Why is AI such an impossible goal?
Discussion
Guvernator said:
Lynchie999 said:
maybe we ARE the AI....
You jest but there is a lot of merit to the suggestion that we are all just artificial constructs in someone else's lab or even computer simulation.To some degree now, we are controlled by algorithms, big data and what and how this is presented to us; I know this isn't what you mean by 'artefacts of a construct', but in a way (the way this article was leading) this is what we are becoming...
LivingTheDream said:
Is there? Could you point me to some?
Just do a search for simulation hypothesis in google. You'll get lots of articles arguing for and against.I think it's an interesting premise and gives alternative theories apart from evolution as to why we seem very well designed, why against huge odds, the conditions on earth are almost perfect for human life and even why a lot of humans believe in a divine maker\God as sub-consciously, we may know that we are artificial constructs that were made or programmed by someone else.
Guvernator said:
Just do a search for simulation hypothesis in google. You'll get lots of articles arguing for and against.
I think it's an interesting premise and gives alternative theories apart from evolution as to why we seem very well designed, why against huge odds, the conditions on earth are almost perfect for human life and even why a lot of humans believe in a divine maker\God as sub-consciously, we may know that we are artificial constructs that were made or programmed by someone else.
Thanks - it sounds like complete nonsenseI think it's an interesting premise and gives alternative theories apart from evolution as to why we seem very well designed, why against huge odds, the conditions on earth are almost perfect for human life and even why a lot of humans believe in a divine maker\God as sub-consciously, we may know that we are artificial constructs that were made or programmed by someone else.
I'll now go and take a read - see if my opinion changes
That's why I like the science forum
Guvernator said:
Just do a search for simulation hypothesis in google. You'll get lots of articles arguing for and against.
I think it's an interesting premise and gives alternative theories apart from evolution as to why we seem very well designed, why against huge odds, the conditions on earth are almost perfect for human life and even why a lot of humans believe in a divine maker\God as sub-consciously, we may know that we are artificial constructs that were made or programmed by someone else.
WTF? I think it's an interesting premise and gives alternative theories apart from evolution as to why we seem very well designed, why against huge odds, the conditions on earth are almost perfect for human life and even why a lot of humans believe in a divine maker\God as sub-consciously, we may know that we are artificial constructs that were made or programmed by someone else.
Optic nerve going out of the FRONT of the retina. Spines that are ill suited to standing upright so are prone to aches. Spinal cords and hearts with no redundancy. No capacity to regrow missing limbs or even digits, or even adult teeth. Breathing and eating/drinking via the same tube. Babies heads being too big for straightforward birth. Having an appendix. Multiple and largely incompatible blood groups.
It all smacks of crude test based development, the evidence of lack of conscious design is overwhelming.
Dr Jekyll said:
WTF?
Optic nerve going out of the FRONT of the retina. Spines that are ill suited to standing upright so are prone to aches. Spinal cords and hearts with no redundancy. No capacity to regrow missing limbs or even digits, or even adult teeth. Breathing and eating/drinking via the same tube. Babies heads being too big for straightforward birth. Having an appendix. Multiple and largely incompatible blood groups.
It all smacks of crude test based development, the evidence of lack of conscious design is overwhelming.
Lol I knew someone would come out with this but you could make just as many arguments about how well somethings do work considering all the variables our body has to deal with. Our skin could almost be described as miraculous as could our brains, our intestines, our immune system etc. Yes it could all be random luck, selective breeding, mixture of both, a computer simulation, purposely made\designed by something or it could be something else entirely. Optic nerve going out of the FRONT of the retina. Spines that are ill suited to standing upright so are prone to aches. Spinal cords and hearts with no redundancy. No capacity to regrow missing limbs or even digits, or even adult teeth. Breathing and eating/drinking via the same tube. Babies heads being too big for straightforward birth. Having an appendix. Multiple and largely incompatible blood groups.
It all smacks of crude test based development, the evidence of lack of conscious design is overwhelming.
I'm not 100% certain which one of those is correct, are you?
Guvernator said:
Lol I knew someone would come out with this but you could make just as many arguments about how well somethings do work considering all the variables our body has to deal with. Our skin could almost be described as miraculous as could our brains, our intestines, our immune system etc. Yes it could all be random luck, selective breeding, mixture of both, a computer simulation, purposely made\designed by something or it could be something else entirely.
I'm not 100% certain which one of those is correct, are you?
Of course I can't be 100% certain. But there are many features which are explicable in terms of evolution through natural selection, but not in terms of design. Why would a designer include an appendix?I'm not 100% certain which one of those is correct, are you?
Guvernator said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Of course I can't be 100% certain. But there are many features which are explicable in terms of evolution through natural selection, but not in terms of design. Why would a designer include an appendix?
Maybe because they have a warped sense of humour? 
