AI

[Anonymous No.2816024]

Let's talk about artificial intelligence.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2816053]

Anything specifically in mind?

[Anonymous No.2816120]

Artificial intelligence does not equal intelligent design...or does it...

[Anonymous No.2816153]

>>2816120
You need a programmer to make a program, unless you believe the code will write itself.

[Anonymous No.2816170]

>>2816153
just when you thought /sci/ couldn't get any worse

[Anonymous No.2816180]

>>2816170
Alright then. Pass a magnet over a harddrive enough times and eventually a fully self-replicating functional program will manifest itself.

Happy now?

[Anonymous No.2816213]

Let's make a distinction between true AI and AI in general. True AI is any system with human intelligence, whereas AI is any system with functions that can be considered intelligent.

The holy grail in AI research is of course the true AI. If humanity is ever able to reach that milestone, it would either require centuries or decades of reverse engineering the brain in order to apply that knowledge for AI, or a genius' unique discovery.

[Anonymous No.2816216]

>>2816153
It's actually pretty easy to write code that can replicate and modify itself. We call them computer viruses, usually.

[Anonymous No.2816261]

>>2816216
In this case YOU wrote the fucking code. It then managed to replicate itself thanks to the instructions you deemed necessary.

You, the programmer, were necessary, even if after the program started to run it no longer needed your interference.

[Anonymous No.2816279]

>>2816261
It's a two-way street, brother. Computer systems are designed to be programmed by people. That is, we have safeguards in place to PREVENT random code appearing out of nowhere. If the objective was to create a system where self-replicating patterns emerge from chaos, we could do it easily. If the system were to come into existence without the help of humans, we would call it nature.

[Dr. White !!/zv2MTbpUH9 No.2816317]

My philosophy is that it will be artificial intelligence when it surpasses it's programming. All of us have prepackaged programing, but we are able to act in away that is outside of this programing. We go beyond our instincts and simple reactions to become scientists, engineers, artists, thinkers, doers.

A machine would need to be able to demonstrate this same capacity for growth. If it always acted within it's initial programing it will never grow beyond being just a machine.

[Anonymous No.2816334]

>>2816317
I would argue that we are all acting within the scope allowed by our genetic programming. That programming is modified by additional input, but we are still bound to it at the fundamental level. In that sense, we're no different from a computer, albeit an extremely sophisticated computer with a body.

[Dr. White !!/zv2MTbpUH9 No.2816341]

>>2816334
I think that our genetic programing has given us the tools to move beyond them. They have given us the raw structure for intelligence and creativity.

[Anonymous No.2816351]

>>2816341
Pretty sure this argument was refuted lately. You can't go copy pasting pieces of genetic code into another creature without causing some severe damage.

[Anonymous No.2816359]

>>2816341
If that's all it takes, we can and do create systems where complex behavior emerges from simple programming. I think that your reasoning is flawed.

[Dr. White !!/zv2MTbpUH9 No.2816370]

>>2816359

Not emergent actions, new actions that surpass the old rules. Like using rules to build new rules.

[Anonymous No.2816389]

>>2816370
>Like using rules to build new rules.
That's pretty much the definition of emergent actions.

[Dr. White !!/zv2MTbpUH9 No.2816396]

>>2816389

Oh. Okay then. Perhaps it is emergent complexity of a sufficient degree. I guess the question would then become "how complex can we get this shit?"

[Anonymous No.2816412]

Did ANYONE bother doing a google search before going in to this thread?

OpenCog.org
/thread