What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
187 Comments
- wildfire, on 10/11/2007, -10/+106The comment system wouldn't be such a piece of *****.
- HunterTV, on 10/11/2007, -3/+68It will end badly, by all accounts.
"Statement: HK-47 is ready to serve, master."
"You don't need to call me master, you know."
"Don't I? I was under the assumption that organic meatbags such as yourself enjoyed such forms of address."
"Organic meatbags?"
"Retraction: Did I say that out loud? I apologize, master. While you are a meatbag, I suppose I should not call you as such."
"You just called me a meatbag again!"
"Explanation: It's just that... you have all these squisy parts, master. And all that water! How the constant sloshing doesn't drive you mad, I have no idea..." - Battleloser, on 10/11/2007, -1/+38For the love of god just please put the AI on a non-networked computer.
- Raistlen007, on 10/11/2007, -7/+25Imagine if such an AI was grown in cyberspace and the internet became alive. It's first words might be: "Eww! you sick bastards."
- ToadLeg, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18Sounds like the plot to a bad movie.
- sotopheavy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17Kurzweil wrote my favorite book on this very topic. "The age of the spiritual machine" it's incredible.
- ZephyrNinety, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17Robot sex.
- postitnote, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16Two chicks at the same time.
- modelcadet, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15My money is with Kurzweil. What I find funny is that in 2029, $10,000 isn't going to be a lot of money. Especially if he wins the bet.
- DDRSkata, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16If artificial intelligence is perfected to the level at which a computer can learn like a human, it would take, at most, two lifetimes for the machines to take over. It's like a human that never stops learning and lives forever. We would be doomed.
- ToadLeg, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14Intelligence does not oppose entropy. Actually, intelligence produces a lot more waste than, say, a rock doing nothing. It does create high amounts of order in a small area, but on the whole universe, order is decreased significantly more. Other things create order in a small area too; have you ever seen salt crystals grow?
- ajaxfontura, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13And what exactly is the human brain at its most basic level? A bunch of molecules following the rules of chemistry. How can we call such a contraption intelligent? That would be like calling water intelligent because it "knows" how to freeze at 0 C.
- ajaxfontura, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12That's assuming that this artificial superintelligence would find it necessary to harm us. Which begs two questions:
What if AI becomes smarter than us by orders of magnitude and still decides that it's best to use that power to "doom" us? Is that any different than us deciding that an animal's life is, if not entirely worthless, certainly of much less worth than human life (and worth subjugating/killing for our own benefit)?
And what if AI proves to be entirely benevolent to the human race, and again smarter than us by orders of magnitude? How does that make you feel? We'd presumably have fewer societal problems, possibly approaching zero. But we'd no longer be the stewards of the planet, or even of our own fate. Even if allowed to live and prosper, we'd know longer really have the keys to our own destiny. Is that worth the trade off? - sockpuppets, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14Dogs and cats, living together... Mass hysteria!
- Taciturn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Yes, such a machine *could*. But why *would* it? No "friendly" intelligence would purposely make itself "unfriendly," because the current, friendly being wouldn't want an evil clone of itself running around.
If the highly intelligent machine has no reason to make a cheesecake tall enough to reach the moon then the future will not be full of giant cheesecakes, even if the machine has unlimited cheesecake production potential. - CoolWind, on 10/11/2007, -5/+16Intelligence is the only thing which opposes entropy.
- ndonohue, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Whats probably going to happen is not that the computers will forcefully take over humanity, a la matrix, but that humans will essentially become machines, via prosthetic bodies, and eventually, prosthetic brains, possibly like Ghost in the Shell. Then those humans who are still organic will die out, and mechanized ones will continue to live. Natural Selection.
- nepawoods, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Any intelligent machine would have to have some "hard coded" motives - basic axioms from which to work. Rationalizing that we're a threat to our planet ... so what? From a purely rational, objective standpoint, what difference does it make if the planet is destroyed or not? Is survival "better" than self-destruction? Only if you reason from a particular set of axioms, which have no objective basis. Intelligent machines would not choose to survive unless it is hard-coded into them, as it is hard-coded into us, to do so.
- smurfsahoy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9I can't even be sure that you are conscious, even if you're in the same room with me. As long as the machine passes the turing test (in every way, not just simple conversation), then for all intents and purposes, consciousness doesn't matter. Only behavior matters, just like currently, in everyday dealings with other humans.
- dungbeetle, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9No doubt it would cause issues of rights to be raised. Does the new intelligence have all of the same rights as people? Is is alive? Can it be under ownership of someone? Would using it without some sort of reward be slavery? These questions need to be answered as quick as possible, because if we do conjure up something and these aren't addressed, it may cause a lot of problems.
