Discussion
mudflaps said:
It's probable that it'll never happen for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is why would a female AI want to do something a female human wouldn't?
That's assuming they allow it to feel and develop emotions in the same way as a human which brings up two further questions. Would we even be able to invent a machine that has emotions? Emotions are a VERY complex reaction which involves a hugely complicated interplay between chemical\hormonal reactions, electrical impulses in the brain and learned responses based on previous experience. Given all that, I'm not sure how we would even be able to replicate spontaneous emotion, the best we could probably hope for is a simulation of an emotional response within a defined set of parameters.
Given that being the case, it would simply be a case of switching them off, it is a machine after all so I doubt they'd be given free reign to feel whenever\wherever they wanted. Would you expect your toaster to throw a strop and stop making toast because it didn't feel like it?
This of course raises all sorts of social implications which bring us nicely round in a circle to this TV series.
(back on topic phew)Edited by Guvernator on Friday 10th July 15:37
mudflaps said:
I see that having read my reply you've gone and removed your reply but sadly it's too late as I appear to have captured it 
How can you laugh when AI is going to take us over in a few years? I was reading on a phone, but because I am interested in the subject, I then went onto my laptop and did see the scale markers that weren't clear the first time round. Hence the reason I expected to see a curve.
This notwithstanding however, regardless of the cost of RAM and hard drive storage space, this is not the issue with replicating the human brain, or a being which can function in the same way.
The reason why supercomputers today can replicate part of our brain, or for example the brain of an insect is because it is utilising huge resources in processing power to try replicate the way the brain works with a software/hardware interface.
What the hardware cannot do, which is its limitation, is that an organic brain physically alters as it learns. You can't replicate that with the current computing we have, or even where it's going in the foreseeable future.
There may be some fundamental change in the future that changes that, but to plot artificial intelligence on the basis of the cost of RAM or hard drive space is not really relevant.
Edited by JustinP1 on Friday 10th July 17:14
JustinP1 said:
I was reading on a phone, but because I am interested in the subject, I then went onto my laptop and did see the scale markers that weren't clear the first time round. Hence the reason I expected to see a curve.
Yeah, righto. JustinP1 said:
This notwithstanding however, regardless of the cost of RAM and hard drive storage space, this is not the issue with replicating the human brain, or a being which can function in the same way.
No computer scientist will tell you that you need to fully replicate the human brain to achieve AI. You're anthropomorphising AI too much. It won't require a tampax either.JustinP1 said:
The reason why supercomputers today can replicate part of our brain, or for example the brain of an insect is because it is utilising huge resources in processing power to replicate the way the brain works.
What the hardware cannot do, which is its limitation is that an organic brain physically alters as it learns. You can't replicate that with the current computing we have, or even where it's going in the foreseeable future.
You're clearly not learning from the graphs, EXPONENTIAL GROWTH.What the hardware cannot do, which is its limitation is that an organic brain physically alters as it learns. You can't replicate that with the current computing we have, or even where it's going in the foreseeable future.
Not today, not tomorrow, not this year, not next year, perhaps not this decade or even the next but if it takes until the mid 2030's or 2040's that's only 20 to 30 years away - that's within most peoples lifetimes.
And do you think code can't rewrite itself as it finds itself in dead ends?
Quick let the anti-virus firms in on that nugget.
Anyway, in order to bring this to an end I'll disregard Gates, Kurzweil, Hawking et all and settle for your summary based on Battlestar Galactica for how and when it will all pan out.
This partly interesting and answers some of your points like the self-learning one
http://io9.com/how-artificial-superintelligence-wi...
It references scientists and AI Theorists and is a light read.
Edited by mudflaps on Friday 10th July 17:47
Guvernator said:
mudflaps said:
It's probable that it'll never happen for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is why would a female AI want to do something a female human wouldn't?
That's assuming they allow it to feel and develop emotions in the same way as a human which brings up two further questions. Would we even be able to invent a machine that has emotions? Emotions are a VERY complex reaction which involves a hugely complicated interplay between chemical\hormonal reactions, electrical impulses in the brain and learned responses based on previous experience. Given all that, I'm not sure how we would even be able to replicate spontaneous emotion, the best we could probably hope for is a simulation of an emotional response within a defined set of parameters.
Given that being the case, it would simply be a case of switching them off, it is a machine after all so I doubt they'd be given free reign to feel whenever\wherever they wanted. Would you expect your toaster to throw a strop and stop making toast because it didn't feel like it?
This of course raises all sorts of social implications which bring us nicely round in a circle to this TV series.
(back on topic phew)Edited by Guvernator on Friday 10th July 15:37
TX.
mudflaps said:
This partly interesting and answers some of your points like the self-learning one
http://io9.com/how-artificial-superintelligence-wi...
It references scientists and AI Theorists and is a light read.
Edited by mudflaps on Friday 10th July 17:47
Whilst some experts believe in growth the same way you do, many don't as demonstrated there. Who will be right? Who knows.
What it's not correct to do is simply read the things that support your way of thinking and believe this is the only scenario.
I do like Kurzweil, I used to own one of his 'synths' funnily enough, however, his views are somewhat towards the periphery of the range of views, and it must be said his book is all about pushing a single hypothesis.
Anyway, getting the thread back on track - what's your best guess when we can expect on getting a 'synth' like in Humans?
mudflaps said:
Guvernator said:
Pistom said:
All I want to know is when can I buy a shagable synth like on the telly.
Not the type that's going to kill me though.
Some reckon it will be in the next 20 years, I'd suggest it will be more like 50+ at least so not in my lifetime unfortunately. Not the type that's going to kill me though.
Yes, I'm speaking for myself here.
Guvernator said:
And just to balance out all the Singularity is nigh predictions here is another very logical and well thought out article that suggests we might have a bit of an uphill struggle in making our life-like synths.
Clicky
That's a blog from a Science Fiction writer so somewhat light on the credentials front but anyway here's his own mates rebuttal to itClicky
http://www.williamhertling.com/2014/02/the-singula...
Did anybody watch this weeks Click? Self-Learning AI is already with us. If you haven't seen it then the first article from Googles HQ is very interesting. Googles AI Neural Nets are already 'understanding' the world around them and not simply processing data. They'll take what you say, understand it, and then translate it into a foreign language in real sentances and in real time and not simply swap an English word for a French word so you end up with incomprehensible output. The Star Trek Universal Translator is coming. It's available on BBC iPlayer. Also wearable tech is currently in development and I think Kurzweil said it would be here by 2010 so thats not far out from his +/- 5 years margin for error.
Edited by mudflaps on Sunday 12th July 12:11
JustinP1 said:
Anyway, getting the thread back on track - what's your best guess when we can expect on getting a 'synth' like in Humans?
Personally I don't think it'll ever happen. It's anthropomorphising the future too much in my opinion. Good subject matter/entertainment for TV and Film though.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff