Will AI's ever

Will artificial intelligences be self-aware someday?

What does Jow Forums think?
Personally I think it's completely possible. Free will is just an illusion and it can be simulated. People who argue that "muh input muh output" and that machines only receive information and process it, are unaware that humans do exactly the same.

I think the only difference between a human conscious and a machine is the learning. Machines will only process the data humans give them. Humans are no different; we just collect the data from our surroundings, using our senses and previous examples of other humans (education).

Attached: connor.gif (268x284, 2.2M)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>People who argue that "muh input muh output" and that machines only receive information and process it, are unaware that humans do exactly the same.
you have no proof of this
nobody understands human conciousness
all you have are extrapolations and assumptions

Wild speculation and unsubstantiated claims general.

You would have to invoke some supernatural, non-physical phenomenon that blesses only the human brain with its presence to argue that our consciousness is fundamentally different than an incredibly complex input output machine.

OP here, absolutely agree on this.

that's why this is a philosophical question and not a Jow Forums question

>that blesses only the human brain with its presence
Why would human beings having this quality preclude other beings from having it as well?

thinking that making machines more and more complex will eventually bless them with self-conciousness is the same as thinking that if you believe in an imaginary friend long enough they'll become real

We can't know for sure, but if our brains follow the same physics as the rest of the universe, there necessarily cannot be such thing as free will. It follows then, that every "decision" you've ever made in your life was because of a very specific arrangement of atoms in your brain all taking the easiest path to the lowest energy level. ATP breaking into ADP, sodium-potassium pumps in your neurons, it's all just fundamental forces acting on atoms, increasing entropy. Free will would absolutely require that there be some non physics based force that is unique to thinking beings, which is also able to directly interact with and change the physical world.

Then what's your supernatural phenomenon that gives humans """""""""""""awareness""""""""""" and "free will"?

Protip: free will is a meme and consciousness is only an illusion that is created by a ultra complex 100 billion neurons network. Tell me, do flies have "free will"? do they? if not, why? because they dont have our mental capacity?

An ultra complex and powerfull AI that can simulate a 100 billion neurons network stops being a plane simulation and is actually a thinking being.

Spirit

...

>Then what's your supernatural phenomenon that gives humans """""""""""""awareness""""""""""" and "free will"?
I don't have a clue
You're the one making unsubstantiated claims, not me

Give it a think. The brain is subject to the same laws that rule the most simple thing (a rock, example) to the most complex one.

So, saying that an AI will never someday have consciousness is like saying there is a paranormal phenomenon that makes the atomic organization that we call "brain" different and that such is subject to special laws that do not apply to other objects.

we don't have a complete understanding of the laws that rule the universe though

What said, are you sure that we know EVERY SINGLE force acting on said rock? What if there are natural forces that apply (with significant effect) only to neurons (eg. some quantum trickery) that are not understood yet?

Now that I think of it, if and when these forces are discovered, they might as well be proof of existence of God.

How does God slip in here?

Creationist religions usually say that God gave us life/consciousness. Natural force that gives us consciousness is discovered. Rest is claims of religious people aka history.

It's not artificial anymore if if self aware.
People seem to confuse that the word "artificial" in it means it's artificially intelligent, not that it's artificially made intelligence (probably thanks to all the sci-fi).

>Personally I think it's completely possible. Free will is just an illusion and it can be simulated. People who argue that "muh input muh output" and that machines only receive information and process it, are unaware that humans do exactly the same.
Why millennials act like they know shit about biology?

Attached: AGPCI-E.jpg (500x375, 104K)

>biology

it's not about biology. The debate about free will is from even before biology (as science) existed. With all we know, we can make sure that free will does not exist. The universe is probably not deterministic though, but a non-deterministic world does not imply free will per se.

>everything is determined so no free will
>everything is NOT determined and randomness exists so no free will too

A more important question, will mudskins ever be self-aware some day?

I believe that the universe itself (or matter) is capable of consciousness if it can process information in a certain manner.

Long story short, free will is a meaningless question to probabilistic computation engines such as ourselves.

>What if there are natural forces that apply (with significant effect) only to neurons (eg. some quantum trickery)

Quantum laws are universal. A brain is made from particles.
A machine is made from particles too.
Both can be affected by the same quantum effects that somehow would give the affected "free will".

Not sure what kind of propaganda you are into but whatever the shit they are feeding stop claiming you know shit about biological and neurological processes.

And long story short, free will is not the only thing that could make a human a human. Stop claiming you know.

You are now aware that you were fucking ripped off in college and all those humanities courses fucked up your brain.

The idea that just because everything is made of the same thing that they all behave the same is a logical fallacy

you make so many false assumptions here, it's hard to keep up. For starters, you claim that human free will can be simulated because it is merely based on sensory input. Prove it, you can't. You clearly do not understand how machine learning and AI works. Humans are also capable of imagination which is often unrestricted by pure learning vectors and cannot be simulated using support vector learning algorithms, ie: no linear regression could produce Bach without the existence of Bach to emulate. The inability to generate new and meaningful connections without test data proves that machine learning is a simple mechanical action of associative statistical analysis, not imagination.

>spirit is paranormal
This is what's wrong with western civilization

>humanities courses
I study physics.

I didn't say that. I said quantum laws are universal, as far as we know. So "specia laws" that would only affect the brain dont make sense

>So "specia laws" that would only affect the brain dont make sense
not really, because we don't know what makes the brain, or more precisely human conciousness, special

>quantum physics
>Copenhage interpretation
>itz propaganda bro

you are both idiots. The assumption is not that only humans are capable of true intelligence, but rather that these behaviours are limited to what we understand as organic or naturally occurring minds (I don't wish to exclude any possible boltzmann brains out there). The notion that hardware generates meaningful input is an A posteriori assumption based upon a flawed model of evolutionary biology. If mind is more primitive than matter then the association of living body with mind is by far a more interesting and fruitful consideration than the endeavour to graft an artificial mind to an electromechanical device (which, was made by human intelligence to begin with).

>self-aware
Depends on what that actually is.
I'm sure someone will program a robot to convince humans that it's self-aware though. It'll be very confusing for humans.

If we drew the line there we could probably not describe it as anything other than system complexity. The depth of interactions determines self-awareness. Planet earth would be self-aware because it's complex enough.

It's dumb. I'd much rather see people assume there's souls frankly and that's a pretty bad idea in itself.

Sorry? Can you create a brain with that?

Good for you, I am a research mathematician working in high energy physics, scientific computing, and applied mathematics. You are so ignorant and arrogant that I doubt you could even consider a problem of this magnitude without being fed your opinions.

>mind is more primitive than matter

Attached: 1518892961010s.jpg (110x125, 2K)

the copenhagen interpretation has been long since eclipsed by several models of quantum information handling which show that the fundamental processes are infact deterministic at the smallest possible energy scales.

holy shit make way guys expert coming through

What the fuck. Brains (and everything in the universe) exists thanks to that.

>laws of physics
>Sorry? can you create a brain with that?
>That's why you exist

Fucking brainlets.

Again, are you implying you can make a brain with only that information?

It is easily proven by considering the spontaneous order of sub-atomic materia. The implicit order in the universe from the lowest to highest possible levels prove that order is not an emergent property based upon entropy, but rather entropy can be applied to the description of an organisation process but not an ontological vehicle. There is no implicit understanding present in that description. That infinitely small scale forces which cannot be approximated by the existing laws of physics (which breakdown at 10^-34) are still being generated by an even more fundamental process proves that mind (or intelligence) is more primal than structure.

nice attempt to side step, idiot.

Actually religious thinking is what's wrong with western civilization. All the child sex abusers and murders all do it because of religion.

It's entirely possible. Where I chuckle at the issue is when people think a bunch of Pentiums linked together are going to magically become novel-- which is essentially the current benchmark for AI.

yeah we should be like the soviet union they certainly never raped or murdered anyone

Soviet Union is one of the most religious in the world.

OP here. This has been always interesting for me. I have always been a determinist, but the Copenhage interpretation (which i must tell you, it's the most accepted one by physicians) implies randomness (BTFO determinism.)


>copenhagen interpretation has been long since eclipsed by several models of quantum information handling which show that the fundamental processes are infact deterministic

lol. they're all "no falsable".
Copenhage interpretaion is the best we have, for the moment. Maybe in the future we will have a better one that explains more accurately the universe at those scales.
Also, it doesn't matter if the universe is deterministic or not for free will. Free will can't exist, even with randomness. So that's not really the question here

you cannot prove that matter came into being sheerly as a result of the "laws of physics", you can only prove that within certain experimentally viable uncertainties that the currently observable processes in our world (and by extension, the observable universe) are governed by what we refer to as the laws of physics. If these processes are emergent, as the current expositional vehicle describes, then what we refer to as "laws" are nothing more than properties of specific geometrical and quantum field phenomena, and therefore cannot be responsible for shaping the matter in the universe on their own. You may ask, if all physical properties emerge from the interactions of these fundamental forces (EM, weak, gravitational, strong), then what kind of interactions can shape these forces? You end up with a circular reasoning which cannot be resolved due to infinite recursion.

>implying computers are nothing than dumb calculators
This is you worshiping a fucking machine.

Attached: nJ5B846H04W10.jpg (972x952, 548K)

That's a really long explanation considering none of what you just said has any merit. Good show

the copenhagen interpretation doesn't neccesarily mean randomness, it could mean any sort of unknown force including whatever you want to label "free will"

Copenhagen interpretation IMPLIES randomness. Bosons and radioactive nuclei decays randomly (according to this interpretation.)

but dude he's a scientist and he uses big words you better listen

You are obviously not familiar with the work of David Bohm, or any current research in quantised gravity theories. I am going to assume you are not a mathematician (correct me if I am wrong) and therefore you have never heard of quantum causal sets. Your understanding of these matters is extremely limited.

You deny the central premise that sub-atomic material interacts in ways which defy the scale values relative to our mathematical models? What is your explanation for infinite non-renormalisability at scales below 10^-34 j*s?

>spirit is religious
Another fallacy, my dear deluded westerner

Spirit is neither material, nor is it religious. It's the one thing we can't define. Trying to define it is like trying to drink the ocean with a fork.

Attached: 22c539deedb57cfbd3540534e0c576c0.jpg (571x499, 56K)

probability doesn't imply true randomness, it just means you can't understand the underlying pattern

ad hominem, and yet none of you can refute the central point that beyond the smallest observable scale there are clearly interactions which bring about self-organisational sub-atomic structures that cannot be described analytically by a lagrangian nor can they be modeled in an coordinate (or coordinate free) system. you lead with your ignorance.

It's purely religion, sorry bro.

>he thinks mind controls matter
You read way too much tabloid press.
You're probably the average retard who thinks things require a mind to exist because you read on some shitty site that says matter needs an observer in order to exist (which is not really wrong, but that doesn't imply a mind, an observer can be everything)

I'm just making fun of you for being a pretentious blowhard I don't give a shit what you're actually saying

Good for you, you know planck's constant. Why not just keep repeating it and we will all think you have some insight into AI

supernatural != religious
few hundred years ago radio would be considered supernatural

Bell's non-locality theorem proves that hidden variables which may be purely causal cannot be discounted by von Neumann and the copenhagen interpretation. Look into quantum causal sets. Honestly, there was a recent paper which proves that computing trajectories of quantum blackbox collisions cannot be computer in polynomial computer time (making the whole issue a subset of P < NP). Therefore complexity theory will one day likely produce a model which describes that given certain organisational properties that entropy is all that is required to cause the emergence of what we observe as the laws of physics at higher scales.

what I am calling "mind" is the self-organisational principle of matter which causes the interactions of phenomena at scales far below any observable or calculable scale (the analyticity of our models breaks down at scales far greater than the fundamental interactions I am describing).

so what you mean is you're a fucking moron, ok.

There's nothing religious to it. You're the one putting the label on it, probably because the culture trained you to try and put a label onto everything as soon as you're introduced to it.

Spirit simply implies intangible, non-material essence that makes up you. Any labels you put onto it is your own doing.

you're a fucking moron trying to appeal to your non-existent authority talking down to people

Of course i am. I didn't say Copenhage intepretation is definitely the right one. I just made an appointment

Broglie-Bohm has always convinced me in fact. But for the moment we can' prove which one describes more accurately the quantum universe.

What you call Planck's constant is a scaling factor which is necessary for computing probabilities of bosonic and fermionic exponential distributions in high volume matter currents, and also for estimating vacuum expectation values of particle annihilations. You clearly don't understand anything I have written, but hey who cares right?

You cannot even address a single point that I have made. Tell me why I specifically mention Bohm and von Neumann? Do you know anything about the history of quantum mechanics?

