|
Dead Reckoning posted:TBH, most humans can't create meaningful art or coherently talk about ethical philosophy, so we're probably closer than we think. Creating a robot Mozart or Einstein might be hard, but beating the intelligence of the average human is shockingly easy. Considering that AI requires so much computational power to tackle the problem of, say, stairs and even then fucks it up with enough regularity to be practically useless unless, for example, you devote 100% of its effort for it to incredibly slowly tackle the problem. Meanwhile, even your average human intelligence has mastered the art of walking down the stairs, thinking of where they're going, and talking at the same time on an instinctual level to the point where it's not even consciously thought about.
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 10:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 02:53 |
|
|
blowfish posted:How advanced are the state of the art stair climbing robots anyway (basically how many hundred sensors and negative feedback loops depending on those sensors)? Biologically speaking, climbing stairs isn't just a stereotyped motion but additionally needs to constantly adjust for minor imbalances in the inherently unstable human body as well as minor changes in the flatness and elasticity of the ground and poo poo. Anything that can measure only things like the angle between the femur and tibia and the overall body tilt, but not the forces acting on each segment of the leg and foot would be expected to fail miserably. I won't say no amount of AI can control a robot with dumb legs, but I definitely expect that putting a literal bucketload of cheap stretch sensors and poo poo into the leg makes the job orders of magnitude easier. Its also the case in, say, video games and other AI simulations that they handle even fairly basic things like stairs incredibly badly, to the point where various workarounds are created including them just plain ignoring such changes in elevation from a purely AI standpoint and just moving them while having animation take over.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted: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? Because you are the sum of your experiences and cognition of those experiences, either consciously or unconsciously. An AI is not. Everything you do has meaning, even if it's not readily apparent even to yourself. The same cannot be said about an AI. Humans are able to interpret meaning in what an AI does, but that doesn't mean that there is any meaning to actually be had.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
When I look at a cloud in a certain way it may look like the face of the Buddha. It would be absurd to suggest that the act of precipitation of water is actively trying to convey the form of Siddhartha.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted: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? 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. AI isn't even capable of that level of meaning or intent.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 02:53 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted: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. I'm not claiming to know the inner workings of a bird's mind. It clearly does have meaning doing what it is doing, though. It may not be meaning that is meaningful to humans, but it is still meaningful. And once again, a machine that builds a house doesn't have any intrinsic meaning beyond what the the human who made it has imparted on it. It itself is not making any meaningful choices in its construction of the house. I mean, ultimately there's no meaning at all because we're just a collection of matter and the arguments between free will and determinism have been raging ever since we could communicate the idea at all.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 14:25
|
|