to build machines, inclduding attempting to to build AI.

In other words, the difference between "man-made" and "natural" becomes just as hazy as the definition of life once you look at it really closely.

My take on it is that if an AI acts like it's alive, then that's about as close as you're going to get. Anything beyond that is for philosophical musing only.

 

[cjp]

On the metaphysical aspects of the discussion:

Either we will at some day succeed in creating a machine that acts just like a human being, or we will not. If, despite sufficient efforts, the second turns out to be the case, this would support the theory of the existence of something like a soul outside the physical reality.

If, on the other hand, we succeed, then the conclusion would be that either the machine has a soul too, or that the existence of a soul is non-observable, and therefore unscientific (but not necessarily un-true). The first conclusion is a bit problematic if we define a soul to be something outside the physical reality (not resulting from the fundamental laws of physics).

We are still far away from that point, but the results of technology have already changed our thinking. People were once amazed when mechanical calculators were invented. Then, the computer was invented, and it showed us things like the ELIZA program, and it can now beat us even with complicated games like chess. All this does not sound impressive anymore, because we got used to the idea that these things can be done in a 'mechanical' way. I think, when we continue to develop technology in this direction, we will continue to re-define the difference between us and the machines. We will discover new capabilities in ourselves which the machine doesn't have. By building an imitation of our own, we will learn more about who we really are.

Finally, while I consider myself to be a Christian, I am open to both possibilities whether or not a soul exists outside physical reality. I have no real problem with a soul existing as 'software' in the body; existing as a part of the physical state, and changing through time in a way that is consistent with the fundamental laws of physics.

 

[Urwumpe]

"The real problem is not whether machines think, but whether men do. The mystery which surrounds a thinking machine already surrounds a thinking man." - B.F. Skinner