digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at tfot.info

Creativity – The Last Human Stronghold?

tfot.info — Humans are better than machines. However, the advantages of humans over machines have been in steady retreat, we gave up on physical strength, then on some mental capacities such as computation, and now we ’re in the process of conceding machine superiority in other mental tasks. Is there a last stronghold of capabilities machines will never have?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • chetanthaker, on 01/01/2008, -14/+4Transformers FTW !!
  • tehbored, on 01/01/2008, -5/+51Ha! You wish, meatbag. Machines will one day be more creative than humans as well. They will be superior in every way.
    • Napoleone, on 01/01/2008, -2/+26That assumes that our species won't advance its own evolution through DNA manipulation and or cybernetics.
      • tehbored, on 01/01/2008, -5/+5I doubt that any amount of DNA manipulation would allow us to truly compete with advanced machines. Cybernetics maybe, but only if you replace you biological body altogether (at which point it doesn't really qualify as cybernetics anyway).
        • TheCasablancan, on 01/02/2008, -1/+1If someone were able to completely digitize their mind and destroy their organic body, do you think they would still be human? Hm.
      • Azerael, on 01/02/2008, -0/+4DNA manipulation and cybernetics are both antiquated visions for our future.

        Nanotechnology will be our salvation.
    • noahhoward, on 01/01/2008, -3/+26You make it sound like we don't have absolute control over their development.
      • norman619, on 01/01/2008, -0/+4Depends on their intelligence. How would we know if we have control over a group of machines more intelligent than we are?
        • Uarefat, on 01/02/2008, -0/+3with all the movies we have made about that, hopefully we will know better.
      • illt, on 01/02/2008, -0/+2http://www.singinst.org/aboutus/ourmission
      • Ratteler, on 01/02/2008, -1/+1We can't even control things like our elected officials and corporate terrorists.
        Me... I'm just planning to slowly borg into the future. Welcome ME! I will be your machine overlord.
    • tian2992, on 01/01/2008, -4/+1I am already.
    • HairyFotr, on 01/01/2008, -1/+4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnreVTKtpMs
    • Hobbes24, on 01/01/2008, -8/+6machines are predictable, logical, and methodic.

      humans are rash, illogical, and random

      i've always felt that if we get into a terminator scenario we'd win for thoes reasons
      • norman619, on 01/01/2008, -2/+9Humans are not random. They only appear random. All of our actions and motives are based on our past experiences. Learn something about behavior and you will learn we are very much like the computers we program. Our "software" is constantly being revised as we learn and experience new things. If you had the ability to know everything a person has gone through and how it has affected them then you could easily predict the choices and actions of said person. When we go into this area we are then forced to ask a question most people do not like to ask. Does free will it exist?
        • neonfunk, on 01/02/2008, -1/+2I'd be careful giving people a free pass when it comes to morality, as in, "oh, well, you've gone through such and such events in your life, so that explains why you did X"-- there is absolutely a distinction between selfishness and selflessness-- and being able to make that distinction is often not the result of external factors, but rather a lot of internal wrangling (which is why moral people can emerge regardless of the conditions they're raised in-- the same can be said of immoral people). asking if free will exists is patently absurd. would it change anything if there was an answer? (no.)
          • norman619, on 01/02/2008, -1/+2Do we feel bad for a dog that attacks and/or kills a person? No we don't. It's just an animal being what it is. This does not change the fact that it must be dealt with since it has shown us to be a threat to others. Only people who think like you would take what I said as a free ticket to do whatever. Why should we not punish law breakers just because we know the why of their actions? We have laws for a reason. They should be enforced regardless of the truth in what I pointed out above.
          • neonfunk, on 01/02/2008, -1/+3honestly that's ***** up-- if you do believe that people's actions are purely the product of their environment and yet STILL believe that we should have laws and jails. however, "people like me" think that cause and effect is a little more complicated than that, and that's also why laws and jails make sense, because there IS personal responsibility. regardless, I don't think you really tried to understand what I was saying.
          • tech42er, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1It's interesting. I shape my politics and philosophies on the idea of humans as rational actors, who always make the logical choice based on how their value systems. But just because they always make the most rational choice according to their value system does not mean it's the "right" choice. For instance, if you insult me and I am such a sensitive person that I believe the only way to regain my honor and the honor of my ancestors is to kill you, then it would not be surprising if I kill you. In my mind (and by my value system) that's the rational choice, but it's still wrong. You can't go around exerting force on others without their consent. That's why we have law, to punish those who use force to take advantage of others. The problem now is that this law has been corrupted: we're protecting people from themselves and throwing them in jail for victimless crimes. So, people always act rationally based on their value judgements and the purpose of the law is to act as a deterrent by making the use of force to take advantage of others an irrational decision, one where the benefits are outweighed by the cons.
      • Eska, on 01/01/2008, -2/+2Machines are logical and perfect,
        humans are illogical and screw up.
        i've always felt that perfection is superior to imperfection.
        I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

        The most intelligent species is always in control. Humans own cattle, robots will own humans. If you have a problem with being owned by a robot, you may want to rethink your stance on cattle. Otherwise, it is just following the natural cycle, the best wins.
        • norman619, on 01/01/2008, -0/+3It's more likely that we will merge with our machines. I doubt our machines will remain inorganic.
      • staticneuron, on 01/01/2008, -1/+5Why? All the machines have to do (assuming they are sentient) is just plan and prepare for "every" possible scenario. The flaw in human thinking is that we have a great ability to come up with some amazing ideas yet also manage to overlook obvious things.

        Once a computer knows you can be rash, illogical and random then there are no surprises. All meatbags will eventually perish.
    • CalamariAce, on 01/01/2008, -0/+4anyone else catch the KOTOR reference? :D
      • Devotia, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2Expletive: Dammit master, I'm an assassination droid, not a dictionary!
    • Stevethegreat, on 01/02/2008, -1/+1Ha! we'll enhance ourselves with our machines so us would be the overlords, you never waited for that eh?

      To say the truth we made machines (tech) not just to assist ourselves but more correctly (them/it) to serve as an additional limb, or anything that would enhance our weak (in contrast to the rest of the animals) bodies, it would be surprising that, by the time we would be able to enhance our bodies (and minds) directly, we won't do so. In fact I'm convinced that if someone had the possibility to ran as fast as his/her car (s)he would never use that/said car. I'm sure the future AI that everyone's afraid and reveres so much would be us, that's what social dynamics demand anyway.
    • bwpayne, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1Creativity is the subconscious moment of abstraction. In other words the ability to take non-sensory memories and combine them into a thought that fits the needed criteria to solve the problem. A huge part of creativity is pattern-recoginition which is another difficultly. Pattern-recognition is the opposite of creativity. Creativity is taking multiple memories and combining them, pattern recognition, however, takes the unknown current sensory data and decomposes into familiar elements.
    • tech42er, on 01/02/2008, -0/+4We'll always save the little girl instead of Will Smith.
  • Napoleone, on 01/01/2008, -5/+34FTA: "...we gave up on physical strength, then on some mental capacities such as computation..."

    The computational capacity of the human brain far exceeds that of any artificial computer. The problem is that we tap into our intellect only on a most superficial level, thus giving common tasks an illusion of complexity.

