317 réponses à ce sujet

[ninjaNumber1]

themaxzero wrote...

ninjaNumber1 wrote...

Kanmuru wrote...

DoctorUburian wrote...

The Geth and EDI are alive.

 They are not even alive! Not really. They are just a machines, and machines can be broken! 

Exactly! Not to sound cruel, but machine life forms can be recreated. If Shepard is vaporized, you cannot re-create Shepard. Even the ME universe acknowledges that as the need for the Lazarus project. But any Geth can simply be re-created.

Hence, no moral dilemma that a life has been ended when killing a machine. If required, that 'life' can be re-created at a later date.

What if the machine becomes self aware and begins to develop a unique personality?

Its unclear what it means to be 'self-aware' for a machine though. A machine would be self-aware if you taught it to behave as if it had a self. But it doesn't really mean that it is self-aware though.

And unless the experiences are random, you can still hypothetically build that same 'self-aware' AI and feed it the experiences to make it develop the same personality.

See (this is just my 2 cent pondering here  ), I think this whole ability to develop a unique personality depends entirely on a 'will' being free. In this sense, an AI 'will' can never be free. It is always programmed. At best, you can program it to 'will' random choices. But that would still be you doing the constraining and its 'will' would therefore not be free. There is also the issue of generating artificial randomness as well. For all you know, its merely pseudo-random.

In this sense, my personal belief is that, aside from Mass Effect, there will never be AI 'persons'. There will be AI units made to look like persons and mimic a self-aware person but they would still be different from a human being in that they do not have a free 'will' (or perhaps even anything called a 'will').

[ninjaNumber1]

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

Then tell me. What, and who determines if something is alive or not?
The same logic can be applied to organics. They're not even alive! Not really. They're just hunks of meat, and meat is only good for eating. /unfunny devil emote.

Legion, and EDI are just as alive as Miranda, and Garrus. They just aren't as squishy.

I think your question touches upon a deeper question of what would be the ontological basis of any ethical system and its assumptions. That is something the Mass Effect Universe never explains and lot of people really don't spend much time in their real lives to think about either.
 

Modifié par ninjaNumber1, 03 mars 2012 - 09:24 .

[Eclipse_9990]

ninjaNumber1 wrote...

themaxzero wrote...

ninjaNumber1 wrote...

Kanmuru wrote...

DoctorUburian wrote...

The Geth and EDI are alive.

 They are not even alive! Not really. They are just a machines, and machines can be broken! 

Exactly! Not to sound cruel, but machine life forms can be recreated. If Shepard is vaporized, you cannot re-create Shepard. Even the ME universe acknowledges that as the need for the Lazarus project. But any Geth can simply be re-created.

Hence, no moral dilemma that a life has been ended when killing a machine. If required, that 'life' can be re-created at a later date.

What if the machine becomes self aware and begins to develop a unique personality?

Its unclear what it means to be 'self-aware' for a machine though. A machine would be self-aware if you taught it to behave as if it had a self. But it doesn't really mean that it is self-aware though.

And unless the experiences are random, you can still hypothetically build that same 'self-aware' AI and feed it the experiences to make it develop the same personality.

See (this is just my 2 cent pondering here  ), I think this whole ability to develop a unique personality depends entirely on a 'will' being free. In this sense, an AI 'will' can never be free. It is always programmed. At best, you can program it to 'will' random choices. But that would still be you doing the constraining and its 'will' would therefore not be free. There is also the issue of generating artificial randomness as well. For all you know, its merely pseudo-random.

In this sense, my personal belief is that, aside from Mass Effect, there will never be AI 'persons'. There will be AI units made to look like persons and mimic a self-aware person but they would still be different from a human being in that they do not have a free 'will' (or perhaps even anything called a 'will').

Incase you haven't realized humans are "programmed" as well. We are programmed by our DNA, and experiences. Thats why all living creatures have a thing called "instinct". Instinct is a reaction thats hardwired into our very being. 

We are "programmed" to mate, to try, and survive, to create, and do all sorts of things. There is no real difference
between a sophisticated AI, and a sophisticated Organic except for the shell they happen to be in. 

For example that casino AI in Mass Effect 1. He was very much alive. He started out small, but eventually grew more, and more sophisticated. He wanted to join the geth because he knew the organics would try to destroy him.

He had the will to survive. EDI apparently falls in love with Joker, and I seriously doubt Cerberus had that planned when they created her.

