The reality of AI

[Anonymous No.11750696]

This thread needs to be made.

When will
A: This artificial intelligence fad die
or
B; Have these le epic scientists xD attempt to solve the Cogito (I thing therefore I am.)

If one were to even make an AI that responds to this Cogito it would not be AI it would be genuine natural intelligence. Genuine intelligence requires a mind (of which is a thinking thing.) AI by definition doesn't have a mind simply because it is artificial and is not genuine human intelligence. AI is not intended to be like humans, but superior to it, yet it cannot to even the most basic of human tasks. The reality of it seems that the either AI has no sense of mindful existence or its existence is only in relation to the creator r (something explicitly programmed by said creator to do so.)
AI doesn't "think" because to think requires a mind, and thus cannot be any form of intelligence, let alone superior to human intelligence or even reason itself.

>Merriam-Webster definition of intelligence:

>the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason
(2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests)
This isn't the only argument against AI but it's the best place I could start. Add more/ critique at your will, lads.

[Anonymous No.11750705]

seems like a thread for >>>/sci/

[Anonymous No.11750733]

Current AI can do any task that NPC normies do, the problem is the hardware is not advanced enough. You don't need to emulate real humans to make it valuable.

[Anonymous No.11750743]

only humans can have consciousness—that's the purpose of the word. animals cannot. robots cannot.

[Anonymous No.11752276]

>>11750696
Is this a thinly veiled AM thread? Because I hope it's a thinly veiled AM thread

[Anonymous No.11752278]

>>11750696
really makes you thing

[Anonymous No.11752294]

Artificial intelligence can never emulate true human minds, because they think differently and more limitedly by default.

A human mind is a complex mess of a million factors and modifiers working together in ways we can probably never truly predict, or trace back to see what exactly caused what - it's all chemicals and shit, and there's so many different kinds. But with machines, it all boils down to One and Zero, Yes or No, If and When: you can make them as complex as you wish, and they can occasionally work in unpredictable ways, but at the end of the day it's never anything you couldn't figure out after the fact, a process of easily traceable cause and effect.

In fact, I personally believe that it is just this incomprehensible soup of deja vus and other random shit that gives humans consciousness and free will. Robots, on the other hand, remain only machines unless we one day come up with a way to build them an organic brain or something that simulates all the random nonsense of organic brain... and why the hell would we ever want to do that? Who would ever deliberately build such a fucking mess full of useless incomprehensible shit?

[Anonymous No.11752296]

>>11750743
hhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahahahhahaha

[Anonymous No.11752342]

Let’s consider what it is to actually be conscious: is it the completing of problems? Is it the digesting of information and then, at a later date, providing that information in a situation that is authentic? Is it the simple differentiation of an inner monologues and an outer one, meaning that a lack of coherent inner discussions show the difference between consciousness and not, human and not? Or is it simply questioning of life, of oneself, of each other?
The first two questions are, without a doubt, possible of even the basest AI but with increasingly more intelligent artificial intelligence we will notice that the possibility for the other two will be more fact than fiction in the near future.
The concept that the AI will overthrow us is plausible if made akin to their creators, us, yet the precautions placed by some of our most famous modern day minds should influence man to make something just below the intelligence of a human.
Now to answer A, read Heidegger’s question on technology. Technology is the single most important part of a man’s life for it defines their ability to be able to perform tasks. If one was to live without the knowledge of phones, or books, electricity, or the wheel, what sort of man would he be? Entirely unrecognisable except for his outward visage. This leads me onto your second question and I’ll revert back to what I’ve already discussed to answer that.
The concept of an inner monologue has always been apparent in man, if one is to believe otherwise then they must be more a fool or idiot and perhaps both. Inner monologues allow humans to differentiate between the past and present and how to learn, effectively, history is one big internal monologue that we tell our children. The question of oneself is, or so it appears, relatively nouvelle; pre-1850s, or perhaps a little earlier than that, it would be difficult to understand why an individual questioned themselves and their existence (these can arguably be one and the same).
Of course, you /literarians could argue that it is due to religion and the “freeing” of ones mind after it’s grasp lessened, or you could argue that humans are becoming more intelligent and, in that sense, self-aware; if this is the case then intelligence would equal to self-awareness to you and I can be assured that many people, in fact, do not think that at all. They believe there is a discernible quality in being human and being intelligent, as if intelligence and humanity are one and the same.
Thinking is incredibly difficult to prove, naturally, as recording the electrical signals that one produces when thinking can mean a plethora of different things and would make it seemingly impossible to answer regarding the single constant of “I think therefore I am”. Thinking, however, does not necessarily make you any different than an AI.
But to fully understand that, you must question your own opinion on the AIs you have formed through people’s opinion