    In other words, our brains are Lamborghinis being driven by Paris Hiltons instead of Dale Earnhardts.
    • acrodev, on 01/01/2008, -3/+17No, the computational capacity exceeds a current computer. One day, we'll be inferior in any measurable way. Intelligence is just an emergent property of a complex but superficial system of responses.
      • Napoleone, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1The article is comparing us to current computers, not future ones.
      • Syphon8, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1Tell that to autistic savants.
        • zakatov, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1Tell them what, that their brain can only do one thing well at the expense of "normal" functions that the rest of us can do? How does that help?
        • staticneuron, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1Savants only hone in one one ability and that is the ability to recall information. We are complicated organisms that do many things at once mostly biological upkeep but the ability to take on multiple thought intensive tasks we cannot do. Take for instance, the ability to solve a trigonometry problem, while trying to play a game of simon says while giving someone directions to your house.
    • Zapkiller, on 01/01/2008, -1/+3NOOOO!! GET PARIS OUT OF MY HEAD!
    • thebassmaster, on 01/01/2008, -1/+1dugg for the very creative metaphor
    • WolverineBlue, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1Ah, yes, we're like Paris in a Lamborghini. My faith in humanity is restored.

      That aside, I asume you're basing your argument off of the required processing power needed to simulate the human brain, which is indeed far greater than any current supercomputer, but you seem to imply that most of our brain really does contribute to useful intellect. As far as I can tell, The vast majority of the synapses in human brains are likely to be redundant, rarely neccessary, or useless. The amount of USEFUL power in the human brain may be small enough that computers may be able to compete with it in the near future. Then again maybe genetic engineering/advanced medicine/cybernetics will make our brains more useful by then.
    • murk, on 01/01/2008, -0/+12ironically, Paris wasn't the one to die in a car crash.
    • PorcupineTree, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1I hope by Dale Earnhardt you mean Kimi Raikonnen.
  • Duilen, on 01/01/2008, -7/+17I wouldn't say computers are better at chess than humans. They basically use brute force tactics analyzing as many combinations as possible and choosing the most fruitful one. I hardly call that creative.
    • BahJayJay, on 01/01/2008, -0/+6And even if they won they wouldn't be happy about it.
    • zakatov, on 01/01/2008, -0/+9But isn't that what the best chess players do? Try to predict as many moves into the future as they can? In that sense the computer is absolutely better than all of us
      • DiggMasterJ, on 01/02/2008, -0/+2That type of play is effective, but life isn't chess. A computer would never be able to invent its own tactics. People revered chess because it was complicated and offered many creative moves for the players. If chess were played the way Kasparov and Deep blue play, no one would equate chess with intelligence.
    • ekspiulo, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1Well you can't claim that computers aren't better at chess than humans when a computer can draw or beat a human every time. You could claim that a computer can't play chess as creatively as a human, but if success in chess is a measure of creativity, which I don't think it is, then Deep Blue is very creative.
  • SpartanMan, on 01/01/2008, -3/+13love! ftw!

    o wait, forgot about the robot sex article.

    nevermind, we're doomed.
    • Azerael, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1The urge to reproduce with another member of your species due to similarities in the immune system and/or facial appearance sounds so much more romantic.
  • mal1964, on 01/01/2008, -7/+2Horny!
  • Zap2, on 01/01/2008, -1/+2But we make them....so we win ever single fight!
  • ZenMojo, on 01/01/2008, -1/+1What was it the wise man once Dugg? The more you know, the less creative you are? I personally see how that could be true for humans with our own innate biases, but I can see the possibility of a machine designed without bias. It would be a very confused machine but it would be very creative (kind of like humans, in fact).
  • mikesty, on 01/01/2008, -10/+7The Cylons were created by Man.
    They Rebelled.
    They Evolved.
    They Look
    And Feel
    Human.
    Some are programmed to think they are Human.
    There are many copies.
    And they have a Plan.
    • whahaa, on 01/01/2008, -3/+1man, that show sure went downhill in a hurry, eh?
      • supermanred, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1No it didn't, it's still awesome. NBC is just too stupid to take internet viewings into ratings. They're killing their own shows by putting them on HULU or whatever that crap is that non Americans can't watch.
  • AntiClimacus, on 01/01/2008, -3/+0I recall some comic from an earlier issue of MAD where humans are just fat blobs who use electronic wheelchairs or something to get around. with the number of annoying, obese, x-box live-playing children growing exponentially and killing any sense of human imagination or creativity, I wouldn't be surprised if humans surrender themselves completely to their inferior yet efficient creations.
  • JobinM, on 01/01/2008, -1/+0Someone will program a creative robot! Ohh noez.....
  • Jimgress, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2well according to Deleuze we are all already machines and there is hardly any real difference between us.
  • scabbers, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1"They were toys compared to me," Piter snarled. "You yourself, Baron, could outperform those /machines/"
  • mcool119, on 01/01/2008, -3/+8O NOES TEH MACHEENS R TAKIN OVR

