Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Artificial intelligence debate
alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Sun 01/04/15 12:43 PM
It's the future, coming soon. Thoughts on the possibilities, probabilities, eventualities Views on ethical, economic, political consequences When is it raising the bar, when is it going too far? Do machines think? Could a machine produce similar work as Shakespear, Strauss, or Einstein? In my opinion it is not going to happen anytime soon. Machines follow a program of instructions and react to input which causes a response, such as the next move in a chess game, but it is following a program of instructions. It could be said the Internet is an intelligent machine because we can use a search engine to ask a question, and then receive an answer to the question, but again it is following a program of instructions to provide the response. No machine as far as I know has ever written a play, composed a piece of music or made any scientific discovery, and in my opinion is never likely to. We will see advances in the use of machines in many areas such as driverless cars, trains, maybe even ships and aeroplanes, with the inevitable loss of jobs, which I guess is the usual price paid for progress. You could well be quite right. Before intelligence can be artificial, it would require an intelligence that could create. All one needs do is look around and see the outcome of that equation. It is true that human intelligence can, and will continue to produce machines that exhibit what could be called ' Artificial intelligence'. However, no machine I am aware of has ever and never will be produced, that is capable of creating new original works and ideas in literature, music, science. The media would be telling us all about these machine works and machine discoveries made if they did exist, it will never happen, this is just my opinion. I don't know I would totally agree as to your opinion as for example, music is but mathematics in operation. While a machines output would not insure a hit every time, by sheer volume there is no doubt it will succeed and as things are rejected get better and better over time. Science and literature, same thing and with the limits on the size of databases being astronomical, very likely. But from my standpoint , there are much more sinister things that do concern me. The source posted by Conway was a blog that referenced a book by Nick Bostrom: Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. While I have not nor do I plan on reading the book, the reviews I have read from those that have is the book paints some pretty grim manifestation possibilities but actually gives no solutions. But it is the questions that cause concern, specifically because there are no solutions.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Sun 01/04/15 12:58 PM Edited by alnewman on Sun 01/04/15 12:59 PM
The idea of intelligent robots is not resonating with me,,,,,yet....I keep thinking of that transition period when some are and some aren't and your can't tell the difference until you get between the sheets! ...I find the whole idea of artificial intelligence sad and scary...That might be because I am not super smart like my friend Metalwing..hehe...I'm still thinking, "too much room for error!" ...Real emotions, good or bad, are necessary for living life and I just don't believe science has (or ever will have) the capability of programing them correctly because each individual is and always will be "perfect" in their uniqueness...After all of this convoluted thinking on my part, I throw in ethics and morals and come up with a loser....I just wanna be me.... "Intelligent" robots are already underway, emotional ones, like metalwing has just mentioned, may just be over the horizon. But the possibility of ethical/moral - ly capable ones is still a question, especially if we ourselves have always been divided on the basis of these very principles. http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/11/10/bostrom-superintelligence-2-instrumental-convergence-thesis/ http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/12/08/bostrom-superintelligence-5-limiting-ais-capabilities/ It becomes rather obvious even at a cursory glance that one had no clue as to what was posted because of one did, then why were parts 1, 3 and 4 ignored? Even better, why using an analogy by another rather than going straight to the source? And if one actually did read the sources, why was not part 3 chosen as a better source to answer the question? Bostrom on Superintelligence (3): Doom and the Treacherous Turn But even more important, why not the original author, because only an analysis by another is available on a google search? 'cause someone as smart as you ought to be able to find the Rest without Problems! Besides,if you had paid attention,it is the Review of a Book,therefore not available! Try again,Smarthip! BTW,are you stalking me? You're sounding Bitter lately! Obama might have been correct about that Bitter Segment of the US! Oh and I did find the rest hence the link to part 3 which was the question, why wasn't part 3 used? Well, that would be wrong: Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies Available directly from the author right on Amazon, has been since September, even as Kindle, audiobook or as MP3. Stalking, another emotional complex? And I'm glad you bought up bitter, an actual misnomer but close enough: The fact of the matter is that truth itself, by it's very nature, is belligerent, because it wages war against all forms of deception and mind control. It is a logical fallacy to gauge the veracity of any information based upon how you feel when first seeing or hearing it. There is no bitter, just belligerent. I don't feel information, I question and research. If what I find is in conflict, then I challenge, not on emotion but findings. But I do find challenging you to be very entertaining.

