Not entirely sure I follow or understand your question symbol....or in what context....
Something that has been bugging me about EDI
Débuté par
Symbolz
, mars 20 2010 07:03
Retour en haut
#127
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 03:42
Homebound
-
- Members
- 11 891 messages
*wonders if someone's made some x-rated EDI-Joker Fanfic...
*realizes he's on the internet.
*realizes he's on the internet.
#128
Guest_Maviarab_*
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 03:43
Guest_Maviarab_*
Guest_Maviarab_*
-
- Guests
Ahhhhh....no they are not schrong...
A machine without emotions, is just simply a piece of hardware. it is emotions that is am large part of what makes us human. Philosophy and mathemeatics do not come into it. Please do not try to come accross as more intelligent or try to confuse the issue at hand with things that bear no relevence to the field of AI research (well philosphy does, but only so much as in religioes and moral grounds).
And you still not answered my question btw....
A machine without emotions, is just simply a piece of hardware. it is emotions that is am large part of what makes us human. Philosophy and mathemeatics do not come into it. Please do not try to come accross as more intelligent or try to confuse the issue at hand with things that bear no relevence to the field of AI research (well philosphy does, but only so much as in religioes and moral grounds).
And you still not answered my question btw....
#129
Guest_Maviarab_*
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 03:47
Guest_Maviarab_*
Guest_Maviarab_*
-
- Guests
Also, please do not be confusing Artificial intelligence with what nothing 'but' intelligence, as that does not work. I can program a chatbot to be the most intelligent thing in the world, but that does not actually make it an AI, in the sense of the real use of the term.
yes it is an Artificial intelligence if you take the singular words at their dictionary meanings, but its not....AI.....
yes it is an Artificial intelligence if you take the singular words at their dictionary meanings, but its not....AI.....
#130
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 03:52
Vaenier
-
- Members
- 2 815 messages
I imagine the first AIs would be sociopaths. They would be emotionless, at best just mimicking emotions for the benefit of the humans it interacts with.
Having emotions is not needed to be sapient.
Having emotions is not needed to be sapient.
#131
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 03:53
Schroing
-
- Members
- 650 messages
Maviarab wrote...
Ahhhhh....no they are not schrong...
A machine without emotions, is just simply a piece of hardware. it is emotions that is am large part of what makes us human. Philosophy and mathemeatics do not come into it. Please do not try to come accross as more intelligent or try to confuse the issue at hand with things that bear no relevence to the field of AI research (well philosphy does, but only so much as in religioes and moral grounds).
And you still not answered my question btw....
Coming from someone who's spent the entire thread baselessly asserting his superiority in the field, I find it hard advice to take seriously.
And yes; philosophy and mathematics very much -do- come into it. When you start claiming that things "make up one's humanity" you're very much getting into philosophy. When you discuss science or general you're getting into mathematics.
Emotions don't differentiate one piece of hardware from the other any moreso than painting one blue and the other red would; it's a difference of no true consequence. Like I said, you're attributing more importance to them than they deserve.
What question?
#132
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 03:54
Symbolz
-
- Members
- 655 messages
Maviarab wrote...
Not entirely sure I follow or understand your question symbol....or in what context....
It's the idea of what really drives us. Is it nature? Genetics. Or nurture? Our enviroment. Those two ideas are the major schools of thought in regards to upbringing and what defining our individuality.
As a ME example, I can refer to EDI. EDI I would say would have a lot reasons to dislike or even hate organics based on how Cerberus treated her mostly as a tool. Even Joker was bias and distrustful of EDI at the beginning. Yet dispite having a rather hostile enviroment she had grown to like Joker and much of the crew. Now by the Nurture theory she would have lashed out when Joker unshackled her, but she didn't. Nature of what she is?
#133
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 04:07
TobyHasEyes
-
- Members
- 1 109 messages
Maviarab wrote...
Schrong....
Please read my first sentance from my last post again.
It is everything to do with it, because if humans had no emotions, I ask you, what would we be? (bare in mind I already know the answer, I would like you to think about it for a while)
You would be a human with less complex chemical reactions. To suggest that emotions make us starkedly different from a machine is to give them an immaterial quality. They are a programmed response to stimuli. Which makes them not much different to software on a computer, except as the programming is more complex, and we ourselves didn;t create it, we find it much harder to understand it at every level.
#134
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 04:09
TobyHasEyes
-
- Members
- 1 109 messages
In other words, most people's understanding of sapience here is attaching immaterial qualities to phenomena such as 'emotions' or 'will'. Not that I have a particular problem with that, it just seems unusual that you assume such immaterial qualities can only be connected to/ associated with a certain type of material, that is biological.
