244 réponses à ce sujet

[ArchDuck]

Reorte wrote...

If it's self-aware and intelligent then it's alive. Origins and the nature of the bits are irrelevent.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Other than the appearance, I see no difference between an organism, that is self-aware and capable of creative and independent thought, driven by a synthetic brain and such an organism controlled by a biochemical one.

[KingNothing125]

Zero132132 wrote...

What this really means, though, is that AIs wouldn't function the same way we do. Their consciousness may lack the chaotic undertones, and we'd have no reason to program it to even have a sense of awe (although a set of values to guide thoughts and actions may, in function, be similar to joy), but that doesn't prohibit a sense of self-awareness, the ability to learn, or the ability to have a sense of ethical values. None of those things rely on the chaos involved in how we think, but those are the things I regard as respectable (and generally interesting) in life forms.

I think it's the chaos that makes a consciousness. Without it, we're just programming a really, really advanced google search, and I think that reflects what I said originally: "artificially intelligent" machines just mimic life, they aren't alive.

[RogueBot]

KingNothing125 wrote...

Neanderthals bred with whatever the other humans at the time were called. There was no us vs. them.

No one really knows how the neanderthals died out. Genetic research suggests there is a tiny amount of neanderthal DNA in modern-day humans, but not enough to suggest that interbreeding was at all common.

Maybe they went extinct because of diseases, or maybe humanity did wipe them out. Personally, I just find it fascinating that for such an incredibly long time (around 15,000 years) Europeans lived among another intelligent species. That's fascinating to me.

Modifié par RogueBot, 30 juin 2012 - 09:30 .

[Shepardtheshepard]

RogueBot wrote...

KingNothing125 wrote...

Neanderthals bred with whatever the other humans at the time were called. There was no us vs. them.

No one really knows how the neanderthals died out. Genetic research suggests there is a tiny amount of neanderthal DNA in modern-day humans, but not enough to suggest that interbreeding was at all common.

Maybe they went extinct because of diseases, or maybe humanity did wipe them out. Personally, I just find it fascinating that for such an incredibly long time (around 15,000 years) Europeans lived among another intelligent species. That's fascinating to me.

I don't know. Argonians always seemed a bit slow in my experience.

[Abraham_uk]

Shepardtheshepard wrote...

Mirdarion wrote...

If someone was to take all information that is stored within my brain, my very soul and everything that's part of my (sub-)consciousness, and put it into a machine that were able to simulate my brain with all its functions, so that physically I wouldn't know the difference (beside being "trapped" in a machine), would I become an AI?

Is it my body that makes me human, or is it my... well, soul sounds so religious. What exactly separates us from animals? A few weeks ago I even read in the Max-Planck-Research (a journal for scientists released in Germany which is also available in English) that some apes mourn for their dead children, so the argument that we are able to experience feelings won't do it anymore.

I think it's too hard to apply organic feelings to AI feelings. How would a robot/computer/whatever actually "feel" an emotion? How in synthetics do they receive emtional pain?  In organics, emotional distress actually does damage (whether temporary or permanent) to our bodies. Can AI's suffer from that? and if so, why would anyone be so mean to create them like that?
Legion and I think EDI mention throughout the games that they don't "feel" like organics do. Which while that may not mean they're not alive, it certainly presents some tricky questions. Like if it's not like organics, is it even an emotion at all, or simply "when condition X is met excute programme Y"?

The Geth argue with each other until they reach consensus. Isn't that a sign of sentient thought?
Debating. Geth love debaiting.

[RogueBot]

Shepardtheshepard wrote...

RogueBot wrote...

KingNothing125 wrote...

Neanderthals bred with whatever the other humans at the time were called. There was no us vs. them.

No one really knows how the neanderthals died out. Genetic research suggests there is a tiny amount of neanderthal DNA in modern-day humans, but not enough to suggest that interbreeding was at all common.

Maybe they went extinct because of diseases, or maybe humanity did wipe them out. Personally, I just find it fascinating that for such an incredibly long time (around 15,000 years) Europeans lived among another intelligent species. That's fascinating to me.

I don't know. Argonians always seemed a bit slow in my experience.

I was referring to the Khajiit, who are not only clever but soft and fluffy.

[AngryFrozenWater]

KingNothing125 wrote...

Zero132132 wrote...

What this really means, though, is that AIs wouldn't function the same way we do. Their consciousness may lack the chaotic undertones, and we'd have no reason to program it to even have a sense of awe (although a set of values to guide thoughts and actions may, in function, be similar to joy), but that doesn't prohibit a sense of self-awareness, the ability to learn, or the ability to have a sense of ethical values. None of those things rely on the chaos involved in how we think, but those are the things I regard as respectable (and generally interesting) in life forms.

