359 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

No argument. 

How?  Oragnics and synthetics are incredibly different and nothing short of mereging the two together would be able to give "true understanding", something I agree with the Catalyst on.

Synthetics are just too different.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Steelcan wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

No argument. 

How?  Oragnics and synthetics are incredibly different and nothing short of mereging the two together would be able to give "true understanding", something I agree with the Catalyst on.

Synthetics are just too different.

No, I was saying no argument as in we've reached a conclusion to the argument. We agree. No need to argue the point further.

[Steelcan]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

No argument. 

How?  Oragnics and synthetics are incredibly different and nothing short of mereging the two together would be able to give "true understanding", something I agree with the Catalyst on.

Synthetics are just too different.

No, I was saying no argument as in we've reached a conclusion to the argument. We agree. No need to argue the point further.

Got it.

[jstme]

Reorte wrote...

jstme wrote...

Learning new things,socialising , adapting and reacting to threats does not have to require emotions even in biology. Look at bacteria,for an example. And synthetic life with fully functioning mind on many levels would be even farther from us then a bacteria.

Bacteria don't do any of that.

Bacteria can adapt (and sadly,very succesfully - does)and develop resistance to antibiotics via social interactions with even other species of bacteria through plasmids.
Bacteria can form huge colonies. Bacteria can react to hostile environment.
 

There are some basic in-built bodily drives that aren't emotional (although can interact with them) - eat food when hungry, move away from pain and so on. As soon as you get away from that direct response to immediate stimuli then emotion kicks in - it might just take the built in response to get you away from the lion that's attacking you right now but it needs more than that to avoid the lion that you've seen but hasn't seen you.
Your point about the mind is making unwarrented assumptions. Even if it's quite different to us it'll have more in common with us mind-wise than a bacterium simply by virtue of having a mind.

Unwarranted assumption. Well, perhaps. Perhaps not. After all - we indeed have mind as opposite to bacteria,but only due to better hardware and thus a software.
 What stops synthetic life form from becoming so much more advanced then us simply due to much better hardware and software ,too? Creating eventually a gap even bigger then between us and bacteria - since we lack the option to add processing power ad infinity and synthetic life - does not. We ,us and bacteria,despite the difference operate in same existential plane with same biological laws and limitations. Synthetic life will be able from the very start to exist beyond those barriers.

[Dr. Doctor]

From a scientific standpoint "the essence of who and what you are" could be DNA. Figuring out how to create synthetic biology based off of DNA would be melding of organics and synthetics.

If you wanted to get more metaphysical the Catalyst could be talking about the soul. AI's like the Geth, and to a lesser extent EDI lack a deep understanding on more esoteric concepts such as empathy, vengeance, and other behaviors exhibited by organic life. Giving synthetics the ability to fully understand organics and giving organics the ability to understand how and why synthetics do what they do would be a kind of synthesis.

[AlexMBrennan]

From a scientific standpoint "the essence of who and what you are" could be DNA

So, twins are just one entity then - they cannot possibly have independent thoughts, etc.

AI's like the Geth, and to a lesser extent EDI lack a deep understanding on more esoteric concepts such as empathy, vengeance, and other behaviors exhibited by organic life

Question is though whether that is a "platform limitation" or if the quarians simply never bothered to add code to make the geth vengeful.

So yeah, magic soul energy it is but I don't want magic in my sci-fi.

[o Ventus]

136th wrote...

In real life, an emotional mind is superior because of its better decision making ability.

In what ways is an emotionally driven person better at making decisions than a person who bases their choices in logic?

[o Ventus]

Necanor wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Necanor wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Reorte wrote...

The bolded part is irrelevent since it's not a question of good or bad. What you're saying is that there's only one way of having emotions that counts.

No, what I am saying is that EDI experiences an anologue to emotion, not true emotion, I did not say that it was inferior.

This. Except that I actually believe they are inferior.

And you call me a racist.

You select your partners based on their skin colour and origin, I dislike toasters. Who's the racist?

Both of you? Only difference is that you base prejudice on the fundamental composition of one's entire body. That's a far cry different than something like skin or hair color.

Modifié par o Ventus, 04 août 2013 - 04:28 .

[Sir DeLoria]

o Ventus wrote...

136th wrote...

In real life, an emotional mind is superior because of its better decision making ability.

In what ways is an emotionally driven person better at making decisions than a person who bases their choices in logic?

You're both wrong, there needs to be balance between emotion and logic. Both factors are vital and can't be neglected.

[Sir DeLoria]

o Ventus wrote...

Necanor wrote..
You select your partners based on their skin colour and origin, I dislike toasters. Who's the racist?

Both of you? Only difference is that you base prejudice on the fundamental composition of one's entire body. That's a far cry different than something like skin or hair color.

AIs, machines aren't a race. Computers aren't living beings, Geth are just highly advanced computers. 

[136th]

Necanor wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

136th wrote...

In real life, an emotional mind is superior because of its better decision making ability.

In what ways is an emotionally driven person better at making decisions than a person who bases their choices in logic?

You're both wrong, there needs to be balance between emotion and logic. Both factors are vital and can't be neglected.

Emotion vs. Logic...You do know that's a fake dichotomy right?

[o Ventus]

Necanor wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

136th wrote...

In real life, an emotional mind is superior because of its better decision making ability.

In what ways is an emotionally driven person better at making decisions than a person who bases their choices in logic?

You're both wrong, there needs to be balance between emotion and logic. Both factors are vital and can't be neglected.

I wasn't aware that I could be "wrong" when I wasn't presenting an objective case.

[o Ventus]

Necanor wrote...

AIs, machines aren't a race. Computers aren't living beings, Geth are just highly advanced computers. 

http://dictionary.re...browse/life?s=t

Of the 5 available definitions, 1 is restricted to organic... organisms. Another is an abstract, leaving 3 definitions to easily conform to a sufficiently advanced AI.

[Reorte]

Necanor wrote...

AIs, machines aren't a race. Computers aren't living beings, Geth are just highly advanced computers.

That's true of anything we've managed to build in the real world but at the end of the day we're just machines too. There's no reason whatsoever why a sufficiently advanced electronic device should be any less alive than we are.

[KaiserShep]

o Ventus wrote...

136th wrote...

In real life, an emotional mind is superior because of its better decision making ability.

In what ways is an emotionally driven person better at making decisions than a person who bases their choices in logic?

I think this depends on the situation at hand. I believe it would be an egregious mistake to judge all situations in a purely logical manner.

StreetMagic wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Necanor wrote...

AIs, machines aren't a race. Computers aren't living beings, Geth are just highly advanced computers.

That's
true of anything we've managed to build in the real world but at the
end of the day we're just machines too. There's no reason whatsoever why
a sufficiently advanced electronic device should be any less alive than
we are.

No reason whatsoever? I'll give you
one: It's just a theory. AI don't exist. Until then, you can't give it
so much weight like it's some real thing you can examine and judge what
it's actual nature is. It's fun to play around with the idea and all,
but you make it all sound so casual and passe. I'm not detecting any
real appreciation for what it would take to make a "sufficiently
advanced electronic device".

In reality, it would take quite a lot to convince me that an AI is "alive" and not just a very sophisticated amalgam of programming that merely imitates life.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 04 août 2013 - 09:59 .

[hpjay]

KaiserShep wrote...

In reality, it would take quite a lot to convince me that an AI is "alive" and not just a very sophisticated amalgam of programming that merely imitates life.

And yet, that is exactly what a human meat brain is.  It's a very sophisticated and complex set of programs and processes and feedback loops that give rise to our consciousness and our sence of "I". 

[KaiserShep]

And just the same, it would take a bit more than the simplified view of the human brain to simply accept an artificial intelligence as an actual form of life before interacting with it.

[hpjay]

KaiserShep wrote...

And just the same, it would take a bit more than the simplified view of the human brain to simply accept an artificial intelligence as an actual form of life before interacting with it.

 

Where is the view of the human brain being simplified .  Generalized perhaps, but simplified, NO.  If an Artificial intelligence walks the walk and talks the talk then why not treat it with the dignity due a feeling, thinking, self aware intelligence (feeling, thinking, and self aware being a less simplified and generalized way of saying ALIVE).  Should we not a least give it thr benefit of the doubt?  Or do you believe there is some sort of wibbly, wobbly, spirit like spark thing-y that really makes something alive.

Modifié par hpjay, 04 août 2013 - 10:45 .

[KaiserShep]

I'll be sure to keep that in mind if an ASIMO knocks on the door asking if I would like to know more about its lord and savior Windows 7.

[hpjay]

You're ability to deflect is almost as good as your ability to draw.

[KaiserShep]

Just so we're clear, the brain is not really a computer system. Our thoughts and memories are not quite as simply defined as software or firmware. Our understanding of how the mind really works is still very limited, as there's no logic gates, no distinct centers of processing. Sure, the mind can be manipulated through all kinds of stimuli, and be shaped to behave in a certain fashion, but it's not quite the same as reprogramming either. That being said, determining an artificial entity as a form of life would still take some time to make a case, and all it would take is simply talking to it. Giving the benefit of the doubt is nice, but for something like this, I wouldn't do it.

Think about the distinction between Glyph and Legion or EDI. Of course, they make themselves distinct right off the bat by presenting some very abstract concepts, while Glyph mindlessly obeys and simply has a set of vocal tones to simulate a personality. Legion and EDI make their cases as forms of life in their spontaneous development of preferences, their ability to operate autonomously despite one of these two having no clearly defined reason for being.

But I guess this is what makes the question so interesting and complicated, especially when it comes to the geth. The geth are alive when networked together, yet are just VI's when separated, unlike the magic blue box EDI.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 04 août 2013 - 11:15 .

[hpjay]

You just made an argument against something that was never claimed. Should we add straw-man to your skill set of deflection and drawing? The inclusion of logic gates or equating thoughts and memories to software or firmware is orthogonal to the question: can the actions of a thinking, feeling, self-aware intelligence be simulated thru artificial means? If we exclude some sort of supernatural divine spark as necessary to be alive (a feeling, thinking, self aware intelligence) then theoretically, the answer should be a big fat yes regardless of the practicality or feasibility.  

Lets go back to your original statement: you said, " it would take quite a lot to convince me that an AI is "alive" and not just a very sophisticated amalgam of programming that merely imitates life" So what then would convince you that an artificial construct was a feeling, thinking, self aware intelligence. Also, what would the big deal be giving it the benefit of the doubt? Its no skin off your nose. Or are you somehow damaged by extending such a cutesy to our hypothetical artificial construct who may or may not be "a feeling, thinking, self aware intelligence".

Modifié par hpjay, 04 août 2013 - 11:44 .

[KaiserShep]

Imagine conversing with cleverbot, and it has quite a lot of convincing responses. If someone told you it was alive, you'd want to explore its responses further to determine if this was true.

The inclusion of logic gates or equating thoughts and memories to
software or firmware is orthogonal to the question: can the actions of a
thinking, feeling, self-aware intelligence be simulated thru artificial
means? If we exclude some sort of supernatural divine spark as
necessary to be alive (a feeling, thinking, self aware intelligence)
then theoretically, the answer should be a big fat yes regardless of the
practicality or feasibility.

Would a simulation be considered "alive"? I don't think it's that it's an easy question.

Edit: I guess "alive" is not really the word I should be using. Consciousness/sentience or whatever should be the only concern. And to that, I will concede to your point. At its most basic definition, all living things are essentially machines in that they are causal physical systems. Whether or not both organic and synthetic "machines" can be fully conscious is neither here or there within the rules established in the fiction, because they very plainly are. In reality, it would be more complex than this.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 04 août 2013 - 12:08 .

[hpjay]

KaiserShep wrote...

Imagine conversing with cleverbot, and it has quite a lot of convincing responses. If someone told you it was alive, you'd want to explore its responses further to determine if this was true.

The inclusion of logic gates or equating thoughts and memories to
software or firmware is orthogonal to the question: can the actions of a
thinking, feeling, self-aware intelligence be simulated thru artificial
means? If we exclude some sort of supernatural divine spark as
necessary to be alive (a feeling, thinking, self aware intelligence)
then theoretically, the answer should be a big fat yes regardless of the
practicality or feasibility.

Would a simulation be considered "alive"? I don't think it's that it's an easy question. 

 Most certainly.  If the cleverbot simply stated that it was alive then we'd need more.  But, if the cleverbot started acting like Johnny5 I'd be more inclined to extend the benefit of the doubt until it proved otherwise.  If a cleverbot could consistantly pass the Turing Test then we should extend the benefit of the doubt.

(ASIDE:  in the ME universe I though it was unrealistic that a single sentance exchange was enough for some characters to realize that EDI was an AI.  It should have taken more interaction before they realized she was an AI. Now, an ME2 story where you slowly realize that EDI is an AI would have been more interesting.  Also, you should have needed to figure out the organization you were working for was Cerberus, they should have been a bit more clandestine.  A secret organization that slaps it logo on everything....  yeah.  But I digress.)

"Would a simulation be considered "alive"?
"  As the fidelity of the simulation increases, at some point it becomes indistinguishable from the original and becomes, de facto, the thing being simulated.

Modifié par hpjay, 04 août 2013 - 12:13 .