|
| Thread: What do you think is the near future of AI |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
posted February 10, 2017 09:41 PM |
|
|
You would need to integrate an emotional intelligence along with computational abilities. Some sort of system that is sensitive to rewards and consequences.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
AlHazin
Promising
Supreme Hero
النور
|
|
posted February 10, 2017 09:42 PM |
|
|
Further than the notion of intelligence, the notion of AI has its own definition. The aim of the artificial intelligence was to replace human efforts at work, to say it differently the role of a human being as a unit or a mean (or a way) of production in various domains: replace workers in factories by machines, housecleaning by little cleaning robots and so on. Thus, the idea of implementing human characteristics irrelevant to that aim is out of the question, at least in a first time.
It is later that sci-fi writers began to imagine, inspired from soldiers or commandos trained to kill and fulfill their missions who showed a "twisted" behaviour making their humanity resurface, how robots, which are materialization of AI, could develop other human characteristics which have nothing to do with their intended purposes of existence.
The word Robot comes from the Russians PAbIOTA (rabota) which means work, it crossed Europe through the German Arbeit. Work, few centuries ago was seen as dishonouring, high-ranked people never worked, nobles, chevaliers, clerics, so work was related to all what is tiring, dirty, in one word: negative. So, as humans had a higher idea of themselves back in the days, they tried to figure out how to completely avoid for the sacred human to ever have to work.
Today the mentality has changed, work is seen as one of the most noble virtues in a human being, especially by Salamandre. But even if the idea of work changed, new goals have risen that pushed the research of an always more efficient AI further and further. We need to produce more, cheaper, faster. We don't care about the symbolism of work, as it is now irrelevant. In this day and age where ideologies have quite much disappeared, only the ratio investment/benefit matters. We're still in that mentality of getting rid of work though, but not for ideological purposes, rather for convenience.
Implementing emotions has been thought by scientists, since they could physically explain emotions, through electric phenomenons in the nerve system, the brain, chemical interactions in the brain, hormones, and so on. Remains the question of ethics: do we want, as said JayJay, to play God, and the second point is what is the point in recreating such emotions in an AI? What would it be for?
Well humans could do it for the sake of doing it actually, it's not like it would be the first time...
____________
Nothing of value disappears from this world, it will reappear in some shape or form ^^ - Elvin
|
|
tSar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted February 10, 2017 09:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And intelligence is something gradual, there ARE other organisms with intelligence and today even something such as culture is not considered unique to humans, We can trace back the qualities of our mind in more elementary forms in most primates. These are nothing new either, such research dates back to 1970's. Having a will is not a binary concept, it has stages. Having a will is also not absolute, you don't really decide a lot of the things on sheer will, like you believe you do
True, but I thought we were discussing artificial intelligence, which doesn't necessarily have to be 'intelligent' at a human standard.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2017 09:49 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 21:50, 10 Feb 2017.
|
artu said:
Lol, Stevie, I read Descartes probably before you were born. His onthological "proof" is refuted centuries ago and its circular, btw. Descartes' importance today is mostly historical. You can use the same method to argue Gremlins exist.
And intelligence is something gradual, there ARE other organisms with intelligence and today even something such as culture is not considered unique to humans, We can trace back the qualities of our mind in more elementary forms in most primates. These are nothing new either, such research dates back to 1970's. Having a will is not a binary concept, it has stages. Having a will is also not absolute, you don't really decide a lot of the things on sheer will, like you believe you do
Before I were born? Like I believe I do? Really? There's an argument between those two condescending comments that refutes something I said?
Speaking of levels of intelligence, lol.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 10, 2017 10:10 PM |
|
|
|
I'm sorry, I thought you would figure out how an evolving conscience with gradual advances on abstraction is not the same as one that would just pop up with "God being the necessary and sufficient cause for the effect known as human conscience." You see, such paradigm causes that already arbitrary argument incompatible with how conscience actually developed step by step. Sometimes I forget we usually have to spell out things on ABC level, for you to realize them.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted February 10, 2017 10:17 PM |
|
|
artu said:
I'm sleepy at the moment, AI won't be.
For years we were told TECH was only needed to replace dangerous human-labor.
Soon, Robotic welders entered GMs assembly line and consequently changed the Automotive industry over the decades to come by more and more "advances" the world over and many jobs disappeared to be replaced by less needed positions. However, "The Advance" morphed from not only greatly-impacting the "making of things" but the "shipping, storing and also the selling" of those very same things.
Next, Once manufacturing was well in Corporate hands, the previously "safe" business sectors of "Service and Support Industries" were then targeted and transformed the same way and also once again, resulted in less-need for human-beings to be a part of the process.
Ok, our bodies are made useless but what about our minds? Now, Japan is implementing a powerful new AI that will replace human-livelihood in many new areas that "already" have shrinking career-opportunities for ambitious industrious people.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
Ereinion156
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2017 10:18 PM |
|
|
AlHazin said:
Remains the question of ethics: do we want, as said JayJay, to play God, and the second point is what is the point in recreating such emotions in an AI? What would it be for?
Well humans could do it for the sake of doing it actually, it's not like it would be the first time...
Actually I could totally understand if someone would do it "just for the sake of doing it", as you called it. I think I would do it myself. Just out of curiosity.
As we here venture into regions never explored by humans before there's not really a way to calculate how such a machine would react in certain situations. If it would resemble a human with it's behavior or behave completely different. And if it does we could also learn a lot about our own intelligence.
So, I think there is reasoning to be found for doing that, from a scientific perspective. And then there are of course others who would do it because they would feel mighty in doing so. They could "play god".
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2017 11:10 PM |
|
|
An AI doesn't have to be conscious to be intelligent in a way that we need to be concerned about. For example, chess programs aren't conscious, but they try to win games anyway. An AI with a more general goal, access to more tools, and the ability to optimize itself could do a lot of harm (or, if well-designed, could be very good) without necessarily having conscious experiences in the same way we do.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2017 11:15 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 23:23, 10 Feb 2017.
|
artu said:
I'm sorry, I thought you would figure out how an evolving conscience with gradual advances on abstraction is not the same as one that would just pop up with "God being the necessary and sufficient cause for the effect known as human conscience." You see, such paradigm causes that already arbitrary argument incompatible with how conscience actually developed step by step. Sometimes I forget we usually have to spell out things on ABC level, for you to realize them.
About the only thing needing to be explained at the level of ABC is how attempting to break down to you what was meant by a phrase someone else said is not the same with me making that my point. The thing about "God being the necessary and sufficient cause for the effect known as human conscience" was meant for the sake of context, hence the parenthesis, not a point I mentioned to uphold or believe. The ONLY point I was making with reference to Descartes was the principle of cause greater than effect which is consistent with the observable universe, and how that contributes to understanding that true intelligence (in the sense of human-like intelligence) cannot be the product of AI programming. YOU, however, read one thing and understood another and inferred your own ideas about what you thought I said and what you think I believe (most likely because you know I'm a Bible believing Christian) and as per usual ended up "refuting" a straw man. Never mind that the condescending and audacious know-it-all tone with which you write your posts (at least towards me) doesn't favor your discourse and makes it hard to have a conversation.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 11, 2017 12:09 AM |
|
|
Stevie, you miss out the point, of course JJ was using the phrase as a metaphor (and no, he was not necessarily using the term in a strictly cartesian fashion, playing God is quite a typical metaphor) and I was objecting to his choice of that metaphor with another one because, I think it's unnecessarily exaggerating the situation and bringing a negative sensation to it. Unlike what you think or believe human intelligence (and it's once again incredibly anthropomorphic to refer to that as "real" intelligence as if others are not) is something unique but not something unique in the sense you believe it to be. Yes, it's the most advanced one around and since we are also capable of sophisticated languages, we are able to accumulate information like no other specie which makes the gap between us and other animals appear even more drastic. Yet, there is not something in us regarding intelligence (problem solving, identifying patterns, calculating etc) that is hypothetically inimitable on a machine.
What I've been saying is that an AI not being identical to a human-like personality isn't because of a lack of intelligence, it's because of a lack of personal preferences, but that "will" in us which they are going to lack is not the product of our intelligence, it is rather the product of our ego and expecting an AI to have an ego to count as "real intelligence" seems like a flawed expectation and an anthropomorphic tendency to me. Why would intelligence count as authentic only if it is ego driven? If you can produce an AI that can decide things, it may still not WANT TO decide things yet, it will still be capable of decision making. A chess application doesn't want to win the game but they can still play as good as us. So for example, an AI that may be managing an office in the future will still be "somebody" in the sense that its decisions will be the result of his own intellectual activity.
|
|
frostysh
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
WHY?
|
|
posted February 11, 2017 11:16 AM |
|
|
Well, too much of a high-abstract philosophy. So, I will add a little part of philosophy from myself  .
1) You do not need to create something new - , if you don't know what is intelligence really is (metaphoric philosophy it is cool, but ah...), just monkey the Nature!
2) Is the single Neuron is intelligent? - Nope. Is the bucket of neurons of different kinds, and supportive stuff in frostysh' head is intelligent? - Yep.
well, not so intelligent as I want, but still
3) Just try to create something like a neuron with your Quantum Electronics and stuff, and then connect and multiply those stuff to the size of the Rushmore Mountain  . Obviously you will get something interesting !
Screw about how energy it will suck - tax payers will fix it , Har! Har! Harghhh... 
Well, I always like a Biblical stuff about "The Apple" - And I think humans is very unique in this case, they can make their own choices, reagardless of any evolution, genes, chemicals, etc. Of course, human brain can be easily tricked, but still, this "freedom" is making my breathe to freeze when I thinking about that.
P.S. Slamandre - is this a guy that tried to explain to my his "Social Darwinism", and how "strong moving up, and weak is not.", and this guy is noble and good in terms of work - are you frigging kidding me 
____________
|
|
AlHazin
Promising
Supreme Hero
النور
|
|
posted February 11, 2017 11:34 AM |
|
|
frostysh said:
Har! Har! Harghhh...
OK frostych, you are an AI, your programming still lacks some emotional plugins but for the rest you're quite operational. 
____________
Nothing of value disappears from this world, it will reappear in some shape or form ^^ - Elvin
|
| |
|
|