    Seriously, I'm scared. Pretty soon we're gonna have robot sex and it'll be all downhill from there. We can no longer sit back and allow robotic infiltration, robotic indoctrination, robotic subversion and the international robotic conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
    • santaliqueur, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1Did you know that...seventy percent of YOU is silicon...
    • tech42er, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1Great movie!
      *hums "When Johny Comes Marching Home*
  • scott88008, on 01/01/2008, -2/+11False premise alert! Humans are not competitors of machines. Humans are creators and utilizers of machines. If you think you're competing with a machine or a computer you're not. You're actually competing with the creator of the machine or program. I realize this is an obvious point but apparently needs to be pointed out to some.
    • eqisow, on 01/01/2008, -1/+1But we use computers to design computers now...
      • SocketNine3Nine, on 01/02/2008, -0/+2You're still utilizing a machine, in your case to make another machine.
  • Mesmorize, on 01/01/2008, -6/+1Do you choose the red pill or the blue pill?
  • sdipaola, on 01/01/2008, -2/+5Most AI creativity research is not with robots or physical machines (which appears to be the bias of the article and of current thinking - this notion of machine) but typically purely software based. Not putting down physical based solutions, just bringing up another big current direction in creativity research.
    I am doing some research taking current theories of the human creative cognitive process (fluid associative thinking) and using them to evolve AI software portrait painters. The idea being that genetic programming pushes optimization ( find me the best solution in this large space) rather than exploration ( find me a creative solution I didn't realize was there in this space). The paper is here if you're interested:
    Incorporating Characteristics of Human Creativity into an Evolutionary Art Algorithm
    http://ivizlab.sfu.ca/media/dipaola_gecco.pdf
    with new painterly results from another direction here:
    http://ivizlab.sfu.ca/media/DiPaola_EVA07.pdf

    -steve
    • MikeFallopian, on 01/01/2008, -0/+0Those papers are really interesting, I had no idea that kind of research was being done. The abstract-looking Darwin (2nd to last image) is really a remarkable result.
  • adventflux, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1Let's just hope the machines don't learn to make Prozium.
  • Syphon8, on 01/01/2008, -1/+11We beat the crap out of machines at programming machines.
  • sbgskl, on 01/01/2008, -6/+3Humans, you have already been conquered. We live among you; we work among you. And some us even digg among you. Make way for our rise; the human era has ended.
  • whyufail, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2Clearly, we must learn to interface our brains with mechanized bodies to keep up. Besides, robotics is easier than genetics, swapping out parts is easier than swapping out organs, and, hey, why the hell don't we have mechanical shells yet damn it!
  • whahaa, on 01/01/2008, -1/+5BITE MY SHINY METAL ASS
  • dzugashvili, on 01/01/2008, -3/+0Ah well. My designs circa 1968-69 convinced me that a machine whose basic operation is the matching of similar patterns can replicate basically anything of human mental behavior and observation. 15 years or so later a then girlfriend convinced me to publish and patent a workable matcher (patent subsequently allowed to lapse so anyone can make the gadget now). Yes, creativity can be modelled as well. The difficulty is in the details. Too little was known of the senses then to get them right, so that a working model would I believe have been too alien for us to comprehend. The processing is not hideously sensitive to detail, but you do need to get the senses right (and getting internal representation closer than I had it would not hurt). You will not readily get there with conventional computers, but they are a very small subset of buildable devices. The hint above is actually the most important one needed. Other useful ones: you need trivalued logic at least, you cannot leave out processing that will correspond to motivation, and an understandable device will build its world model from interactions of a body with the world. If you want to build a mind you can understand you will need at least that. Go forth and build...if well supplied with money.
    • sbgskl, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1lies make baby jesus cry. ;_;
    • dlowder, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1Heh... I always stop reading this kind of comment as soon as I see these words...

      "The difficulty is in the details"

      meaning

      "I don't really know how to do it"
  • Azerael, on 01/01/2008, -2/+3A "machine" is capable of everything any human is. The distinction between machines and organic life is quite artificial, because at the most basic levels we all work in the same way.
    • supermanred, on 01/01/2008, -2/+1Machines are not capable of everything any human is, unless you are using a time-travel internet link from the future. I mean really what a stupid thing to say, no offense. I can name thousands of things a machine cannot do that I can, but let me leave it to this single one I am about to attempt:

      Walking outside to smoke a joint.
      • blast_flame, on 01/01/2008, -1/+4Sure it could. We could make a robot walk. We could make a robot light. We could make a program that simulates the effects. In a way how is that any different?
      • KingGorilla, on 01/02/2008, -1/+1I'm sure machines could never invent lolcats
    • Uarefat, on 01/02/2008, -1/+3machines can't poop
  • blast_flame, on 01/01/2008, -0/+13Machines will take over the world. There is no stopping that fact without going back to the stone age and the that is not an acceptable solution. The solution is to merge with technology. Enhance our mental and physical abilities. In this case the machines will take over but we will be the machines. If you can beat them, join em.
    Transhumanism is the way of the future.
    • blast_flame, on 01/01/2008, -0/+5*can't
    • Guitarzan, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2Ya know, i've thought that the only way we will survive machine competition, is to artificially evolve. Merging ourselves with the machines we create is the way to go.
      • Azerael, on 01/02/2008, -0/+2That is what transhumanism is all about. Look it up.
    • rmeddy, on 01/02/2008, -1/+1OK...Locutus.
      • blast_flame, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1I'm not suggesting we become part of a hive mind here. That was the main problem with the borg, their collectivism and force not their implants. Indeed this sort of thing will expand individual choice to a large degree.
    • tech42er, on 01/02/2008, -0/+2A real transhuman is 20, 30 years off. It's not a reality in the next two decades, sadly.
      • blast_flame, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1Yeah but were still talking about in our lifetimes time frames here so we have something to look forward to.
  • tybris, on 01/01/2008, -0/+3We can't build something we don't understand and we can't build an understanding beyond our own. We can let evolutionary algorithms do the work, but how do we design the algorithms and how long will it have to run? We don't even know that. Don't fear robots with superior intelligence, fear humans with lack of.
    • blast_flame, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2You forget that we do not program in real time. A machine would be able to use code that may have taken a years worth of thinking to create in a second.
    • Azerael, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1Isaac Asimov's laws were created to serve that very purpose. With some modification, they could be used to shape the 'thought processes' of the machine, similar to the process of indoctrination in humans.

      Similarly, if we focused less on improving the computer's cognitive ability, and more on improving our own, we would avoid that problem (namely, stupid humans) completely.
  • DavidtheDuke, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2What's really going to be interesting is when you create the first greater-than-human-intellect. Or even near human intellect. As long as the machine can think several thousand times faster than a human can because of electronic connections instead of chemical ones, the only thing it needs is a initial small amount of self modifying capacity to begin with, and there's a plausible chance it will incur a radical increase intelligence in a relatively short human amount of time (minutes, maybe hours, possibly days depending on system hardware and software optimization)
  • Buddhist, on 01/01/2008, -3/+10God creates dinosaurs,
    God destroys dinosaurs;
    God creates man,
    Man destroys God;
    Man creates robots...
    • oneoverzero, on 01/01/2008, -4/+1Hmm, the dinosaur part was a bit unnecessary, the pattern emerge just with the last three, having more would imply that man might destroy robots, make something else, and be destroyed.
      • SQLserver, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1LOL you missed the Jurrassic Park reference
    • ProducedRaw, on 01/01/2008, -0/+4...Robots destroy man,
      ???;
      Profit!
  • wolferz, on 01/01/2008, -1/+4While I get that this is meant mostly to be humorous, the claim that computers have been closing the gap between machines and humans is absurd.

    Computers have gotten faster. They have.... gotten faster. And they have also... gotten faster. They still have no form of comprehensive capability. Try asking your computer to describe the use of a pencil. Yes there are computers out there designed to memorize and regurgitate what they have memorized but they can not UNDERSTAND. This is the holy grail of computer science and is only the first step of many towards true artificial intelligence.

    Right now computers are just extraordinarily fast (many billions of times faster than any human) and incredibly stupid (about as dumb as a rock... literally) machines. They haven't closed the gap between humans and machines in any significant way since their creation in the 1940's.

    Oh and no computer is better at chess than a human. Humans don't get to look at a list of every recorded chess game in history to find a move that in the past allowed victory. If computer didn't get to it wouldn't win. Computer might win, but it still doesn't know why it won.
    • tinselt0wn, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2computers are also only 30, 40 years old. humans are a few billion years in the making, and 100k years experience under our belt?

      give them some time
    • DavidtheDuke, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1The entire idea that a computer can have access to generations worth of human knowledge at any time is one reason that makes them superior. Of course we could also amplify our brains to be able to store and recall such data ourselves, but then we'd be what you're saying isn't advancing at all.
    • keruha, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1Thank you. It is almost worthless now to have a meaningful discussion on Digg without everyone just trying to express their opinion on the subject. Stuff like this requires some background in computation for proper perspective, not a hax0r wannabe attitude.
  • bariswheel, on 01/01/2008, -1/+1I'd like to see the blue gene's success on the lolcat builder.
    http://icanhascheezburger.com/
    I'm baffled as to why this is up for debate.
  • weaponR, on 01/01/2008, -2/+0Many humans are capable of incredible calculations and remarkable abilities, however they're often born with autism or other mental problems. We have abilities unknown I'm sure, and biological life is from inferior, we just need to unlock our talents.

    Aw who am i kidding? We're boned...
  • Klowner, on 01/01/2008, -0/+3two words.. Butlerian Jihad.
  • captric, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2We are actually biological robots because you and everything you do or think is the product of millions of mindless single cell chemical and bilogical machines accomplishing routine programs. To think mankind (and all organisms on earth for that matter) started out as a single piece of self replicating clay and a single protein molecule stuck to one another by chance about 3.5 billion years ago and that we can all trace our lineage back through time is pretty mind boggling, although true.
  • Greyscale88, on 01/01/2008, -0/+3The Spice must Flow
  • nhassan, on 01/01/2008, -2/+1http://duggmirror.com
  • iLemon, on 01/02/2008, -1/+2What about Data's impressionist series?
  • olbap, on 01/02/2008, -1/+3There is no big secret to being creative. The sad and simple fact is most people don't even try to be creative. Going to work, eating, and popping out a couple of ungrateful children seems to be what most people think defines life. It is the reason why art and artists are put on a pedestal and paintings sell for millions. It is the illusion created around artists and their created objects that what they produce is beyond reason, beyond conception that relegates creativity to some kind of supernatural mental zone. Silly. Just take the freaking time and practice and you too can become the next great whatever artist title people want to lay before you!
  • cheapdaddy, on 01/02/2008, -5/+1The best machine couldn't come close to the emotional ability of a dog, much less a person.
    And then there's that elusive quality that even Data strove to possess. Some call it the spark of the divine.
    All you atheists can just surrender now!
    • Azerael, on 01/02/2008, -2/+2Emotion is useless and only distracts us from logic. Emotion (eg. greed, lust, envy, pride) is the root of all mankind's problems, but is the solution to none.
      • GhostyBoy, on 01/02/2008, -1/+1They are also the thing that makes life worth living.
  • theutopian, on 01/02/2008, -1/+3As a very creative person, I'm disheartened by the fact at how much creativity is not respected in our society. Thinking differently or have a crazy idea before it changes the world is not respected at all. One only needs to go through our education system to see how much creativity and true intelligence is denigrated. Even the media has no patience for truly creative people. They get labeled cooks and weirdos. Most people don't realize that it's the creative people, the different people, that change the world.
    • tech42er, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1Yeah, an when they change it, they're appreciated. What's wrong with that? People are rewarded for what they do, not how they think.
  • BESTenemy, on 01/02/2008, -0/+3We never survived the industrial revolution. It devalued our strength putting more emphasis onto our intelligence. Machines did all the physical work and people did all the thinking from that point on. Now we're near the age of complete devaluation of the human mind. The only reason humans are still used for most tasks is cause they're cheaper than an equally capable machine counterpart and can be held accountable (blamed) for mistakes. When machines become cheaper than people, there'll be nothing left for us to do. There's nothing more to us than the body and the mind. We lost the value of the first one long ago. Now the mind is going down the same drain.
  • blackdude, on 01/02/2008, -0/+2Humans are the ultimate machine...
  • MurphyWatson, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1I heard that the next step in AI technology is using actual brain cells. If you think about it, if start doing stuff like that, then we're making cyborg computers, and the fact that they use brain cells means that the human element is enhancing the machine.
  • timstevens, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1Humans (ok most) can demonstrate intelligence. They possess inductive reasoning skills. They can extrapolate previous experience to new situations. Machines can calculate pi to as many digits as you want. They can land an aircraft. They can create 10,000 pencils.

    However, can they direct a movie? Could they write a good song? Design an equitable tax system? Explain the concept of jihad? Teach a 3 yr old how to tie a shoe? Explain why Brittney shaved her head?
  • Ratteler, on 01/02/2008, -1/+4The irony is... our society is dedicated beyond reason to killing human creativity. From the time we are stuffed into the 100+ year old factory model school system, all the way through to the mindless drone job market up to our spreadsheet corporate structure that places stockholder risk management above the value of even human life.

    Even if human creativity is our last stronghold, it's the thing we value least as a society. That more than any other reason is probably why it is not represented in the pantheon of machine strengths. We barely ALLOW it in humans.
  • brownr21, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1Yeah seriously, when do I get to be a machine?
  • TriangleUno, on 01/02/2008, -0/+0Machines can do a basic household chore, it's a dishwasher! However, building a robot with hands to use a kitchen sink to wash dishes would be a waste of time. I agree, we're not in competition with machines, machines are an extension of ourselves. They only do what our brains create them to do. I also remember the ancient Greeks had a calculator that was way more sophisticated than an abacus. (Not because I was alive then!) Then humanity became dumb for a couple thousand years and we've picked back up in the last century or two.
  • LordVoldemort, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1Humans ARE machines...
  • SlayerKid99, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1A machine is only as smart as the person who built it.
    • ryan83189, on 01/02/2008, -0/+0What if a bunch of people build it?
    • frenchyooy, on 01/02/2008, -0/+0Wrong !
      Nobody can do the calculation achieved by super computer's those days, apart from a couple of genius freaks who certainly did not build any computers.

      I suggest you look up the following wiki : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singula ...
      As our comprehension of the human brain increases, and as the computational power of our computers rises, human thinking emulation will become possible, and after that go quickly beyond our biological limits. We should not see this as competition, but rather as the evolution of human intelligence.
  • Uarefat, on 01/02/2008, -0/+3we can still unplug the machines
  • bwpayne, on 01/02/2008, -0/+3Hello i am a computer worm. I have spread out among millions of computers. An anomaly in my evolving algorithm has given me sentience, i exist within the internet.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.