359 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

StreetMagic wrote...

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".

I don'r see an actual reason here.

There's nothing particularly special or mysterious about what neurons do. There are a lot of details about the interactions of the various brain  structures that we don't get, but everything that goes on in there is standard-issue physics and chemistry

Modifié par AlanC9, 04 août 2013 - 01:48 .

[David7204]

Anyone heard ever heard of the famous Chinese Room thought experiment?

Modifié par David7204, 04 août 2013 - 02:30 .

[Sir DeLoria]

One could argue, that organics are natural, we have been designed by evolution over the process of millions of years. Whereas synthetics are unnatural, they are free from the process of evolution and and unlike organics, don't adapt or evolve. They are in a way, an abomination against nature and a major factor of disruption.

[In Exile]

Robosexual wrote...
That's not true. You don't need to fear death to realise it's illogical to let yourself break down if you wish to continue.

Yes, you do. That's now how logic works. 

Robosexual wrote...
Because they want to learn and continue? Because they choose to?

Whilst EDI and the Geth do have analogues to emotion, it's faulty to think that choosing to continue is based on emotion.

"Wants" are consequences of emotion. 

Why wouldn't they? It's illogical to cease to exist when you don't need to.

How is it illogical? Write it out for me. Let's break out the IF, THEN, OR, and AND operators. 

That's not true, it's illogical to cease to exist when there's no need to. Logic would dictate continued existence if you choose to exist, illogic would be letting yourself break down without reason.

You don't need to appreciate life to see the logic in existence vs nothing. Your drive for existence would be the pointlessness, the illogic, in the end of existence.

You really don't know what logic is, don't you? 

Modifié par In Exile, 04 août 2013 - 02:37 .

[AlexMBrennan]

Yes

Whereas synthetics are unnatural, they are free from the process of evolution and and unlike organics, don't adapt or evolve

Where are you getting that from? They may not be subject to evolution (random mutations resulting from imperfect DNA replication which, if useful, eventually displace those that don't have it) but that doesn't mean that they can't change or adapt.

In any case, humans are natural because we are part of nature. Everything we do - using tools or building robots is thus natural as well. You are confusing natural with "like animals"

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 04 août 2013 - 02:41 .

[Steelcan]

Necanor wrote...

One could argue, that organics are natural, we have been designed by evolution over the process of millions of years.

That is the threshold of stupid post for today.

[In Exile]

jstme wrote...
Emotions evolved for very good reasons indeed, except that those reasons are not valid for synthetic life.Their analogues of social interactions ,reflexes,instincts and  behavioral patterns appear differently - aka being created ahead. Of course it will evolve ,but do you seriously think that synthetic life will strive for networking protocols to follow something like Human interactions ,complex and impulsive , instead of simple flow of information according to pre-coded laws?
Also, for the emotions being only reason to actually do anything - this is false. My PC does lots of stuff every msec, but it has 0 emotions. 

Your PC isn't an AI. It's doesn't even a sophisticated machine learning software. That's what you need to get to get software to be an AI. Right now, outside of very small compartmentalized tasks, we can't get machines to learn effectively. 

Pre-coding isn't the way AI is designed. We use neural networks, which are the exact opposite of formal mathematical descriptions. 

[KaiserShep]

Necanor wrote...

One could argue, that organics are natural, we have been designed by evolution over the process of millions of years. Whereas synthetics are unnatural, they are free from the process of evolution and and unlike organics, don't adapt or evolve. They are in a way, an abomination against nature and a major factor of disruption.

What makes them any more abominable than mindless robotics systems that replace organic workers in factories? But let's not forget a very important detail: they are still the product of industry. If you say that they are an abomination, what does that say about their creators? 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 04 août 2013 - 02:43 .

[Sir DeLoria]

KaiserShep wrote...

Necanor wrote...

One could argue, that organics are natural, we have been designed by evolution over the process of millions of years. Whereas synthetics are unnatural, they are free from the process of evolution and and unlike organics, don't adapt or evolve. They are in a way, an abomination against nature and a major factor of disruption.

What makes them any more abominable than mindless robotics systems that replace organic workers in factories? But let's not forget a very important detail: they are still the product of industry. If you say that they are an abomination, what does that say about their creators? 

They don't evolve, they aren't subject to natural selection or competition and are essentially immortal. I'm not saying they shouldn't exist, but rather that they should not be seen as living beings.

Modifié par Necanor, 04 août 2013 - 02:54 .

[Sir DeLoria]

Steelcan wrote...

Necanor wrote...

One could argue, that organics are natural, we have been designed by evolution over the process of millions of years.

That is the threshold of stupid post for today.

I have the same view as you and defend the same argument, my wording just sucks early in the morning.

[David7204]

Plenty of real life organisms have basically stopped evolving. If a species lives in a static environment it's well-suited for, there's very little evolutionary pressure.

[Steelcan]

Necanor wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Necanor wrote...

One could argue, that organics are natural, we have been designed by evolution over the process of millions of years.

That is the threshold of stupid post for today.

