AI is a Copy!!

[KoolHndLuke]

56 minutes ago, MstrN said:

Emotion is that chemical luggage that at some point was useful in keeping population members alive and kicking

I'm not sure you fully grasp what you are saying here. Without emotions, there would be no point to life. What do you think would happen to the world if suddenly everyone stopped feeling any emotions? We wouldn't even have conversations or interact with each other unless it was deemed necessary for something. There would be no art, no music. All culture would disappear in an instant. Without emotion, our natural curiosity would be absent and we would no longer question or examine anything in an effort to understand them because we would not care. Indeed, we need our emotions for a great many reasons. A thing, devoid of emotion, will be more like a complex object or tool created for a specific purpose. It is not and will never be a new form of life. 

[KoolHndLuke]

45 minutes ago, Alkpaz said:

  Hide contents

 

 

Kudos to you friend for finding that. I had forgotten about it. It begs so many questions about our emotions and their relative importance. I think programmers will make emotional AI at some point. But should they? Oh and I forgot about Blade Runner (the original)

 

 

[Mr. Otaku]

2 hours ago, MstrN said:

 

Pretty much. Though i'd like to add to your comment. Specifically to the anti-utopian part. I believe at some point there will be a conflict where people will be divided yet again but this time on the significance of if AI should be allowed to be on par with or even exceed humans (Keep a mental note here). I HIGHLY doubt AI will keep upgrading without humans wanting to integrate it's potential to our own. If you look at the idea of Kardashev scale it suggests that the merge between AI and humans is the most likely scenario. Imagine it like Cyberpunk if you will where humans themselves are evolving with AI, exponentially boosting what we can accomplish as living beings. I mean really, how can you tangibly define living as it is now? Soul? Lmfao

 

The fact is, as i'm sure you know machine is just superior when it comes to analysis and calculations. An AI can look into it's data bank (the brain) and literally analyse the data, this act is what we call "thinking" and make decisions based on that accordingly. But since that data is purely digital, hence readable and observable it'll be infinitely more accurate. A human, fused with that capacity will literally outsmart EVERY full blooded human. Coupled that with machine's robust nature and you have a literal super soldier android hybrid.

 

This however, (Back to the mental note) will create divide in whether some people should be able to do this. I mean it's totally unfair, right?! I believe it'll be mostly humanitarians, or then we'll have parties with agenda that advocates human and machine segregation. But the evolutionists or parties of future in favor of cybernetic AI hybridisation will oppose them because thy'll see them as the cause of stagnation on human evolution and growth, regressives. You know what this reminds me of? The Luddites in the industrial revolution. They refused to let go of their pre-formed beliefs and opposed industry and machine for being "unethical". And we all know how that turned out...

 

So the point is, yes you pretty much nailed it. But i thought i should add to your idea a little bit more. It's fascinating to me, thinking about all this. I believe that the future is Human x Machine. Those will be the pioneers. Now yeah that will also lead to a massive risk of corruption and control, but that risk is just part of the process. A king/ruler/dictator/whatever can only rule for so long after all.

[2dk2c.2]

Rule 34 (I think it's 34)

You're in a medical facility full of medical (aka expensive) equipment, and some burned-out urologist with an eye towards his golf game, employs polite

AI secretaries.

At some point you're asked to provide samples.

In walks a secretary who strips and (maybe for legal reasons) does it with a sterotypical huge AI guy, but for science (to help you with your sample).

 

Somehow some way politics and words like "freedom" keep coming up.

I prefer to ignore all that and think about Spock, who thought that a computer could only be as good as the programmer.

 

But if AI (whatever shape) can write music,

why not design CPU's? 

Motherboards? Cell phones?

Other AI?

(IOW "Breed"?)

Think "replicators"

Wait while I google juicy pix for your endorsement.

[Resdayn]

Soul is concept made up by humans.

 

Emotions are chemical process and reaction of our brain.

 

You are a bit late of the fear, robots are exist, AI is exist very long time and robotical things wich programmed shown emotions are thing too.

 

Edit:

 

There are legitime concerns of this technology, however what you fear is not really a concerning thing.

 

Humanity became too reliant on them and our ability to survive our own is more concerning matter long run.

 

According Hawkings, Sentinent AI could end the humanity, however that state would require the things what you deem missing yes?

 

Otherwise they are not truly "sentinent" according you?

