»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Artificial Intelligence
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Artificial Intelligence |
|
|
kasey191 Junior Member
since 2007-08-16
Posts 33Australia |
If we can create AI,does that undermine or magnify our intelligence? Does it limit our intelligence to the intelligence created? Do we have a firm enough idea of what intelligence is to be able to replicate it? Where do feelings come into this? Sorry about the bluntness of the questions, i just woke up and its been on my mind all night. |
||
| © Copyright 2007 Kasey Daye - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I heard animals call intellegence Artificial Instinct. They say we try to emulate their instinctual excellence and supermecy just in a highly artificialized way. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I thought that artificial intelligence was a blonde dyeing her hair brunette.. Oh, I'm gonna get it now!  |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I think it would simply demonstrate our intelligence. quote: No, the two would be independent; does the intelligence of my son limit my intelligence? quote: Yes. quote: At the beginning, the middle and the end. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. There has always been an underlying theme that emotion undermines intelligence. Would the absence of emotion in artificial intelligence then be evidence of the presence of enlightenment or the absence of sabotage? . |
||
|
[StepheN~] Junior Member
since 2007-04-19
Posts 15 |
First off you have to realize without intelligence how would you even be able to recognize emotion. If you create artificial intelligence it would only know as much as you teach it. it would be the man in the cave because it wouldn't have to experience and history we do. It would be given life wouldn't know what the hell was going on and instantly really on that first outside source. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Here is a related thread: /pip/Forum8/HTML/000680.html |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That depends on your definition of artificial intelligence, the ultimate form of artificial intelligence for instance would be one that matched or exceeded human intelligence. In which case the above statement would be incorrect unless you’re willing to argue that humans only know as much as they are taught. "There's a blaze of light in every word |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
From a point of ability livingly to perceive anything, what is the difference between a book with intelligence expressed thro words, and a fancy computer or robot that is programmed to transmit expressions thro mechanical physical, audio and visual effects as well? I don't think there is much difference. They are both just objects used as a medium to express intelligence, without a life-bearing and sensitive body that allows them perceptively to experience it, judge, make choices, etc. Artificial intellegence, whether in the sense of it being of a book, or a robot, no matter how much in quantity it may exceed, is still literally dead in respect to the quality of being able livingly to experience it. And I don't think that shall change in ten years hence or ten thousand. |
||
|
kasey191 Junior Member
since 2007-08-16
Posts 33Australia |
Thanks for all the replies, & thanks Essorant for the link |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
quote: Wrong! That would simply be a computer program of which there are probably billions by now. By definition, artificial intelligence refers to a device that is capable of learning from its environment and its own experience in that environment. The intent often is to be able to adapr to a changing or unexpected environment. This certinly implies something beyond what we originally teach it. But that first response is just as wrong. It does not necessarily have to be more intelligent or knowledgeable that its creator or teacher. Instead, it simply has to be able to teach itself more than it was originally given. |
||
|
[StepheN~] Junior Member
since 2007-04-19
Posts 15 |
Thats exactly what im talking about man. If you say Ai is something capable of learning from his surroundings. Look around, what would be the main influence for Ai on this planet other than humans? essentially he would be the same as us in the view of being able to have intelligent thoughts, but he would be different in the sense that it wouldn't be in flesh and blood. So if you were to be created and just randomly born into the world, your experiencing everything for the first time. if you have intelligence the first thing your going to do is question it. if programs will be able to control it, it wouldn't really be thinking on its own accord. I't might be some sort of Ai but it wouldn't be the kind capable of destroying mankind. it wouldn't be a very huge opponent in the sense that it could be outsmarted. we created it, we'd learn from it, then we'd counter it. I mean who do you think creates the programs. the only way i see Ai as being a threat is if it really does think on its own accord its going to experience the world. with humans living on pretty much every part of the globe, its almost impossible for them to not be influence by man. so if robot ends up in a bad crowd, robot will do what he sees and hears. if robot is respected for having an equally capacity of learning ability as the normal human and if in the case of the robot being smarter then hes smarter. threatening the dude like any other person with intelligence and being a jerk will be the same as someone you don't know walking down the street. |
||
|
teddymarvelle Junior Member
since 2007-08-26
Posts 47california usa |
the real question i think is are we open enough to the devine to recieve the knowledge ..will we advance technicly before the spirit can catch up? |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Sorry, I have to correct myself. After rereading Grinch's comment, there is nothing inherently wrond about it. Missleading might be more to the point as it refers to an "ultimate AI." All right, that may be an arguable point but not specifically the point of this thread. All that is becomming unimportant, however, sincethe quality of this thread has pretty much gone down the toilet since then. Are we goint to discuss real artificial intelligence or do you prefer the stuff of cheap science fiction paperbacks? If the latter then the discussion probably belongs somewhere other than Philosophy. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: No need to apologise Pete, I mislead myself sometimes  I’ll try to clarify what I meant.The original post posed several questions regarding AI and an apology regarding the succinct nature of the questions. The main nugget of information missing was the level of AI kasey191 was referring to, whether it was for instance the ultimate artificial intelligence as described in science fiction or the forms of artificial intelligence that already exist today. The suggestion that any artificially intelligent entity was only the sum of what we teach it is slightly ludicrous if what we’re talking about is the former and higher kind of AI. However the statement is obviously true if we are talking about low level AI which exists at present. Judging from the replies I’m guessing that the AI we’re talking about is the former, the creation of an artificial intelligence that matches or surpasses that of humans. The creation of such an entity raises many questions of a philosophic nature (think bicentennial man). Then there’s the very debatable concept of the ‘Uncanny Valley’, a suggestion that humans are likely to reject any artificial intelligence that resembles the human form but would accept a form that looked perfectly human. I think whichever way it goes this thread deserves a place in the philosophy forum. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Still have to disagree with that to some extent. If any entity is incapable of anything more than what it was originally programmed to accomplish then it does not and should not qualify as artificial intelligence. Any competent programmer can give a computer predetermined instructions to accomplish any predetermined tasks. We do that all the time and have for years. An artificial intelligence, however, must be capable of learning, otherwise it is just a dumb program. I got interested in AI 30 or so years ago when I provided some computer services and programming assistance for a group of professors at the University of Oklahoma working on an early AI project for the US Navy. I was on the project part time for about a year. During that time I even developed a few simple little game-like programs and one pattern-recognition program that were capable of simple learning. After leaving that project, I had to "earn a living" so sort of lost interest. It is a darn difficult endeavor though. The games were typically of the lions vs the Christians variety. A more interesting one involved solving a maze that had randomly changing rules. In other words, it was not possible to give any preestablished set of how to respond to a given obstacle. The measure of success was whether the program could improve its performance with a longer running time. As I understand it today, there are many working examples of AI in the real world. I believe an obvious one is the Mars rovers. Sure, they still require much assistance from the ground crew but they also are capable of making their own decisions without any predetermined instructions. This was necessary since the obstacles and hazzards could not be known in advance. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: We’re back to the definition or definitions of AI, there are actually two, one is the autonomous machine capable of rational thought and reason (the science fiction version) and the here and now version people are actually using which is the definition normally used by scientists and engineers. The definition of the later is any artificial machine that is capable of any intelligent behaviour, that includes chess playing computers, robotic factory welding machines and that little robot built by Honda that’s making them a fortune advertising their cars. As the here and now AI is, well, here now I’m quite happy to stick with the science fiction version - a totally autonomous machine capable of rational thought and reason. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