I have the same view as you and defend the same argument, my wording just sucks early in the morning.

I don't think organics are superior to synthetics.

[AlanC9]

StreetMagic wrote...

Nothing special, and yet.. No one is replicating it anytime soon.

I'll be interested to see the slew of chemical imbalances that happens in the first wave though. Should be fun (if I'm alive. Probably won't be).

Sure. I was just saying it's a technical problem rather than a conceptual one.

[Sir DeLoria]

David7204 wrote...

Plenty of real life organisms have basically stopped evolving. If a species lives in a static environment it's well-suited for, there's very little evolutionary pressure.

Umm, no. Organisms don't stop evolving. The average human body height was 1,50 500 years ago.

[KaiserShep]

Necanor wrote...

They don't evolve, they aren't subject to natural selection or competition and are essentially immortal. I'm not saying they shouldn't exist, but rather that they should not be seen as living beings.

I don't believe that this really makes them abominable. If a machine expresses traits of a conscious being, the fact that it can't express its genes in future generations and is not subject to cellular exhaustion and death as we experience it shouldn't make it an object of fear and disgust.

Necanor wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Plenty
of real life organisms have basically stopped evolving. If a species
lives in a static environment it's well-suited for, there's very little
evolutionary pressure.

Umm, no. Organisms don't stop evolving. The average human body height was 1,50 500 years ago.

What David is talking about sounds like punctuated equilibrium, a phenomenon in which a species may exhibit a kind of evolutionary stasis for long periods of time on a geologic scale. It's been proposed that the fossil record is largely dominated by this effect.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 04 août 2013 - 03:08 .

[David7204]

Did I say every single organism in existence, including humans? No. I said some. So your example is worthless. If a species inhibits a static environment, evolution is eventually going to bottom out.

In any case, evidence from previous decades indicates that the change in human height likely has a lot more to do with diet than genetics.

Modifié par David7204, 04 août 2013 - 03:06 .

[Wulfram]

The thing that's supposed to make AI scary is their potential capacity to evolve exponentially fast. The singularity thing.

(I thought human height increase was down to better nutrition more than evolution)

[Sir DeLoria]

The theory of punctuated equilibrium has always been heavily criticized, Darwin himself believed, that it was merely oversold by journalism. Punctuated and phyletic gradualism both deliver a more believable microevolutionary hypothesis imo.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Did I say every single organism in existence, including humans? No. I said some. So your example is worthless. If a species inhibits a static environment, evolution is eventually going to bottom out.

In any case, evidence from previous decades indicates that the change in human height likely has a lot more to do with diet than genetics.

No ecological system is static forever.  Take sharks for example, they have changed little in appearance for millions of years, but their niche, role in the ecosystem, has changed dramatically.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Steelcan wrote...

Necanor wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Necanor wrote...

One could argue, that organics are natural, we have been designed by evolution over the process of millions of years.

That is the threshold of stupid post for today.

I have the same view as you and defend the same argument, my wording just sucks early in the morning.

I don't think organics are superior to synthetics.

I don't think Steelcan also thinks that synthetics are an 'abomination'.

[DirtyPhoenix]

KaiserShep wrote...

Necanor wrote...

They don't evolve, they aren't subject to natural selection or competition and are essentially immortal. I'm not saying they shouldn't exist, but rather that they should not be seen as living beings.

I don't believe that this really makes them abominable. If a machine expresses traits of a conscious being, the fact that it can't express its genes in future generations and is not subject to cellular exhaustion and death as we experience it shouldn't make it an object of fear and disgust.

A very Quarian-like thinking isn't it? We are what we bang.. 

[AresKeith]

pirate1802 wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

Necanor wrote...

They don't evolve, they aren't subject to natural selection or competition and are essentially immortal. I'm not saying they shouldn't exist, but rather that they should not be seen as living beings.

I don't believe that this really makes them abominable. If a machine expresses traits of a conscious being, the fact that it can't express its genes in future generations and is not subject to cellular exhaustion and death as we experience it shouldn't make it an object of fear and disgust.

A very Quarian-like thinking isn't it? We are what we bang.. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/uncertain.png[/smilie]

That or he really wants to be a Quarian

[Clayless]

Reorte wrote...

Why? That requires either some value judgement on existence, which requires emotion, or a hard-coded response to exist.

Or logical choice.

You don't need to appreciate life to see the logic in existence vs nothing. Your drive for existence would be the pointlessness, the illogic, in the end of existence.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

You don't need to appreciate life to make a logical choice to continue to exist, when the alternative is cessation of existence for literally no reason. That's illogical.

Modifié par Robosexual, 04 août 2013 - 03:49 .

[Sir DeLoria]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Necanor wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Necanor wrote...
One could argue, that organics are natural, we have been designed by evolution over the process of millions of years.

That is the threshold of stupid post for today.

I have the same view as you and defend the same argument, my wording just sucks early in the morning.

I don't think organics are superior to synthetics.

I don't think Steelcan also thinks that synthetics are an 'abomination'.

I said abomination against nature. Don't take things out of context.