/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7902772]

Is true AI achievable? What are the fundamental differences between a human and a computer that would stop this from ever coming to fruition?

[Anonymous No.7902775]

\thread

[Anonymous No.7902779]

>>7902775
Does that answer these questions? I'm taking an intro to AI class this semester and that's a recommend book but I'm not sure if I'm gonna fork out the price for it

Does the fact that life is continuous and computers are digital come into play with the question?

[Anonymous No.7902780]

>>7902779
>buying textbooks
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=artificial+intelligence+a+modern+approach+filetype%3Apdf

[Anonymous No.7902784]

>>7902779
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test
>implying I'm not a robot

[Anonymous No.7902788]

>>7902780
Thanks I'll look into it

>>7902784
Yes I'm aware of the Turing test but how does that answer my continuous v. digital question?

[Anonymous No.7902790]

>>7902779
No, it doesn't. It is a stupid meme by people who got sucked into it and now seek to validate their mindless decision. AI books are incredibly dumb, AI is a mystery to must of us, and it is clearly something we can't figure out without knowing how the mind works. The arguments against AGI before this are strong, the main ones are Godelian:

Gödel himself,[181] John Lucas (in 1961) and Roger Penrose (in a more detailed argument from 1989 onwards) argued that humans are not reducible to Turing machines.[182] The detailed arguments are complex, but in essence they derive from Kurt Gödel's 1931 proof in his first incompleteness theorem that it is always possible to create statements that a formal system could not prove. A human being, however, can (with some thought) see the truth of these "Gödel statements". Any Turing program designed to search for these statements can have its methods reduced to a formal system, and so will always have a "Gödel statement" derivable from its program which it can never discover. However, if humans are indeed capable of understanding mathematical truth, it doesn't seem possible that we could be limited in the same way. This is quite a general result, if accepted, since it can be shown that hardware neural nets, and computers based on random processes (e.g. annealing approaches) and quantum computers based on entangled qubits (so long as they involve no new physics) can all be reduced to Turing machines. All they do is reduce the complexity of the tasks, not permit new types of problems to be solved. Roger Penrose speculates that there may be new physics involved in our brain, perhaps at the intersection of gravity and quantum mechanics at the Planck scale. The argument has been followed up by many counter arguments, and then Roger Penrose has replied to those with counter counter examples, and it is now an intricate complex debate.[183] For details see Philosophy of artificial intelligence: Lucas, Penrose and Gödel

[Anonymous No.7902794]

>>7902772
Yes, strong AI is possible. there is no fundamental difference between a human(any animal) and a computer. No, we will not see human level AI in our lifetime. The best we can expect is some worker robots that understands basic commands. No, we will never be able to prove that the AI is truly concious , there is no way to prove that.

[Anonymous No.7902795]

>>7902772
What do you mean by AI

[Anonymous No.7902796]

>>7902788
Human mind is not continuous.Nerve impulses are electrons which are discrete.

[Anonymous No.7902797]

>>7902795

[Anonymous No.7902807]

>>7902790
>AI books are dumb

[Anonymous No.7902834]

>>7902796

Assuming that we can make a perfect brain duplicate with a fitting body, would you be willing to die and get "resurrected" in a new brain and body?

But this is far from science.