[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 18 KB, 400x434, Ghost_in_the_Shell_Motoko_Kusanagi_wig_ver_01-5-05.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2958184 No.2958184 [Reply] [Original]

Simulated intelligence will never be actual cognitive intelligence, much the same way a simulated fire can not burn anything in reality. AI is a parody of intelligence at best.

>> No.2958189

Unless it can learn by itself.

>> No.2958196

But can it love?

>> No.2958199

>>2958189
It can't. At best it uses algorithms designed to generate more data. There is no intelligence in an artificial body.

>> No.2958198

>>2958189
It wouldn't be learning, it would just be simulating learning.

>> No.2958208

>>2958198
What would be the difference between simulated learning and learning?

>> No.2958210

>>2958198
>>2958184
>Cars do not really move, they only copy movement

>> No.2958218

>>2958189
Self-learning/adapting systems are hardly anything new.

>>2958184
>charge transfer pretending to be a fire can never burn anything like a real fire. Therefor charge transfer in neurons can never be like charge transfer in silicon.

Any other flawed words-only arguments/comparisons you want to share?

>> No.2958223

I would take the complete opposite view. I don't think there's any fundamental difference between a simulation and reality provided that the simulation is sufficiently detailed. In reality, things happen in accordance with simple laws and the complexity comes from the mutual interaction of "small things." As long as simulated things happen for good simulated reasons and the simulation reflects the same level of complexity as reality, I don't think that it makes much difference.

>> No.2958229

>>2958184
i watched this film a few days ago
who the fuck actually was the puppet master?

>> No.2958242

>>2958198
Human learning is also "simulated learning". In our brains we simulate a model of the world and how we understand it to work. That is why you can learn new things, and that is why you sometimes get surprised by new information that does not fit into your mental model of the world. The difference is not really that significant.

Add also a possible future scenario where we do not use the computers to simulate intelligence, but to simulate a human brain. At that stage there would really be no difference (assuming that the simulate is correct).

>> No.2958251

You are retarded OP. If a human brain can be recreated, how is it a simulation? What provides the same results as the original is not a simulation

>> No.2958256

You are just simulating being alive, OP.
Enjoy being a mindless machine.

>> No.2958260

>>2958210

> By book on cars moves in the same way as books

Stay classy, /sci/

>>2958242

> Human learning is also "simulated learning". In our brains we simulate a model of the world and how we understand it to work

No it isn't, what are you, a retard? Just because I think about a fireplace doesn't mean my head are on fire.

>> No.2958268

>>2958251


>You are retarded OP. If a human brain can be recreated, how is it a simulation? What provides the same results as the original is not a simulation

If it is recreated, it isn't a simulation, OP wasn't saying that. In fact, you're agreeing with OP.

In fact, OP said a simulated AI wouldn't be the same.

>> No.2958271

>>2958229
a program.

watch it again. the film actually explains this.

>> No.2958273
File: 16 KB, 400x298, l_06c1ef108c6d46d0ab22df75778d1f12.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2958273

I have never been much of an AI type of person, but saying it will never happen is a completely retarded, luddite and biochauvinist statement.

That is all.

>> No.2958280

AND I HAVE ANIME TO PROVE THIS HYPOTHESIS

>> No.2958282

>>2958273
>>2958273

Nice argument brah, go back to /lit/ with you

>> No.2958287

>>2958208
I'm waiting /sci/

>> No.2958292

>>2958282

But seriously now, tell me, what is the difference between a computer and a virtual computer running inside?

>> No.2958291

>>2958208

Just look at OP; the simulation would just be a simulation. You even said this yourself.

>> No.2958299

>>2958291

>"the simulation would just be a simulation"

What exactly do you mean with this?

>> No.2958301

>>2958292

Why's that relevant?

>> No.2958308

>>2958299

I don't know how I can be more precise. The simulation would be a simulation. An imitation of the real deal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation

>> No.2958310

An additional complication to anyone who says strong AI is impossible: artificial and biological intelligences are not the only kinds that can be envisioned. In fact, the two lie at opposite ends of a continuum with various shades of "cyborgs" in the middle. If a biological component is necessary to "real" intelligence, just how extensive must that part be?