I think it's the chaos that makes a consciousness. Without it, we're just programming a really, really advanced google search, and I think that reflects what I said originally: "artificially intelligent" machines just mimic life, they aren't alive.

Nah. A human brain is not larger than a football. It's mostly water, biochemical goo, and some stuff that transports electrical signals. It can't be too hard to build. We just haven't figured it out yet.

[DolphinMasterBubs]

If AI's are wanting to help save lives and help keep the galaxy safe in a peaceful manner, then I'm all up for helping them. But if the AI's are anything like Skynet (from the Terminator series of movies), then I'd do all in my power to deactivate them before they kill off possibly hundreds or even billions of lives.

[JesseLee202]

KingNothing125 wrote...

In-universe, I accept the established fiction that machines can be sentient beings.

But IRL I think it's impossible to make a machine truly intelligent and sentient. Machines are programmed. They mimic life, they aren't alive.

I agree.

[JesseLee202]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Nah. A human brain is not larger than a football. It's mostly water, biochemical goo, and some stuff that transports electrical signals. It can't be too hard to build. We just haven't figured it out yet.

Um, I hope your joking... 

[BatmanPWNS]

IDK, I've never seen a real AI.

[KingNothing125]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Nah. A human brain is not larger than a football. It's mostly water, biochemical goo, and some stuff that transports electrical signals. It can't be too hard to build. We just haven't figured it out yet.

I agree that it's an entirely physical process and if they somehow managed to "figure it out", I would change my tune. I just think it's too impossibly complex to replicate artificially.

In Overlord, in Mass Effect 2, the Hammerhead VI mentions that there's an aesthetically pleasing view nearby. That always bothered me because I don't think a computer can know what an aesthetically pleasing view looks like. That's what I'm getting at.

You show me an opera written entirely by a machine, or a surrealist/abstract painting done by a machine, and I will reconsider my position, but until that happens, I don't think it's possible for a machine to be conscious.

[Shepardtheshepard]

Abraham_uk wrote...

Shepardtheshepard wrote...

Mirdarion wrote...

If someone was to take all information that is stored within my brain, my very soul and everything that's part of my (sub-)consciousness, and put it into a machine that were able to simulate my brain with all its functions, so that physically I wouldn't know the difference (beside being "trapped" in a machine), would I become an AI?

Is it my body that makes me human, or is it my... well, soul sounds so religious. What exactly separates us from animals? A few weeks ago I even read in the Max-Planck-Research (a journal for scientists released in Germany which is also available in English) that some apes mourn for their dead children, so the argument that we are able to experience feelings won't do it anymore.

I think it's too hard to apply organic feelings to AI feelings. How would a robot/computer/whatever actually "feel" an emotion? How in synthetics do they receive emtional pain?  In organics, emotional distress actually does damage (whether temporary or permanent) to our bodies. Can AI's suffer from that? and if so, why would anyone be so mean to create them like that?
Legion and I think EDI mention throughout the games that they don't "feel" like organics do. Which while that may not mean they're not alive, it certainly presents some tricky questions. Like if it's not like organics, is it even an emotion at all, or simply "when condition X is met excute programme Y"?

The Geth argue with each other until they reach consensus. Isn't that a sign of sentient thought?
Debating. Geth love debaiting.

That wasn't what I was saying dude.  

[The Night Mammoth]

Abraham_uk wrote...

Shepardtheshepard wrote...

Mirdarion wrote...

If someone was to take all information that is stored within my brain, my very soul and everything that's part of my (sub-)consciousness, and put it into a machine that were able to simulate my brain with all its functions, so that physically I wouldn't know the difference (beside being "trapped" in a machine), would I become an AI?

Is it my body that makes me human, or is it my... well, soul sounds so religious. What exactly separates us from animals? A few weeks ago I even read in the Max-Planck-Research (a journal for scientists released in Germany which is also available in English) that some apes mourn for their dead children, so the argument that we are able to experience feelings won't do it anymore.

I think it's too hard to apply organic feelings to AI feelings. How would a robot/computer/whatever actually "feel" an emotion? How in synthetics do they receive emtional pain?  In organics, emotional distress actually does damage (whether temporary or permanent) to our bodies. Can AI's suffer from that? and if so, why would anyone be so mean to create them like that?
Legion and I think EDI mention throughout the games that they don't "feel" like organics do. Which while that may not mean they're not alive, it certainly presents some tricky questions. Like if it's not like organics, is it even an emotion at all, or simply "when condition X is met excute programme Y"?