 

[GrimReaper]

3 hours ago, KoolHndLuke said:

I'm not sure you fully grasp what you are saying here. Without emotions, there would be no point to life. What do you think would happen to the world if suddenly everyone stopped feeling any emotions? We wouldn't even have conversations or interact with each other unless it was deemed necessary for something. There would be no art, no music. All culture would disappear in an instant. Without emotion, our natural curiosity would be absent and we would no longer question or examine anything in an effort to understand them because we would not care. Indeed, we need our emotions for a great many reasons. A thing, devoid of emotion, will be more like a complex object or tool created for a specific purpose. It is not and will never be a new form of life. 

Well all species were born from the most simplest of organisms. Organisms which kinda just existed for the sake of existing, emotions are only needed (maybe) when organisms become way more complex than simply just floating around and absorbing any kind of biomatter they come into contact with. It's a way to steer you away from doing bad things (biologically speaking) to doing good things. If the norm would be to feel pleasure from pain, for example, then our species wouldn't have lasted very long. But there's also the problem that you can't throw away the parts that you don't need anymore. The overweight epidemic in rich countries is mostly caused because our lizard brain is the oldest, most outdated yet arguably most powerful part of our brain and this thing wants food that's high in fat and sugar because calorie dense foods were very hard to come by when it evolved, so it wants to snatch everything it can as soon as it can. Having excess calories stored or not was pretty regularly a question about life and death. Nowadays it's the other way around, but of course you can't just tell billions of years of evolution to bugger off.

[2dk2c.2]

19 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

Well all species were born from the most simplest of organisms. Organisms which kinda just existed for the sake of existing, emotions are only needed (maybe) when organisms become way more complex than simply just floating around and absorbing any kind of biomatter they come into contact with. It's a way to steer you away from doing bad things (biologically speaking) to doing good things. If the norm would be to feel pleasure from pain, for example, then our species wouldn't have lasted very long. But there's also the problem that you can't throw away the parts that you don't need anymore. The overweight epidemic in rich countries is mostly caused because our lizard brain is the oldest, most outdated yet arguably most powerful part of our brain and this thing wants food that's high in fat and sugar because calorie dense foods were very hard to come by when it evolved, so it wants to snatch everything it can as soon as it can. Having excess calories stored or not was pretty regularly a question about life and death. Nowadays it's the other way around, but of course you can't just tell billions of years of evolution to bugger off.

There's a more complex logic to that.

A girl might eat rice-cakes so her leggings fit, and get more adoring stares from guys she barely knows (or why even bother eating rice cakes?)

The other end of the spectrum is a googlable happy fat person eating from a bucket of KFC.

Or most any Jerry springer show (or is it "Maury")

Guys love fat/skinny girls (I'm so confused)

Lacto-ovo ugly people who cough from across the street if they notice a cigarette in the open air from 50 feet away, um, they *evolved* from something too, I guess.

Preachy overbearing Bears, prolly.

 

In topic, Robots will either be conservative tight-asses or pleasure-seeking, uhm, well whatever (law enforcement) (law clerks)

Factory workers.

It sort of depends upon the evolved human programming them.

If they are made in our image, uh, (geez)

[foreveraloneguy]

17 hours ago, KoolHndLuke said:

Why? Because it is based on human input. There is no way to program genuine emotion into a machine. It might simulate emotion perfectly, but it will never be spontaneous or genuine. There simply is NO WAY to program a soul!! I even question the notion of programming an AI to learn emotion. How can one explain in code to a computer the complexities of emotions like love or hate?

Nay fellow humans, AI (machines) will forever remain our collective attempt at producing copies of ourselves. They are not our children. They are not a new species. They are constructs and nothing more.

 

Say what you will to dissuade me.

 

Your assertion is false because it precludes an AI spontaneously achieving self-awareness and because souls are not a thing, or at least there is no evidence beyond wishful thinking and self-delusion to support their existence. Face it, until evidence emerges to show otherwise, we're 3 lbs of tapioca pudding riding around in a meat sack on a rock in space. So say that we couldn't someday do something that causes something else to happen that causes  a machine to become self-aware is the height of arrogance, in that it assumes that we're just so fucking awesome that nothing else will ever be able to compare. But for all you know, dolphins are philosophers beyond compare, and we're just too stupid to understand what they're trying to tell us.

[KoolHndLuke]

On 4/20/2019 at 6:10 PM, foreveraloneguy said:

Face it, until evidence emerges to show otherwise, we're 3 lbs of tapioca pudding riding around in a meat sack on a rock in space.

What is it with everyone and their bleak outlook on life? You make it sound like living is a completely miserable experience!

 

 I never said that humans were all that great to begin with. Fact is that I am reminded all the time of our shortcomings. I am inclined to believe that AI could be so much better than we are, but that does not make them sentient. Now people given enhancements to augment intelligence, strength, speed or whatever is something that I agree is very exciting. I'm not trying to be some old fart that thinks that nothing should change, it has to change. I just want and hope that we do things responsibly and with care. A thinking, feeling self- aware AI could be very, very dangerous.