She. Is. Alive. Just because AI synthetics aren't fragile hunks of meat, doesn't mean they aren't just as alive as everyone else.

Modifié par Eclipse_9990, 03 mars 2012 - 09:29 .

[themaxzero]

ninjaNumber1 wrote...

themaxzero wrote...

ninjaNumber1 wrote...

Kanmuru wrote...

DoctorUburian wrote...

The Geth and EDI are alive.

 They are not even alive! Not really. They are just a machines, and machines can be broken! 

Exactly! Not to sound cruel, but machine life forms can be recreated. If Shepard is vaporized, you cannot re-create Shepard. Even the ME universe acknowledges that as the need for the Lazarus project. But any Geth can simply be re-created.

Hence, no moral dilemma that a life has been ended when killing a machine. If required, that 'life' can be re-created at a later date.

What if the machine becomes self aware and begins to develop a unique personality?

Its unclear what it means to be 'self-aware' for a machine though. A machine would be self-aware if you taught it to behave as if it had a self. But it doesn't really mean that it is self-aware though.

And unless the experiences are random, you can still hypothetically build that same 'self-aware' AI and feed it the experiences to make it develop the same personality.

See (this is just my 2 cent pondering here  ), I think this whole ability to develop a unique personality depends entirely on a 'will' being free. In this sense, an AI 'will' can never be free. It is always programmed. At best, you can program it to 'will' random choices. But that would still be you doing the constraining and its 'will' would therefore not be free. There is also the issue of generating artificial randomness as well. For all you know, its merely pseudo-random.

In this sense, my personal belief is that, aside from Mass Effect, there will never be AI 'persons'. There will be AI units made to look like persons and mimic a self-aware person but they would still be different from a human being in that they do not have a free 'will' (or perhaps even anything called a 'will').

I think technological process may surprise you.

At the heart of it all living beings are programmed too.

[Eclipse_9990]

themaxzero wrote...

I think technological process may surprise you.

At the heart of it all living beings are programmed too.

Thank you. Maybe now people will realize that the "They are just programmed to-" argument just doesn't fly. Because every living creature ever is programmed. 

Ever hear people say that the human brain is just a very sophisticated computer? Thats because its true. 

Modifié par Eclipse_9990, 03 mars 2012 - 09:30 .

[GBGriffin]

Eclipse_9990 wrote...


Thank you. Maybe now people will realize that the "They are just programmed to-" argument just doesn't fly. Because every living creature ever is programmed. 

Eh, that isn't absolutely true. I agree humans are conditioned, but, in the end, that argument really reflects one's own views on what it means to be human.

[ninjaNumber1]

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

Incase you haven't realized humans are "programmed" as well. We are programmed by our DNA, and experience. Thats why all living creatures have a thing called "instinct". Instinct is a reaction thats hardwired into our very being. 

We are "programmed" to mate, to try, and survive, to create, and do all sorts of things. There is no real difference between a sophisticated AI, and a sophisticated Organic except for the shell they happen to be in. 

Interesting view. But I am still not sure if we are 'programmed'.

All the DNA seems to do is determine that we have basic needs to eat, mate etc. Does the DNA in you determine whether you will respond to my post here?

In fact, me asking that question would probably make you sit still for a bit to ponder which choice you want to take. Your DNA and neutral network using the brain will tell you that you can either reply or not reply (DNA might say you want to eat now before replying or need to mate etc). But you also know that you have no constraint against either choice you make. It is ultimately with YOU to choose to reply or not choose to reply.

So the way I see it, the DNA is just another element among other things in nature that provides/defines the choices you can make. But you still have a 'will' that is free to choose either of these choices.

[Eclipse_9990]

GBGriffin wrote...

Eclipse_9990 wrote...


Thank you. Maybe now people will realize that the "They are just programmed to-" argument just doesn't fly. Because every living creature ever is programmed. 

Eh, that isn't absolutely true. I agree humans are conditioned, but, in the end, that argument really reflects one's own views on what it means to be human.

But the question isn't if they are human or not. Its if they are really alive. Of course they aren't human, just like Turians, and Asari aren't human, but the point is that they are just as alive as everyone else.

[ninjaNumber1]

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

Thank you. Maybe now people will realize that the "They are just programmed to-" argument just doesn't fly. Because every living creature ever is programmed. 

Ever hear people say that the human brain is just a very sophisticated computer? Thats because its true. 