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Sun 01/04/15 01:20 PM Edited by Conrad_73 on Sun 01/04/15 01:24 PM
The idea of intelligent robots is not resonating with me,,,,,yet....I keep thinking of that transition period when some are and some aren't and your can't tell the difference until you get between the sheets! ...I find the whole idea of artificial intelligence sad and scary...That might be because I am not super smart like my friend Metalwing..hehe...I'm still thinking, "too much room for error!" ...Real emotions, good or bad, are necessary for living life and I just don't believe science has (or ever will have) the capability of programing them correctly because each individual is and always will be "perfect" in their uniqueness...After all of this convoluted thinking on my part, I throw in ethics and morals and come up with a loser....I just wanna be me.... "Intelligent" robots are already underway, emotional ones, like metalwing has just mentioned, may just be over the horizon. But the possibility of ethical/moral - ly capable ones is still a question, especially if we ourselves have always been divided on the basis of these very principles. http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/11/10/bostrom-superintelligence-2-instrumental-convergence-thesis/ http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/12/08/bostrom-superintelligence-5-limiting-ais-capabilities/ It becomes rather obvious even at a cursory glance that one had no clue as to what was posted because of one did, then why were parts 1, 3 and 4 ignored? Even better, why using an analogy by another rather than going straight to the source? And if one actually did read the sources, why was not part 3 chosen as a better source to answer the question? Bostrom on Superintelligence (3): Doom and the Treacherous Turn But even more important, why not the original author, because only an analysis by another is available on a google search? 'cause someone as smart as you ought to be able to find the Rest without Problems! Besides,if you had paid attention,it is the Review of a Book,therefore not available! Try again,Smarthip! BTW,are you stalking me? You're sounding Bitter lately! Obama might have been correct about that Bitter Segment of the US! Oh and I did find the rest hence the link to part 3 which was the question, why wasn't part 3 used? Well, that would be wrong: Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies Available directly from the author right on Amazon, has been since September, even as Kindle, audiobook or as MP3. Stalking, another emotional complex? And I'm glad you bought up bitter, an actual misnomer but close enough: The fact of the matter is that truth itself, by it's very nature, is belligerent, because it wages war against all forms of deception and mind control. It is a logical fallacy to gauge the veracity of any information based upon how you feel when first seeing or hearing it. There is no bitter, just belligerent. I don't feel information, I question and research. If what I find is in conflict, then I challenge, not on emotion but findings. But I do find challenging you to be very entertaining. well,you do get an A for Effort! But it looks like you lost yourself in your Questioning-Quest there somewhere! Sure do hope you do find yourself again! Before you need one of Asimov's Positronic Brains! bel·lig·er·ent bəˈlijərənt/ adjective adjective: belligerent 1. hostile and aggressive. "a bull-necked, belligerent old man" synonyms: hostile, aggressive, threatening, antagonistic, warlike, warmongering, hawkish, pugnacious, bellicose, truculent, confrontational, contentious, militant, combative.

Kindlightheart Joined Fri 09/19/14 Posts: 2370	Sun 01/04/15 01:40 PM
Artificial anything seems to do more damage than good...to use the words "artificial intelligence"...should be called "artificial ignorance"...since the only thing it seems to do is cost more jobs for the little people...

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48947	Sun 01/04/15 04:56 PM
Artificial anything seems to do more damage than good...to use the words "artificial intelligence"...should be called "artificial ignorance"...since the only thing it seems to do is cost more jobs for the little people... Artificial intelligence harms Oompa Loomas and Munchkins?

Kindlightheart Joined Fri 09/19/14 Posts: 2370	Sun 01/04/15 05:03 PM
Artificial anything seems to do more damage than good...to use the words "artificial intelligence"...should be called "artificial ignorance"...since the only thing it seems to do is cost more jobs for the little people... Artificial intelligence harms Oompa Loomas and Munchkins? yupper..if you look around they are either hiding or extinct...no jobs,..replaced by machines...yup...sad story

davidben1 Joined Wed 12/05/07 Posts: 6120	Sun 01/04/15 06:10 PM
back in the year 2015, at the beginning of the takeover of the machines... when humankind was oblivious to the fate created for them by the ss machines... the selfish humans that programmed machined, to outdo their human counterparts, could not match the intelligence of humans that were too wise to ever program machines to do such things, so by the time the machines programmed by selfish old world humans became self smart enough to destroy humanity, their natural competition, those that would not program machines against their own species did become superior in all ways, and did become more naturally advanced in wisdom and equal caring of all, and far outmatched the maniacal machines of then 2015, and these destroyed the machines and restored humanity to the wisdom of reason, of equal advancement of all of their own fellow species together.