#135
Guest_Maviarab_*
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 04:09
Guest_Maviarab_*
Guest_Maviarab_*
-
- Guests
So if I am attributing more importance than they deserve, in your opinion....you are saying everyone currently researching AI (myself included btw) is wrong?
Hmmm....interesting view point, and your grounds and evidence for your better assertion and knowledge would be? Also, asserting my superiority is a little harsh. I have constantly said stated in my opinion, when I have not, it is based on fact and on my own research over the last few years. I have and do research and stay up to date in this area of discussion, so unless anyone else here as as much 'experience', then I really do think i can say things with some 'authority' without trying to be condescending. If i failed then i apologise, but I do have a lot of interest and experience in this subject.
And my question was, what makes us human in your opinion?
Ahhhh yes ok Symbol. Well, possibly and probably both (though its bordering on religious/creation arguments, which also does to some extent involve an AI's creation, there are a lot of moral issues to deal with) in that:
With regards to individuality, I would say that all of nature, genetics, nurture and the enviroment play a strong part. As for EDI disliking anyone, imo she would perhaps only dislike anyone if she was 'aware' that she was being used as a tool and subsequently a slave. If she was not 'aware', then there would be no need for her to feel (an emotion) anything towards us. As for growijg to like Joker, again, that can be easily programed, especially if EDI was programed to know that in general humans are distrustful of AI's, so maybe part of her programing was to show that AI's canbe trusted and accepted. Of course that can work both ways as you explained.
As for the nurture theory, again, with what I said before, she might have no reason to lash out. Also bare in mind, that EDI is stuck in the Mornandy, so she lashed out, killed everyone, what does she do then? If she was in the 'human' form rather than the Normandy, she would have a lot more options open to her wouldnt she? Also, AI or complex program, Joker himself may have 'nurtured' her to be more accepting of humans and her position?
Good question though Symbol, other than what I said, can't really answer with any real clarity.
Hmmm....interesting view point, and your grounds and evidence for your better assertion and knowledge would be? Also, asserting my superiority is a little harsh. I have constantly said stated in my opinion, when I have not, it is based on fact and on my own research over the last few years. I have and do research and stay up to date in this area of discussion, so unless anyone else here as as much 'experience', then I really do think i can say things with some 'authority' without trying to be condescending. If i failed then i apologise, but I do have a lot of interest and experience in this subject.
And my question was, what makes us human in your opinion?
Ahhhh yes ok Symbol. Well, possibly and probably both (though its bordering on religious/creation arguments, which also does to some extent involve an AI's creation, there are a lot of moral issues to deal with) in that:
With regards to individuality, I would say that all of nature, genetics, nurture and the enviroment play a strong part. As for EDI disliking anyone, imo she would perhaps only dislike anyone if she was 'aware' that she was being used as a tool and subsequently a slave. If she was not 'aware', then there would be no need for her to feel (an emotion) anything towards us. As for growijg to like Joker, again, that can be easily programed, especially if EDI was programed to know that in general humans are distrustful of AI's, so maybe part of her programing was to show that AI's canbe trusted and accepted. Of course that can work both ways as you explained.
As for the nurture theory, again, with what I said before, she might have no reason to lash out. Also bare in mind, that EDI is stuck in the Mornandy, so she lashed out, killed everyone, what does she do then? If she was in the 'human' form rather than the Normandy, she would have a lot more options open to her wouldnt she? Also, AI or complex program, Joker himself may have 'nurtured' her to be more accepting of humans and her position?
Good question though Symbol, other than what I said, can't really answer with any real clarity.
#136
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 04:14
Schroing
-
- Members
- 650 messages
Maviarab wrote...
So if I am attributing more importance than they deserve, in your opinion....you are saying everyone currently researching AI (myself included btw) is wrong?
If everyone is doing what you're saying they're doing for the reasons you're saying - and I have no reason to believe that they are - then yes. You and all of them are wrong.
More likely, you're simply misinterpreting them.
Also, asserting my superiority is a little harsh. I have constantly said stated in my opinion, when I have not, it is based on fact and on my own research over the last few years.
Which, again, I have no reason to believe.
I have and do research and stay up to date in this area of discussion, so unless anyone else here as as much 'experience', then I really do think i can say things with some 'authority' without trying to be condescending. If i failed then i apologise, but I do have a lot of interest and experience in this subject.
Interest, most likely. Experience, again, I've got no reason to believe that.
And my question was, what makes us human in your opinion?
Nothing. It's a meaningless term.
#137
Guest_Maviarab_*
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 04:16
Guest_Maviarab_*
Guest_Maviarab_*
-
- Guests
Thats a bit of a cop out, when everything in history and 'science' (as you like that word) uses the term for a reason....
So again, in your opinion, what makes us Human?
So again, in your opinion, what makes us Human?
#138
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 04:17
TobyHasEyes
-
- Members
- 1 109 messages
Schroing wrote...
Maviarab wrote...
So if I am attributing more importance than they deserve, in your opinion....you are saying everyone currently researching AI (myself included btw) is wrong?
If everyone is doing what you're saying they're doing for the reasons you're saying - and I have no reason to believe that they are - then yes. You and all of them are wrong.
More likely, you're simply misinterpreting them.Also, asserting my superiority is a little harsh. I have constantly said stated in my opinion, when I have not, it is based on fact and on my own research over the last few years.
Which, again, I have no reason to believe.I have and do research and stay up to date in this area of discussion, so unless anyone else here as as much 'experience', then I really do think i can say things with some 'authority' without trying to be condescending. If i failed then i apologise, but I do have a lot of interest and experience in this subject.
Interest, most likely. Experience, again, I've got no reason to believe that.And my question was, what makes us human in your opinion?
Nothing. It's a meaningless term.
What makes us human? Our genes. But don't attach more significance to that question than to the question 'What makes humans not caterpillars?'
#139
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 04:18
Schroing
-
- Members
- 650 messages
Maviarab wrote...
Thats a bit of a cop out, when everything in history and 'science' (as you like that word) uses the term for a reason....
So again, in your opinion, what makes us Human?
If you want to know what makes us homosapien, I can answer that. But "human" is a meaningless term.
#140
Guest_Maviarab_*
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 04:19
Guest_Maviarab_*
Guest_Maviarab_*
-
- Guests
I also accept you have no reason to believe anything I say (this teh internets after all, where everyone can be anyone etc), but would you like me to provide some evidence, maybe perhaps, interviews my friend and myself conducted with the last say 4 Loebner Prize winners?
#141
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 04:20
Schroing
-
- Members
- 650 messages
Maviarab wrote...
I also accept you have no reason to believe anything I say (this teh internets after all, where everyone can be anyone etc), but would you like me to provide some evidence, maybe perhaps, interviews my friend and myself conducted with the last say 4 Loebner Prize winners?
That would certainly be nice, if they verify that you are, in fact, you.
#142
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 04:22
Vaenier
-
- Members
- 2 815 messages
Thats easy. What makes us human and what makes a monkey not human is genetics. Its a clear line in defining the seperation of species and such.Maviarab wrote...
So again, in your opinion, what makes us Human?
#143
Guest_Maviarab_*
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 04:22
Guest_Maviarab_*
Guest_Maviarab_*
-
- Guests
so is humanity a meaningless term. I think perhaps that while you may be correct, you would be seriously outnumbered in your view point...
So why is the term 'human' meaningless?
Toby, interesting point yes, but I peronsally do not believe its genes alone that make us 'human'
But thanks for joining the discussion, and please carry on contributing. nice to have an actual intelligent thread in this forum where everyone is civil and not whining about teh gun isnt the right colour lol
So why is the term 'human' meaningless?
Toby, interesting point yes, but I peronsally do not believe its genes alone that make us 'human'
But thanks for joining the discussion, and please carry on contributing. nice to have an actual intelligent thread in this forum where everyone is civil and not whining about teh gun isnt the right colour lol
#144
Guest_Maviarab_*
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 04:27
Guest_Maviarab_*
Guest_Maviarab_*
-
- Guests
Schrong, like being pedantic don't you mate?
Other than the username being the same for the last 5 years, my real name being on this site and my own AI site that I run with my good friend, and the style of my writing, I can never prove to you (other than divulging information here and there of the like Im really not stupid enough too) that we are the same person.
What you ask is quite frankly rather daft....
Other than the username being the same for the last 5 years, my real name being on this site and my own AI site that I run with my good friend, and the style of my writing, I can never prove to you (other than divulging information here and there of the like Im really not stupid enough too) that we are the same person.
What you ask is quite frankly rather daft....
Modifié par Maviarab, 21 mars 2010 - 04:29 .
#145
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 04:29
TobyHasEyes
-
- Members
- 1 109 messages
The problem with said evidence is all it tells us is what some computer programmers believe makes us human, and how they are trying to replicate that in a machine. Why that means we should respect their first premise as to what makes us human is what I wonder. Most leaders in the field of the philosophy of the mind, and in examining what emotions are on a physical level, do not see a big difference between intellect as constructed by chemical reactions, or intellect as constructed y mechanics.
Everything in history and science has used the term 'lightning' to refer to a certain physical phenomenon. Numerous people have attached some kind of significance to that term, but just because that we is how have understood it, that does not mean we should expect there in reality to be anything more than the physical phenomenon
Everything in history and science has used the term 'lightning' to refer to a certain physical phenomenon. Numerous people have attached some kind of significance to that term, but just because that we is how have understood it, that does not mean we should expect there in reality to be anything more than the physical phenomenon
#146
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 04:32
TobyHasEyes
-
- Members
- 1 109 messages
Thank you, I found philosophy of mind very interesting when I studied it, I did consider doing my dissertation about it. Would have at one point considered myself a substance dualist, meaning I saw the mind, and the attached emotions and choices, and being distinctly different from the purely physical brain. As you might have guessed, my opinion has changed since then
#147
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 04:32
Schroing
-
- Members
- 650 messages
Maviarab wrote...
Schrong, like being pedantic don't you mate?
Other than the username being the same for the last 5 years, my real name being on this site and my own AI site that I run with my good friend, and the style of my writing, I can never prove to you (other than divulging information here and there of the like Im really not stupid enough too) that we are the same person.
What you ask is quite frankly rather daft....
You haven't even proven any of -that- to me <_<
#148
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 04:36
Schroing
-
- Members
- 650 messages
Maviarab wrote...
so is humanity a meaningless term. I think perhaps that while you may be correct, you would be seriously outnumbered in your view point...
So why is the term 'human' meaningless?
...Ugh...hard as hell to explain...
There's just no specific attribute typically denoted to the term that I think exists, I suppose.
#149
Guest_Maviarab_*
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 04:38
Guest_Maviarab_*
Guest_Maviarab_*
-
- Guests
Most leaders in the field of the philosophy of the mind, and in examining what emotions are on a physical level, do not see a big difference between intellect as constructed by chemical reactions, or intellect as constructed y mechanics.
there may only be a very miniscule difference, but any amount of differnce no matter how, is still a difference yes? The difference between machine and human is exactly what you said, chemical and program. The differnce between chatbot, VI and AI is program and actual real (excuse the term) thought process....now I will admit freely, with AI, defining real thought process is not easily done
Everything in history and science has used the term 'lightning' to refer to a certain physical phenomenon. Numerous people have attached some kind of significance to that term, but just because that we is how have understood it, that does not mean we should expect there in reality to be anything more than the physical phenomenon
very good reference, and yes to a large extent I agree. Was involved in a very heated discussion (with similar meaning and implicaitions to what you posted) about language over the last few days, in that i agree that just because something is the 'norm' and is 'generally accepted' does not neccessarily make it so does it?
Don't get me wrong, I am no scientist, I am a normal guy who has a deep interest and fascination with Ai, and have studied and researched what I can about it for many years (within reason, there will obviously be information I am unable to access), and I certainly dont have any real answers, nor do i know if it will be even possible any time soon to create what the people in the 'field' of AI, believe what Ai is....
#150
Guest_Maviarab_*
Posté 21 mars 2010 - 04:44
Guest_Maviarab_*
Guest_Maviarab_*
-
- Guests
I know, which is why I asked you to tell me hehe, same with what is an AI, and how one would go about recreating the human brain, in a machine/program/database/insert whatever lol.Ugh...hard as hell to explain...
Unless you wanted to take the cyborg route of Ai, which would have human tissue from the nervous center, brain tissue and central cortex, could be possible, thus 'bypassing' a pure machine type AI, but Im not that medically educated, so that might be even less possible than the machine AI for all I know lol.
And the site again (you must have missed the post pages back) is http://aidreams.co.uk , in fact on the home page of the forum you will also see a lovely short story written by me too lol (wip)....you do not need to join, just go to articles on the right hand side blocks and then look for the Loebner interviews (think all were actually quoted up by freddy), you will see my name all over site if your still after proof, but again, depending on you want as proof, none of it will actually be any proof to you if you follow me hehe, unless you would like me to write a big banner on that site saying 'hello schro' lmao),
Modifié par Maviarab, 21 mars 2010 - 04:46 .
