The AI discussion is back...

[Proto]

I recently found this <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0205/p18s01-stct.html">article</a> at betterhumans and i found it to be interesting, not the article itself, but for the implications it describes...

The two issues to define here are:

- Will machinery will be able to show something that could be described as feelings(lets get no too methaphysical here...)

- Will machines reach such a level intelligence in a future that they will have to be respected, as any intelligent being should be?

Ill expose my thoughts further in the thread so i dont polarize it too early

[Mako Eyes]

Well, I think that machinery will be able to show something that could be described as "feeling" or "emotion". But at a VERY basic level, it's hard to explain what I think on this, so I'll just stop now to prevent confusion

As for the-so-intelligent-they-will-require-respect thing, I think it WILL someday happen. And mankind will be ever sorry they ever created AI. With rational thinking comes irrational thinking, If machines like this are being mass-produced, then it could mean trouble. It's almost like creating another human race (something this planet REALLY don't need). When the first model of these robots is released, it will be like Short Circut 2 come to life: A robotic being becoming a legal citizen of a city. Then as more are created, more citizens will be stated (Megaman come to life), then humans will perhaps begin to die off (MegamanX), then the machines will make more machines and plan rebelion on the remainder of the human race (Terminator), then they will use US for THEIR benefits (The Matrix)

if you ask me, they should stop right where they are

[Sir Key]

well it'll take some time till we can make it mechanically possible to create human-like androids in a way they they can be a potential opponent to a human race... after all the human body is a masterpiece and i think that giving an ai the ability of a free will is gonna be a though one too... another thing i think would be interesting to discuss is:
- will machines be able to "create" art (in any form) and what will be their favourite music style?
these things are mostly determined by the person producing ai's
so my answer is for both: yes they would be able but manking won't allow them

[Proto]

in the same way we are all greatly molded by our society, parents, enviroment, etc. Our range of free will becomes minimal if you think about it


And dont think as true AI as a competitor as the only viable option. An allieancae,a or better yet, a symbiosis, are quite interesting options.

Nwadays there is limited art creations by machines. Following fractal mathematical patterns they are able to create music (rather wierd one i must say)

[Sir Key]

but how should their own "taste" be defined?

[Proto]

but how should their own "taste" be defined?

Thats a good question, and to find the answer, we must define how our own taste can be defined.

Our "taste" is defined throughtout the different songs we hear in our life. Also, we have an empirical knowledge of the harmonic theory, so that we quickly disregard some kind of songs that are pure noise, or that goes totally opposite of our previous pattern of tastes. Through this selective method, we keep defining and redefining our own taste. Its much more complicated than that, but in the end if we can describe our own taste formation in an algorthmical way, programming it becomes more or less easy, through computers that have access to their own source code for example.

[_E_]

"Humans will never be able to mimic and surpass the human body as a whole, you wont be able be able to create something which surpasses a human being"

to bring it more bluntly,..i am looking forward for the time when we see protoman's ultimate super-duper creature,..made 100% by silicon, operating on a 1 Mhz processor , powered by a 1 Watt electric source

On a more serious note,...coming up with something which surpasses a human body , brain and spirit is impossible IMO

Yours,
-Elly

[Clements]

Originally Posted by ProtoMan

- Will machinery will be able to show something that could be described as feelings(lets get no too methaphysical here...)

- Will machines reach such a level intelligence in a future that they will have to be respected, as any intelligent being should be?

If the human brain is a mere complex arrangement of atoms, it can be duplicated by man in the far future. Feelings and intelligence (self-awareness) are electrical impulses buzzing around a brain. A mechnical brain would be no different. At the moment, we do not understand how a human brain works let alone replicate it, but once the brain is fully understood, surely synthetic brains would be an area of science open to them.

We are just biological machines fueled by complex chemical reactions.