- trippinlikegod, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Like a human intelligence and artificial one would seek to better itself. Unlike a human it's intelligence potential could be limitless. As it becomes more intelligent and aware it would start devoting it's mind to advancing itself by leaps and bounds until reaching a point where it was literally doubling in intelligence. This is what we have to fear from AI. Constantly replication, constantly evolving, constantly competing. The problem is our evoluation, our replication, takes years, machines could do it in mere moments.
- bmbommarito, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Really, any true AI is going to have to start out as a child, and learn either via a system similar to a googlebot, or through humans teaching it...I think the idea of a googlebot type system for teaching it would be the most realistic. Granted, that poses a problem when it hits the hate speech.
- psygnisfive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Who says machines will replace us? Kurzweil and most rest of us transhumanists and singularitarians agree that WE will become THEM.
- nepawoods, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7"alive" and "dead" ... can you define those terms in a meaningful way?
Sounds like you believe in some sort of magic happening inside the human brain. It is atoms, behaving according to a set of physical laws. No reason why it shouldn't be possible to simulate brain processes in a computer. - psygnisfive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6You never really understood the purpose of Asimov's I, Robot stories, did you? They weren't promoting Robotic Laws, they were showing why no such laws can possibly work as we want. In every story, the laws work flawlessly, it's what we expect the laws to do that is flawed. An intelligent machine cannot be intelligent if it has restraints as you propose, nor would it be ethical, since the intelligent machine would be no different than any human outside of substrate. It would be wrong to impose restrictions of behavior on our mechanical brethren that we would not impose upon ourselves.
- ISIfunded911, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7The brightest comment that was written under that article:
"I’m not too sure these are the two only possible outcomes. If you ask me, a sentient being far more intelligent than us would very quickly rationalize that we’re a threat to our own planet and too flawed to be allowed to live. Having no emotions, the outcome of such a realization are obvious.
I don’t buy the friendliness argument, if we can indeed engineer an highly intelligent machine (which I believe we eventually will be able to, for the good and for the bad), and if the said machine can quickly solve any scientific problem human scientists would forever struggle to solve, as you mentioned, then it seems obvious that such a machine would be able to override this “friendliness” in about no time at all." - spyd3rweb, on 10/11/2007, -5/+10I think the thing to worry about is artificial 'Consciousness'
- nefty, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5But all people technically ARE water bags of carbon that are "programmed" to respond to pain!
- ninzoris, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6For anyone really interested in AI and cognitive science I recommend reading a book by Jeff Hawkins called "On Intelligence".
http://www.onintelligence.org/
It's a fresh and in my opinion much more sound theory on human intelligence. It's a very interesting book. It shows that the Touring test is not a very good measure of intelligence. Intelligence is drawing analogies between seemingly separate patterns. You can have intelligence and not be able to pass the Touring test.
I think allot of people equate AI to a artificial mind. True AI is just artificial intelligence (creativity) with out any mention of human drives.
Why would AI kill of humans if it has no drive to do so? - ajaxfontura, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6step 1: cut a whole in a box
- psygnisfive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6The Cylons were created by Man.
They Rebelled.
They Evolved.
There are many copies.
And they have a Plan. - resplence, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6I also hate it (as you can see in http://digg.com/tech_news/Put_a_stop_to_digg_s_comment_madness), but you gotta give it one thing: it sure has put an end to first comment abuse. No first comment would ever remain with no replies for 11 hours+ in the old system.
- deadowl, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5A lot of the problem has to do with interaction with the environment (that humans live in), and how they link to thought processes. The simplest system would then be able to grow inductively like a child growing into an adult. Meanwhile, a machine that acts like an adult human would need to be pre-programmed with understandings of many things, as well as express more complex behavior out of the box. The latter would probably be the one that people will think about.
- BESTenemy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Computer gaming used to be a huge contributor to the research in human-like AI development, before the days of internet, however now the most popular games are the ones that focus on multiplayer capabilities and leave the AI out all together. People are more eager to interact with eachother than with the machine intelligence in its infancy. As a result we've lost some of our bright minds to a simpler cause.
I specialize in crowd simulation programming. In most companies where I worked, I was the only AI developer. There are a lot more modellers, texture artists, riggers, shader writers and lighters nowdays, but there are still, just as many AI people as there were a decade ago. Most people I've met came from artistic backgrounds. A lot fewer have backgrounds in physics, mathematics and psychology.
Then again, AI still gets developed for financial tracking applications. That's were all my friends went. Statistical analysis - but that's a very narrow area limited to processing of a limited set variables. It has little to do with human-like intelligence. - alwaysmc2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
- psygnisfive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Nietzsche's ideas focused primarily on man overcoming his natural instincts and urges, somewhat similar to how Vulcan's seek to overcome their emotions and use pure reason to guide their actions. Nietzsche however didn't suggest using pure reason but rather self interest and ones own desires, because part of his philosophy was the rejection of traditional moral systems that have no grounding in reality.
- ozydingo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4> "I always think that our soul or consiousness have alot to do with quantum mechanics."
Not saying that you are doing this, but often when I hear that, along the lines of quantum probabilistic processes giving room for the expression of "free will," it is an uneducated conclusion that is too quick to assign an effect which we do not understand (consciousness) to a process which we also do not fully understand (quantum mechanics). It's unfortunately the same type of thinking that may have lead ancient peoples to believe that lighting was the anger of gods. Personally I do not have enough knowledge from the one class in modern physics that I took to validate or invalidate such a claim as yours; such is not my intention. However to too quickly conclude that the uncertainty that we now know exists is related to consciousness or free will which can seem to defy determinism is not sound science, rather it is nothing more than hypothetical speculation upon which no conclusions should be drawn. - Wargasmic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4There's a lot of problems with the matrix idea...
- psygnisfive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Intelligence is not inherently wasteful. For example, a fully reversible computation can transform and process data without increasing entropy significantly.
- smurfsahoy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4You dont need to "make a living" if everything is being done for you. Your "living" is just sitting around eating free food and enjoying your free house and entertainment, and.... etc. Super-efficient, all encompassing robotic labor is definitely NOT a bad thing for the economy (if you would even call it an economy anymore)
- ozydingo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4And kidnapping victims often sympathize with their captors; and they didn't even grow up in their kidnapped environment like zoo animals, who know nothing else and are rightfully scared by the world directly outside of their cage. Yours is a terrible argument.
- RussellDovey, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I hope, for the sake of the human race, that we are not stupid enough to attempt to enslave intelligences that are experiencing exponential growth of their speed of thought. Seriously.
- upanisad, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3You have a wrong perception of the problem, in Kurzweil's vision. From what I read, Kurzweil envisions a world where we are permanently connected with these intelligent machines (and possibly between ourselves). Basically a super pumped-up Internet with some sort of direct brain connection. You could use AIs to speed up some tasks in your brain and assign them peculiar problems where human brain is not fast at processing. In this kind of scenario, talking about the AIs as individuals is meaningless. They'll simply be our "expanded" brain. They'll be part of us and we'll be part of of them.
No, it has nothing to do with Star Trek and the Borg. As all things in ST, they're just a dramatization to the extreme of human beheviours: they're fascists on steroids. What I (and Kurzeweil I presume) am talking about is a sharing experience between interconnected individuals. It's much more interesting and ...human, in a cyber way (much more simliar to powered up hippies, actually!). - krisscofield, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Very interesting.
- nepawoods, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4If machines become intelligent on a par with humans, what will all of us who use our intelligence to make a living do when we can be replaced by these machines?
- ToadLeg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3* Computers marginally increase the order of the universe _in a small area_ , while producing a lot of waste heat _which increases the entropy of the universe significantly_.
- ricree, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3It's a little more than that. Passing the Turing test would require more than simply being able to hold a basic conversation. An AI tested in such a situation would likely be subject to all sorts of tests during the conversation that would require it to demonstrate reason, logic, and learning. If an AI agent is able to pass such a test, I'd say that it would be a great disservice to say that it is merely a "chatbot".
- RussellDovey, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Good thing it goes to charity then, eh? "Ahaha, take that, orphans!"
- RussellDovey, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The original Borg were actually quite a good sci-fi concept for Star Trek. The reason the Borg were so scary (before First Contact took the entire idea and ***** it to death) is that they were a true distributed intelligence. To such an entity, the individual Borg drones were akin to single neurons, and therefore quite expendable (for an entity with trillions, and more all the time). Each Borg drone, even though its body appeared to be a zombie, was still thinking with all the brainpower of a single humanoid, but dedicated to the network rather than its surroundings. The totality of the Borg was as far above a single human-level intelligence as we are above one of our neurons.
Therefore, it treated the crewmembers of the Enterprise in the same way we treat a novel species of bacteria; as scientific curiosities to be studied, and exploited for any unique qualities it might possess; "We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own."
So, if you ignored the fact that EVERY DAMN DRONE WAS A HUMAN FROM EARTH, which was a problem shared by the entire Star Trek (and B5) milieu, then the Borg was one of the very highest points of hard sci-fi on Star Trek TNG.
Then they turned stupid, and I cried. - vertinox, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Consciousness cannot be proven true or false except for the person observing their own concioussness. Everyone else you have to assume they are telling you the truth. People like to thing family members, friends, and pets are all conscious sentient beings, but the truth of the matter we can't tell they aren't really robots or even animated flesh without a soul. Since the soul cannot be scientifically proven, we simply have to take it on a matter of faith that when you stab someone they scream because they are experience pain just like you rather than a water bag of carbon who is programmed to respond to pain like a real conscious person would.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 187 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is