/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7038455]

Is strong AI possible?

It just seems impossible. I read a lot of journals for AI and it just garbage. 50 years of work and no new ideas.

It must be possible to create a conscious being. It must be possible to become like a god.

[Anonymous No.7038485]

>It just seems impossible
>It must be possible
Dude what.

Anyway I'm sure it's possible to create some kind of complex self-directed organism in silica but this whole artificial person thing is undoubtedly a load of crap.

And I'm not really sure what "become like a god" means either, though it's a pretty common idea in the AI-ist community. What does superintelligence even mean? Infinite memory? Thinking really fast? I don't see either of these things solving all of our problems or becoming god-like.

[Anonymous No.7038515]

>>7038485

I think something like the Geth in Mass effect might be possible.

Markov chain monte carlo also seems very promising.

[Anonymous No.7038525]

>>7038485
>What does superintelligence even mean?

Some kind of definition what intelligence actually means would be awesome too.

[Anonymous No.7038541]

>>7038515
Geth are still very personified. Whatever it ends up being, human language will probably be beyond it (or beside it). We've got millions of species with brains after all and only one uses language like we do.

I've never heard anything about MCMC as a possibility for strong AI. Info on that?

[Anonymous No.7038550]

>>7038455
Remember anon, single -> multi cell took longer than multi cell -> us.

There is likely a (or a few) significant roadblock between us and the endgoal but once it's solved things might move smoothly toward fantastic AI.

[Anonymous No.7038649]

>>7038485
Having something that can think on par with a human but never gets exhausted, bored, or distracted can be extremely useful in problem solving.

[Anonymous No.7038675]

big things have small beginnings.

[Anonymous No.7038683]

>tfw no qt sentient robot gf to help you optimize your daily life and have insightful and enlightening conversations with
why even live?

[Anonymous No.7038691]

>>7038455
Unless you believe in a soul of some form or another, Strong AI *must* be possible - because there already exists a computer that executes it, based on spiking neural networks with lossy integration.
Also, it's hardly fair to say
>50 years of work and no new ideas
The field of AI has expanded by leaps and bounds since 1965. It's practically impossible to find an area of your life that hasn't been touched by its advances.

The problem is that we haven't even had anything close to the hardware to make progress with good AI until very recently, and that as soon as a method starts actually working it stops being called "AI" because it turned out that it wasn't enough to create an intelligent being as smart as a human. Instead it gets lumped into machine learning, machine vision, etc, etc... and spun off into massive, innovative, highly productive subfields that just aren't called AI anymore.

Also, we still don't really know *how* to do it. Our proof-of-existence example we don't understand anything about, and attempts to construct a general artificial intelligence a priori haven't really worked because it turns out that it's really hard.

[Anonymous No.7038704]

>>7038649
Yes but the question then becomes whether or not such a thing could exist, and also what you mean by "on par with human intelligence".

Mathematica is much better at solving integrals than I am and it never gets bored/exhausted/distracted. So you might say that strong AI already here, at least partially, and now it's just a matter of extending its capabilities to encompass everything a person does instead of just integrals. But here you run into the wall of so-called AI-complete problems, where it becomes clear that some of our assumptions about reality need to be reevaluated.

[Anonymous No.7038708]

Not only possible but widely implemented soon, in fact historians will teach how it emerged in the early 2000s.

[Anonymous No.7038713]

>>7038455
>Is strong AI possible

Absolutely not.

>It just seems impossible. I read a lot of journals for AI and it just garbage

Congratulations, you have a functioning brain.

[Anonymous No.7038830]

Definitely possible.
We have pattern recognition. Computers can see.
Next it must make analogies between things and see distinctions. Currently possible.
Whats next is complexity and evolution. Gradually the computers will have understanding as they get more complex. All the basics are already here. With enough power and complexity the machine will think it is alive.

[Anonymous No.7038950]

>>7038485
How is it crap? How would a sufficiently complex robot differ from something like a human brain that is obviously conscious?

[Anonymous No.7038983]

>>7038455
>Is strong AI possible?

As proven by the Church-Turing thesis, everything a human can do, a machine can do as well, assuming everything a human does is biological and can be modelled by maths.

>>7038713
retard

[Anonymous No.7038985]

>>7038983
>proven
>Church-Turing thesis

Retarded CS major detected

[Anonymous No.7039051]

robowaifu want

[Anonymous No.7039081]

>>7038455
>Bill and all the other old retards peddling the AI sci-fi fantasy that it is dangerous which now is popular
>not a single fucking scientist of course is not going to address how this is exactly the same type of shit as technological determinism and have not addressed the exact same criticism it faced and could not overcome

this is getting really boring now, is the science field really that stupid and entrenched? no the scary AI isn't going to kill us all IF WE MAKE IT SO THAT IT DOESN'T FUCKING KILL US. Load of cart before the horse bullshit this is, the inner /pol/ in me wants to say they are simply doing this so the middle-class doesn't loose all their jobs overnight which wouldn't be impossible considering how easy it would be to automate bureaucracy.

[Anonymous No.7039085]

it's not possible. i bet you retards think technology has no limits

[Anonymous No.7039089]

>>7039085
well during the industrial revolution factory owners thought the rate of production isn't going to slow down

Looking back at it that sounds absolutely stupid because they just didn't know shit about all the other factors. In a few years we'll say the same about those delusional idealists who thought that AI has no limits.

[Anonymous No.7039094]

>>7038691
Have you had a look at IIT? It raises some doubts concerning whether or not traditional computer architectures could be conscious. Though there would apparently be no problem with hardware level neuromorphic architectures being conscious.

[Anonymous No.7039121]

>>7039094
> It raises some doubts concerning whether or not traditional computer architectures could be conscious.
With what evidence?

[Anonymous No.7039124]

>>7038485
"become like a god" means the AI becomes incredibly intelligent to the point where its doing things nobody can understand. As far as I know humans have never met with such a being so its hard to say what it would be like if it existed.

superintelligence just means its smarter than humans which isnt saying much in reality.

[Anonymous No.7039128]

>>7038455
There are a lot of new ideas, you just arent looking in the right places.

[Anonymous No.7039131]

>>7039085
>it's not possible
>says it as if he knew with 100% certainty
retard pls go

[Anonymous No.7039135]

>>7039128
That comment is so helpful and packed with information that its almost like you actually know what you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.7039137]

>>7039085
What is the limit?

[Anonymous No.7039138]

>>7039135
I tend to keep them on par with the comment I reply to.

[Anonymous No.7039142]

>>7038455
What is a conscious being, just an entity that is responsive to its environment and claims it is conscious?

I hate to break it to you but even cleverbot surpassed that benchmark years ago plus terms like consciousness, intelligence, god, and being are too vague to make any logical sense out of your question.

[Anonymous No.7039144]

>>7038691
>as soon as a method starts actually working it stops being called "AI"
>Instead it gets lumped into machine learning, machine vision, etc, etc...

Nice 'I want to believe' argument there. Actually AI has progressed hardly at all since 1965, what's happening lately is moving the goal posts half way down the field for every little baby step.

Siri, Watson, self driving cars, chatterbots, computers trading the stock market, playing video games, all great engineering feats but it's not AI.

[Anonymous No.7039147]

>>7039138
No need to worry about breaking shitposting par, quality wise, you are all eagles so far.

[Anonymous No.7039181]

>>7039144
yes, they are AI. they gather information and process it to make the best possible decision.

[Anonymous No.7039184]

Obstacle 1: We dont understand the human brain fully or how it works.

We arent developing shit until we get past that obstacle right there.

But yes the second we can create an exact replice of a human brain and understand how it works its on and AI WILL be born.

[Anonymous No.7039185]

>>7039184
>human brain

AI fagtards can't even replicate the general intelligence of insects lol

[Anonymous No.7039187]

>>7039185

absolutely, without a doubt we are at least 1000 years off getting AI to human levels.

Still its endgame, once we have created that we never need to create anything ever again because AI

[Anonymous No.7039207]

>>7039185
>AI fagtards can't even replicate the general intelligence of insects

We're way past that already. Good luck testing for insect intelligence by the way.

>>7039187
>without a doubt we are at least 1000 years off getting AI to human levels.
Based on what datapoints?

We already have unsupervised learning that can learn to play games and cook just by observation and trying.

In 5 years we'll probably have a roadmap to AGI. in 10 to 15 years it will be in commercial use.

[Anonymous No.7039232]

>>7039207
>We're way past that already.

do share

[Anonymous No.7039244]

True AI as in has the ability to be self-conscious? That's going to take fucking forever and would most likely be more biological if anything.

It would actually have to experience the world like we do, think in chemicals like we do.

Heck, I'd go as far as to call that Artificial Life.

[Anonymous No.7039245]

>>7039232
>watson can answer ambigious questions
>insects can't
that wasn't so hard was it?

[Anonymous No.7039246]

>>7039081
>technological determinism
faggot pls

[Anonymous No.7039249]

It only seems impossible because we're going about it completely the wrong way due to a lack of rigorous understanding of how our OWN intelligence works.

There will be huge breakthroughs in the next two decades.

Protips: Symbolic nesting, and self-recursion. That's the trick.

>>7039144
>Siri, Watson, self driving cars, chatterbots, computers trading the stock market, playing video games
I don't see how you can mention all that shit and say that the field hasn't progressed since 65.
The problem with your thinking is just that "AI" is a nebulous goal and despite making MASSIVE strides in its direction, we never get any closer to realizing if we're actually approaching the goal or not, because we don't REALLY know what the goal IS.

[Anonymous No.7039251]

>>7039187
>absolutely, without a doubt X
>X is exaggerated arbitrary bullshit

suuuuuure

[Anonymous No.7039254]

>>7039249
the goal is an time travelling terminator. i thought everyone was clear on that

[Anonymous No.7039257]

>>7039249
He just thinks AI is a title, like God. He doesn't understand it's simply an acronym for Artificial Intelligence.

He'll keep denying AI progress all the way because he's a believer in human exceptionality like so many other in this thread. It wouldn't matter if his doctor is an AI robot. He'd just say "oh it's just an expert system with some social NLP modules and mobility, it's not a true AI"

[Anonymous No.7039260]

>>7039257
by that logic a calculator is AI because it can do math

[Anonymous No.7039268]

>>7039260
>by that logic
Non Sequitur, try again or try explain yourself.

[Anonymous No.7039271]

>>7039085
Well the limit for computational capacity goes by definition at least as high as anything a person can do.
To say that computers can do anything we can is all but a tautology, and not at all saying that technology has no limits.
Our ability to make a computer do what we do is dubious but we're living proof of stronk AI unless you're a christian or something.

[Anonymous No.7039272]

>>7039268
i thought you implied that doing tasks = AI

i.e. doctor bot that would scan you and search for whatever

[Anonymous No.7039273]

>>7039142
A conscious being is one we agree to call conscious.

[Anonymous No.7039275]

>>7039272
>doctor bot
Thanks for confirming my original post. That you think AI is another title for God and anything less is just a bot.

I guess your parent bots beat you too much for being a moron bot.

[Anonymous No.7039278]

>>7039232
An insect has roughly the level of general intelligence of a javascript runescape bot.

[Anonymous No.7039279]

>>7039275
so calculator is AI?

[Anonymous No.7039282]

>>7039279
A calculator possesses a very slight degree of intelligence and is artificial.

[Anonymous No.7039285]

>>7039257
That makes sense. I mean, its simply a goalpost moving kind of thing. Same arguments will occur as to whether or not some future AI is conscious or self aware. It all comes back to Turing though. Strong AI will be possible someday, but it will be inspired by biomemetics.

[Anonymous No.7039292]

>>7039279
>Everything is AI or everything is bots
yes, rocks are AI and you're a moron bot.

[Anonymous No.7039304]

>>7039292
screw you guy. show me one machine that can be considered AI and not some fuckin bullshit futurama robot doctor fantasy you made up

[Anonymous No.7039309]

>>7039304

[Anonymous No.7039324]

>>7039304
Every computer software is artificial and to a some degree intelligent.
Just like intelligence ranges in nature from the smallest insects and bacteria, which are nothing more than fancy scripts all the way to human, and in between is a varying mass of different intelligence levels.

Something like a calculator isn't really intelligent and it's a bit dishonest to call it AI because that takes away from what the term means but if you want to be technical then calculators too are some form of AI too.

Watson is probably one of the most developed AI's to date than it at least semi famous. It's not quite there to be a human level AI but it's still way more advanced than a chat bot or calculator.

[Anonymous No.7039329]

>>7039324
>which are nothing more than fancy scripts
humans are nothing more than really, really fancy scripts

[Anonymous No.7039333]

>>7039329
Do you think I don't know that?

Refer to the point where I talked about "dishonest use of terms"
It's pointless to call everything a scrip because then you just agree that everything is a scrip and then start making new words for different types of scripts.

[Anonymous No.7039339]

The thing about AI is that you make it look like it has intelligence even when it's just doing a bunch of procedures in some predefined order. Basically, it won't matter if the AI is actually intelligent if you can't tell the difference between "human intelligence" and "machine intelligence".

Suppose for example we make humanoid machines that excel at all tasks that a low iq human can do (negro). Say it can cook, clean, make burgers, give you change, say thank you, etc. It can use money to buy things, it can communicate at a fairly normal level. All things that low level humans can do it can do. And yet how can you know if it has true intelligence or if it's just a bunch of gears turning without any purpose?

[Anonymous No.7039340]

>>7039333
>Do you think I don't know that?
Nah, but you never know, and there are a lot of people who labor under bizarre delusions to the contrary

>Refer to the point where I talked about "dishonest use of terms"
make me
>It's pointless to call everything a scrip because then you just agree that everything is a scrip and then start making new words for different types of scripts.
Okay, but not everything is a script, and most people don't call everything a script that is one.

I think it's pretty important that people acknowledge that the only distinction between us and bacteria is (significant) degree of complexity.
There are people who think that we aren't just self-looping scripts, that we have some sort of supernatural essence or nonmaterial existence, and this sort of mistaken categorization leads people to the conclusion that we can't replicate the circumstances that result in our intelligence, which makes it pertinent to this thread.
So it's worth pointing out that we are, in fact, lengthy coded bits of information. I'm sure you were aware of that but my clarification isn't mere pedantry.

words are gaaaaaay

[Anonymous No.7039342]

>>7039339
>when it's just doing a bunch of procedures in some predefined order.
If its procedures are predefined, it's not intelligent.

>tasks that a low iq human can do (negro)
Fuck off, /pol/

>how can you know if it has true intelligence or if it's just a bunch of gears turning without any purpose?
false dichotomy; intelligence is just a bunch of "gears turning" without any purpose, in excessively complicated ways.

If you disagree I'd be interested to hear how you define "true intelligence", but I'd actually prefer you just fuck off back to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.7039345]

>>7039342
If you don't like facts and experimental evidence then you shouldn't do science.

[Anonymous No.7039347]

>>7039339
>And yet how can you know if it has true intelligence or if it's just a bunch of gears turning without any purpose?

>And yet how can you know if it has true intelligence or if it's just true intelligence

Intelligence is just a bunch of gears turning without any purpose. Human intelligence might believe that there is some purpose to it other than its own survival, but objectivily you are just a very complex meat robot that exist for a task of making sure its genes exist after it itself can't exist any longer, ie reproduction. And it happens not because of some reason, but because it must by the laws of nature. Is this /sci or /pol, jesus...

[Anonymous No.7039349]

>>7039345
If you think that IQ is a valid representation of general intelligence then you should fuck off back to /pol/.
If you think that "race" is a valid scientific delineation of populations, and not an antiquated piece of pseudo-scientific bigotry, you should fuck off back to /pol/.
If you think there are significant genetic variations in intelligence that correlate with skin color, you should fuck off back to /pol/.

Please learn how actual science works and stop cherry-picking whatever nonsense supports your juvenile prejudices.
dunna what this .gif is but I hope it's relevant.

[Anonymous No.7039351]

>>7039347
>Intelligence is just a bunch of gears turning without any purpose.

That's an hypothesis. We don't yet know what intelligence is. It could be as you said just some chemical reactions that happen without any formal meaning. But we've yet to duplicate such a reaction, and an AI can't duplicate it since it doesn't use "wetware". But then again if we can just break it all down to an equation or process then it can be implemented as software. But anyways, the point I wanted to make was that if we can't pinpoint what exactly makes intelligence then even if we make, what looks like, an AI we won't be able to know for sure that it's intelligent.

[Anonymous No.7039353]

>>7039351
True, that is just a hypothesis, but there's not a single alternative that has the slightest grounding in rational evidence.

[Anonymous No.7039356]

>>7039349
Ok, go live in any country or city where the majority of people are brown-skined or black. Live there for 1 year and you should get plenty of data on their behavior.

[Anonymous No.7039366]

>>7039349
>If you think that "race" is a valid scientific delineation of populations
I don't like this phrasing for some reason.

[Anonymous No.7039369]

>>7039356
personal experience isn't valid scientific evidence.
go back to your containment board.

[Anonymous No.7039376]

>>7039366

it's because of the

> ation ations

[Anonymous No.7039377]

why are musk and gates worried about AI? do they know what they are talking about? there must be some sort of breakthrough on the horizon.

[Anonymous No.7039379]

>>7039349
anon why is africa so screwed up? are you telling me that the low iq of its population has nothing to do with it?

[Anonymous No.7039381]

>>7039379

here you go, anon

that's the problem with you racists, that you attribute the achievements of great man to yourself just because you share race. when in fact those great men were great because how THEY were. Individual figured out the laws of motion, not a whole race. Individual invented calculus not a whole race. Individual that wasn't you and you have no right to take his achievemnt and slap it to your whole race because it is HIS. I, anon not WE.

[Anonymous No.7039382]

>>7038541
Markov Chain is probabilistic model where every change of state depend only on the state you are in presently. Drunk walk for instance.

Monte Carlo is technique of simulation.

Combined together you could develop a system can figure out the best next thing to do according to the situation through simulation or success/error of his action. Altough, an AI might be able to learn but won't be able to learn how to learn.

[Anonymous No.7039386]

>>7039351
>We don't yet know what intelligence is.
Spoken like a true philosopher

>Intelligence is defined as something we can't define and something we don't know anything about, now lets try to study it by writing more and more convoluted papers on the philosophy of intelligence which never go anywhere and ensures I stay employed forever!

[Anonymous No.7039389]

>>7039376
Actually it's the

>valid scientific <x>

that was grinding my gears.

[Anonymous No.7039394]

>>7039381
So where are all these black individuals who made all these great achievements?

>inb4 they don't exist because africa is poor and violent.

well then how did white society create great individuals when it was poor and violent?

>inb4 whites were always living the great life and had no infighting

[Anonymous No.7039396]

>>7039386
ok so define it smart guy! come on, don't be shy.

[Anonymous No.7039399]

>>7039381
Keep your head in the sand bro. And keep believing that a group of people who came out of the jungle 300 years ago are exactly as intelligent as another group that has been living in cities for thousands of years. It always cracks me up when scients praise the origin of the species but not the descent of man. Why do I get the feeling that you live in a neighborhood full of white people?

[Anonymous No.7039404]

>>7039396
>misses the point entirely.
Intelligence is a composite and several aspects of it are well known and studied.

You might as well claim that we know nothing about "Anything". Because the definition of "Anything" can be juggled forever in the type of masturbatory philosophy debate that you want to have so much.

[Anonymous No.7039405]

>>7039396
Not him, but a word's meaning is in its use not some nuftie's definition.

[Anonymous No.7039406]

>>7039394
>So where are all these black individuals who made all these great achievements?

Who said they exist? You missed the point, you say they don't have any achievements and you hate them for it but then again neither do you have any achievemnts of your own. You are alive because individuals before you were great. You didn't do or achieve anything on your own, but you hate people who are the same as you?Where is the logic in that? Even if all black people didn't achieve anything, then they are just as same as you or most people on this board. You need to snap back to reality and realise that you aren't Newton or Tesla or Aristotel. And clearly the things you share with them aren't greatness, because if it were you would have done something of your own but yet you didn't and you probably never will given how illogical your thinking is.


>>inb4 they don't exist because africa is poor and violent.

I'm not familiar with blacks but I know of NDT ,maybe not a great achievement in any way, but it's certainly more than you have done in your life. So, what now?


>well then how did white society create great individuals when it was poor and violent?

Society doesn't create great individuals, jesus christ. You set your whole flawed premise and then you have your flawed argument and you must think it all makes sense now, right?

[Anonymous No.7039414]

>>7039399
Bro, if you actually read Origin of the Species, you clearly didn't understand any of it. Like the most important part of it, the selection.
Your ansecstors didn't have to be any bit smarter to survive than those cunts who lived in a jungle till 300 years ago.They didn't have to be able to do calculus to get a women and make her a child.

All the progress was made by few individuals and by their greatness, not by everyone. Everyone didn't have to understand physics and math to sell something in the city, earn a living, find a wife and produce offspring.

There wasn't any type of selection where only the great men of the mind got to reproduce so their genes would be dominant in the next generation and therfor that next generation will be great too. It simply doesn't work like that at all. You didn't make those cities thousands of years ago, and probably your ancestors didn't make them too. They probably weren't the ones who invented, built and discovered because vast majority of people simply didn't do those things. Vast majority was stupid just like they are now, the only difference is that we and them have a lot of great men between us spread through time. Great men that changed the world, and that changed resulted in this we have today.

[Anonymous No.7039432]

>>7039414
>blah blah blah muh individuals
whoever painted the sistine chapel may have been just one dude but he was enabled to dedicate like 7 yrs to painting a roof by the people and structure around him.

[Anonymous No.7039441]

>>7039414
>Your ansecstors didn't have to be any bit smarter to survive than those cunts who lived in a jungle till 300 years ago.
Oh as for this.
Last glacial period.

[Anonymous No.7039447]

>>7039404
I'm still waiting on that definition bro. You said you wanted to make this precise so let's go give me a definition of intelligence. You want to get away from philosopy right, so let's get quantitative! Start with a model and derive some equations and predictions. Cmon bro I'm waiting.

[Anonymous No.7039467]

>>7038704
>But here you run into the wall of so-called AI-complete problems, where it becomes clear that some of our assumptions about reality need to be reevaluated.
Assumptions such as?

[Anonymous No.7039475]

>>7039432

>whoever painted the sistine chapel may have been just one dude but he was enabled to dedicate like 7 yrs to painting a roof by the people and structure around him.

So? If he didn't exist neither would the sistine chapel exist, but all others were nothing. All others could have been replaced 100 times over and it wouldn't change anything, because they weren't great, he was.

>Last glacial period.

So? How were they smarter because of it? How did IT make them smarter? It didn't.
If you would to pick some kid from africa and give them the same education you had and all other things, he would probably achieve the same as you. But you don't like reality too much, don't you? So will continue to believe in your racism and to associate with great men like you are a great man too, but you aren't.

[Anonymous No.7039493]

>>7039475
Well the chapel still would have existed but someone else would have painted it. Are you claiming he was the only great painter available at the time? I would hazard that factually incorrect.

>If you would to pick some kid from africa and give them the same education you had
I hear this a lot, and while agnostic on the race thing, it is interesting that africans are never the ones who made the schools, university and higher institutions to which we have no access. Fascinating, no? While they may do all right in our institutions, the fact that 'we' had a stable society that founded them counts for something, right?

>and to associate with great men like you are a great man too, but you aren't.
projecting a bit hard; I'm not the guy before these two were my first posts. I don't have to claim greatness personally because some white dudes were great to notice that black cunts are shit, so dat is a strawman :(

[Anonymous No.7039496]

>>7038950
Well look at it this way: a lot of people think that AI will make substantial progress when we reverse engineer the general intelligence principles of the brain, in other words we need to understand how brains work before we can get AI. But how many species are there out there with a brain? And how many are out there with a neocortex, which a lot of AI-ists like to point to as the REAL center of intelligence?

And yet out of all these species, only one behaves like a human. Why? We don't know. But then why would we expect understanding and reimplementing the brain to result in an artificial person, if what we strive for in our understanding is the most general principles of intelligence, and not the particular idiosyncracies of human intelligence.

But hey, maybe that's not the case. Maybe human intelligence is not a special case of the more general intelligence principles shared by all brained organisms, and we are just the far end of a linear scale measured by the total number of neurons in the brain (we do have more than any other species after all, so this isn't implausible). I don't know.

[Anonymous No.7039502]

Also I'm just worried that we'll miss something crucial in our conversion from analog wetware to digital soft/hardware.

[Anonymous No.7039505]

>>7039502
Is it really analog doe?

[Anonymous No.7039511]

>>7039505
I don't know, it might be both.
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/522066/solving-the-neural-code-conundrum-digital-or-analog/

But it certainly isn't digital to the same degree that a computer is, is all I'm saying.

[Anonymous No.7039520]

>>7039505
And it's also worth noting that whether the signal encoding used by the brain is analog or digital is a different question from whether or not the neurodevelopmental mechanisms used to grow the brain are analog or digital.

[Anonymous No.7039615]

>>7038983
>As proven by the Church-Turing thesis

You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.7039631]

>>7039245
>Watson
>has anything to do with conscience or even higher intelligence
Nope. Watson is a information database and program using statistics to evaluate it.

computers are powerful to use as a well defined functional tool. Watson showed that.

[Anonymous No.7039675]

>>7039094
IIT as in Integrated Information Theory? I have, and to be honest, I think it's pretty garbage. It assigns extraordinarily high phi to uniform square meshes of XOR gates, and exactly the same (low) phi to a Turing machine running a perfect simulation of human brain as it does to one running a random number generator.

[Anonymous No.7039677]

>>7039631
The whole point of Watson was to understand "human-like" language.

[Anonymous No.7039683]

>>7039631
The most interesting part of Watson is the natural language processing part.

[Anonymous No.7039685]

>>7039399
>And keep believing that a group of people who came out of the jungle 300 years ago are exactly as intelligent as another group that has been living in cities for thousands of years

You're a FUCKING IDIOT.
Urban civilization in Africa predates the first European cities by MILLENNIA.

[Anonymous No.7039693]

>>7039631

[Anonymous No.7039694]

>>7039496
>And yet out of all these species, only one behaves like a human
And only one of them behaves like a cougar, incidentally, or a stork, or a dolphin.

[Anonymous No.7039714]

>>7039685
A millennia and they still have shitty infrastructure, you're not making the point you think you are.

[Anonymous No.7039720]

>>7039714
>a millennia

[Anonymous No.7039723]

>>7039720
A millennium? Sorry english isn't my primary language

[Anonymous No.7039751]

>>7039693
>cleverbot is so convincing

>therefore more intelligent than insects

[Anonymous No.7039764]

>>7039751

[Anonymous No.7039773]

>>7039764

it was Watson, not cleverbot. otherwise, that's what the comment said.

[Anonymous No.7039796]

>>7039693
That's a hockey net.

That isn't what a goalpost is.

[Anonymous No.7039809]

>>7039796
It's two goalposts and a crossbar.

[Anonymous No.7039827]

>>7039502

There won't be anything missing. An analog being is not aware of its neurons, as a digital being need not be aware of its own processes. It will not make any difference if it has a degree of consciousness.