| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3
Comments:
<0> hello
<0> anyone knows any research in the field of game theory for the case in which some players have disproportionate intelligence levels?
<1> balancing eh. no, never heard much about that
<0> i'm just thinking on what would be my choices in case of singularity :)
<1> hehe. singularity is just an empty buzzword. call it AI
<0> i would expect that we develop mind uploading quicker than superiour AI
<0> so my problem is how should i deal with someone running on a 500000ghz machine while i run at 1ghz :)
<1> lose gracefully
<0> hehe :)
<0> maybe they will put us in zoos :)
<1> hehe intelligence is not the same as having a will of their own
<0> maybe they will go on to conquer the universe while we remain on earth :)
<0> why wouldn't they have a will of their own?
<0> they are humans
<0> not AI
<0> (i speak here about powerful mind uploaded individuals not AI)
<1> ah you mean an uploaded person. sure that would be problematic
<0> yes that's my problem frame
<1> not to worry about that either. we are not biological machines so that wont work
<0> what won't work?
<0> you mean mind uploading?
<1> moving us to a computer
<0> sure it will work, i see no reason why it wouldn't
<1> I do though. the spiritual aspect of us is real. not all can see that but you can try to understand that if evolution was real there would be no need for sensations. emotion is not useful for a mechanism
<1> consciousness
<0> why can't a machine be spiritual or counscious?
<1> same reason biology can't
<0> those are emergent properties so there is no reason why a computer simulated human brain wouldn't posess the same qualities
<1> biology is just the vehicle we drive
<0> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
<1> no. emergence is just a term used to avoid thinking about it. emergent is another empty buzzword
<0> no it's not empty
<0> it's the key
<0> (in a way)
<1> hehe no
<1> emergence just means something being built
<0> more than that
<1> same as a 3D renderer produced images from simple algos
<0> it means having some properties the parts don't have
<0> like intelligence
<0> consciousness
<0> etc
<1> hehe intelligence can emerge from learning algos
<1> consciousness cannot be done computationally
<1> think about it. why emotion is the biological machine could just react the same
<1> if*
<0> ?
<1> why emotion if the biological machine could just react the same
<0> ?
<1> you feel. why?
<0> can you please expand?
<0> you feel because you are built to do so
<1> by evolution?
<0> the sensation of feeling is just a singnal to our processing unit
<0> yes by evolution
<0> i don't see any reason why consciousness cannot be done computationally
<1> hehe no it isn't. that's the thing. if signal processing was feeling then a cpu would be emotional
<1> you don't understand what consiousness is. it's not being awake
<0> no
<0> you get it wrong
<1> how so?
<0> emotion!=sensation
<1> feeling bad. could have fooled me
<0> emotion is a complex mix or sensations that are very specie-specific
<0> a cpu can sense emotions only if you program it with the whole social "stack"
<1> try to understand. emotions are not needed if evolution is real
<0> so that it understads the social concepts/customs
<0> sure they are needed
<1> as they are not needed in a machine
<0> emotions are just self-feeding signals
<1> no :)
<0> they are self-feeded broadcast signals
<0> a signal that is broadcasted to all neurons (instead of just a specific one)
<1> but not everybody can understand. it's a fundamental aspect of what we truly are that some can understand and others cant
<0> what this has to do with understanding?
<1> you don't understand. that's what
<0> emotions are signals, unlike neural signals they propagate to large areas
<0> there is no "mistery" behind emotions
<0> they are just as mechanical as the rest of us
<1> many things can be an illusion but not the receiver of the illusions
<1> you
<0> sorry but i need a clearyl built argument :)
<1> so you believe
<1> the failing is not the words
<0> prove me that consciousness is not computationally possible
<0> that would imply that we are not computationally possible therefore there is no way our substrate (the universe) could be computationally derived, therefore there are no universal laws
<0> howhever we can observe a lot of laws (at least locally) therefore i must ***ume that the local space is (reasonably) computationally feasible to simulate
<1> consciousness is in an entirely separate domain unlike any science we have. not beyond reason just not bound by normal logic. it's in the cl*** with only one other aspect and that is existence. how can the universe exist. in what.. AI we can do in a computer but no consciousness
<0> if we can simulate a part of the universe in the computer then since consciousness is located in this universe we can also simulate consciousness in that computer
<1> storing data or cycling in a loop is not consciousness. nor is multiplying numbers emotion
<1> you can simulate what you understand of the universe
<1> and you don't understand this
<0> yes but you have to take into consideration the level at which human consciousness appears
<1> it's a cl***ic mistake to believer there isn't anymore than you can see
<1> no. you have to start listening
<0> since we have in common with rodents some biological substrate we can therefore infer that what makes us different from rodents must be something at higher zoom level than rodents
<1> I too used to think that consciousness was some sort of critical m*** intelligence thing
<1> but it's not
<0> this means that the location of our consciouness is above molecular level
<0> and we have plenty of understanding of the universe at that level
<1> hehe
<0> (we might not fully understand the universe at sub-molecular level)
<1> unfortunately noone can be told what consciousness is
<1> you are not ready to realize that you are real
<1> until you are I'm just wasting my time trying
<0> if you have two things built with the same set of bricks and the two have different properties then we must ***ume that those properties emerge from the different configuration of the bricks
<0> this means that since rodents and humans use same biological bricks (pretty much same proteins) then what makes humans human is in the arrangement of the bricks
<0> because the bricks are subject to known laws then we can ***ume that recording the configuration of the bricks then playing the according simulation would result in similar output (consciousness)
<1> sigh. you ***ume that consciousness comes from matter and offers it as evidence of that
<0> i don't just ***ume, i just explained to you why it comes from matter
<1> hehe of course you did
<0> the last 3 lines do just this
<2> <visconti@ef> hi
<1> hi
<0> hi visconti
<2> <visconti@ef> hey, got a question, basicly .. I want a HAL, what are my options ? ;)
<2> <visconti@ef> i mean, there are no full software packages yet I discovered, well there is ultrahal but it doesn't work ...
<1> hehe, don't look for off the shelf solutions to HAL
<0> HAL?
<2> <visconti@ef> anyone know some apps ? or ways to build it myself .. chatbot combined with some voice rec soft or so ?
<1> someone like me could make HAL. perhaps a handfull of other people in the world if any. but it can't be bought in stores just yet
<1> handful
<2> <visconti@ef> mm, to bad .. think the technology isn't there yet, or the market ..?
<0> what is HAL?
<0> you mean, HAL the computer"
<0> ?
<1> the market is certainly there. the wafer tech is good enough. the code is missing
<2> <visconti@ef> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_9000
<2> <visconti@ef> mm, somehow I feel some chatbots are good enough to start from, use some voice rec like dragon dictate .. put a pretty HAL like GUI on it .. heh
<1> that would be pretend AI
<1> fool's gold
<2> <visconti@ef> yeah, i guess
<2> <visconti@ef> so, when you think we'l see the first decent application become available ? 2 years , or more like 5 ..10 ?
<0> more like 25
<2> <visconti@ef> oh, ic
<1> it's not a matter of time
<0> we are still at insect level with AI, we still need to traverse a long tree :)
<1> could be done today, could be done 20 year ago
<1> it wont automatically happen
<0> (evolution tree i mean)
<2> <visconti@ef> well, see you in 25 years then, bye bye ;)
<1> ktne is wrong
<1> bye
<0> bye
<1> machine intelligence is scalable. not a ladder of steps. in electronics we are not bound by having to evolve power requirements and space. we could build a barn and a nuclear power plant if needed
<1> AI is the ability to learn new abilities. the key is learning. once there is can be applied to anything at any power
<1> s/is/it
<0> we are not talking about AI anyway
<0> we are talking about whenever conscious machines are possible
<1> HAL remember
<0> who are you talking to? visconti?
Return to
#ai
or
Go to some related
logs:
#perl
cross compiling xorg sgml cannot check for file
#suse
gentoo diff-tool
#perl
#perl
#gimp
#math
#php
wmvdmod knoppix
|
|