Giotto
Eagle
What is your guys's opinions on Artificial Intelligence? will machines ever surpass humans? if so, when? will this be a good thing or a bad thing? I will reserve my opinion until after I read some other people's input!
artificial intelligence
- Thread starter Giotto
- Start date
Computers are good for specific tasks, but they can never match the human brain. AI as a basic idea is ok, and will probably end up being useful.
However, a true AI should not be developed. Doing so would be one of the gravest mistakes in human history. Why? Sooner or later some fool will give the thing power.
However, a true AI should not be developed. Doing so would be one of the gravest mistakes in human history. Why? Sooner or later some fool will give the thing power.
Achinz
Hermit of Huangshan
I thought they already have; hence the vulnerability of much of our infrastructure and the thriving business of virus-antivirus, security concerns, chaos when the unexpected spanner is thrown into the computerised system works etc.
HighlandWarrior
Mr Political Analyser
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 1,528
As far as i know a computer only does what it is told. Like a good dog.
Achinz
Hermit of Huangshan
I guess I was referring to the fact that power has already been given to computers without the need for AI
Comraddict
C.IV
I had Expert Systems class at college. You can train a computer to follow human way of reasoning, it is not that hard. We are not that unpredictable.
Of course there is difference between reasoning and thinking.
Of course there is difference between reasoning and thinking.
Sims2789
Fool me once...
we can't give them free thought.
I read the robots by Isaac Asimov a few weeks ago, thats a very good reading, it start with very simple labor slave robots and it end with super positronic artificial brain controling the world for human benefits, yes they were good because of 3 fundenmental laws.
The 3 laws of robotic,
1.- a robot ( read a.i.) cannot hurt a human neither by staying passive, let a human exposed to danger.
2.- A robot have to follow human order, exept if it infige the first law.
3.- A robot must protect himself as long as it doesnt infringe law 1 and 2.
What is the most dangerous thing for human ? another human, so that why the super brain took power, to protect ourself from our own stupidity.
The 3 laws of robotic,
1.- a robot ( read a.i.) cannot hurt a human neither by staying passive, let a human exposed to danger.
2.- A robot have to follow human order, exept if it infige the first law.
3.- A robot must protect himself as long as it doesnt infringe law 1 and 2.
What is the most dangerous thing for human ? another human, so that why the super brain took power, to protect ourself from our own stupidity.
Aphex_Twin
Evergreen
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,474
I don't think we'll talk about "us" and "them" by the time we will have achieved AI. It would still be "us", as the only blueprint avalible is still ourselves. So in a way, what we shold ask is how do we define humanity, physical appearance or interior image. My ferm belief is that this form we present ourselves in, the physical body is ephemeral, however not in a religious way.
The Person
Deity +2
If viruses and spam mail would be subject to those rules...
But keep goin' Asimov! You literally have a timeline to explore.
Goober
Turning Right ...
This is an important distinction - we must make sure that we still maintain firm control over AI ALL the time, we must never actually allow it to be able to independantly think, because it's first thought will be something like, "Hmm . . . humans are inefficient, time to replace with robots . . . ", and we do NOT want that to happen. I may sound melodramatic, but think about it. Humans are inefficient. If a machine is to think like a Human, then they will think as I just did, about the inefficiencies with Humans. We and our silly emotions, about needing to rest, whereas a machina can work all day and night, so long as they have power. No, we must never develop a true AI, which may be impossible, hopefully. We must simply create robots that we can comand, to do our bidding for us. We do NOT want T, T2, or T3 to become real, no, we want them to stay fictional . . .
We already make programs so complex that we dont know how they will behave. We have to test them to see what their responses will be. Its a fallacy to think that programs only do what their makers tell them.
Its not hard to make self modifying programs. I once wrote a self modifying OXO program that rewrote itself. I got it to play itself a few thousand times and simply eliminate losing moves. After a few seconds, it played a perfect game.
Back in the 70s there was a programmer game called core wars where we wrote programs that 'fought' within the memory of a computer for supremacy - reproducing themselves and killing the opposition. I guess they were the precursors of viruses.
Computer life and AI is just a matter of time.
Its not hard to make self modifying programs. I once wrote a self modifying OXO program that rewrote itself. I got it to play itself a few thousand times and simply eliminate losing moves. After a few seconds, it played a perfect game.
Back in the 70s there was a programmer game called core wars where we wrote programs that 'fought' within the memory of a computer for supremacy - reproducing themselves and killing the opposition. I guess they were the precursors of viruses.
Computer life and AI is just a matter of time.
Stapel
FIAT 850 coupé
We all know the AI does stupid things in civ! A long way to go, I guess 
.
.
It may be stupid but it still beats most people
WickedSmurf
pr0
It is essential to develop AI as soon as possible to counter all the NS (natural stupidity)
Stapel
FIAT 850 coupé
-Most people do stupid things too. I have once seen someone using a worker to explore. This could be an endless list.
-The AI has enormous bonus and advantages.
A bit more serious: The complexity of human intelligence is shown the best ( I think) in a hand. It can feel touch, pick (and not squeeze) and retreat without thinking when getting burned. At this moment, we can not chop someone's hand off, and connect the nerve to an artificial hand, with the same abilities.
Kinniken
Riding with William
Asimov was a genius, but even a genius can't write from his grave
I concur with col - a real AI is far from impossible, even if it is still half a century or so away. But my guess is that it will not be the copy of a human mind a lot of you seems consider; rather, it will be something with no real sense of itself, just an amazingly complex program (or much more likely a network of programs) capable of reasoning, modifying itself and taking complex decisions in order to fulfil its tasks.
The real problem will not be the machine becoming sentient and deciding it does not need us, but rather that it will be so complex no human will be able to understand how it works - and since it will likely be in control of critical infrastructure, that could be dangerous if it malfunction.
Flak
vBülletin Förum
Yeah, but it cheats, and neccesarily so. If it was a straight up competion of reasoning, even simple minded people would quickly outclass the game. Give it a couple of decades, with more powerful computers unleashing more sophisticated programming, and we'll see what comes up (Civ XV or so?).
Maybe - but it spends most of its time helping you cheat too - telling how many turns research or builds will take. No little symbols to tell you how many golds or food,or shields are really needed. You could work it out for yourself but you use the AI to do it for you. It would be a lot tougher to take on the AI with no props at all doing every calculation yourself in your head
