One can only imagine what our computers will think of us.Redlin5 said:
OT: I dont think so. if they do they'll have to be programmed to be come so
Poll: will machines ever be more intelligent than people?
- Thread starter the random
- Start date
Recommended Videos
OT: I dont think so. if they do they'll have to be programmed to be come so
-"A toaster is just a death ray with a smaller power supply! As soon as I figure out how to tap into the main reactors, I will burn the world!"Redlin5 said:
OT: if they even do we'll just have to make super-machines to wipe them out every 50,000 years. It's the only way we will survive. Unless of course the super-machines we make kill all of us instead but I REALLY doubt that would happen. Oh ho ho ho ho *kneeslap*
Wow, that was incredibly patronising and insultingly easy to refute.SnakeoilSage said:
For one, the comparison between human mind and machine breaks down immediately, the fastest computer in the world can perform 260 trillion operations a second while human minds can only react to a stimulus after 120 miliseconds, at best. Our own biological nature limits our maximum speed of thought, machines are not limited in this regard.
Memory falls into a different catagory, human memories are very efficient in packing stuff in, but are laughably inaccurate when it comes to decent recall (Since we filter input based on our own preconceptions and expectations) and tends to ditch information we don't need very rapidly. Computer memory suffers from none of these benefits and flaws, what is recorded is a near-perfect record.
And yes, while it is true I do not consciously call my arm to raise when I need to pick something up, the process isn't as complicated as you make it out to be, spatial awareness, the specific length of my arm, coded instructions to the muscle groups and, finally, engagement of the 'get thing' are all very easy for computers to replicate. Willow Garage's PR2 can perform an identical (If slow) feat with a simple command.
And so, the nature of how an AI might come about from simply pumping more data into a program? Hardly! You don't get intelligence from a database, nor, I suspect, do you actually know much of what you speak in this regard. My offer? A large system of genetic algorithms, designed to catagorise information and continually improve its accuracy. From that point, I magine its only a matter of time before it becomes aware of itself in a machine-awareness point of view. But that's speculation of the wildest sort.
It is not a fact that we cannot define sentience, it is hard, but still within our understanding given time, nor does the lack of that definition mean that the emulation of sentience is impossible. It could potentially be that very first, randomly spawned AI gives us the definition purely in the act of its creation.
I'm not going to completely rule out the possibility of future advancement, but Computers will have to do a whole lot more than be able to compute with increased speed to be able to process qualitative information.
Well. No. Given that they are programmed by humans, they can't become more intelligent than them. They can think faster, sure, but that's not the same thing.
Depending on how you define the term, they already are, by several orders of magnitude.
In terms of adaptive thought comparable to the way we think, yes they certainly can be. As matters stand, the only real impediment to a true artificial intelligence is in terms of the physical technology we have available. Give us a more efficient mode of processing data (using the 32 possible quantum states as opposed to the current binary switches is a popular possibility), or a reasonably available material that is superconductive at or near room temperature, and all that remains is finding a rich sponsor crazy enough to go through with it.
Whether or not we can find a way to teach a growing AI in a manner that doesn't leave it insane, malevolent, incredibly ADHD, or otherwise unusable is another question.
In terms of adaptive thought comparable to the way we think, yes they certainly can be. As matters stand, the only real impediment to a true artificial intelligence is in terms of the physical technology we have available. Give us a more efficient mode of processing data (using the 32 possible quantum states as opposed to the current binary switches is a popular possibility), or a reasonably available material that is superconductive at or near room temperature, and all that remains is finding a rich sponsor crazy enough to go through with it.
Whether or not we can find a way to teach a growing AI in a manner that doesn't leave it insane, malevolent, incredibly ADHD, or otherwise unusable is another question.
It depends on what you consider to be intelligence. If you want to measure math and computational skills computers are exceptionally intelligent (more so than any person on earth). If you only want to consider the ability of the machine to learn you're already seeing the basics of that now in some programs that remotely track your searches, preferences and what not and adapt. So the answer to that is definitely.
BTW this reminded me of the Brian Herberts prequels to Dune. Very good read.
BTW this reminded me of the Brian Herberts prequels to Dune. Very good read.
Machines already ARE more intelligent than people.
They just don't have any sense of self, yet, so it doesn't matter.
Edit: Oh, and the ability to learn - already been done. It isn't very complex yet, but that's already changing. Sentience... I guess we'll see soon enough.
They just don't have any sense of self, yet, so it doesn't matter.
Edit: Oh, and the ability to learn - already been done. It isn't very complex yet, but that's already changing. Sentience... I guess we'll see soon enough.
Everything you just said to prove that computers have superior brain power to humans still relies on one fundamental flaw - they don't think until we tell them to, and then only within the confines of their programming, which we gave them. Even your concept of genetic algorithms depends entirely on its design, and its categorization and increased accuracy would either be bound by the definitions of its programming or subject to increasing error due to its inability to adapt beyond its programming. If it didn't confuse itself into some kind of catastrophic failure basing an organic process on logic-only programming, it wouldn't break beyond the boundaries of what it was built to do, and therefore would never come close to anything resembling adaptive instinct, let along cognitive thought.FarleShadow said:
I know it's a crude analogy but consider chaos theory: the more complex the system the greater the potential for and extent of the damage that can result from random elements introduced into that system. This is most harmful in computer systems, because of their dependency on their programming and their inability to adapt to it, no matter how advanced that system might be.
Do you think computer viruses are things you can define by biological terms? They're "ghosts in the machine," deliberately crafted errors inserted into a system to break that system in controlled ways.
The fact that human beings are capable of the mental processes that we are without suffering that kind of breakdown is just an example of how we can adapt to the information we process, while a computer still cannot even comprehend it.
They're tools. Not slaves, not thinking devices, tools. And as much information as we give them, they will only ever be tools, even as the complexity of the tasks set before them increases, they will never progress beyond "if x, then y."
learning algorithms already exist already, the real issues creating a smart machine lie in data storage, and using an algorithm to simulate conciousness. Until computer scientists can figure out a theoretical construct for a non-turing-machine, the only kind of artificial intelligence possible will be "dumb AI's" such as siri
The US government sold our surplus crude oil to China, and not a week later, Obama says that there are no "silver bullets" to bring down gas prices. The average electric can opener is already smarter than most people, it seems. Now if we can just rip off Asimov's 3 laws and apply them to literally everything that runs on electricity, we're all set.
My current requirement for a computer intelligence test is that if it can't spit out something like "Fuck this, I'm going to Vegas." when not even remotely programmed to, then it has a mind of its own. I don't actually think this is going to happen. They're gonna keep pawning off fakes.
That all depends.
We're going to become the machines.
Though in some ways, they're already smarter.
We're going to become the machines.
Though in some ways, they're already smarter.
They can't be more intelligent then you make them really. They can calculate faster but they will never understand emotion or anything with random outcomes.
It's not such a black and white issue, there are different levels of intelligence. If a robot is able to do complex mathimatics and such, does that make it more intelligent? In a way yes, but that's not really whats important
Humans are able to look at a situation and process it in ways that is impossible to replicate, we think around the obvious logical answer. We are able to emote, convey feelings, sympathise. That is what makes us a higher intelligence.
Humans are able to look at a situation and process it in ways that is impossible to replicate, we think around the obvious logical answer. We are able to emote, convey feelings, sympathise. That is what makes us a higher intelligence.
Alcamonic said:
Red Dwarf to the rescue!
Anyway, I have a suspicion we will have at least some form of AI pretty soon. Exponential growth in computer power should eventually lead to computers with a similar processing power to a human brain, then it's just a matter of getting the right code in there.