Human brain is a computer in the way it evaluates the possible choices. But to say that we make choices like a computer would be far fetched, no? Don't you agree that you are free to 'will' either choice even after evaluating some choices to be better than others?

[Ypiret]

ninjaNumber1 wrote...

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

Incase you haven't realized humans are "programmed" as well. We are programmed by our DNA, and experience. Thats why all living creatures have a thing called "instinct". Instinct is a reaction thats hardwired into our very being. 

We are "programmed" to mate, to try, and survive, to create, and do all sorts of things. There is no real difference between a sophisticated AI, and a sophisticated Organic except for the shell they happen to be in. 

Interesting view. But I am still not sure if we are 'programmed'.

All the DNA seems to do is determine that we have basic needs to eat, mate etc. Does the DNA in you determine whether you will respond to my post here?

In fact, me asking that question would probably make you sit still for a bit to ponder which choice you want to take. Your DNA and neutral network using the brain will tell you that you can either reply or not reply (DNA might say you want to eat now before replying or need to mate etc). But you also know that you have no constraint against either choice you make. It is ultimately with YOU to choose to reply or not choose to reply.

So the way I see it, the DNA is just another element among other things in nature that provides/defines the choices you can make. But you still have a 'will' that is free to choose either of these choices.

There is no such thing as "will". Everything happens because something before it happened. Cognition is nothing more then assessing a situation by looking back on all the relative past events, predicting the outcome of your choice and then carrying out the most appropriate action. Not unlike a computer. We're just way more complex and intricate.

Modifié par Ypiret, 03 mars 2012 - 09:40 .

[Eclipse_9990]

ninjaNumber1 wrote...

Interesting view. But I am still not sure if we are 'programmed'.

All the DNA seems to do is determine that we have basic needs to eat, mate etc.

This is programming. 

ninjaNumber1 wrote... 
Does the DNA in you determine whether you will respond to my post here?

 

Depends, some people are programmed to be more inclined to debate, and/or argue with others. So yes in a way I am programmed to respond to your queries. 

ninjaNumber1 wrote...  
In fact, me asking that question would probably make you sit still for a bit to ponder which choice you want to take. Your DNA and neutral network using the brain will tell you that you can either reply or not reply (DNA might say you want to eat now before replying or need to mate etc). But you also know that you have no constraint against either choice you make. It is ultimately with YOU to choose to reply or not choose to reply.

So the way I see it, the DNA is just another element among other things in nature that provides/defines the choices you can make. But you still have a 'will' that is free to choose either of these choices.

Ah, but the AI do have free will. This has been evident multiple times in the ME trilogy. That Casino AI, EDI, the Geth. They all have free will, and can make their own choices regardless of anothers influences. 

Modifié par Eclipse_9990, 03 mars 2012 - 09:43 .

[Baronesa]

Well... after the beginning of Mass Effect 2, Shepard becomes a cyborg... Did that made her less human? Are we talking on hybrids ala borg, or the ones in System Shock 2? Or a merging of synthetics and organics without any other qualifier?

If no other qualifier is given, then it is our interpretation. If that is the case, then I don't see the merging process killing self determination or core identity... it will just add a non biological component to those affected.

[Eclipse_9990]

Baronesa wrote...

Well... after the beginning of Mass Effect 2, Shepard becomes a cyborg... Did that made her less human? Are we talking on hybrids ala borg, or the ones in System Shock 2? Or a merging of synthetics and organics without any other qualifier?

If no other qualifier is given, then it is our interpretation. If that is the case, then I don't see the merging process killing self determination or core identity... it will just add a non biological component to those affected.

Thank you. Finally someone else who understands. 

[Dunmer of Redoran]

I won't choose this ending because I want EDI to die, just to **** with Joker for marooning the Normandy.

[ninjaNumber1]

Ypiret wrote...

There is no such thing as "will". Everything happens because something before it happened. Cognition is nothing more then assessing a situation by looking back on all the relative past events, predicting the outcome of your choice and then carrying out the most appropriate action. 

But what you say doesn't indicate that there is no 'will'. Rather, it seems to indicate that the 'will' is not free.

But given a thought experiment of what you are going to do next to what I say here, I think it is something is clear to ourselves that we are free to will anything. We might not be able to accomplish anything due to prior events but we are certainly free to will .... at least that much is intuitively clear to me.

[Zyrious]

GBGriffin wrote...

Eclipse_9990 wrote...


