|
Androids aren't really a real thing. They are basically a fantasy creature. There is no amount of gigabytes you can shove into a box that makes some sort of weird human soul appear and make a robot turn into a human. You aren't going to add one more stick of memory to a computer and make it heterosexual or whatever like a movie. But on the other hand computers are already as intelligent or far more intelligent than people in many domains. But they aren't the same sort of thing. They are a different animal with different "biology" and a different environment. If you believe in nature or nurture as the origin of personality they share neither with a dude. Like I bet sometime soon siri will get better at conversations and be pretty okay at talking to you, but it's never gonna be the same sort of thing as you do. But at the same time it's not like you are ever going to study real hard and suddenly get good at the things computers are good at. It's just different. Neither levels up to the other.
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 07:34 |
|
|
To put it another way: a "human mind" is not some pure abstract, it's just a really dumb and arbitrary set of functions we just happened to get from evolution that we fashioned into tools for problem solving. No other intelligence will ever just happen to fall into the exact same mold even if it has the same end capabilities. If we meet an alien or a computer or whatever it's always just going to have rolled the dice and come from a different design space with different emotions and biases and stuff to the point of being very inhuman. And even if you say "well if we design the robot to be exactly like a human it could be like a human!" you could simulate the brain cell by and all our hormones and so on and that would make something human seeming, but people generally view that sort of simulation as being a different sort of thing than an AI.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:I think this is being over-pedantic, when people talk about "human-level AI" they're not talking about a robot which expresses emotions, they're talking about AIs that have a general intelligence on par with a human, meaning that they are capable of performing the same broad base of productive tasks a human can perform, to the same degree of competency. Pretty much all AI we have today is specific to an extremely small number of tasks, and they are usually purpose built with a specific task in mind. Right now we're not sure how to build a general intelligence, but do you think it's impossible to build a general intelligence? It's not pedantic because the idea humans have "general intelligence" is hilariously wrong. Humans have a small set of tasks we are good at. We just toot our own horn by pretending that it's the important set. Humans are a intelligence that can preform an extremely small number of tasks, and they are usually purpose built with a specific task in mind. With the task in our case being biologically evolved to be generally survive as a mammal on planet earth. But just by total non coincidence we just happen to have a majority of types of task mastery that we just totally happen to find to be the big important ones.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:If humans can only perform an extremely small number of tasks, it should be no trouble then for you to provide a comprehensive list? If computers are only able to preform a small number of tasks why don't you list all of them?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:You're confused as to what general intelligence is. It's not a philosophical statement about the nature of intelligence, it's just a best-fit line that represents covariance of the results of cognitive tasks, and so far we've found only two tasks that g fails to predict reliably: athletic and 'musical' tasks. Yeah but we literally define which information processing tasks are "cognitive" and which aren't by which human brains have a natural ability to do. It's not a "general" intelligence in some universal sense. It just doesn't measure things that would be silly to have on the list because no one can do it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:How well does g predict visual awareness and memory? Very well. Your brain couldn't render a single frame even if you spent your whole life trying. Human visual processing is pathetic compared to a computer. It's why we build computers. Humans are not general purpose machines, we are good at some types of information processing and bad at others. Computers beat us at tons of tasks in the 1940s. "AI" is a fictional concept of having a computer be a dude, but that is a silly and meaningless goal. A human is a human, it's a very arbitrary set of mental strengths and limitations and a bunch of random biological fluff. You can't put a certain number of gigabytes in a computer then have it suddenly pop out a guy. Just like you aren't going to make a really good car and suddenly find out it has muscles and tendons. Even if the car is a really really really good car. Making a better car isn't a step closer to a car that can bleed or poop. Steps towards better information processing machines aren't steps towards "AI", it's just not a real thing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It's general insofar as it predicts, and almost certain affects, proficiency at all or most tasks humans perform. Yeah, of course. We designed it that way. It's the same way we set up all the olympic events so none of them require flight or staying underwater for hours or anything. It's not that humans have a general physical ability, it's that it'd be a waste of time to have olympic events absolutely no one could compete in. Human intelligence isn't actually general, we just don't even bother to do the tests for the stuff that people clearly can't do. It's not like the SATs are gonna have a last page that ask you to reverse an audio sample. No body on earth can mentally do that. Every single copy of the test would come back with that question skipped. We can mentally reverse a visual signal though and rotation of objects is a question on IQ tests and just flipping an object wouldn't even be a question because everyone can do that trivially.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:The human soul is a fantasy creature as well. Unless you've seen a soul lying around here somewhere, humans are just coded on different hardware. Yeah, that is the point. Souls aren't real. Humans have the attributes humans have because they have a physical brain designed a certain way, not because it was a worthy vessel for a dude to float from the ether into. You basically can't expect to ever design a computer then have a dude float into it and make it human. A computer won't have the same nature or nurture and is just good and bad at different sorts of things than our design. It's like how we can make better and better engines and they can beat humans at all sorts of physical stuff but it's not like we are going to one day build such a good engine that suddenly it's flesh and bone. Nor would it even make that much sense to try.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:That example actually reveals why this isn't a useful way of looking at it: you're saying that only God has traits that could be described as "general". That seems extremely reasonable. No one would expect there to be a physical device that can do every physical task. It seems perfectly fine to claim different designs for information processing are better or worse at different things.And no design is just usable for everything.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Human cognition is reasonably described as general. See Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow, and specifically System 2 vs. 1 as a fairly prominent discussion. The contrast is particularly striking when comparing it to AI, which is a bunch of systems all of which excel on one task each, with most of these tasks falling under the umbrella of System 1. Yeah, but what if I told you your brain was just a bunch of systems that excel at one task each and are terrible at anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
To restate the actual point I'm making: we are never going to hit "human level AI" because human isn't a level, it's a specific implementation. Owlofcreamcheese fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:So, you're basically claiming that in order to have a thing that makes plans, introspects, and reasons, it is a prerequisite to have an organic human brain, made of brain cells, and be raised in a human culture? Pardon me if this seems a little bit broad a claim to make. I am claiming that humans are not universal implementation of "planning, reasoning or introspection" and are just a bundle of a fairly arbitrary tool set. And even if you mimicked the skillset humans are also a very very arbitrary bundle of 'personality" stuff that is even more tied to biology so you still wouldn't have anything resembling data from star trek. So basically there isn't one INT score we need to jack up to get a computer to be good at both facial recognition and speaking spanish, but even if we got a computer that does both by separate means it'd still be a sucky android because it still wouldn't 'act' meaningfully human because it wouldn't have our dumb arbitrary biological biases, motivations and parameters, and probably never would unless you just simulated the human brain.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:This rhetorical statement is dumb as poo poo though, which makes me think your problem isn't necessarily your point by itself but that to get to your ultimate point you talk a lot about things you don't know much about, which gets vaguely embarrassing for everyone involved when you make vast declamations about the rigid limits of the human condition. Your response is a good example. You do not like my 'flawed' reasoning so you respond to it by describing your emotional state and by doing some vague threat that I need to stop having that reasoning because it should effect my emotional state in that negative way. That is not a thing that a computer is going to level up and then just download from somewhere. That is a wicked human response that a computer could not have without a bunch of really really weird programming that is unlikely to be feasible and probably not even desirable. Like not even trying to do the sci-fi "COMPUTER NO HAVE EMOTION" but you provided this example by responding this way. Describing your emotion as a counter to my possibly imperfect "reasoning". Humans aren't just a generic implementation of pure thought. pure thought does not exist. It's all through a lens.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:I dont think that's true. I think it's obvious that technological progress is slowing down and will probably stagnate in our lifetimes. Compare the first half of the 20th century to the second half: the first half saw way more progress. Cars, airplanes, electric power, nuclear energy, radio, telephones, television, x-rays, and much more all came out in the period between 1900 and 1950, give or take. But now look at the period from 1950 to 2000, there's way less progress. Yeah computers got smaller and faster, we got video games and cell phones and internet stuff. Visual effects in movies got better. And...that's about it. Is this a joke post? Did you go out of your way to list mostly things from the 1800s as being from 1900 to 1950s?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Unormal posted:High level AI is a zillion years away. I honestly think "AI" is more of a looks thing than anything meaningful. If you had a truly aware creature but it responded via database queries no one would ever rank it as AI even if it could do literally every single thing a human could but I bet if you stuck a 1990s chatbot in a realistic looking robot with a nice voice you'd have people arguing it deserves rights.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Condiv posted:The point is that although there is derivation in art, there is a lot more to it that involves the artists desires, life experiences, and personality which highly specialized neural nets cannot reproduce. Right now neural nets are only really good at creating derivative work based on the biases of its trainers. Yeah, but right now 99% of humans couldn't create great and meaningful art either and so that seems like a weird criteria for the measure of a man.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Maybe you meant that 99% of people can't make art that appeals to a large amount of today's population? Cause people have been creating meaningful art for far longer than we have had writing. Some people have. Some people haven't. You mention writing but 26% of adults can't do that either. None of these seem like good tests of human like AI if they are things plenty of actual humans fail at.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Considering neural nets have a 0% chance of creating meaningful art on their own at the moment, it's a perfectly valid test. I'd argue that nearly everyone can make art that's meaningful to at least themselves. If I say I could not make meaningful art would you just claim I was lying no matter what? What if I claimed I found a drawing a neural net made to be meaningful would you claim I didn't. I can easily find meaning in this  both artistically and semantically. A
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Hmm so you never drew any pictures for your parents? Why are you able to declare the scrawlings I made for my parents meaningful without seeing them but then declare any meaning I see in deep dream's interpretation of meatballs as animals as 100% certainly wrong?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Was gonna respond but this was pretty much what I was gonna say. You have a circular definition then, if everything I make is meaningful no matter what even if I say it's not and everything a computer makes is inherently not meaningful even if I say I find it meaningful then it seems your conclusion is simply because you decided it's true and all evidence counter to it is lies.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you do understand the difference between something having meaning and finding meaning in something right? the first requires cognition on the part of the creator, the second requires cognition on the part of the observer. a computer is incapable of cognition and therefore incapable of creating meaningful art on its own (it can be used to create meaningful art though). likewise, a computer is not able to find meaning in the dog spaghetti picture you like. It found a meaning, it found "hey, this meatball looks kinda like a dog" then altered the picture so it looked even more like a dog. It's more than any art I've ever made.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no, an unthinking computer cannot find meaning. not yet at least. if it could we'd have a lot better translation apps than we do and we'd have true natural programming languages. I can neither translate or be programmed in a natural language (except in extremely hand wavey "school is like being programmed MAN") so am I not able to create art till I learn french or something? Or is this another requirement that computers would need to follow that people don't to gain your approval?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Absolutely, man. Much better than any computer, in fact. I can control your brain and your behavior using certain words over a much wider spectrum than any computer. Nah.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Condiv posted:uh, yeah you can dude. ever followed a recipe and made some food? congrats, you were just programmed in a natural language Okay so if I ask siri to make an appointment at 4 she's human then?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Can you ask siri to go to expedia, get a flight that matches your schedule, and reserve the tickets. no not really, so it's not true natural language processing. I can't ask my grandma to do that either.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it would have no meaning behind it because meaning requires cognition. i may find meaning in it, but as i pointed out earlier, there's a difference from finding meaning in something and something having meaning. So "meaning" is a metaphysical substance that floats around and sticks onto objects created under the correct ritual? But can not be detected by looking at the object created?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:nobody would say mollusks were producing art intelligently. If I said that right now would you explode or would you just say "nah" and decide your made up criteria are still right?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Condiv posted:uh no? i've made no mention of physical properties at all So it's a nonphysical property? That can't be detected by anything in any conceivable way? Ever even in a hypothetical? Just by examining the object? Using any means possible? Are you sure it's even real?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Condiv posted:are you being intentionally obtuse? do you not understand abstract concepts at all? I understand you might have a whole constellation of religious beliefs but they don't really matter to anything at all if they are only stuff that exist in your heart and literally effect nothing ever.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i'm getting huffy because it's annoying to argue against people who are misrepresenting your argument. why again did you say i was pretending that meaning was some physical property? If it's not a physical property and can't be checked for in any way but asking you personally to assign or not assign it to things why should anyone care about it?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it can be checked. if the work has a creator, and the creator is cognizant, there's meaning behind it. there's the test. what is that meaning? you'd have to ask the creator. if you don't care, you don't have to care. Okay but what use is there in saying humans can attach magical "meaning" to objects but nothing else could? What use is that property if it has zero effect on an object that has it and you can't even determine if it exists from the object?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Condiv posted:a strong AI could attach meaning to works too. And how would you be able to tell if it was lying about having done that?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Rush Limbo posted:I don't necessarily believe that humans are the only creatures capable of creating objects with meaning. Bowerbirds, when they create their house, are conveying meaning. That meaning may be 'Hey, let's gently caress' and is not intended to be interpreted in that way by other species, but it is still a meaning nonetheless. So if I created a machine that could build a little house and then you hosed it it would magically become alive? How are you claiming to know the innerworkings of a bird's mind? Maybe birds are just automatons with no inner life at all.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:I think Condiv is being willfully dense. To be fair, I really think he isn't. I think humans are hard wired with a huge toolset of mental models for other people's consciousnesses and we do just have a bunch of "I'll know it when I see it!" stuff that doesn't make real sense but works so well day to day no one realistically questions it. Like I can tell very fast if something moves "like it's alive" and that is a really useful tool for me and my ancestors, but if I really tried to break it down it's not real, it's weak and heuristic and not absolute.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
We are also in a cycle of people saying "X is coming in 10 years" then X coming out after ten years then people saying "that isn't a big deal, they were already talking about that ten years ago"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:Oh is that how that works, well in that case in ten years I'll have a flying car that folds up into a briefcase like George Jetson. Unless you grew up in like 1920 or something no one has ever promised you a flying car.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:I literally named a cartoon running through my childhood that equated the future with flying cars (there were many), which sounds like it's the same place he got all his ideas about AI, but, y'know, Owlofcreamcheese. You are basing your ideas about the future on the jetsons? Do you think cavemen also lived with dinosaurs that they used as dish washers because you saw it on the flintstones? Also flying cars exist. Go buy one if you want one so much. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnF2yua4KIw
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Are you this willfully dense as a hobby or something? Actual engineers weren't going around "hey guys we totally promise flying cars in 20 years", no, that's not what I was saying. The media, however, pretty much did that. What media? What media in the 80s was promising flying cars?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Are you reading my posts? First off, it was early 90s, and it was scientific divulgation magazines. Like I said, I remember an article from either Conocer y Saber, Conozca Mas, or Muy Interesante, that described a flying car in detail and said that Michael Jackson preordered one and that the first one would be built by early 2000s or something like that. Flying cars exist. A celebrity probably would own one. They are just street legal planes. They aren't magic.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 07:34 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Oh yeah, we could absolutely build a flying car right now. It would just be impractical for most purposes due to severe shortcomings in range, speed, handling, safety, cost, reliability, and maintainability. Between that and the fact that it wouldn't be legal to drive either on the roads or in the sky, it's not surprising that no one has bothered. There's a big difference between "it's possible to do X" and "we can do X effectively and cheaply enough to be worth doing". You literally can buy one now. Same as you can buy stupid boat cars.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2016 03:00
|
|