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.
People who view animal brains as a computer have no understanding of the complexity of biology.
Biology is just chemistry at a more abstract level. Chemistry is just physics. Yes brains are complex but there is no reason that the functions of the brain that we value cannot be engineered.
Whether the end result is a computer or something else I am not sure matters. It won't look like a brain and won't be the size of a brain and will likely be modular like an octopus neural system, but I am confident that given a reasonable amount of time and proper motivation of the engineers (getting rich is always good at that), a reasonable facsimile of a human brain can be created.
As to the OP question - motivation is a human attribute and shouldn't be necessary in a robot. Presumably the robot was designed by humans so just design in obedience (easy to do since all existing machines are obedient) and it won't need any motivation, it will always do what it is told to do.
Biology is just chemistry at a more abstract level. Chemistry is just physics.
Biology is the natural science that studies life and living organisms, including their physical structure, chemical processes, molecular interactions, physiological mechanisms, development and evolution.
Chemistry is the scientific discipline involved with elements and compounds composed of atoms, molecules and ions: their composition, structure, properties, behavior and the changes they undergo during a reaction with other substances.
In fact, chemistry is known as the central science because it touches all other natural sciences, like biology, physics, geology, and more.
Physics is the natural science that studies matter, its motion and behavior through space and time, and that studies the related entities of energy and force. Physics is one of the most fundamental scientific disciplines, and its main goal is to understand how the universe behaves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour
Yes brains are complex but there is no reason that the functions of the brain that we value cannot be engineered.
Exactly what aspects of the brain do you think we value? BTW instruments are much better at doing certain tasks than humans. That's why we are seeing many human jobs replaced by robots and automation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour
Whether the end result is a computer or something else I am not sure matters. It won't look like a brain and won't be the size of a brain and will likely be modular like an octopus neural system, but I am confident that given a reasonable amount of time and proper motivation of the engineers (getting rich is always good at that), a reasonable facsimile of a human brain can be created.
People who view animal brains as a computer have no understanding of the complexity of biology.
There's a distinction between all living intelligence and that of artificial origin.
An animal brain, and its functions described as "intelligent," manifests through the brain.
99% of its intelligence during daily, routine experience and action, is generated via general memory.
General memories I define as groups of past similar experience/action episodes (of visual field including body and brain).
Because a machine does not have any sentience or experience it therefore does not have any memories of such experience. As I stated before, The Terminator may run a lot of perceptual calculations, but "it" has no experience of a visual field (or the contents within) and therefore knows not what it sees or experiences. Except that it doesn't even see or experience anything.
As to the OP question - motivation is a human attribute and shouldn't be necessary in a robot. Presumably the robot was designed by humans so just design in obedience (easy to do since all existing machines are obedient) and it won't need any motivation, it will always do what it is told to do.
See the issue with folks who really don't understand AI?
They anthropomorphize it.
AI does not possess human emotion. It does not possess sentience, motives or desire. It's just a machine that's been programmed to do what it's programmed to do.
Biology is the natural science that studies life and living organisms, including their physical structure, chemical processes, molecular interactions, physiological mechanisms, development and evolution.
Chemistry is the scientific discipline involved with elements and compounds composed of atoms, molecules and ions: their composition, structure, properties, behavior and the changes they undergo during a reaction with other substances.
In fact, chemistry is known as the central science because it touches all other natural sciences, like biology, physics, geology, and more.
Physics is the natural science that studies matter, its motion and behavior through space and time, and that studies the related entities of energy and force. Physics is one of the most fundamental scientific disciplines, and its main goal is to understand how the universe behaves.
Thank you for the summary of how education disciplines are organized. I am quite familiar with the whole thing; I have a BS in chemistry and a PhD in physics.
Quote:
Exactly what aspects of the brain do you think we value?
Depends on the application. At times image recognition is valued, voice recognition is valued, at times the ability to calculate things is valued. These are things we do and all of those are easily done by computers today. Higher level problem solving is very valuable because it could, for instance, be used for medical diagnostics, creating new pharmaceuticals, optimize and control in real time resource management, assess threats and recommend mitigations, traffic control, better manufacturing automation, pilotless cars and planes, space travel, hazardous work, .... the list is endless. All of those things are done by humans today but are very amendable to AI techniques and robotics.
It is probably more useful to discuss what parts of the human brain are we not interested in. Emotions is top of the list. Socialization within the species, responses to hormones like adrenaline ("fight or flight"), procreating, survival and threat response, worries about healthcare and old age,.. the list is quite long of the things it takes to be a human in today's world but we probably do not want to duplicate or emulate.
My point here is we probably don't want to reproduce a human brain in all of its functions but we do want to do certain tasks more efficiently by engineering improved versions of certain functional areas in our brains.
Quote:
People who view animal brains as a computer have no understanding of the complexity of biology.
Yes, you said that before. I am not saying a brain is a computer, I am saying it has functional areas that can be reengineered. Look at Big Blue (beat Kasparov in chess) or Google' AlphaGo that beat the world champion in Go.
And we haven't even talked about consciousness. I give it 100 years and we will have sentient machines.
Thank you for the summary of how education disciplines are organized. I am quite familiar with the whole thing; I have a BS in chemistry and a PhD in physics.
I gave the summary to correct what you stated with respect to "biology is just chemistry at a more abstract level. Chemistry is just physics."
Biology is not just chemistry and chemistry is not just physics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour
Depends on the application. At times image recognition is valued, voice recognition is valued, at times the ability to calculate things is valued. These are things we do and all of those are easily done by computers today. Higher level problem solving is very valuable because it could, for instance, be used for medical diagnostics, creating new pharmaceuticals, optimize and control in real time resource management, assess threats and recommend mitigations, traffic control, better manufacturing automation, pilotless cars and planes, space travel, hazardous work, .... the list is endless. All of those things are done by humans today but are very amendable to AI techniques and robotics.
This does not answer what I asked you in the previous post when you stated the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour
Yes brains are complex but there is no reason that the functions of the brain that we value cannot be engineered.
I asked you to tell me exactly what aspects of the brain do you think we value?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour
It is probably more useful to discuss what parts of the human brain are we not interested in. Emotions is top of the list. Socialization within the species, responses to hormones like adrenaline ("fight or flight"), procreating, survival and threat response, worries about healthcare and old age,.. the list is quite long of the things it takes to be a human in today's world but we probably do not want to duplicate or emulate.
Show me the evidence that robots/AI have the ability to possess any of the above physiological processes AND which AI research team is currently working on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour
My point here is we probably don't want to reproduce a human brain in all of its functions but we do want to do certain tasks more efficiently by engineering improved versions of certain functional areas in our brains.
The attributes of the human brain that_you_think_ AI will possess in the future is unrealistic. Robots/AI do not have emotions, memory, motivation, desire, vision etc. The I in AI does not mean the same thing a human Intelligence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour
Yes, you said that before. I am not saying a brain is a computer, I am saying it has functional areas that can be reengineered. Look at Big Blue (beat Kasparov in chess) or Google' AlphaGo that beat the world champion in Go.
I did and found that after the loss, Kasparov said that he sometimes saw deep intelligence and creativity in the machine's moves, suggesting that during the second game, human chess players had intervened on behalf of the machine, which would be a violation of the rules. IBM denied that it cheated, saying the only human intervention occurred between games.
The rules provided for the developers to modify the program between games, an opportunity they said they used to shore up weaknesses in the computer's play that were revealed during the course of the match. Kasparov requested printouts of the machine's log files, but IBM refused, although the company later published the logs on the Internet. Kasparov demanded a rematch, but IBM refused and dismantled Deep Blue.
Seems a bit sketchy don't you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour
And we haven't even talked about consciousness. I give it 100 years and we will have sentient machines.