It seems to me that artifical and biological intelligences are not only of the same kind but actually miscible to a high degree. They would also seem to have compensatory advantages and disadvantages.

>> No.2958311

>>2958301

Because the computer is an emergent property of exposed silicon on a wafer and the virtual machine is an emergent property of electrons moving on that silicon, what you would call "just a simulation".

>> No.2958312

yeah but we are simulated intelligence, we're just made of mushy bits instead of computer stuff.

>> No.2958315

>>2958291
Other than semantics, what's the real difference between simulated learning and learning?

The end result is the same

>> No.2958316

>>2958308

Oh Jesus Christ, the simulation would be the real thing, but on a different environment (Again, much like virtual computers running virtual OSs running virtual programs)

>> No.2958318

>>2958260
>Just because I think about a fireplace doesn't mean my head are on fire.

My point exactly. Yet you both know and can experience the heat from fire. Where do you think that experience happens? Right, in your brain. What you believe to be "you sitting next to a fire and feeling its warmth" is just your brain interpreting the data from your senses and creating an experience that to you seem to be the "reality".

There is not direct experience of reality, only the amalgamation of your sense-impressions seen thorough the filter of your previous experiences (to use OP's expression "simulated" reality).

>> No.2958319

>>2958308
>An imitation of the real deal.
So it's like the human mind. Subjective reality not being real reality. Your brain is running a model/simulation based on information it picks up from the enviroment.

>> No.2958321

This thread is stupid

>> No.2958322

>>2958311

A computer isn't an emergent property; it's a function we designate.
Google for turing machines.

>>2958310

As long as there's something thinking there's no problem with cyborgs. The problem is that strong AI can't show you how a computer would be able to think; that in itself is because the functionalism view of the mind is, well, bull.

>> No.2958335

>>2958319

Subjective reality is just as real as any part of reality; just because it's subjective doesn't mean it's fake. Why would you believe this?

>> No.2958340

>>2958322

>A computer isn't an emergent property; it's a function we designate.

Semantic bla-de-bla.

>that in itself is because the functionalism view of the mind is, well, bull.

Of course, silly me for not picking up the latest Deepak Chopra book. The human mind may be a very complex organism, but there's a limit to how much information there can be in a two-kilogram lump of Carbon.

>CAPTCHA: (Solution mvergent

>> No.2958345

create the simple algorithm

Do While alive > dead

live

Loop

Thus any other machine it encounters with a similar algorithm, cooperation, reflection, and deceit will emerge

>> No.2958350

>>2958335

that'sthepoint.jpg.

On the level of humans, it's the subjective reality we observe that we consider to be real, not the actual reality of quarks and protons and probability fields which we KNOW exists.

On the level of a simulated intelligence, the simulated environment would be what it considers to be real. It would be within that environment as intelligent as a human who thinks what he sees and feels is real.

QED.

If this doesn't work, someone needs to toss in the infinite recursion of simulated worlds argument. The one where we are all simulated.

>> No.2958359

>>2958322
What about cyborgs with the brains of dogs or pigs coupled with AI functionality? If they demonstrate a high level of "apparent" intelligence, are they truly intelligent? What about an AI that uses a layer of nerve cells grown in vitro over a sensor array as a sort of co-processor?

You didn't really answer the dilemma. If artificial "thought" crosses seamlessly back and forth with biological "thought" then how does the distinction arise?

>> No.2959008

>>2958340

Semantics? Well aren't you a retard

>>2958350

But how would this be an argument for strong AI? Even if I'm, as an example, part of the matrix, and all my impulses from the outer world would be fake, my conscious belief about said simulations would still be real.

What I think about is irrelevant.

>>2958359

They don't emerge, they support already existing possibility for consciousness.

>> No.2959092
File: 89 KB, 644x921, 1290090086956.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2959092

ITT: Religious biochauvinists pretending abstractions don't exist. Pic very much related.