But they might establish a simulation where, within whatever parameters they set, it just happens that the probability of the presence of a residual / redundant appendix in one of the complex cell-based lifeforms that arose at a certain point in that simulation, is greater than zero.
Each feature and detail within the simulation need not have been designed - just the parameters of the simulation itself.
Edited by Fullook on Wednesday 7th March 15:43
Edited by Fullook on Wednesday 7th March 15:44
Fullook said:
Let's say a designer wouldn't design an appendix in a human.
But they might establish a simulation where, within whatever parameters they set, it just happens that the probability of the presence of a residual / redundant appendix in one of the complex cell-based lifeforms that arose at a certain point in that simulation, is greater than zero.
Each feature and detail within the simulation need not have been designed - just the parameters of the simulation itself.
Yep modern computer games are a great example. Unlike in the past, not every single facet of a modern computer game is coded line by line. A lot of the time, content is procedurally generated using a set of defined parameters as it's a lot more efficient then writing millions of lines of code. 99% of the time this procedure does exactly what you want but occasionally it can lead to unexpected results or bugs.But they might establish a simulation where, within whatever parameters they set, it just happens that the probability of the presence of a residual / redundant appendix in one of the complex cell-based lifeforms that arose at a certain point in that simulation, is greater than zero.
Each feature and detail within the simulation need not have been designed - just the parameters of the simulation itself.
It's more than likely if AI is achieved that it will be achieved by some sort of self learning procedural program rather than a person or persons sitting down and writing every single line of code for it. Even at this early stage of AI, this is mostly how it's done and occasionally we have AI which doesn't quite behave in the way the programmer was expecting it to.
andy_s said:
If we read the last article and go with Gibson's view that “The future is already here – it’s just not very evenly distributed” in relation to the complexities of the internet and our burgeoning relationship with social media, we are in a way, exactly that - just not in the literal sense.
Not very evenly distributed? Understatement of the year when there is a big percentage of the population that don't even have access to running water!Not quite A. I but possibly a stepping stone towards.......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43394758
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43394758
Fullook said:
Let's say a designer wouldn't design an appendix in a human.
But they might establish a simulation where, within whatever parameters they set, it just happens that the probability of the presence of a residual / redundant appendix in one of the complex cell-based lifeforms that arose at a certain point in that simulation, is greater than zero.
Each feature and detail within the simulation need not have been designed - just the parameters of the simulation itself.
Why would a hypothetical designer create a system that simulates evolution? Because they are curious about their own origins...But they might establish a simulation where, within whatever parameters they set, it just happens that the probability of the presence of a residual / redundant appendix in one of the complex cell-based lifeforms that arose at a certain point in that simulation, is greater than zero.
Each feature and detail within the simulation need not have been designed - just the parameters of the simulation itself.
Dr Jekyll said:
WTF?
Optic nerve going out of the FRONT of the retina. Spines that are ill suited to standing upright so are prone to aches. Spinal cords and hearts with no redundancy. No capacity to regrow missing limbs or even digits, or even adult teeth. Breathing and eating/drinking via the same tube. Babies heads being too big for straightforward birth. Having an appendix. Multiple and largely incompatible blood groups.
It all smacks of crude test based development, the evidence of lack of conscious design is overwhelming.
Hmm I reckon the Octopus will be the next evolution after humans, the ability to re-grow a limb, three hearts 9 brains and the ability to rapidly change colour and solve complex problems.Optic nerve going out of the FRONT of the retina. Spines that are ill suited to standing upright so are prone to aches. Spinal cords and hearts with no redundancy. No capacity to regrow missing limbs or even digits, or even adult teeth. Breathing and eating/drinking via the same tube. Babies heads being too big for straightforward birth. Having an appendix. Multiple and largely incompatible blood groups.
It all smacks of crude test based development, the evidence of lack of conscious design is overwhelming.
Edited to say who needs AI?
steveT350C said:
It's going to be interested when AI examines 'known' thinking but examining the raw data from the start without having to worry about any human bias. Like when it won at Go, it approached the game in a way that the human simply didn't recognise.I guess this also one of the fears over AI is those that invent it, suddenly realise they have no idea how it thinks.
Mothersruin said:
It's going to be interested when AI examines 'known' thinking but examining the raw data from the start without having to worry about any human bias. Like when it won at Go, it approached the game in a way that the human simply didn't recognise.
I guess this also one of the fears over AI is those that invent it, suddenly realise they have no idea how it thinks.
Wasn't this why facebook (I think it was facebook) switched off their experiment when the two AI started conversing in a way the engineers didn't understand? I think they started conversing in a very snipped/efficient way from what I remember reading and the guys monitoring them didn't have a clue what they were saying or how they got to that point. They were also shocked at how quickly it happened IIRC.I guess this also one of the fears over AI is those that invent it, suddenly realise they have no idea how it thinks.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff