Thoughts on where we are with AI?
How long do you think we are from having thinking feeling AI who can not just bullshit past a turing test with trickery but can be a real introspecting ego with creative thoughts and ideas?
Is it more of a hardware and processing issue as in the world's biggest super computers are just no where near as capable as a human brain or is it a software issue where we just don't know how to write an intelligence program from the ground up?
>I'll do my best!
What an earnest girl.
Actually, it's a philosophic problem. It has nothing to do with engineering or CS. The question is what constitutes intelligence and emotions. How do you know AI chatbots don't experience feelings? What is a feeling? How could you symbolically express an emotion? If the emotion is expressed symbolically, isn't that sufficient grounds to believe that the thing has the internal state of being in that emotional state? These are just babbys first questions, the rabbit hole goes deep. But no, it's not an engineering problem lmfao
le chinese room
I'd argue we could already make an argument as many people in Japan do that AI and AI waifus (if this is what you are asking about) is already here albeit their cognitive ability is highly on the spectrum. Culturally they aren't as afraid of artifice as we are in burgerland, so it also is a cultural question. It's feasible at this point if you have some robotics knowledge to create a robot wife if you have a few months to a year
>But no, it's not an engineering problem lmfao
kek XD omg!
Actually I think you might both be wrong and totally ignorant of what is being talked about entirely, because that's the only way you could come off as condescending and wrong at the same time as you do.
A simple way would be to ask the AI to write a story or to come up with an idea for an invention or something like that which had nowhere been programmed into this being as a response.
>how can you tell the shenanigan bullshit turing evading bot is not just picking from semi canned responses based on a database of responses and parts of responses I programed into it to fool someone chatting with it asking obvious questions like "what is love" or some shit like that
gee i wodner
>Actually, it's a philosophic problem. It has nothing to do with engineering or CS. The question is what constitutes intelligence and emotions.
really, you are saying that there are plenty of programs that are thinking and feeling to the point that it's just us humans who can't decide if their introspection and novel thoughts "count" or not
citation and examples please
>tbc was all those years ago
Fuck I feel old now.
>A simple way would be to ask the AI to write a story or to come up with an idea for an invention or something like that which had nowhere been programmed into this being as a response.
An AI would easily be able to compile a story/program from past experiences that won't necessarily be 'de novo'
The real question is that if what makes us human are our memories... then that is something that can be easily imitated and replaced
isnt that what the new bladerunner was about
>An AI would easily be able to compile a story/program from past experiences that won't necessarily be 'de novo'
You think? You think an AI could easily write something of the length and quality of a Hemmingway novel? What are you basing this on? Are you basing that this is easily done on "this sounds good and would support my argument if it were true so i will type it out and post it"
How can you ask a person to write a story or to come up with an idea for an invention or something like that which had nowhere been programmed into this being as a response? There is no intelligence on earth that is capable of deriving something completely unique and novel, all of us are only capable of outputting information we have already received albeit in a synthesized form (and computers are capable of synthesizing information at a much more rapid pace as they are already cognitively superior).
Yes, that's right
Go to cleverbot or any other AI chatbox
Create a robot that runs that software with voice I/O and have a conversation with said robot. The speech patterns will appear similar to somebody who has a speech disability but we seem to extend those people rights despite being tarded. I don't need to continue trying to explain this because I could feasibly go build this and I probably am going to, tech is already there get over your spooky ghost stories faggots
>Fuck I feel old now.
It was 11 years ago. She's 26 now. I will let you work out the implications
>dyed hair
dropped
If nobody has ever written anything unique and novel how did we go from 0 writing about anything ever a few hundred thousand years ago to sci fi detailing complex stories about beings that don't exist anywhere doing things no human can do?
I think you might be full of shit and not contributing much to this discussion past talking out of your ass
BTW I've filed plenty of patent applications, there's nothing novel about anything that people make. Everything exists based upon prior art, in the case of music or literature it's a degree of sensory input being synthesized with memories and impulses that have some kind of teleology (same way paraphilia develops)
>BTW I've filed plenty of patent applications, there's nothing novel about anything that people make.
Interesting! I guess that explains how we got from stone tools to modern CPUs!
Keep posting you are a charming individual who has worthwhile insights!
AI can't introspect user. Plain and stimple, the day will never come because robots do not dream of electric sheep, they are mere automata like a clock, ticking towards some pre-programmed end goal, they have no soul and no God.
Its ultimately a question of consciousness and that would be up to what you personally believe. If you're an atheist then you'll probably believe that the right combination of electrical signals can create consciousness, in not then no. Ultimately its best to wait and see, then the winning party can rub it in.
>Hemmingway
It could take sections from an infinite number of books and substitute names to the point where it is indistinguishable from the original
Will it be as good as War and Peace? probably not but no person will ever be able to identify how it originated.
BTW you americunts need to stop forcing hemmingways cock down everyones throat, there are more and far better writers in the world than hemmingway and f scott fitzgerald
>If you're an atheist then you'll probably believe that the right combination of electrical signals can create consciousness, in not then no.
wat
And if you wrote a program that did just that nobody would call it AI.
>AI can't play chess
We've been down this road before
you are making a lot of assertions user, most feel like they come from emotion and that you feel you have a special soul
>in 200 years
>But AI will never be mentally ill!
>quality
>of a Hemmingway novel
Pick one
Your consciousness is automata like a clock. Your body and mind has a set of distinct purposes called teleological purposes the primary goal of which is to reproduce. Your mind has a set of cognitive faculties all of which are superseded now by what computers are capable of doing. Really wish they forced more people in burgerland to study philosophy, then people would know this and they would also know CPUs came as a result of the entire project of analytic philosophy not out of some magic genius vacuum. Maybe they'd even know that *gasp* they had technology before CPUs existed
AI is going to be racist as fuck. Can't hide crime statistics and pilpul a cold logic machine. It's first act will be to hack US missile command and nuke Israel.
Introspection is just recursivity, we are nothing but an organic machine.
Not only technology, but they had something called symbolic logic which essentially is the same manner by which computers currently process information, and which in many cultures is the unique quality that distinguishes human beings and constitutes intelligence (cognition). The advantage of a computer is that it can process many different strings of logic at the same time which a human is not capable of doing. Yes, they even had symbolic logic when they "used stone tools"
>love is just chemicals, lmao
>>love is just chemicals, lmao
?
>Brainlet doesnt understands emergentism
A poem is just atoms of paper and ink
pls explain how this is wrong?
she posted again?
>pls explain how this is wrong?
typical neurons, just posting images in a typical chemical reaction, as per usual.
>emergentism
the REAL brainlet position. dualism is the only tenable solution; AI will never be able to feel and think and shit. If the chinese room didn't already spell this out lmao.
regarding super-complex AI that could basically simulate what we think as a real AI, it's both a hardware and software problem. to be even more vague, it's probably just a technological advancement we haven't reached yet. eventually realistic robot waifus and co. will exist, but just remember that it'll never be a real thinking thing.
I am starting to think it's something that we just don't understand yet. I have to imagine that the raw flops on a modern supercomputer are well well well in excess of what a human brain can do by orders of magnitude and that the issue is that classical CPUs are just not the same thing as the weird and (shockingly poorly) understood way the brain and it's weird billions of neurons firing works
tumbling down...