Thank you. Maybe now people will realize that the "They are just programmed to-" argument just doesn't fly. Because every living creature ever is programmed. 

Eh, that isn't absolutely true. I agree humans are conditioned, but, in the end, that argument really reflects one's own views on what it means to be human.

Agree'd. People these days seriously underestimate the human brain. Scientists making "Mechanical brains" know they can't recreate the human conciousness, they are just trying to be able to mimic or simulate it. Our conciousness works on a mix of DNA, chemical, bioligical, and even quantum mechanical processes that aren't fully understood, and that's in addition to those of us who believe in the human soul.

Machines, even AI, works on a basis of 1's and 0's. The 1's and 0's work based on the presence of electricity. This basic process expands exponentially the more 1's and 0's you add until you can create numerous variations to create programs and operations. Each and every variable has to be programmed. Even a self-im proving AI in said singularity would have to add more and more variables in order to be able to think more. It isnt truly "Sentient" in that, it cannot think of what it is not programmed to think. Abstract thought is impossible for a machine, that would be as if thinking in a vacuum.

To better explain: You have binary 1 = electricity is present, 0 = it isnt present, you expand on this to have the computer do certain things (set forth based on the hardware) based on certain amounts and variations of the 1\\s and 0's. You can make them represent letters, which can be used to formulate code, which can be used to write programs, which can be made into AI. Everything an AI does is based on its code, it can't do something it isn't coded to do, that's impossible for the AI.

For instance, you program an AI 12 responses for situation A depending on the circumstances for Situation A happen. The programmer must account for all variables. If Situation A happens in a way not close enough to the variables the AI was designed to account for, it doesn't form free will, it just breaks. It either just does something completely irrelevant, picks one of the 12 responses at random, or it gives you a blue screen or locks up the program (depending on how its set up). More and more complicated AI is just very advanced versions of this.

It's never truly alive. It is as "Alive" as we program it to be. It's why scientists, very frequently, laugh at the notion of evil, sentient AI.

[Eclipse_9990]

DaftArbiter wrote...

I won't choose this ending because I want EDI to die, just to **** with Joker for marooning the Normandy.

God damn that is petty. If you're gonna make a big decision based on something like this, why even bother trying to save the galaxy? 

I think we need the synergy/merge thing to happen in real life. People could use more logic. 

[ninjaNumber1]

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

ninjaNumber1 wrote...

Interesting view. But I am still not sure if we are 'programmed'.

All the DNA seems to do is determine that we have basic needs to eat, mate etc.

This is programming. 

ninjaNumber1 wrote... 
Does the DNA in you determine whether you will respond to my post here?

 

Depends, some people are programmed to be more inclined to debate, and/or argue with others. So yes in a way I am programmed to respond to your queries. 

ninjaNumber1 wrote...  
In fact, me asking that question would probably make you sit still for a bit to ponder which choice you want to take. Your DNA and neutral network using the brain will tell you that you can either reply or not reply (DNA might say you want to eat now before replying or need to mate etc). But you also know that you have no constraint against either choice you make. It is ultimately with YOU to choose to reply or not choose to reply.

So the way I see it, the DNA is just another element among other things in nature that provides/defines the choices you can make. But you still have a 'will' that is free to choose either of these choices.

Ah, but the AI do have free will. This has been evident multiple times in the ME trilogy. That Casino AI, EDI, the Geth. They all have free will, and can make their own choices regardless of anothers influences. 

hmm, I think you are still confusing programming with actual will. To me, DNA is indeed programming but it only gives the choices.

Like your personality to be argumentative as you said merely makes you like the option of replying to me. But you still have a choice. You can either go with your inclinations or go against it and not reply to me. The choice is still free and the programming only made you prefer some choices.

In the case of EDI and other AI in ME, its impossible to observe and say they have free-will. I can't for an example observe how you behave and determine if you have free-will. I assume you have free-will because you are human and you probably share the same qualities as what I experience.

On the other hand, I know EDI and other AI in ME do not have a free 'will' because of the way they were cosnstruted. They simply had to be programmed. Unlike humans, it wasn't a matter of programming the AI to feel basic needs but it also had to be programmed in the way it would determine which choices to pick after evaluation. That to me is where the difference lies.

Humans and AI can both have programming in them. But humans have a free 'will' while AI can at best have a constrained 'will' that mimics a 'free will'.

[Ypiret]

ninjaNumber1 wrote...

Ypiret wrote...

