warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I've read claims that quantum tunnelling might play a part in sentience, but I don't think there's any proof for that.
Should AI be regarded as Turing-test verified?
- Thread starter Kyriakos
- Start date
Well, biology has tapped quantum principles many times to get neato and spiffy effects, but even that is well within the scale of physics we're very familiar with
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
It's all very nice: quantum tunnelling, and all that jazz. And whether so-called atoms, molecules, and em, are enough by themselves to explain consciousness.
But none of it helps me explain to myself how I come to be aware of myself sitting here now, typing this.
But none of it helps me explain to myself how I come to be aware of myself sitting here now, typing this.
You people want to see some AI huh? 
Well, here it is.
Given a controller and a game it's never seen before, it learns how to play the game until it outperforms any human.
The scientists just watch.
Link to video.
Google bought it for $500 million.
http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/26/google-deepmind/
Well, here it is.
Given a controller and a game it's never seen before, it learns how to play the game until it outperforms any human.
The scientists just watch.
Link to video.
Google bought it for $500 million.
http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/26/google-deepmind/
^ Wouldn't that prerequisite isomorphic (meant largely as 'compatible') programming between the controller and the game?
Furthermore: obviously there is no consciousness/intelligence involved there, but the programming to identify 'winning' conditions in a game, by the code of another program. You might term it interaction between compatible codes, but it is no more intelligent than the native AI in that game in the first place.
PS: platformers like Donkey Kong (or similar) are entirely linear in regards to a 'win' situation. It won't work in a game with more variables. Eg if the win condition is to kill every soldier the other side has, the program is going to try that, but this leaves it open to all sorts of mischief/traps by humans
Furthermore: obviously there is no consciousness/intelligence involved there, but the programming to identify 'winning' conditions in a game, by the code of another program. You might term it interaction between compatible codes, but it is no more intelligent than the native AI in that game in the first place.
PS: platformers like Donkey Kong (or similar) are entirely linear in regards to a 'win' situation. It won't work in a game with more variables. Eg if the win condition is to kill every soldier the other side has, the program is going to try that, but this leaves it open to all sorts of mischief/traps by humans
I don't know.
It seemed to be creaming all the game opponents it faced.
I'd say that makes it more intelligent than the native AI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeepMind_Technologies
Staring at the screen seems to be its input.
Firaxis should higher these people to make a murderously hard civ game some day.
It seemed to be creaming all the game opponents it faced.
I'd say that makes it more intelligent than the native AI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeepMind_Technologies
Staring at the screen seems to be its input.
Firaxis should higher these people to make a murderously hard civ game some day.
^Interesting However (in my view) :
1) The machine pixel-hunts stuff, and identifies something which to its code is what to us would be the notion of 'endgame'. This does not mean that the machine has such a notion. It merely uses its code in a set way, ie it is not able to differentiate between what winning the game is and what examining what winning the game is (ie it would not function with less linear games).
2) Some early games had more complicated winning conditions too. That Doom is the first with 3d does not at all make it more complicated than a vast number of 80s computer games. That said, i doubt this machine would be able to identify change in environment which keeps altering in smaller areas of it (3d screen is not all of the game's world, just a subset of it, a room etc).
3) I do not see how this routine of identifying pixels (and formulating in code some endgame tactic) lead to any kind of consciousness or intelligence. It is too linear and set. Intelligence seems to always prerequisite an underground to any function one has in immediate consciousness
However (in my view) :1) The machine pixel-hunts stuff, and identifies something which to its code is what to us would be the notion of 'endgame'. This does not mean that the machine has such a notion. It merely uses its code in a set way, ie it is not able to differentiate between what winning the game is and what examining what winning the game is (ie it would not function with less linear games).
2) Some early games had more complicated winning conditions too. That Doom is the first with 3d does not at all make it more complicated than a vast number of 80s computer games. That said, i doubt this machine would be able to identify change in environment which keeps altering in smaller areas of it (3d screen is not all of the game's world, just a subset of it, a room etc).
3) I do not see how this routine of identifying pixels (and formulating in code some endgame tactic) lead to any kind of consciousness or intelligence. It is too linear and set. Intelligence seems to always prerequisite an underground to any function one has in immediate consciousness
Holy Moley. We're in so much trouble if we don't figure out a mechanism to relieve Automation-Induced Unemployment. That software is about four step-changes from being able to get trained on most manual tasks.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Kaitzilla, it's interesting, but it only works with very simple games, from what I remember reading. It couldn't for example figure out how to play a game based on 3D concepts - only 2D ones, and very simple ones at that.
It seems impressive, but it isn't super impressive, once you start looking into the details and how it works.
It seems impressive, but it isn't super impressive, once you start looking into the details and how it works.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
JUST what I thought.
And I am actually sure this will be the future of AI. Constructing an AI from scratch is such an immensely clumsy and lengthy and faulty process.
However, what this also means is that future AI design will probably be highly centralized. With few or the one ultimate super algorithm which gives you the one super AI for any task after a simulation-run.
You'd be surprised at what a short progression it is from Civ to actually ruling the world.
^Interesting
1) The machine pixel-hunts stuff, and identifies something which to its code is what to us would be the notion of 'endgame'. This does not mean that the machine has such a notion. It merely uses its code in a set way, ie it is not able to differentiate between what winning the game is and what examining what winning the game is (ie it would not function with less linear games).
2) Some early games had more complicated winning conditions too. That Doom is the first with 3d does not at all make it more complicated than a vast number of 80s computer games. That said, i doubt this machine would be able to identify change in environment which keeps altering in smaller areas of it (3d screen is not all of the game's world, just a subset of it, a room etc).
3) I do not see how this routine of identifying pixels (and formulating in code some endgame tactic) lead to any kind of consciousness or intelligence. It is too linear and set. Intelligence seems to always prerequisite an underground to any function one has in immediate consciousness
All of this stuff you raise as already been explained here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=539968
"Consciousness" isn't relevant to the issues.
^For me it is. /dealwithit
Srsly, consciousness as a byword here is just meant to allude to the (pretty obvious, in humans at least) presupposition of a nonconscious/deeper/etc strata of the entity which has conscious thinking. So in intelligence worth to be termed thus you again must have calculations not evidently being used consciously in whatever the entity is thinking of/doing.
Otherwise it is just linear, ie bounded and pretty much a trick made to give the illusion of intelligence.
Edit: Another possible (but also problematic due to other reasons and associations with the term) synonym in this context would be 'sense'. Eg an ant likely senses something, in whatever manner (clearly not as humans do). So the ant can be said to have consciousness, despite very likely not having a sense of its own self. It likely senses something.
To sense probably means to not be aware fully of how or why you sense. Ie it is not linear.
Srsly, consciousness as a byword here is just meant to allude to the (pretty obvious, in humans at least) presupposition of a nonconscious/deeper/etc strata of the entity which has conscious thinking. So in intelligence worth to be termed thus you again must have calculations not evidently being used consciously in whatever the entity is thinking of/doing.
Otherwise it is just linear, ie bounded and pretty much a trick made to give the illusion of intelligence.
Edit: Another possible (but also problematic due to other reasons and associations with the term) synonym in this context would be 'sense'. Eg an ant likely senses something, in whatever manner (clearly not as humans do). So the ant can be said to have consciousness, despite very likely not having a sense of its own self. It likely senses something.
To sense probably means to not be aware fully of how or why you sense. Ie it is not linear.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
What if all consciousness is is the illusion of conscioussness? If the illusion is as good as the real thing and you can't tell them apart - wouldn't they be one and the same?
Depends on what level the illusion you refer to is.
Eg:
1) the illusion is that we are 'conscious'
2) the illusion is that there are levels of consciousness<--->non-consciousness
But by direct experience we do know that we are not conscious of all parts supporting any consciousness we have at any given moment. Not just since we do not keep all memories conscious, but moreover due to the evident reality that if we were utilising the same field we would be building each thought as if we had none before. A bit like raising a skyscraper on a single floor, to the sky, not having any foundations below (general parallel, not exact, of course..).
Then again, re the formation of your question:
If we were told there is a final door in a massive building we lived for our entire life, and that door leads to a different world, and we had reason (due to whatever) to believe it was so but (proven later) that it was not, wouldn't it be different in regards to actual external existence of that final door?
(then again the mental impression might be the same in each person; eg if one thinks he killed someone when he only missed him by some margin, he may feel horribly bad because in his mind he indeed killed the other person).
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Kyriakos said:
Don't take it to mean that I believe this - but this.
Maybe the distinction between "illusion of consciousness" and "consciousness" is such that it doesn't make a difference.
Kyriakos said:
If you're analyzing consciousness you can't rely on your personal experience. Can you? I mean, it seems like a huge conflict of interest. How are you going to wrap your head around your own head?
Very important point, yes. Examining our consciousness inherently puts us in the very interesting position to try to examine using that which we are examining. In the end this means that it is potentially dangerous as well, apart from having other (likely not to be resolved) issues.
However, ultimately, the one things we always can instantly tell is that we are conscious, in whatever manner. Descartes focused on thinking, but even if we do not sense (as in the example he created) we still have the prospect of thinking without actually thinking of something at the moment.
For other people we obviously just 'guess' that they also are conscious. Unless we are into solipsism, of course ^^
The illusion can be all over the place, but not in regards to a person at least empirically knowing they have a consciousness.
Similar threads
