Rape is typically about control not sex or empathy.
Human Rights For Robots.
- Thread starter tracertong
- Start date
Rape is typically about control not sex or empathy.
So are you saying that sexual orientation is learnt?
I don't share your enthusiasm, mainly because the mind is not even close to being understood. There are hints of quatum effects at the molecular level of cells so we won't be able to replicate that with our binary computers, no matter how much we improve them. Besides, the progress of technology will reach a point where we will have humans fully linked to machines which will make autonomous sentinent machines redundant. Unless of course you assume there exists a higher form of intelligence only machines can reach but, in the absence of evidence, that concept is a sibling of the Giant Spaghetti Monster.
Yeah I was going to say belief in the "singularity" is actually "faith".
"I believe that the singularity will happen and machines will become sentient" - for there is actually no evidence to support such a prediction.
And your last point is worth re-stating.
As you said, belief that a sentient AI would be a superior intelligence to humans is even less based in any kind of actual evidence. Thus far, we know that machines can evaluate human-defined problems faster than a human can.
But we do not know that machines would be faster than a biological brain at any kind of human-level cognition.
Think about it in terms of emulation. A very fast PC cannot emulate a PS2/PS3 faster than an actual PS3 can execute its own native code.
A very, very, very fast super computer may not be capable of emulating a human brain (or equivalent) faster than a real human brain can evaluate its native sensory inputs and mental processes.
And that may come down to the laws of physics. It may be that our human brain is as efficient as can be. Depending on your beliefs, either through millions of years of refining evolution, or intelligent design.
Last edited:
you are describing machine learning 101.
yoy dont need to understand hoe the mind works to create intelligence.
there is no evidence of any quantum effectfs in tbge brain,tbst uus jus pseudoscience. even if tbgere was progress in quantum computers has been very strong recently. There are seceral comoanies selling bona fide quantum computers. At thr moment thry are just slow so used for research
why would you want to emulate a human when you could develop something far faster and supior. why bother emulating a PS2 on a PC when you couikd just have PS4
in the same way any ANN works,fancy that.
Thr ability and methods of learming is preprogrammed.
you clearly have no idea about software.
There's plenty of literature on the subject but the picture is not clear, which is why I used the word "hints". If quantum effects provide advantages, forms of life would certainly use them.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569494/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491615003243
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...-proteinsdiv/F2EEEB55393DEED1E771328AD96F36EB
As for creating intelligence without understanding.. intelligence, good luck with that - it's as likely as a monkey playing Beethoven's 5th.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,188
Er, yes it does.
We're all pre-progammed to a degree. Its called "Instinct". Everything else is learned.
Oh great, another Glaucus.
Tell me, why should any of us bother to reply to your one-liners? You can't further a discussion with one-line put-downs.
In the world of academia, no one behaves like this and expects to be taken seriously.
I've never seen a piece of software that solved a problem its human creator did not give it the capability and the method to solve. Have you? Have you seen software built for facial recognition, that instead chooses to operate the lights instead?
Have you seen software which shows any "understanding", or that shows signs of developing "understanding", DP? Have you seen software that is "curious" about its environment? Have you seen software attempt to learn from data that it wasn't supposed to be working with?
When you write software, when do you not control the dataset that the software works on? When is that dataset "the universe", unbounded by constraints? When is the software given the dataset with no instructions on what to do with it?
You say I have no understanding of software, and who would know better than you, eh? Actually I've programmed in everything from Pascal to Prolog, assembler, Javascript, C, SQL, Haskell, Python and others*. *(Not commercially, and I make no claims to be any good at it, compared to a professional developer. Nor do I claim to know much about best practice. But I can make a computer say "Hello world" just fine
)
Last edited:
What is an artificial neural network if not an emulated physical network?
The brain is a physical neural net. Billions of neurons firing in parallel. Billions upon billions of connections and pathways, working independently but coherently - and crucially, simultaneously.
Your software neural net can have thousands of artificial "neural pathways" but they have to be processed in some kind of order by the machine that's emulating them, for the data to make any sense. At worse case, in serial. Even if that's a supercomputer it's still nowhere near capable of the feats of parallel processing that the brain does every microsecond.
Is it not emulation?
Oh great, another Glaucus.
Tell me, why should any of us bother to reply to your one-liners? You can't further a discussion with one-line put-downs.
In the world of academia, no one behaves like this and expects to be taken seriously.
I've never seen a piece of software that solved a problem its human creator did not give it the capability and the method to solve. Have you? Have you seen software built for facial recognition, that instead chooses to operate the lights instead?
e
Iirc dp is employed developing AI systems.
Anyeay on the second point there have besn experiments where they had little robots on a table that had panels thst where powered to provide "food" they could use lights to signsl each other snd could "breed".
After loads f generarions some started to show degiant behaviour instead og signalling food to the others they would go to switched off pannels and signal the others there was food there.
Then go nick the food.
The crwators where aiming for cooperation not competition
A human brain has a hideous amount of overheads though that a machine brain wouldnt need.
A maxhine brain could have hugley less neurons but out perform a human brain simply because it doesnt need to manage a complicated body
I don't share their enthusiasm either, but I think your reply might well be mistaken. A full understanding of how something works isn't necessary for making it. It's possible to make something with no understanding at all of how it works. For example, humans >15,000 years ago had no understanding of how genes work or even that genes exist but they were still able to genetically engineer animals through selective breeding in order to create dogs and different breeds of dogs. Stone age humans had no understanding of how smelting works or how alloying works but they were able to reliably do both. Bronze age (and possibly stone age) humans had no understanding of bacteria or even any knowledge that bacteria existed or even that any such thing could exist, but they still made and used treatments using penicillin. Etc.
So I think it's possible that humans might at some point make a mind without anything close to an understanding of how a mind works. Or even what a mind really is.
Highly complex algorithms giving rise to evolving behaviours are still not sentient, nor do they understand what they're doing.
I'm not calling into question the cleverness of people working on systems that "learn" or "evolve", etc, etc.
I'm just saying that their increasingly sophisticated software is, and never will be, intelligent, sentient, or self-aware.
You didnt say anythimg about sentience you said
Which is exacrly what they did.
But your last point about them never being intelugent or self aware only makes sense if you belive in god or some other divine being making man sentient.
After all if random chance can make sentience intelligent design should be able to.