|
computers don't have souls so they can never be truly intelligent ok? hth but i know it won't so i'll pray for you
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
cool tricks aside i just don't see how we're going to program a general ai that learns, and learns how to learn, given our rudimentary understanding of how we do those things at the level of the brain. intelligence isn't just going to emerge because we stuff in more transistors, and it feels to me like we're pretty far away from the level of knowledge to bootstrap the system. what even is intelligence, surely it's more than just being a really good classifier? i'm not an ai researcher but we've seen this hype before and i'm not convinced it's any different this time
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
SmokaDustbowl posted:true AI is impossible i wouldn't go that far... while i can't define intelligence, it's definitely a thing humans have, and there's no evidence that our brains use anything but the normal matter of the universe to produce it. so in principle it should be something we can build, but no one has ever come close to convincing me that they have the slightest clue how to go about that
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:and like, i'm not sure how anyone can look at the results of the paper I posted in the OP and not start to question assumptions about the potential of current A.I techniques. ya i'm not arguing that these aren't powerful techniques, just pushing back against the notion that general ai is somewhere around the corner, which has dominated popular science media lately (most people don't read primary research papers)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
SmokaDustbowl posted:it would be easier to go faster than light than to make an AI what makes you think so? as far as we know, general ai is only a practical improbability given our current technological capabilities, while ftl travel is (according to our best theories) a physical impossibility that we will never surpass
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:i wonder basically how many rules are laid down when our brains are first made, vs how much is making sense of the inputs and creating intelligence on the spot over years ultimately our brains come from dna and the environment it's expressed in (an pre-bootstrapped adult woman, but we'll ignore that problem for now)... so in principle i'd say so, but nobody knows how the gently caress that poo poo works either so
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
what makes it impossible? are my sensory organs made of special magic stuff that nobody can ever replicate? we already have workable artificial limbs, and all we had to do to get those was start a couple wars, imagine if the combined effort of humanity was put into this
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Transistors. Like every computer. ya, a nerve is made of neurons, a neuron fires or it doesn't fire, kinda sounds like a transistor to me
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
SmokaDustbowl posted:because it's an entirely different structure so what? the chip in my stebebook pro has a vastly different structure than the one in a snes, yet the former can faithfully emulate the latter
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
SmokaDustbowl posted:it would take an impossible amount of computing power, AI is straight up like time travel there are nearly 7 billion computers already on planet earth that can do it, they're just made of meat instead of silicon, and they're made by nature instead of intel
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
you're saying it's impossible but you can't explain why, you just pick a detail and say that's impossible
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
a youtube video clip of an hbo comedy show is not an explanation or even an argument. if you believe what you say so strongly, you should be able to articulate why
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
am i loving up here? is arguing with smoka like quoting stymie? i knew he posted endlessly but didn't realize the posts were so content-free
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:smoka does have arguments behind his point so I'll let another sci fi author make them for him: i don't know that i'd do him the favor of assuming he's thinking in metaphysical terms
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
despite the air of formality, i've always thought of ontology as how we organize the universe, not necessarily how the universe itself is organized
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
it's dark in this cave and i can't see
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
you really are a poo poo poster
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
those conscious choice tests works like this: you sit in front of some buttons you can press, and you may freely decide which one. you can take as much time as you need. there is a clock in the room. you are also hooked up to a brain scanny machine. once you've made a decision, before you press the button, you note the time when you committed to that choice. apparently the researchers looking at the machine can consistently predict your choice before you are conscious of having made it. and it's not a few milliseconds before either, it's like 5 seconds
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
echinopsis posted:consciousness is absolutely like nothing else on the universe at all you don't know that, you don't have a single piece of objective evidence to support that claim, and neither does anyone else who makes it
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2017 07:02
|
|