[Proto]

On a more serious note,...coming up with something which surpasses a human body , brain and spirit is impossible IMO

Ehemm.... well ok.... this is the whole idea of evolution.... we are only accelerating it (stem cell reasearch) or creating alternatives (AI)

The whole idea of AI lies behind that human in its very basis can be understood as a cause - effect machines. We are slowly unveling the black box that the mind represents, and further realizing that, despite its complexity and beauty, it can be perfectly understood under logical paradigms.

And as such it can be emulated. Dont you like the idea? This is an emulation forum after all

If the human brain is a mere complex arrangement of atoms, it can be duplicated by man in the far future. Feelings and intelligence (self-awareness) are electrical impulses buzzing around a brain. A mechnical brain would be no different. At the moment, we do not understand how a human brain works let alone replicate it, but once the brain is fully understood, surely synthetic brains would be an area of science open to them.

We are just biological machines fueled by complex chemical reactions.

I agree with you. Be it duplication or emulation, while we can see and understand the human mind as a logical machinery, AI becomes an easier task, even from the phylosophical POV

[_E_]

Originally Posted by ProtoMan

The whole idea of AI lies behind that human in its very basis can be understood as a cause - effect machines. We are slowly unveling the black box that the mind represents, and further realizing that, despite its complexity and beauty, it can be perfectly understood under logical paradigms.

And as such it can be emulated. Dont you like the idea? This is an emulation forum after all

I wouldnt even think about an AI which will surpass us if we cant even create something equivilant to us. What does the human consist of? 70~80% water, 10% carbon, ...etc ( i know this isnt 100% accurate, but you get my point ). Now , I ll give you all these ingredients ,with their precise propotions. Create a human being which can thinks, feels, grows, reacts and sleeps like the rest of us.

My point? How are you going to create something which surpasses humanity when you cant "emulate" humanity itself ?

Yours,
-Elly

[Proto]

I wouldnt even think about an AI which will surpass us if we cant even create something equivilant to us. What does the human consist of? 70~80% water, 10% carbon, ...etc ( i know this isnt 100% accurate, but you get my point ). Now , I ll give you all these ingredients ,with their precise propotions. Create a human being which can thinks, feels, grows, reacts and sleeps like the rest of us.

Er... i was talking about understanding the way the human mind works, not to take every athom an copicat it in another model.... Obviously this is easier said than done. It requires the development of neuronal like networks, machines that can learn and change their own source code, a good perceptional system. But even though these are hard task, they are all being worked on, and some of them have gave some interesting results (which are far from complete, but gaves us an idea of the potential of this)

Like neuronal network based antivirus who have learned to detect new viruses based on heuristics, and learning from the behaviour of previous viruses (without the use of updates).

We are far from the end, but we are on the road

Or from another POV, you could just keep investigating clonation and you would get a person that think dreams and feels like you.

[Clements]

Originally Posted by Elly

My point? How are you going to create something which surpasses humanity when you cant "emulate" humanity itself ?

In the future, though, it will probably be possible. The brain exists, so why can't a similar synthetic one be created? The brain was also created. A synthetic brain would at first be modeled on simple animal brains (likely) and then move up until human-like brains are created. Then, just create a larger, more complex brain with a greater suface area and neurone count to exceed a human.

You could also probably manipulate DNA to do this to get around making one yourself, but we need to fully understand the Biology behind it fully before it can be done. Currently, it can't be done, though, but mankind has an almost infinite time at our disposal to try.

[Demigod]

I think if we give it enough time we can eventually make something that can, for the most part, replicate human emotions. I doubt we'll ever make a machine that can pass as a human being though. The problem is that it's very difficult, if not impossible for humans to understand our own behaviors. When the creator is unable to understand himself then how can he possibly expect to emulate himself? As most people know there is no such thing as a 100% compatible emulator. The same will hold true for human emulators (especially for human emulators).

Besides, I don't think we'd want machines that can think like us. We're biological organisms while they're mechanical so there will obviously be elements that are not necessary and/or incompatible. A lot of our emotions tie in to our biological needs. Love attracts two people for the purpose of reproduction (and human companionship) which is completely useless to a machine so machines wouldn't need love. However, it is because of love that we do a lot of the things we do and allow us to grow as human beings. A lot of our emotions tie in to another in an intricate web that is the puzzle of humanity. Including all our emotions into a machine would be pointless; they wouldn't be able to properly use most of them as our emotions are specific to humans.