There is no such thing as "will". Everything happens because something before it happened. Cognition is nothing more then assessing a situation by looking back on all the relative past events, predicting the outcome of your choice and then carrying out the most appropriate action. 

But what you say doesn't indicate that there is no 'will'. Rather, it seems to indicate that the 'will' is not free.

But given a thought experiment of what you are going to do next to what I say here, I think it is something is clear to ourselves that we are free to will anything. We might not be able to accomplish anything due to prior events but we are certainly free to will .... at least that much is intuitively clear to me.

It's called determinism. Everything that happens, eveything you do, say , or think is out of response to something else. Is it not? Everything is linked and connected to the point were relevancy is almost non-existant. You do not simply "will" or "want" something without reason. Life is nothing more then watching a long movie you've never seen before.

My point is that this is in no way different then a computer or AI works. Cause and effect, act and reaction. A computer asking you to fix a line of code because you made a syntax error is no different then a human wanting some juice because they're thirsty. Just because there are "feelings" associated with one doesn't mean the other doesn't count.

[Freyzer]

I bet in ME4, they'll somehow merge all the endings together to create some sort of cannon ending. In destroy, they reverse engineer all the dead reapers and rebuild the relays + give themselves machine parts. In control, Shepard fixes the relays and gives all the species the tech to give themselves machine parts. In merge, they rebuild the relays. Basically, in the end, some form of merge happens anyway.

[ninjaNumber1]

Zyrious wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

Eclipse_9990 wrote...


Thank you. Maybe now people will realize that the "They are just programmed to-" argument just doesn't fly. Because every living creature ever is programmed. 

Eh, that isn't absolutely true. I agree humans are conditioned, but, in the end, that argument really reflects one's own views on what it means to be human.

Agree'd. People these days seriously underestimate the human brain. Scientists making "Mechanical brains" know they can't recreate the human conciousness, they are just trying to be able to mimic or simulate it. Our conciousness works on a mix of DNA, chemical, bioligical, and even quantum mechanical processes that aren't fully understood, and that's in addition to those of us who believe in the human soul.

Machines, even AI, works on a basis of 1's and 0's. The 1's and 0's work based on the presence of electricity. This basic process expands exponentially the more 1's and 0's you add until you can create numerous variations to create programs and operations. Each and every variable has to be programmed. Even a self-im proving AI in said singularity would have to add more and more variables in order to be able to think more. It isnt truly "Sentient" in that, it cannot think of what it is not programmed to think. Abstract thought is impossible for a machine, that would be as if thinking in a vacuum.

To better explain: You have binary 1 = electricity is present, 0 = it isnt present, you expand on this to have the computer do certain things (set forth based on the hardware) based on certain amounts and variations of the 1s and 0's. You can make them represent letters, which can be used to formulate code, which can be used to write programs, which can be made into AI. Everything an AI does is based on its code, it can't do something it isn't coded to do, that's impossible for the AI.

For instance, you program an AI 12 responses for situation A depending on the circumstances for Situation A happen. The programmer must account for all variables. If Situation A happens in a way not close enough to the variables the AI was designed to account for, it doesn't form free will, it just breaks. It either just does something completely irrelevant, picks one of the 12 responses at random, or it gives you a blue screen or locks up the program (depending on how its set up). More and more complicated AI is just very advanced versions of this.

It's never truly alive. It is as "Alive" as we program it to be. It's why scientists, very frequently, laugh at the notion of evil, sentient AI.

I think you highlighted the problem with an 'AI free will' really well here.

[Ypiret]

Zyrious wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

Eclipse_9990 wrote...


Thank you. Maybe now people will realize that the "They are just programmed to-" argument just doesn't fly. Because every living creature ever is programmed. 

Eh, that isn't absolutely true. I agree humans are conditioned, but, in the end, that argument really reflects one's own views on what it means to be human.

Agree'd. People these days seriously underestimate the human brain. Scientists making "Mechanical brains" know they can't recreate the human conciousness, they are just trying to be able to mimic or simulate it. Our conciousness works on a mix of DNA, chemical, bioligical, and even quantum mechanical processes that aren't fully understood, and that's in addition to those of us who believe in the human soul.

Machines, even AI, works on a basis of 1's and 0's. The 1's and 0's work based on the presence of electricity. This basic process expands exponentially the more 1's and 0's you add until you can create numerous variations to create programs and operations. Each and every variable has to be programmed. Even a self-im proving AI in said singularity would have to add more and more variables in order to be able to think more. It isnt truly "Sentient" in that, it cannot think of what it is not programmed to think. Abstract thought is impossible for a machine, that would be as if thinking in a vacuum.