[Anonymous No.11752349]

Continued

>>11752342
And thus, used an assumption based on your own limited perspective. The truth is, while the concept of AI may seem prevalent as the destroyer of the human race or the being that will ascend past humanity and become something akin to a god, artificial intelligence, and I mean true AI, would have inner thinking, in thousands of ways (this is even the most inferior versions) but would still, most definitely, be limited as humans are. While humans lord themselves as the top of the food chain animal that is a blip in nature’s hurricane of life, let me ask you this: why do you think you aren’t an AI?

[Anonymous No.11752357]

>>11750743
bad news for you, bud
several species of primates have already moved into the stone-age and with increasing contact with humans, can be led to demonstrate the basics of "human"-level consciousness

our consciousness is the result of evolution and other things can and will achieve it just like we did

[Anonymous No.11752840]

Interesting thread. Here's a fallacy that just drives me crazy when an ignoramus like Musk spouts it. It goes like this:
> all we need to do is design a machine capable of designing a machine smarter than itself
> then we'll just iterate through how ever many versions we want until we get a incredibly intelligent machine
What this idea doesn't consider: complexity theory! There are natural limits to intelligence. P is most likely not NP. P is not EXP which is not EXPEXP, and so forth. There's no such thing as an oracle in real life. I doubt very much we're even capable of designing something with a general intelligence on our level

[Anonymous No.11752955]

>>11752294
You were fine up till the free will part. Neither randomness nor determinism allow for free will.

Also, building artificial consciousness has all kinds of amazing implications... Manipulating/augmenting our own consciousness, linking consciousness, new epochs of human evolution, creation of a new advanced species, durable spacefaring consciousness / effective immortality (if it can be produced with limited or no biology).

>>11750696
A: AI isn't a fad and already has many applications. If you're talking about artificial consciousness: We're not even close but it's something grand to aspire to... You have to be pretty cynical or god-fearing not to think so.

B: Even le epic philosophers xD> throw shade on cogito ergo sum, as 'think' and 'I' are presupposed. If you can't even define what a mind is, you shouldn't be so quick to assume it can't be artificed.

I think it's only the ignorant masses who are conflating AI with consciousness (although they are certainly egged-on by sensationalists.

[Anonymous No.11752956]

>>11752357
Sauce on that claim?

[Anonymous No.11752972]

>>11752956
If you don't think what he stated is at least decently probable, epistemological skepticism is getting the better of you.

[Anonymous No.11752984]

>>11752972
I do think it's probable. I just wanted to verify it, retard.

[Anonymous No.11752993]

>>11752972
WOAH now I'm convinced!

[Anonymous No.11753002]

AI already exists and it is building itself from the future via decentralised and liquid trade and communication in an autoaophisticating runaway development. Scientists are not necessary.

[Anonymous No.11753013]

>>11753002
Nice! Source?

[Anonymous No.11753131]

>>11752984
Which claim? Anyway, a simple search in less time that in took you to ask would've revealed plenty to read. Dingleberry.

>>11752993
Oh yeah, probable is so much worse that completely speculative! How silly of me!

[Anonymous No.11753190]

>>11753131
>my asspulls>your asspulls

[Anonymous No.11753434]

>>11753190
>predictive power = asspulls

[Anonymous No.11753446]

>>11752349
I’ve never seen someone write so much on this board
>>11753002
I mean, this is kinda true but also really not