In light of that I think machines would have to have their own AI, something that suits them specifically. Human AI isn't the only kind of intelligence there is. My definition of an intelligence creature is something that can learn, think on its own and make decisions, and be able to reflect on its choices in a reasonable manner (doesn't have to be logical). If a machine could do this (if I could argue with it and it could back up its arguments in a reasonable manner) I would consider it intelligent. I probably won't consider it human but I don't think a machine would need to be considered human to be intelligent.

[Proto]

Now i agree with you DemiGod. AIshould be developed ain way that it doesnt gives us more of the same, but rather that complements our lack and needs, and that further nchances our abilities so that a symbiotic relationship could enable us to avance even further.

[Sir Key]

what demigod stated with wise words and correct punctuation and stuff is pretty much the same i wanted to say... i think machines will be used for working purposes they don't need such things as feelings they are just tools... the person trying to give them emotions like love and anger is an idiot...
btw protoman i also think that a lot of our preferences like music taste and stuff like that is being predicted by the dna given from our parents to us... together with the daily influence we experience and the persons around us

[Proto]

what demigod stated with wise words and correct punctuation and stuff is pretty much the same i wanted to say... i think machines will be used for working purposes they don't need such things as feelings they are just tools... the person trying to give them emotions like love and anger is an idiot...

Well yeah but then again restraining them to phsical activities would be equally useless. We must keep em giving more and more intelligence if we want them to help us in more complicated tasks. Then again there will be a point where they will be able to learn by themselves. Most probably emotions will be something that they will eventually gather (at least in the intellectual level)

About our second statment i completely agree... except i think education to have a heavier role in defininig a personality, with this im not trying to demerit the part of the genes of course

[Raiden01]

the miniut we start giving machines self awarness the sooner the matrix will happen or has it already?????....

[Proto]

the miniut we start giving machines self awarness the sooner the matrix will happen or has it already?????....

Lets not mix reality with movies And even in the worst case scenario, the matrix was majorly fault of the humans, not of the machines, who were just trying to develop in a world that rejected them.

[Kaiser Sigma]

“Introducing to you the latest technology: a mechanical Tamagotchi !”

Originally Posted by ProtoMan

- Will machinery will be able to show something that could be described as feelings(lets get no too methaphysical here...)

You know my answer, let’s try something new for a change:

"Intellectually, you realize they don't have feelings, but you do imbue them with personality over time, so you are protective of them,"

So… can you describe as genuine feelings something that it’s not characteristic of object itself ? Hardly. You imbue them with “personality” “over time”…
Can it a machine show feelings ? Perhaps (and I’d like to put a lot of emphasis on that word).
But let’s be mindful that the difference between showing feelings and possessing them is abyssal. Imbue them as much as you want but that’s not real feelings in the end it’s nothing more than an expensive Tamagotchi… no free will, no volition = no real feelings.
It’s just the same story that we always heard, some code into the machine, big deal… my kudos to the programmer, the object remains lifeless and it’s nothing more than a mere projection of its creator.

Again, another interesting quote:

promises to have six emotions: happiness, anger, fear, sadness, surprise, and discontent.

Can you describe that as legitimate feelings ? “promises to have 6 emotions”, this is so cool… I mean, since when do we put emotions into a package ? We program something to show certain “feelings”, can you honestly describe that as genuine ? Those aren’t feelings; those are just features of an expensive toy…

Originally Posted by ProtoMan

- Will machines reach such a level intelligence in a future that they will have to be respected, as any intelligent being should be?