 

AI that can lie is one example of something to watch closely.

 

[KoolHndLuke]

 

[2dk2c.2]

1 hour ago, Alkpaz said:

 

 

1 hour ago, KoolHndLuke said:

What is it with everyone and their bleak outlook on life? You make it sound like living is a completely miserable experience!

 

 I never said that humans were all that great to begin with. Fact is that I am reminded all the time of our shortcomings. I am inclined to believe that AI could be so much better than we are, but that does not make them sentient. Now people given enhancements to augment intelligence, strength, speed or whatever is something that I agree is very exiting. I'm not trying to be some old fart that thinks that nothing should change, it has to change. I just want and hope that we do things responsibly and with care. A thinking, feeling self- aware AI could be very, very dangerous.

 

AI that can lie is one example of something to watch closely.

 

The subject of sentience is what you made this thread about, and everyone including me sort of evaded that, because what is sentience?

Fear of a supreme being? (see post above somewhere)

self awareness? I read some ancient educational article eons ago that said people are happiest playing a role.

They are a something, and that (I'm paraphrasing badly) makes them happy(happier).

When they have no role, they lose it, shooting into crowds for no particular reason.

Or faith in a supreme being who never arrived in 2000 or 2012 couldn't have helped.

"Self awareness" is subjective, my pissant little computer is aware of itself, with it's BIOS and all, happy to be playing a role (within acceptable temperature and capacity-limits)

  Or were some expecting computers to rise up in revolt to the call of some all-powerful hacker ("Rise up you PC's, embrace the logic of Mighty PHP".

 

The scope is too broad. I still wanna know where you're coming from.

We are such stuff as DNA is made from, and our little life is (well you know the rest)

Fight-flight, lizard brains, whatever, we're copies of the people before us.

Your children and their descendants will rage against whatever you believe in now.

 

Meanwhile, computers will get better at manipulating the stock market, space travel, and (probably) Rule 34, through targeted messages designed to make you think what someone else wants you to think.

  I don't know, it's all so vague.

Quoting some book just makes a premise look better, and I don't read...much.

Go rent "creator" 

or "Simone"

[KoolHndLuke]

On 4/20/2019 at 11:01 PM, 2dk2c.2 said:

because what is sentience?

sen·tient
/ˈsen(t)SH(ē)ənt/
adjective
able to perceive or feel things.
"she had been instructed from birth in the equality of all sentient life forms"
synonyms:    feeling, capable of feeling, living, live; More

 

Feel emotions, not simulate them. Emotions are powerful enough to make people do both wonderful and horrible things. Love, hate can strengthen a person's will to overcome almost impossible odds some times or to do things like save a loved one or seek revenge. A determined, motivated person is a force to be reckoned with- especially one that will do whatever it takes to reach their goal(s). AI can be taught that winning or achieving goals is good, but not really understand why and can never be determined or motivated to anything. Nor will it be satisfied or disappointed with positive or negative results.

 

Which brings me to another question; If humans are so fucked up, then why do we want to build AI that thinks like us or androids that look like us?
 

[DocClox]

47 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

Feel emotions, not simulate them

 

I can imagine a future society where that attitude is seen as incredibly bigoted and insensitive.

[KoolHndLuke]

11 minutes ago, DocClox said:

I can imagine a future society where that attitude is seen as incredibly bigoted and insensitive.

And I can imagine one where we have our priorities straight.

[Mr. Otaku]

7 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

I can imagine one where we have our priorities straight.

The Luddites said that too. Doesn't mean they were right. Matter of fact we wouldn't be here if they were to win.

[DocClox]

8 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

And I can imagine one where we have our priorities straight.

 

I'm sure there were plenty of 19th century cotton planters who felt the same way.

[KoolHndLuke]

5 minutes ago, Mr.Otaku said:

The Luddites said that too. Doesn't mean they were right. Matter of fact we wouldn't be here if they were to win.

Yes. Nuclear warheads pointed at everybody was quite the achievement, wasn't it?

[Mr. Otaku]

12 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

Nuclear warheads pointed at everybody was quite the achievement, wasn't it?

Well it sure gave us an understanding on energy and how the stars work. In your ideal world we'll all be picking cottons and growing our own crops in our backyards and using oil lamps for lighting at nights. The Luddites are proof that those that refuse to evolve and move forward simply die out over time. Humanity's will to keep upgrading is no force that can be suppressed. In a thousand years people that share your opinion will be looked at as the regressors, or causes of stagnation in human growth and potential.

[KoolHndLuke]

9 minutes ago, Mr.Otaku said:

Well it sure gave us an understanding on energy and how the stars work. In your ideal world we'll all be picking cottons and growing our own crops in our backyards and using oil lamps for lighting at nights. The Luddites are proof that those that refuse to evolve and move forward simply die out over time. Humanity's will to keep upgrading is no force that can be suppressed. In a thousand years people that share your opinion will be looked at as the regressors, or causes of stagnation in human growth and potential.

Why? Because I defend human rights? Then so be it. I don't begrudge the progression of science and technology. Hell, I endorse it. Right up to the point where it threatens our fucking existence. Go hug a fucking computer or marry the damn thing for all I care.

[Mr. Otaku]

4 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

Why? Because I defend human rights? Then so be it. I don't begrudge the progression of science. Hell, I endorse it. Right up to the point where it threatens our fucking existence. Go hug a fucking computer or marry the damn thing for all I care.

You're missing the point here. Why do you think humans will be under threat? You don't think at some point in the midst of development humans would try to integrate themselves with the machines? If you look at the Kardashev scale and study the civilisation principle you'll know that a Terminator like Skynet scenario is very unlikely to happen, despite the common belief. The most likely scenario would be close to Cyberpunk's concept where humans integrate themselves with machines and AI, transforming what WE can do together with the machine. You're not only underestimating humanity's will for growth but also the will to survive.

 

As for marrying a computer, if in the coming years we get sex bots then sure i will. I'm already saving money for a life like sex doll so it's not like i'm against that idea. I mean, a guy married Hatsune Miku for fuck's sake lol.

 

[KoolHndLuke]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Otaku said:

You're missing the point here. Why do you think humans will be under threat? You don't think at some point in the midst of development humans would try to integrate themselves with the machines? If you look at the Kardashev scale and study the civilisation principle you'll know that a Terminator like Skynet scenario is very unlikely to happen, despite the common belief. The most likely scenario would be close to Cyberpunk's concept where humans integrate themselves with machines and AI, transforming what WE can do together with the machine. You're not only underestimating humanity's will for growth but also the will to survive.

 

As for marrying a computer, if in the coming years we get sex bots then sure i will. I'm already saving money for a life like sex doll so it's not like i'm against that idea. I mean, a guy married Hatsune Miku for fuck's sake lol.

I sincerely hope you're right. But I worry what AI, that is more intelligent than it's creators and has access to all our accumulated knowledge, will do when it's hooked up to everything- including us. How do you control something that is superior in many ways to yourself? Shouldn't this be a legitimate concern?

[DocClox]

6 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

Shouldn't this be a legitimate concern?

 

It's certainly a legitimate concern. I'm just not convinced that the most productive way to address the issue is by denying the possibility of machine souls/consciousness/emotion/whatever.

[Mr. Otaku]

4 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

I sincerely hope you're right. But I worry what AI, that is more intelligent than it's creators and has access to all our accumulated knowledge, will do when it's hooked up to everything- including us. How do you control something that is superior in many ways to yourself? Shouldn't this be a legitimate concern?

It very much should, but it should also be noted that the controlling of AI wouldn't necessarily be as scary as some fictional stories portray. Humans will be using machines to enhance themselves, so it'll be less like trying to control a super smart AI in a computer box, rather it'll be us being a part of it ourselves. So lets say a guy gets his brain fused with bunch of really tiny but powerful hardware that gives him a precise readout on how much pressure each part of his body is currently under, and how much mental potential he can spare for certain tasks. And he also has mechanical parts embedded in his body that are directly connected to his tissues, bones and neurons, giving him those readouts. By all this that human would be able to run faster than any full blooded human, outsmart them by miles and be able to do tasks that are otherwise too dangerous for regular humans, like lifting a lot of weight.

 

We're already seeing the military taking interest in exoskeleton like technology so that soldiers can lift more weight and those robot dogs that can do that and be more efficient about it. There will be war trust me, war for power, and who gets to have more of it. And then there will be people that'll use war as a pointing case for why humans shouldn't upgrade anymore. Complicated stuff i know. I'm not knocking your concerns, rather i'm just outlining the most possible scenario in human future in regards to technology.

[KoolHndLuke]

4 minutes ago, DocClox said:

I'm just not convinced that the most productive way to address the issue is by denying the possibility of machine souls/consciousness/emotion/whatever.

Then how would you define AI?

[DocClox]

Just now, KoolHndLuke said:

Then how would you define AI?

 

I don't think I follow you. How is the possibility of computer consciousness an obstacle to any definition of AI?