The the most basic attribute of an animal brain is consciousness. You've been taking about "a reasonable facsimile of a human brain can be created."
Please provide a specific example of this facsimile that you mentioned.
Also please show us the evidence that in 100 years we will have sentient machines and please name the scientists and research teams that are currently working on this.
Yes, you said that before. I am not saying a brain is a computer, I am saying it has functional areas that can be reengineered. Look at Big Blue (beat Kasparov in chess) or Google' AlphaGo that beat the world champion in Go.
It's Deep Blue, it was built by IBM AKA Big Blue. These are two different animals (pun intended). Deep Blue is computational computer, it has specific set of instructions to play chess and it's brute processing power simply overwhelmed Kasparov's ability to formulate future moves within the time allotment for chess. Technically any computer could do this but one from the 40's might take millions or even billions of years to complete the game.
It's a game of math and if you throw enough processing power at you can beat a Kasparov. This is not practical for common use and that is where AI comes in.
Alpago is based on AI tech and the one I mentioned in previous posts, it also taught itself how to play chess. Note I said it taught itself to play chess. They give it the rules and it repeatedly plays itself. Google used some ridiculous amount of processing power to do this but you only need to do it once. Every time it plays itself it gets better. If you have Alphago play Deep Blue while Deep Blue is making 100's of millions or billions of calculations Alphago is only making a small fraction of that because it's using what it has learned instead of relying on calculating everything.
The rules provided for the developers to modify the program between games, an opportunity they said they used to shore up weaknesses in the computer's play that were revealed during the course of the match. Kasparov requested printouts of the machine's log files, but IBM refused, although the company later published the logs on the Internet. Kasparov demanded a rematch, but IBM refused and dismantled Deep Blue.
Seems a bit sketchy don't you think?
I suspect he probably noticed a flaw in it's play after reexamining the games. Chess players are going to study the play of other chess players to look for weaknesses, he never had that opportunity until after he lost. The IBM team would have their own problems, specifically they couldn't test it beforehand against someone like Kasparov. If he's playing a computer like Alphago it's not a flaw but simply something it didn't learn yet, it would only work once.
Making robots fear "death" is a really bad idea. Imagine if this got out of hand and became a reason to survive. It would mean that any human who was a threat (in any shape or form) would be subject to attack or at least "defensive behaviour". Robot reasoning may make it think that a human in the area might turn it off(kill) or disable(injure=die=death) in some way. I really wonder about the common sense and morality of some of these scientists sometimes.
It seems to me that the blame for a poorly perfoming robot should lie firmly at the door of the programmer NOT with the robot.
I'm calling in sick for the next few days. I drank too much oil last night and my gears and pulleys need a rest. This will never happen.
If Popular Mechanics is writing articles about motivation through fear of disassembly then they clearly don't understand computer programming and the buyer is wasting their time spending their money on the magazine.
Treat them like humans...starting cutting their benefits, make raises a thing of the past, make them work more hours with less, stop back-filling positions of all the pissed off robots who got lucky and were able to quit, make the dumba$$ robots unfortunate enough to still be around do more work to make up for the robots who left, start making cuts and letting other robots go, bring in 'contractor' and 'consultant' robots in order to cut costs, make the same dumba$$ robots stuck there clean up the mess left behind after the consultant robots take their enormous check and split town, and they can also clean up the mess after the contractor robots are let go and everything is brought back in house because the contractor robots f*ed everything up beyond belief.
Forget death, just treat them like companies treat humans...this will scare the bejesus out of R2D2 and C3PO!
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.
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.
They give it the rules and it repeatedly plays itself. Google used some ridiculous amount of processing power to do this but you only need to do it once. Every time it plays itself it gets better. If you have Alphago play Deep Blue while Deep Blue is making 100's of millions or billions of calculations Alphago is only making a small fraction of that because it's using what it has learned instead of relying on calculating everything.
