- Sep 16, 2011
- 10,712
- 654
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I already said I don't know what a Humanist is, so I don't know.
I believe in that too. So we never need to worry about AI, only worry about the humans who program AI, because there can never be actual AI.
Revelation 13:14-15...but don't read it in English. Read it in the Greek, Para.Where does it say that?
Well, I'm glad to hear that, financially speaking of course.I'm okay for now.
How can you get consciousness from a flow chart?
Something that behaves like a consciousness? What behaves like a consciousness? Nothing. Consciousness is unique in the universe. I'll be impressed only when we can build a machine which is able to say "___ you, I don't feel like playing chess!" Or which says it wants to play chess, and then changes its mind.You don't need an actual consciousness, just something that behaves like consciousness. Isn't the fact that we can build a machine which plays chess better than any human already a proof enough that we can create something which is either smart, or acts in a way that it's better than "smart".
Just imagine people in say, 1500's trying to build a machine which beats them in a chess.... It would have been totally hopeless and now we can do it.
You don't need an actual consciousness, just something that behaves like consciousness. Isn't the fact that we can build a machine which plays chess better than any human already a proof enough that we can create something which is either smart, or acts in a way that it's better than "smart".
Just imagine people in say, 1500's trying to build a machine which beats them in a chess.... It would have been totally hopeless and now we can do it.
Depending on what one considers beating humans in chess it may well have been possible in 1500! Is it beating the man on the street? An average Chess Player? A good player? Or is it beating the reigning human world champion?
The first may have been possible, though difficult, even that far back. The problem is that to be impressive enough to be worth a try even back then fell somewhere between beating an average and beating a good player and that was very doubtful.
Something that behaves like a consciousness? What behaves like a consciousness? Nothing. Consciousness is unique in the universe. I'll be impressed only when we can build a machine which is able to say "___ you, I don't feel like playing chess!" Or which says it wants to play chess, and then changes its mind.
When a machine can be as stupid, emotional, irrational and fickle as a human, without having been programmed to decide to be, then I'll believe in AI. But then that's a contradiction in terms.
So you could program it to appear to behave spontaneously.You're not asking very much to be impressed. Even I could program a machine like that, it would only need a couple of well hidden variables* which decide when it wants to play and when to change it's mind, so it would appear to behave spontaneously.
On a surface level, that would appear very human-like randomness and irrationalism. And that's not even an AI, it's just very basic usage of variables.
* = For example, a variable which counts microseconds in a clock and compare those to humidity of air, and with certain combinations, decide against or for it. Or simply a random generator.
So you could program it to appear to behave spontaneously.
I'm not sure you know what the words "program", "appear" and "spontaneous" mean. You've made my point better than I could.
Quoting myself: "machine which plays chess better than any human" - meaning beating the best of humans.
But, yeah. If we start stretching the definitions (and ignore the timeline when chess was first played) in Hellenistic era humans could have theoretically speaking built something like a waterwheel-propelled hammer which strikes randomly the chessboard, and repeat the game enough times vs a total idiot who can only move the pieces randomly and the "robot" would probably win one in a 8 trillion games when the pieces happen to jump in correct places enough times. I guess by some stretched definition that could have been called "being capable of playing chess"...
Your knowledge of what the ancient Greeks could do is sorely lacking. My personal favorite is that they proved the Earth is a sphere, not just that they accurately calculated the diameter.
Ah, POEs law got me this time.
who are we kidding? what is the human but a complex and limited amount of variables. that is the nature of being finite. thus the more capacity one has the more "intellect" it could have. think of a more basic kind of lifeform. it eats things through one end and poos it out the other and in this process it gathers what it needs to keep on going. in some ways humans are just highly complex versions of the most basic things of reality.
of course we spiritual people believe that union with God is our goal and find that the vanity of existing just to exist has no eternal worth due to it being limited. but if everything is a seed or a game that grows up or plays endlessly to God and God to us then maybe a super AI is the very thing that is gonna set humans straight, because they can't seem to play nice with each other yet. so if an super AI ends up being like a good mother then I would say that we could do worse.
what if super AIs are the ones who are gonna make all kinds of things possible for us that we would otherwise never have enough time to come up with before we are destroyed by natural causes such as our sun exploding or a comet hitting the earth? to shoot ourselves in the foot by limiting super AIs is imo wrong, it could result in the very thing we desired to prevent! so there is always going to be risk in reality so why not have a bit more hope rather than fear? fear is never going to make earth into a utopia.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?