# A.i.



## ambush80 (Oct 5, 2015)

Artificial Intelligence. Any thoughts?

Talk amongst yourselves.  I'm getting verklempt.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 5, 2015)

Here, knock yourself out. 

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=846935&highlight=artificial


----------



## swampstalker24 (Oct 5, 2015)

My only question is how can you even define artificial intelligence if you first don't fully understand "real" intelligence.  Does artificial intelligence simply mean "created" intelligence?  And if so, could humans be considered "artificial" intelligence in the eyes of creationist?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 5, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Here, knock yourself out.
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=846935&highlight=artificial



Didn't get much traction.  

I'm testing to see if it's come anymore to the forefront of people's consciousness.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 5, 2015)

swampstalker24 said:


> My only question is how can you even define artificial intelligence if you first don't fully understand "real" intelligence.  Does artificial intelligence simply mean "created" intelligence?  And if so, could humans be considered "artificial" intelligence in the eyes of creationist?



There we go....


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 5, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Didn't get much traction.
> 
> I'm testing to see if it's come anymore to the forefront of people's consciousness.



I doubt it, since consciousness is an delusion.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 5, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I doubt it, since consciousness is an delusion.




I'll rephrase. 

Does anybody have any thoughts on this topic about this?

While you're feeling randy, why don't you talk about this "delusion"?


----------



## joey1919 (Oct 5, 2015)

I thought we were going to have a discussion about Artificial Insemination. Imagine my disappointment


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 5, 2015)

I'm wondering now what an AI would do if you programmed it to find the meaning of existence.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 5, 2015)

joey1919 said:


> I thought we were going to have a discussion about Artificial Insemination. Imagine my disappointment



You start.

Pro or Con?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 5, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I'll rephrase.
> 
> Does anybody have any thoughts on this topic about this?
> 
> While you're feeling randy, why don't you talk about this "delusion"?



That we all think we're conscious but there's no real way to quantify it. It's all personal experience. 



joey1919 said:


> I thought we were going to have a discussion about Artificial Insemination. Imagine my disappointment



You still can. How long the mods let you is another story.


----------



## joey1919 (Oct 5, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> You start.
> 
> Pro or Con?



Havent decided. Im leaning that way with this new group of heifers I'm putting together, the only downside is synchronizing heat cycles and the fact that I'll still need to run a clean-up bull



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You still can. How long the mods let you is another story.



I ain't got no beef with them people


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 5, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That we all think we're conscious but there's no real way to quantify it. It's all personal experience.



We can talk about the hardware and the ability to test if it's working properly but I don't think that's what you're getting at.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 5, 2015)

joey1919 said:


> Havent decided. Im leaning that way with this new group of heifers I'm putting together, the only downside is synchronizing heat cycles and the fact that I'll still need to run a clean-up bull
> 
> 
> 
> I ain't got no beef with them people



"Beef"....that's funny.


----------



## Israel (Oct 5, 2015)

This is a funny thread.


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 6, 2015)

Israel said:


> This is a funny thread.



Look how fast we have developed technology to this point. Do you think we will stall out before we get an independently thinking, self aware robot?


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 6, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Artificial Intelligence. Any thoughts?
> 
> Talk amongst yourselves.  I'm getting verklempt.



I don't understand coding or programming, and doubt I'll ever put in the effort to understand. What I can do is look at the whole picture of what we currently have achieved and make a logical assumption that AI will happen. 

To me, the question is when. 50 years?  100? 500?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 6, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> We can talk about the hardware and the ability to test if it's working properly but I don't think that's what you're getting at.



We can't even test if you're working properly. The closest gauge we have is to pit it against another construct, that we think is intelligent and conscious and see if the artificial one can fool it. 

That's the Turing Test for those playing at home.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 6, 2015)

Israel said:


> This is a funny thread.




So funny....

It might not be lying about the "People Zoo".


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 6, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> I don't understand coding or programming, and doubt I'll ever put in the effort to understand. What I can do is look at the whole picture of what we currently have achieved and make a logical assumption that AI will happen.
> 
> To me, the question is when. 50 years?  100? 500?



Alarmist predictions say that we'll have a computer that's as smart as a human by 2030, then under the right circumstances, it will far exceed human intelligence by 2045.

I'm almost through the book _Our Final Invention_ by James Barrat. 

When they start helping us develop nano-technology then things should get interesting. We'll certainly need robotic assistance to fabricate such tiny machines but they'll need raw materials to make them.  

When that silly robot asks "May I borrow your phone?" we're in trouble.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 6, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> We can't even test if you're working properly. The closest gauge we have is to pit it against another construct, that we think is intelligent and conscious and see if the artificial one can fool it.
> 
> That's the Turing Test for those playing at home.



If someone is attached to sensors that monitor brain activity or in a brain scanning type machine, it's easily determined if there are signals or not.  No signals, no thoughts.

Any other argument will be metaphysical.....which I enjoy


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 6, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> If someone is attached to sensors that monitor brain activity or in a brain scanning type machine, it's easily determined if there are signals or not.  *No signals, no thoughts.*
> 
> Any other argument will be metaphysical.....which I enjoy



Wrong. Signals don't equal thoughts. Signals imply thoughts because of statistical sampling. "Well, we've found a strong correlation between activity in this area and thoughts about X, or as a result of being shown pictures of X," but you can't point to an fMRI and say that subject Q is thinking about Z, nor can you provide any details about it. If you could that's what we'd be doing instead of fallible polygraphs. 

Then there are those who we know to have been dead, doornail dead by all indications we currently have, that saw the light and heard Jesus. What caused that? If no signals = no thoughts then that means that A) there has to be something other than the brain for those experiences to register with (i.e. a soul), and B) there has to be another plane of existence on which to have these experiences since our earthly monitoring devices couldn't detect it. 

I find it far more likely that we don't have the whole story on the brain and that there are things that take place that we can't measure for whatever reason. Part of my specialty is signals analysis on SATCOM terminals. I could tell you that there is traffic passed on satellites that appears in very difficult ways to isolate, so as to those who are A) unaware, or B) unskilled enough to find them that it would appear as magic that they arrived at all. They would still pass, while appearing to not alter the noise floor of the equipment at all. Traditional SATCOM says that's a no-no, but we're doing it every day. It's information being passed (thoughts) with no discernible spike on the plot (no spike in the results on the MRI or other device). I don't think scientists are unaware or unskilled, I just think we have a technological limitation to what can be measured. 

Sure, you could turn up the amplifier, or increase the sensitivity on the sensor and likely see something. But what percentage of that is the person being measured as opposed to noise being produced by the machines themselves or stray signals getting in?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 6, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Wrong. Signals don't equal thoughts. Signals imply thoughts because of statistical sampling. "Well, we've found a strong correlation between activity in this area and thoughts about X, or as a result of being shown pictures of X," but you can't point to an fMRI and say that subject Q is thinking about Z, nor can you provide any details about it. If you could that's what we'd be doing instead of fallible polygraphs.
> 
> Then there are those who we know to have been dead, doornail dead by all indications we currently have, that saw the light and heard Jesus. What caused that? If no signals = no thoughts then that means that A) there has to be something other than the brain for those experiences to register with (i.e. a soul), and B) there has to be another plane of existence on which to have these experiences since our earthly monitoring devices couldn't detect it.
> 
> ...



Certainly it's a new field but I think you don't give enough credit to what little we do know, which is increasing rapidly.

As for those "post death" experiences, they could have happened the instant before brain activity stopped or the instant it resumed. You seem to be making alot of assumptions about the quality of that experience. 

You don't have high confidence in brain mapping technology to the extent that you can make declarative statements about it being wrong.  Ok.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 6, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Certainly it's a new field but I think you don't give enough credit to what *little we do know*, which is increasing rapidly.
> 
> As for those "post death" experiences, they* could have* happened the instant before brain activity stopped or the instant it resumed. You seem to be making alot of assumptions about the quality of that experience.
> 
> You don't have high confidence in brain mapping technology to the extent that you can make declarative statements about it being wrong.  Ok.



The highlighted segments are where you argument either agrees with me, or is shown to have its own presumptions. 

My point is that since there's a wall between the person and the observer that there's no way to accurately determine whether they have consciousness or not. It's based on statistics and normative conditions. Like the 98.6 degree average human temperature. I know quite a few people to run cold so that 98.6 to them is a fever, and some who run hot who would be treated for a fever they don't have if that temp was treated as an absolute. 

You also presume that I'm saying that it is wrong. I didn't. I pointed out the truth of functional MRIs in that they are assumed to be read a certain way because most people who think X display Y. But seeing as how you seem to have no problem laying accusations upon me, I'm not surprised that you see them everywhere you look.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 6, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The highlighted segments are where you argument either agrees with me, or is shown to have its own presumptions.
> 
> My point is that since there's a wall between the person and the observer that there's no way to accurately determine whether they have consciousness or not. It's based on statistics and normative conditions. Like the 98.6 degree average human temperature. I know quite a few people to run cold so that 98.6 to them is a fever, and some who run hot who would be treated for a fever they don't have if that temp was treated as an absolute.
> 
> You also presume that I'm saying that it is wrong. I didn't. I pointed out the truth of functional MRIs in that they are assumed to be read a certain way because most people who think X display Y. But seeing as how you seem to have no problem laying accusations upon me, I'm not surprised that you see them everywhere you look.



Gosh....there's a roadblock to us being able to have a discussion.  I don't know what to do to remedy that.


You said "Wrong. Signals don't equal thoughts."  and then went on to talk about how the presence of thoughts is hard to pin down.  Wouldn't the more accurate and less declarative statement be "We don't know yet what constitutes thought"?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 6, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Gosh....there's a roadblock to us being able to have a discussion.  I don't know what to do to remedy that.
> 
> 
> You said "Wrong. Signals don't equal thoughts."  and then went on to talk about how the presence of thoughts is hard to pin down.  Wouldn't the more accurate and less declarative statement be "We don't know yet what constitutes thought"?



I can't control how you read or interpret things. I would say my statement is just as accurate as yours, and isn't declaring anything that isn't obvious for itself in the research and statements from the experts. 

But if you want an endless semantic debate on what you'd preferred I said, instead of the topic you posted, I can't control that either except to not participate.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 6, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I can't control how you read or interpret things. I would say my statement is just as accurate as yours, and isn't declaring anything that isn't obvious for itself in the research and statements from the experts.
> 
> But if you want an endless semantic debate on what you'd preferred I said, instead of the topic you posted, I can't control that either except to not participate.




It seems like you think I'm out to get you.  I could be wrong.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 6, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> It seems like you think I'm out to get you.  *I could be wrong*.



You are.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 6, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You are.



Can you tell me what this means?



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But seeing as how you seem to have no problem laying accusations upon me, I'm not surprised that you see them everywhere you look.




???


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 6, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Certainly it's a new field but I think you don't give enough credit to what little we do know, which is increasing rapidly.
> 
> As for those "post death" experiences, they could have happened the instant before brain activity stopped or the instant it resumed. You seem to be making alot of assumptions about the quality of that experience.
> 
> You don't have high confidence in brain mapping technology to the extent that you can make declarative statements about it being wrong.  Ok.



You accused me of making declarative statements about brain mapping being wrong. I never said that. I said that what we "know" is based on inference and statistics and could be wrong because of the veil of knowledge on what's happening on the other side of the unconscious person. 

That's what it means.


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 6, 2015)

I think for the sake of this conversation we can assume that what we have is consciousness.  Seems silly to get into the definition of consciousness and what we currently understand about it.  Humans are conscious, iPhones are not.  Yet.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 6, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> I think for the sake of this conversation we can assume that what we have is consciousness.  Seems silly to get into the definition of consciousness and what we currently understand about it.  Humans are conscious, iPhones are not.  Yet.



How do you know they're not?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 6, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> I think for the sake of this conversation we can assume that what we have is consciousness.  Seems silly to get into the definition of consciousness and what we currently understand about it.  Humans are conscious, iPhones are not.  Yet.





StripeRR HunteRR said:


> How do you know they're not?




Apparently, the definition is germane to the discussion.

Here come the metaphysics.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 6, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You accused me of making declarative statements about brain mapping being wrong. I never said that. I said that what we "know" is based on inference and statistics and could be wrong because of the veil of knowledge on what's happening on the other side of the unconscious person.
> 
> That's what it means.



That's the thing about scientists, they don't mind being wrong, in fact they go through great lengths to try and prove themselves wrong.  Right?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 6, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> That's the thing about scientists, they don't mind being wrong, in fact they go through great lengths to try and prove themselves wrong.  Right?



What's the point? I said they could be wrong, I didn't say that they were, and you admit that it's a precept of their profession here. 

Where are you going with this?


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 6, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> How do you know they're not?



Have you asked Siri anything lately?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 6, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Have you asked Siri anything lately?



I have. She's got spunk. Call her Cortana and see what happens.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 6, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> What's the point? I said they could be wrong, I didn't say that they were, and you admit that it's a precept of their profession here.
> 
> Where are you going with this?



Nowhere, man.  Nowhere.  It's going nowhere.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 6, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Nowhere, man.  Nowhere.  It's going nowhere.



Well... good evenin' then.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 6, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> I think for the sake of this conversation we can assume that what we have is consciousness.  Seems silly to get into the definition of consciousness and what we currently understand about it.  Humans are conscious, iPhones are not.  Yet.




This is interesting (particularly page 17):

https://books.google.com/books?id=6...A2v#v=onepage&q=are iphones conscious&f=false


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 6, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> This is interesting (particularly page 17):
> 
> https://books.google.com/books?id=6...A2v#v=onepage&q=are iphones conscious&f=false



So understanding consciousness and what it is IS vital to the quest for AI.  If and when we can put all the pieces together, will we build a biological vessel, or keep it purely mechanical?  I have said before it's just a matter of 1's and 0's. Well, it's gonna take a whole lot of 'em to recreate nuerotransmitters and the infinite ways they can fire. 

And then there is the matter or my synapses. I barely have enough firing properly to keep up with these types of conversations, so I really can't go too deep. Maybe that is why I get frustrated with folks that want to explore the definition of a definition. I am more abstract. Big picture stuff. Or better yet, just give me pictures....


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 6, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> So understanding consciousness and what it is IS vital to the quest for AI.  If and when we can put all the pieces together, will we build a biological vessel, or keep it purely mechanical?  I have said before it's just a matter of 1's and 0's. Well, it's gonna take a whole lot of 'em to recreate nuerotransmitters and the infinite ways they can fire.
> 
> And then there is the matter or my synapses. I barely have enough firing properly to keep up with these types of conversations, so I really can't go too deep. Maybe that is why I get frustrated with folks that want to explore the definition of a definition. I am more abstract. Big picture stuff. Or better yet, just give me pictures....



There are alot of people in the field of AI research that have very serious concerns about it's potential harm to mankind.  Some of the dialogue is alarmist but much of it is sober and analytical.

There are some who hypothesize that computers becoming incorporated in our brains may be a step towards Artificial Super Intelligence.

I'm convinced  ASI will happen.

This guy uses pretty plain language:



TED talks rock


----------

