Human Rights For Robots.

FoxEye said:
How strongly do you believe that a computer can now mimic a human over the course of a 5 minute conversation? (We're talking indistinguishable from the real thing).
Click to expand...

How strongly fo you believe that if i connected say 100 people to 100 orher random people and told them all they may be speaking to a machine or a human and they had to decide at the end that no human would think they spoke to s machine?
 
FoxEye said:
Eh? Thinking, reasoning, philosophy, curiosity, etc, all require consciousness. A mind.

I'm sure you're not saying we've developed conscious machines with a mind of their own.

So whatever definition of thinking (etc) you're using must be more abstract.

Plus have a look a couple posts up about the emulation point I made earlier.
Click to expand...

I dunno a crow can think and reason and your later definitions of inteligence of i t usingg rhings its learned in an unrelated scenario to solve a new one to.


But a crow is not something i would describe as sentient or possesing a mind.
 
FoxEye said:
Look, the "Turing test" they claimed to have passed was a 5 minute conversation convincing 30% of the judges it was a human.

This is not a good pass-mark, that is all.

If this is the test used to determine machine intelligence, the bar is set too low. This should be self-evident.

If that's not the real Turing test, don't blame me. This is the test they passed and called it the "Turing test."
Click to expand...

Yup, the Turing Test isn't exactly a good basis from which to claim to have created an intelligent machine.

So you've got a bot that can have a conversation with and fool a human... so what.
 
FoxEye said:
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?
Click to expand...

First question: Yes

Second question: No

Fq4HBhP.png
 
Comparable AI to our own intelligence is decades away. To have any meaning it would need to have emotions and we can not currently program a computer with an emotion.
 
Sliver said:
Comparable AI to our own intelligence is decades away. To have any meaning it would need to have emotions and we can not currently program a computer with an emotion.
Click to expand...

Depends what you mean by emotion. It is essentially a reward function and that is one way in which some machine learning algorithms work.
 
You're not making much sense?

We already train algos with reward functions, this is a whole area of ML (and various companies invested in it). But you seem to be making some sort of claim re: a simulation of human emotions being required? Why? What do you actually mean? You're stating that 'muddying the waters' is a sign of ignorance while ironically not clarifying your previous post.
 
Autominous decisions is laughable, the robots functions and actions will be based on the written code for artificial intelligence by the human designer/engineer. What will some think of bringing into existence next?
 
kedge said:
Autominous decisions is laughable, the robots functions and actions will be based on the written code for artificial intelligence by the human designer/engineer. What will some think of bringing into existence next?
Click to expand...

I thought the idea of ML and neural nets was that the programming is no longer static and it evolves based on input and outcomes. Example: I saw a video a while ago accompanying a project where small robots are trying to learn the most efficient way to walk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom