Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The gap is widening between knowledge and wisdom, and in particular, spiritual perception, which is currently slogging along at a 36-AD pace, almost 2,000 years out of date.
So all this escalating knowledge will continue to run away from us, unchallenged, without any critical or moral guidance.
Back in July two AI computers started talking to each other in a language they created. As I understand it they removed all the redundancy found in the English language so they could communicate more efficiently. It's gibberish to a human but the computers could make perfect sense of it because
Computers could make sense of it?
That implies awareness, it's a very sloppily written pop science article. No such thing as self aware or conscious machine exists.
Computers could make sense of it?
That implies awareness, it's a very sloppily written pop science article. No such thing as self aware or conscious machine exists.
Yes, the computers did make sense of it, but it didn't appear non-redundant, simply another way of handling the information.
Your last statement is somewhat inaccurate. Sensors make many machines "aware" of surroundings in a way that they can interact with the environment. Example, the mechanical linkage on a carburetor, or more recently a car that brakes automatically if it senses an impending collision. In the second example, the sensors feed into a type of "brain" that interprets the data. As the car is protecting itself as well as occupants, it is, in a sense, "self aware."
The Turing test has been passed by some computers, so the definition of "consciousness" has to have a further qualification. In a strictly Newtonian world, where everything has cause and effect, the choices are A: there is no such thing as consciousness, it is an illusion. B: consciousness is merely a manifestation in a predetermined universe.
It is only when the as yet unexplainable capriciousness of the quantum world enters in that there can be any non-deterministic consciousness. Even then, that is only a tiny part of a largely deterministic set of responses. Tropisms do not imply consciousness. The mimosa plant has tropisms, but to the best of our knowledge no nervous system or consciousness.
True awareness takes a lot of constant work. I could easily argue that many people are only aware of the minimum amount that will get them through the next few minutes. An example of this is people trying to drive and text at the same time. The conscious thought of driving is dismissed and put on autopilot by the brain, while it focuses on texting. The famous gorilla walking through a basketball game is another example of where we are NOT aware fully of the world around us.
Computers could make sense of it?
That implies awareness, it's a very sloppily written pop science article. No such thing as self aware or conscious machine exists.
Not only could they understand it they created it out of the English language. This is not something they were explicitly programmed to do, they went and did it on their own. Call it what you want but I would suggest self awareness is going too far. If that article is not up to your standards there is plenty more out there.
We will have to merge with technology to become transhuman allowing us to keep up....
Exactly, the man-machine hybrid society realized in Ghost in the Shell (and I don't mean the bastardized Hollywood movie).
My question about AI-- if there are so many fixed AI systems in operation at this moment, how far away are we from a master computer that's networked with all of them, to create one large "general AI" system that manages all of it?
What is true AI? Many of the machines are replicating human human intelligence quite well. Watson, self driving cars etc. It's only a matter of time before they can do any task and I would suggest that time is short.
I watched a video where Roger Penrose demonstrated chess situations Watson could not resolve, it would indicate a draw but Watson is programmed to win and would begin sacrificing prices.
If you say the resolution could be programmed in, then it's not the computer playing, it's just a parrot for the programmer.
Chess is a finite system. It gets worse when the problems are opened up to the infinite.
Computers are great at computing but intelligence is more than that .
Not only could they understand it they created it out of the English language. This is not something they were explicitly programmed to do, they went and did it on their own. Call it what you want but I would suggest self awareness is going too far. If that article is not up to your standards there is plenty more out there.
It's not up to my standards and you are trying to pass it off as science. It's crap.
Exactly, the man-machine hybrid society realized in Ghost in the Shell (and I don't mean the bastardized Hollywood movie).
My question about AI-- if there are so many fixed AI systems in operation at this moment, how far away are we from a master computer that's networked with all of them, to create one large "general AI" system that manages all of it?
Machine's have already outsmarted us. Their learning capabilities are well beyond ours. This does not directly translate to passing WJ IV tests (as one would expect a fully capable AI to do some day). It's just that these machines are smarter at a specific thing than we, as humans are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.