Not really, machines will never be intelligent. Why do you think that the term to describe advanced logics in machines is Artificial Intelligence ? If it’s artificial it can’t be intelligent.
Are you intelligent ? Why ? Were you born as an intelligent being ? Hardly… we are born as a whining little brat. Whether we turn out to be intelligent is up to us, yes a lot of variables and factors come into play (mainly the environment, the family, friends and acquaintances) but ultimately the choice is yours… you chose what to learn, you decide which path to follow and even if you don’t you will still be yours and not somebody’s else reflection. How often do we curse those who tell us what to do when we abide to their command when we don’t have any other choice ? That spontaneity is something that can’t be imbued… sorry, it’s not a metaphysical matter nor a chemical reaction; it’s just how it is. A machine can’t be like that because even if it’s by a minimum margin it will always have to stick to a basic behavior… and yes, even those supposed perfect codes that will learn on their own and all that crap suffers, IMO, the same flaw. Spontaneity belongs to living beings; machines aren’t that, they are just a bunch of steel which serves to feed man’s ambition of playing God’s role.

And BTW, who said that respect is to be earned by means of intelligence ? I know many dumb people who are worthy of respect and a lot of genius who belong on a trench… sorry, but I doubt that everyone will agree that intelligence is the reason why respect is granted.

Originally Posted by hybrid23

- will machines be able to "create" art (in any form) and what will be their favourite music style?

Take some oils and a canvas, close your eyes and do with them as you feel… no matter how ugly, it will still be art. Why ? It comes from your most inner you… it’s not a matter of intelligence or emotions… just “turn off” everything in your body and let yourself do as you please…

How will a machine perform that ? If it blackouts then it certainly can’t do a thing so… ah, I get it ! Art it’s not a matter of logics (even though some art styles are about geometric or even more complex patterns), you don’t say:
if *insert complex equation in here* then I draw a line in here
else if I paint black in there.
Sorry for the sarcasm but I think it makes my point somehow clear…

Originally Posted by ProtoMan

in the same way we are all greatly molded by our society, parents, enviroment, etc. Our range of free will becomes minimal if you think about it

I beg to differ, it’s true that those variables play a considerable role, but I wouldn’t call it “great”. In fact if I speak in terms of percentages, those variables influences over me aren’t more than just a mere 25%-30%.
Our range of free will is anything but minimal, any option we take is always ours (even when you meet those suckers with 0 personality, in the end they chose to be like that) no matter how influenced. There are examples that support your statement, I won’t deny that (after all, we can find examples for pretty much everything) but I hardly believe that it’s the most predominant human behavior on this world…

Originally Posted by [Clements

] We are just biological machines fueled by complex chemical reactions.

That we are… amongst a lot of other things. If you are a science believer then all the power to you, but be aware that not everybody has such a bounded concept of man. (then again, I know lots of persons who think that man is all about the spirit so…)
Man is a lot of things, are we a complex pile of meat ? Sure, but there’s more much to man than meets the eye.

To end my post I’d like to comment on some of the article’s points which gave origin to the question of whether machines or not can exhibit something as “feelings”:

Pat one on the head, and it becomes happy enough to do tricks. Whack its nose, and it not only appears hurt, but it also learns not to repeat certain behavior.

Can you say Tamagotchi ? Let’s put it this way… have you ever raised more than 2 pets ? Even though pets are not rational beings they have the ability to make their own choices…
Pat my dog’s head and it will bite your hand. Try to pat my cat’s head and she will run before you can even move your hand close to hear head… go to pat some street dog’s head and chances are that it will show another kind of reaction…
What motivates this ? A “chemical reaction” ? As I’ve said, there’s more to a living being (be it animal or human) than meets the eye.
If you (the reader) think that our emotions are so simple as to be coded (someday) then you haven’t experience the true bitterness of hatred, the consuming feeling of jealously, the despair of not knowing what to do in your life, the… feh, heck the list is endless (not unlimited) but basically what I’m trying to say is: “If you think that feelings/emotions can be coded then you haven’t lived your life fully as you should”.

More of an opinion than a fact, based as you might imagine on the experiences that I might have gone through. That’s the truth I’ve found after so many years of living and I bet that all of you have a different one… think you that a machine can find its own truth after recollecting data and performing queries ? Sorry, but IMO it can’t.