(July 13, 2015 at 8:15 am)Aoi Magi Wrote: AI isn't the only field of advancement. With advances in AI it is being used to augment our lifestyle as well as ourselves. By the time AI reaches the same level as the current us, I wonder if the purely biological humans as we know today would still exist?

Absolutely.  Computers have passed the Turing test, and this is only about 30 years after decent home computers came out.  AI will pass humans in most ways in a lifetime, almost for sure.

AI will surpass us only if we ourselves do not change, also having passed the turing test till now doesn't guarantee the technology will keep accelerating at same pace once it catches up with our own level.

(July 13, 2015 at 2:55 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: Do you think humanity will ever produce artificial 1) general intelligence? 2) Do you think such an intelligence would be able to advance at an unimaginable rate, past a certain point? 3) Would it solve all of our problems? 4) Would it transform our world, as we know it, forever? Or would it be the end of us?
Don't hesitate to let me know what you think! Leave a reply!

1) Define "general" intelligence.

2) no, if I think it can advance at any specific arbitrary rate, then that rate is by definition imagined, and therefore not unimaginable.

3) no.  Nothing can solve problems without creating problems.

4) yes, yes, no.  Nothing is forever

5) define "us".   Artificial intelligence we already have, such as it is, has already been the end of that "us" which had existed prior to the computer age.

(July 13, 2015 at 10:00 am)Chuck Wrote:

(July 13, 2015 at 2:55 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: Do you think humanity will ever produce artificial 1) general intelligence? 2) Do you think such an intelligence would be able to advance at an unimaginable rate, past a certain point? 3) Would it solve all of our problems? 4) Would it transform our world, as we know it, forever? Or would it be the end of us?
Don't hesitate to let me know what you think! Leave a reply!

1) Define "general" intelligence.

2) no, if I think it can advance at any specific arbitrary rate, then that rate is by definition imagined, and therefore not unimaginable.

3) no.  Nothing can solve problems without creating problems.

4) yes, yes, no.  Nothing is forever

5) define "us".   Artificial intelligence we already have, such as it is, has already been the end of that "us" which had existed prior to the computer age.

1)I linked to a definition, if that helps.

2) What happens inside a black hole is surely happening but we cannot imagine it. This is what could happen with an AI if it swooshed right past the human intelligence level and grew exponentially in days at rates humans didn't and wouldn't(otherwise) for millions of years. This is what I mean by unimaginable. As in there wouldn't be a single human at that point capable of imagining it. Maybe afterwards, since the AI would probably be so strong as to be able to literally expand our imaginations.

3) That's a meaningless thing to say. I put no value in your thinking after witnessing such an inanity coming out of your mind.

4) I don't understand why there's 4 answers to this question. That was just a figure of speech. Anyhow, you can't make that claim anymore than I can deny it, which I can't.

5)I think you know what I meant. I won't play this stupid game.

(July 13, 2015 at 3:36 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: I did. You can literally choose both.

Yes, you did. I just forgot I can choose both when the options have square boxes.

(July 13, 2015 at 2:55 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: Do you think humanity will ever produce artificial general intelligence? Do you think such an intelligence would be able to advance at an unimaginable rate, past a certain point? Would it solve all of our problems? Would it transform our world, as we know it, forever? Or would it be the end of us?
Don't hesitate to let me know what you think! Leave a reply!

In a word no.

In several words ...

First, Moore's law won't last long enough to give us the processing power that we need. The brain has far more connectivity than we can ever hope to achieve with out current architectures in silicon. Not only that but we'd also have to have our own version of evolution as well to out how to set all the parameters. This creates many generations of a large population of intelligences, so that's several orders of magnitude even more processing power required.

Second, even if we had all the processing power we need, we still need to understand how the brain works and how to create our own versions. This not only requires far better ways of measuring what goes on inside our heads, we also need to understand it ourselves and that will take an extremely long time.

Thirdly, there is a fundamental problem with the concept of artificial general intelligence. Imagine you had a living baby that you could hook up inside a black box, and kept it alive until adulthood and stopped it hearing, seeing, feeling anything except the digital information you provided it through an interface. It would not understand the information it was being given because it could not relate to it. This is what people are expecting from computers. Computers don't live human lives.

Fourthly, 95% of AI that you think is intelligence is actually just trickery and smart computing. Chatbots that pass the Turing test by pretending to be a paranoid schizophrenic for example don't scale. They work in very limited ways through trickery. There are some really fundamental questions that we've been struggling with for many decades that stops us from achieving true, strong AI. Simple functions that we take for granted as intelligent beings.

What we will probably see is animal like intelligence in situated robots, with robotic emotions, self awareness and consciousness. But that's not the artificial general intelligence that people are expecting and which you see in Star Trek with the ship's computer. Such computers may be able to respond intelligently to voice commands, but it won't actually understand what you are saying. At most what you are doing with the big data approach is a statistical analysis.

(I'm a professional researcher in AI)

(July 13, 2015 at 8:49 am)bennyboy Wrote: Absolutely.  Computers have passed the Turing test, and this is only about 30 years after decent home computers came out.  AI will pass humans in most ways in a lifetime, almost for sure.

A chatbot passed the Turing Test in the 70's by pretending to be a paranoid Schizophrenic (lookup Parry). That wasn't intelligence though by any means.

Intelligence is more than just chatting. A large proportion of the brain is devoted to the visual cortex for example.

Glad you're a researcher. It still seems to me like you assume much about how the human mind works and it's apparent uniqueness.

As for the technical side, like Moore's law and stuff, can't argue with you there, even if I don't agree -- I am not an expert myself but I indirectly consulted other researchers' written opinions on the matter.

Thanks for the feedback, though.

Human intelligence doesn't -require- the scale of architecture we're born with, we can do a great deal with much less (and a great deal less than that would satisfy any useful definition of intelligence).  We -know- that biological implementations are inefficient, wasteful, and relatively slow.   

"Human AI" might not be as complicated as we give it, and it's difficult to establish that one type of intelligence is "trickery, smart computing" while the other is the real deal.........particularly in the scenario you described, where they both respond intelligently.  That's -how- we determine intelligence in the first place.   

We'd have to know alot more than any of us do about the brain (and the nature of the universe...no less) to draw a line in the sand between it and a hypothetical AI that isn't completely arbitrary, I think.

(July 13, 2015 at 6:13 pm)I_am_not_mafia Wrote:

(July 13, 2015 at 8:49 am)bennyboy Wrote: Absolutely.  Computers have passed the Turing test, and this is only about 30 years after decent home computers came out.  AI will pass humans in most ways in a lifetime, almost for sure.

A chatbot passed the Turing Test in the 70's by pretending to be a paranoid Schizophrenic (lookup Parry). That wasn't intelligence though by any means.

Intelligence is more than just chatting. A large proportion of the brain is devoted to the visual cortex for example.

If we're going to have no true Scotsman, and say that only human beings have big-I "Intelligence," because intelligence means being human, then okay.  But that doesn't change the fact that computers already play chess better than people, have superior facial and pattern recognition skills, etc. right now, today.  The google translate program for sure knows more about world languages than humans do.  And all these skills are adaptible.