The Geth argue with each other until they reach consensus. Isn't that a sign of sentient thought?
Debating. Geth love debaiting.

No it's not, funnily enough. 

It's a sign of sapient thought. 

[ArchDuck]

Abraham_uk wrote...

I hope it's impossible to create a synthetic brain with the ability to think, have emotions and behave.

They think that the processing power should be sufficient to allow us to create AI around the year 2030 range.

[ArchDuck]

JesseLee202 wrote...

KingNothing125 wrote...

In-universe, I accept the established fiction that machines can be sentient beings.

But IRL I think it's impossible to make a machine truly intelligent and sentient. Machines are programmed. They mimic life, they aren't alive.

I agree.

I think you are confusing VI and AI.
AI are able to learn & adapt. This should allow them to surpass their original programing.

[KingNothing125]

ArchDuck wrote...

I think you are confusing VI and AI.
AI are able to learn & adapt. This should allow them to surpass their original programing.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm saying VI is all that we could ever realistically create and that AI is impossible to create.

[RadicalDisconnect]

Rockpopple wrote...

Let me put it this way: the moment a machine starts to feel, that's the moment you unplug it. That simple.

Basically what Javik feels about machines is how I feel. No matter how cute and cuddly they are, the moment it starts crying, you put it in the ground and start again.

Machines aren't like us. We don't know where we ultimately come from, even if we follow the course of evolution to it's source, there's still an air of mystery as to what it is that makes us sentient. But we know exactly where the Machines come from, and they know where they come from. That's makes them fundamentally different from life as we know it. And that makes us ultimately responsible for where they go and how they evolve.

Kill them with fire if they get out of line. Nuff said.

And yet you make a personal exception for Data. Double standard much?

I honestly don't know if you're just being inflammatory/trolling. I find it hard to believe that anyone can take what you said seriously.

[Kr0gan]

Future AI constructs will be as much machines as we are. Someday we won't differentiate things if they are "alive" or not, we'll diferentiate them if they are intelligent/sentient or not, I think.

If we create an AI that can feel like we do, fear for his life like we do and think like we do... then what's the difference?

Anyway, this is kind of irrelevant... if Kurzweil predictions come true, there won't be a difference between organics and AI because "they" will be part of us (a non-forced, less creepy version of Synthesis, I think).

[Reorte]

KingNothing125 wrote...

In Overlord, in Mass Effect 2, the Hammerhead VI mentions that there's an aesthetically pleasing view nearby. That always bothered me because I don't think a computer can know what an aesthetically pleasing view looks like. That's what I'm getting at.

There are some things that you make a stab at. High point overlooking a valley with mountains around is usually a good guess, although quite why anyone would bother programming such rules into the Hammerhead's VI is a bit of a mystery.

[ElementL09]

Legion and EDI are alive in my book.

[KingNothing125]

Reorte wrote...

There are some things that you make a stab at. High point overlooking a valley with mountains around is usually a good guess

Sure, but that's just an algorithm like Pandora or TiVo has.

"User expressed interest in subjects: Mountains, Rivers.

Sensors detect Mountains and Rivers nearby.

Direct organics' attention to location of Mountains and Rivers."

The computer doesn't understand WHY mountains and rivers and such are aesthetically pleasing. Someone just told it that they were.

[Kr0gan]

KingNothing125 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

There are some things that you make a stab at. High point overlooking a valley with mountains around is usually a good guess

Sure, but that's just an algorithm like Pandora or TiVo has.

"User expressed interest in subjects: Mountains, Rivers.

Sensors detect Mountains and Rivers nearby.

Direct organics' attention to location of Mountains and Rivers."

The computer doesn't understand WHY mountains and rivers and such are aesthetically pleasing. Someone just told it that they were.

And do YOU understand why they are aesthetically pleasing to see? What's the difference between a expert system telling a VI what a person would like and your instincts telling you what you like?

Anyway, your post doesn't contradict what he said.

[KingNothing125]

Kr0gan wrote...

And do YOU understand why they are aesthetically pleasing to see? What's the difference between a expert system telling a VI what a person would like and your instincts telling you what you like?

Anyway, your post doesn't contradict what he said.

That's the point. A conscious being can decide on its own what it finds pleasing or detestable or what-have-you. A computer can't independently look at a vista and decide that it's beautiful. It probably can't even understand the concept of "beautiful" on its own.