OmniBlog

IT IS COMING

i don't want to be a dick but this is a pretty naive piece and probably not enough to be able to go ahead and call someone's ideas wrong

you're essentially talking in absolutes about fields that you don't seem to know much about. methrage's post doesn't really make sense though, to be fair.

if you really care about this topic... and have not seen the Star Trek TNG episode about whether or not Data is a machine or a sentient being... watch it.. you would find it interesting in light of this post.

i don't want to be a dick but this is a pretty naive piece and probably not enough to be able to go ahead and call someone's ideas wrong

you're essentially talking in absolutes about fields that you don't seem to know much about. methrage's post doesn't really make sense though, to be fair.

I'm certainly interested in hearing why you believe I'm wrong if you have a reason.

Also, I'll check it out Rush.

We do not yet understand how our brains work, but we do know shows that neurons are not just biological transistors. A transistor can only respond to an input by either switching itself on or off, a neuron has up to 50 different responses to any given electrochemical input from another neuron.

Computers and organisms were build for fundamentally different things. A computer is built as a mathematical organism, it's most basic functions are mathematical. An organism on the other hand is primarily concerned with survival and reproduction, which are its most basic functions. All organisms can consume and reproduce, all computers can do math, and both of these functions form the very core of what they are.

Fundamentally, computers cannot ever think like a living organism because computers and brains are different things, and function in fundamentally different ways, but complement each other very well. A computer could be built sophisticated enough to achieve basic consciousness, but does so inefficiently compared to an organism and would always struggle with the basic differences in design.

Self-awareness is unprovable. The appearance of self-awareness (eg., "intelligence" as we humans understand it) is provable, and Alan Turing developed a test for it way back in the 1950s (maybe 1950 exactly? I forget).

Methrage is clearly wrong -- for a computer to give the appearance of being intelligent/self-aware, it doesn't need to do anything besides fooling a person. That's the whole point of the Turing test... If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

The technology behind the AI is irrelevant. AI doesn't NEED to do anything except fool its audience.

-Craig

Sound is just a sensory input that we evolved. There is no reason why a computer/robot/AI/what have you wouldn't be able to have this same sensory input in the form of detecting vibrations in the air. Even if we couldn't design it ourselves, an AI that could reproduce in a similar manner to humans would undergo evolution and could possibly adapt itself to being able to hear if that were beneficial to its' survival.

All consciousness is is the ego that your brain sticks on top of all of the different senses and inputs and chemical messages that you're going through to simplify things and unite it all in a way that we can function. We're just a bunch of cells that have given up a certain degree of autonomy to be part of a larger, more fit organism. There is no fundamental reason why AI couldn't exist the same way that we do, other than what Ogaden was talking about in regards to us being made from different parts.

If anyone has not watched it yet, I definitely reccomend the Armitage III movies on Hulu.

Consciousness is fantasy. Humans, like rocks, and like [the set of atoms containing both rocks and humans], are just a collection of matter and energy responding to other matter and energy in the environment. Just because we make decisions through analysis doesn't mean we have free will; we simply have very advanced conditioning exactly like your hypothetical AI.

tl;dr: You have nothing on that AI.