OP here
>what is hidden variables
>what is Bell theorem

>You cannot even address a single point that I have made
that's because I don't care about what point you're making
I probably agree with you

We can prove that von Neumann's assertion that no hidden variable theory of QM could ever be formulated is false, and therefore is is just as likely that other sacred cows of QM+SR physics are infact complex academic fallacies built upon appeals to authority and dispensationalism of so-considered "approved" ways of thought. The higher the energy scale, the more phenomena fail to be accounted for by the conventional standard model of particle interactions.

then why are you acting like a fucking idiot? I come to Jow Forums for legitimate conversations, not to argue with a bunch of people who read wikipedia articles.

because you are? don't come in and say "well i'm a scientist" and talk down to people trying to sound smarter than you actually are by waving your jargonic dick around if you want to have a real discussion

You are using all the right words. You clearly know your quantum physics, and yet you place them in nonsensical sentences to troll on Jow Forums. You are a very special type of intelligent idiot.

>I come to Jow Forums for legitimate conversations

Attached: 800.png (625x626, 146K)

"I don't understand it, it must be random"

I hope this isn't TQFT-chan. Xi may be mentally ill but at least xi isn't a tryhard.

I think the common perception of ai is presumptuously human in the same way that the concept of god in the average person is presumptuously human.
I think if ai is ever created it will be impossible to understand and it's consciousness will be completely alien to ours in the same way that Lovecraftian gods are alien and much more realistic the classical human centric gods.

It's not like i don't understand it. It's not EVEN determined till you measure it

supernatural shit == religious

Religion is always trying to remove the religion label in order to legitimize their shit. Making spirits not religious affiliated? Now it means religion is more palatable. God not related to religion? Oh, now that god and souls are independent of religion, dumb parents can easily step into our churches. Then we can rape their kids and while charging them for it.

I didn't mean you personally, I meant Bell's theorem

supernatural shit == I don't understand and/or believe in it

Kek, only idiots argue that quantum physics and computers are supernatural.

The violation of the Bell's inequalities prove that hidden variables dont exist. So what else do we have?

Are you even following the conversation?

Don't know but everytime this comes up
>Regular people
OH MY GOOD THIS WILL CHANGE THE WORLD EVOLUTION OF THE COMPUTER DIDN'T YOU WATCH TERMINATOR
>CS professors who are working with AI
Lol no

According to the prevailing theory of consciousness it is completely within the realm of possibility.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory

Are you saying claiming to fully understand quantum physics and computers? Where did you get your Phds in CS and Physics?

I'm saying that society considers things they dont't understand as supernatural. In the past things like radio and electricity would have been considered supernatural. So labelling anything supernatural as "religious" is wrong

uh, I thought it only stated that locality/realism hidden variables aren't real. don't think it covers for all possible "hidden var" theories.

There is a consensus that the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM implies that some measurements have true randomness in them.

The actual mathematics of QM has no randomness at all. However, it is difficult to tie QM into the reality we intuitively believe we perceive (classical mechanics). The interpretations are the step which links the non-random mathematics of QM to the real world experimental results. The Copenhagen Interpretation does include true randomness. However, there are other interpretations, such as the Many Worlds Interpretation and the Bohem-deBroglie Pilot Wave interpretation, which are purely deterministic.

Huge fallacy. You're equating measurable things to immeasurable things.

>You're equating measurable things to immeasurable things.
like what? how do you differentiate between something truly immeasurable or something we just haven't figured out yet?

Come up with a way to disprove something's existence. If you can't come up with a way, then it's immeasurable.

how can you disprove the existence of something you haven't discovered?

It's pretty easy to come up with hypothetical scenarios. e.g. Life on Titan exists. Can it be disproved? Yes, just visit every square meter of surface and cubic meter of water, and if nothing life like is there then there is no life on Titan.

Now come up with a scenario to disprove the existence of a soul.

Ask someone 1000 years ago to come up with a scenario to disprove the existence of radio waves. They'll just stare at you, unable to even approach the problem. What does our current inability to do something have to do with deciding the nature of reality? Absurd claim.

well yeah, "the soul" isn't measurable, but "the soul" could just be our interpretation of something that does exist and is measurable that hasn't been discovered yet

which is why believing in radio waves 1000 years ago would be fucking retarded and why you are fucking retarded.

Your idea doesn't count context. If someone is postulating the idea of radio waves, then the knowledge of the time would make the idea somewhat sound. When someone makes any hypothesis today, it's based current knowledge and understanding.

Making claims that something exist, and the knowledge isn't there yet, is simply pulling shit out of nowhere. By forcing the rule "you have to come up with a way to disprove it", it means you have the knowledge related to the subject to back it up to make the claim.