To better explain: You have binary 1 = electricity is present, 0 = it isnt present, you expand on this to have the computer do certain things (set forth based on the hardware) based on certain amounts and variations of the 1s and 0's. You can make them represent letters, which can be used to formulate code, which can be used to write programs, which can be made into AI. Everything an AI does is based on its code, it can't do something it isn't coded to do, that's impossible for the AI.

For instance, you program an AI 12 responses for situation A depending on the circumstances for Situation A happen. The programmer must account for all variables. If Situation A happens in a way not close enough to the variables the AI was designed to account for, it doesn't form free will, it just breaks. It either just does something completely irrelevant, picks one of the 12 responses at random, or it gives you a blue screen or locks up the program (depending on how its set up). More and more complicated AI is just very advanced versions of this.

It's never truly alive. It is as "Alive" as we program it to be. It's why scientists, very frequently, laugh at the notion of evil, sentient AI.

You're wrong about recreation of the human conciousness. Many people have the idea that being "alive" has some sort of magical element that cannot be made or obtained. Live and he way you precieve reality is nothing more then a specific construction of matter. Genetic engineering and sergery are good examples of this. 

Also, I wouldn't underestimate scientists. 800 years ago people would have thought that metal flying ships that can move faster then sound could exists, but they do now. The creation of an AI that is "alive" is not only possible but inevitable if we don't all get wiped out or begin practicing extreme scientific digression. 

We alread have machines more "alive" then lower level orangism. 

Modifié par Ypiret, 03 mars 2012 - 10:06 .

[ninjaNumber1]

Ypiret wrote...

It's called determinism. Everything that happens, eveything you do, say , or think is out of response to something else. Is it not? Everything is linked and connected to the point were relevancy is almost non-existant. You do not simply "will" or "want" something without reason. Life is nothing more then watching a long movie you've never seen before.

My point is that this is in no way different then a computer or AI works. Cause and effect, act and reaction. A computer asking you to fix a line of code because you made a syntax error is no different then a human wanting some juice because they're thirsty. Just because there are "feelings" associated with one doesn't mean the other doesn't count.

I am aware of your position. The problem is that determinism should be intuitively false to you as it applies to the will. I don't think there is a way to actually prove that it is false to you in the same way its impossible to prove something like the principle of contradiction.

Maybe this thought experiment:

how do you answer the questions

1) is it determinism that has lead you to conclude that determinism is real?

If your answer is yes,  (If no, then you admit that determinism is false)

2) then is it not entirely possible for you to 'will' to live from this moment onward as if determinism is either true or false without basing it on any prior ideas/experiences/inclinations etc?

It seems like the answer is 'Yes' in which case determinism seems false. But if your answer is 'No', I don't see why....  at least immediately ......

[Baronesa]

I will be honest and say that I don't really feel prepared to even begin to argue about free-will and determinism, however there are some blatant over simplifications on the topic, and I feel that doing that does not improve the debate.

For those interested in following that, there are some interesting explanations made by Daniel Dennet...

And for those asking, I'm still reading arguments for both sides and still feeling unable to make a decision.

On the other topics, the evolution of AI intelligence will, most likely, eventually lead to self awareness. When that happens, I really hope we have the maturity as species to recognize it and grant full rights to synthetic organisms.

[ninjaNumber1]

Ypiret wrote...

You're wrong about recreation of the human conciousness. Many people have the idea that being "alive" has some sort of magical element that cannot be made or obtained. Live and he way you precieve reality is nothing more then a specific construction of matter. Genetic engineering and sergery are good examples of this. 

Also, I wouldn't underestimate scientists. 800 years ago people would have thought that metal flying ships that can move faster then sound could exists, but they do now. The creation of an AI that is "alive" is not only possible but inevitable if we don't all get wiped out or begin practicing extreme scientific digression. 

We alread have machines more "alive" then lower level orangism. 

That is an interesting video but what it still seems to show is how to teach a robot to evaluate what choices it has. Like with DNA and other natural bilogical structures and elements, this only gives access for the AI or human to understand what choices it has. But the difference between the human and AI is that then the human is entirely free to choose any choice.

The AI might be smarter in that given an objective function, it can find the best possible choice to improve chances of achieving a solution within that objective function, BUT it simply is not free.