Do you think that AI will ever feel emotions?

billvon said:
Huh. And here I am, designing the hardware for AI-based systems for force protection, using the highest end commercial AI modules on the planet right now. But by all means let's go with your decades-old opinions on this stuff.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you don't Design the AI modules, but rather you just incorporate them into your Hardware Design.
 
Steve Klinko said:
Sounds like you don't Design the AI modules, but rather you just incorporate them into your Hardware Design.
Click to expand...
You imply that involvement in the industry is an indicator of how well-versed one might be in that industry.

Anyone can make any claim they want about what they do in real life. It's irrelevant on the internet. Only a fool would argue alleged credentials.
The only thing that matters on the internet is whether you can engage competently in a dialogue about the specifics of the subject.

And you've already admitted your knowledge is decades out-of-date.


Knock it off and get back on-topic.
 
DaveC426913 said:
You imply that involvement in the industry is an indicator of how well-versed one might be in that industry.

Anyone can make any claim they want about what they do in real life. It's irrelevant on the internet. Only a fool would argue alleged credentials.
The only thing that matters on the internet is whether you can engage competently in a dialogue about the specifics of the subject.

And you've already admitted your knowledge is decades out-of-date.


Knock it off and get back on-topic.
Click to expand...
No, I said I have been working Design projects in these fields for Decades, not that it was Decades ago that I was working Design projects in these fields. Plus, I said I always keep current on these topics because I am interested in them. I don't know what your complaint is. Of course AI can do things better now with faster computers and tons more storage capability. The point of me entering into this thread was to answer the question of the thread. That is: AI certainly does not have any capability to feel Emotions with the technology we have today. There were implications in some replies that AI already has that capability. I said if you think AI can feel emotions then show me the Source Code. My personal Engineering gut feel is that since Emotions do exist in the Universe, that Science will be able to Design Artificially Conscious Machines someday. The only stipulation is that it won't be using the Technology that we have today or at least the Technology of today will have to be used in new ways. I prefer the "Connected Perspective for Consciousness", as opposed to "It has to be in the Hardware (Brain or Electronics) Perspective". With the Connected Perspective we can say that the Brain is Connected to Consciousness, so it is a simple extension to speculate that there should be other ways of Connecting to Consciousness. This simple change in Perspective changes many things you think you might know about Consciousness.
 
Steve Klinko said:
No, I said I have been working Design projects in these fields for Decades, not that it was Decades ago that I was working Design projects in these fields. Plus, I said I always keep current on these topics because I am interested in them. I don't know what your complaint is. Of course AI can do things better now with faster computers and tons more storage capability. The point of me entering into this thread was to answer the question of the thread. That is: AI certainly does not have any capability to feel Emotions with the technology we have today. There were implications in some replies that AI already has that capability. I said if you think AI can feel emotions then show me the Source Code. My personal Engineering gut feel is that since Emotions do exist in the Universe, that Science will be able to Design Artificially Conscious Machines someday. The only stipulation is that it won't be using the Technology that we have today or at least the Technology of today will have to be used in new ways. I prefer the "Connected Perspective for Consciousness", as opposed to "It has to be in the Hardware (Brain or Electronics) Perspective". With the Connected Perspective we can say that the Brain is Connected to Consciousness, so it is a simple extension to speculate that there should be other ways of Connecting to Consciousness. This simple change in Perspective changes many things you think you might know about Consciousness.
Click to expand...

How did you come to this conclusion ? That emotions do not exist in the Universe .
 
Steve Klinko said:
No, I said I have been working Design projects in these fields for Decades, not that it was Decades ago that I was working Design projects in these fields. Plus, I said I always keep current on these topics because I am interested in them. I don't know what your complaint is. Of course AI can do things better now with faster computers and tons more storage capability. The point of me entering into this thread was to answer the question of the thread. That is: AI certainly does not have any capability to feel Emotions with the technology we have today. There were implications in some replies that AI already has that capability. I said if you think AI can feel emotions then show me the Source Code. My personal Engineering gut feel is that since Emotions do exist in the Universe, that Science will be able to Design Artificially Conscious Machines someday. The only stipulation is that it won't be using the Technology that we have today or at least the Technology of today will have to be used in new ways. I prefer the "Connected Perspective for Consciousness", as opposed to "It has to be in the Hardware (Brain or Electronics) Perspective". With the Connected Perspective we can say that the Brain is Connected to Consciousness, so it is a simple extension to speculate that there should be other ways of Connecting to Consciousness. This simple change in Perspective changes many things you think you might know about Consciousness.
Click to expand...

Always about the Physical , the Chemistry , in the material world .

Whats the difference between life and a rock ?
 
Michael 345 said:
Calculations Show It'll Be Impossible to Control a Super-Intelligent AI

https://www.sciencealert.com/calculations-show-it-d-be-impossible-to-control-a-rogue-super-smart-ai

Do you think we should install tear ducts to allow AI to cry as it destroys us? :(

:)
Click to expand...
This is a nonsense article. For one thing it says:
"But there are already machines that perform certain important tasks independently without programmers fully understanding how they learned it."

The programmers of course know Exactly and Precisely what the algorithm is that configured the Neural Net of the Machine. The configuration that results is not known at the beginning just as the Configuration of all the contents of RAM is not known. This kind of article is just Pandering to AI Hype Pushers that want you to think there is something Mysteriously Conscious going on in Computers.
 
Steve Klinko said:
This is a nonsense article. For one thing it says:
"But there are already machines that perform certain important tasks independently without programmers fully understanding how they learned it."

The programmers of course know Exactly and Precisely what the algorithm is that configured the Neural Net of the Machine. The configuration that results is not known at the beginning just as the Configuration of all the contents of RAM is not known. This kind of article is just Pandering to AI Hype Pushers that want you to think there is something Mysteriously Conscious going on in Computers.
Click to expand...

"...without programmers fully understanding how they learned it..."
"...The programmers of course know Exactly and Precisely what the algorithm is..."

Notice that "what something is" and "how it did something" are two very distinct things.

If you were the the technology field, as you claim to be, you would have learned that the devil is in the details and that such sloppy attention to detail makes for a short career.
 
DaveC426913 said:
"...without programmers fully understanding how they learned it..."
"...The programmers of course know Exactly and Precisely what the algorithm is..."

Notice that "what something is" and "how it did something" are two very distinct things.

If you were the the technology field, as you claim to be, you would have learned that the devil is in the details and that such sloppy attention to detail makes for a short career.
Click to expand...
That's just a complete Diversion from the topic. Whenever we have a project startup meeting for a new design, to learn about the requirements, we have never charged any company time to understanding How it is that we learn the requirements. I would just love to hear the feedback from Managers if I told them I used 8 hours for that.

But in any case, it doesn't matter How the Programmers learned anything in order for them to legitimately say that they do Understand Exactly and Precisely How the Neural Nets get Configured. You should go Post a new thread discussion about How Humans learn.
 
Steve Klinko said:
Whenever we have a project startup meeting for a new design,
Click to expand...
Steve Klinko said:
You must just be engaged in a little Marketing Hype then.
Click to expand...
Do you know what provincialism is, Steve?

Generally, it's the delusion that your personal world is an accurate reflection of the whole world.

I've been a software engineer for over three decades and I don't make the mistake of thinking other leading-edge industries operate the same way we do.


I may rejoin this thread once Steve is done stroking himself. Till then, get a room.
 
Last edited:
Steve Klinko said:
If you do Design them then you should know better. You must just be engaged in a little Marketing Hype then.
Click to expand...
If you think so, I must be! Since you don't understand unsupervised learning, neural networks, or deep learning it makes sense that you don't understand what I do, either. Which is fine with me!
 
DaveC426913 said:
Do you know what provincialism is, Steve?

Generally, it's the delusion that your personal world is an accurate reflection of the whole world.

I've been a software engineer for over three decades and I don't make the mistake of thinking other leading-edge industries operate the same way we do.


I may rejoin this thread once Steve is done stroking himself. Till then, get a room.
Click to expand...
Wow. I thought you were just messing around with me there. So I thought I'd Mess back. Oops, my mistake, calm down. I think you do need to take a break.
 
billvon said:
If you think so, I must be! Since you don't understand unsupervised learning, neural networks, or deep learning it makes sense that you don't understand what I do, either. Which is fine with me!
Click to expand...
I am always wary of people that keep telling other people what they don't know.
 
Steve Klinko said:
This is a nonsense article. For one thing it says:
"But there are already machines that perform certain important tasks independently without programmers fully understanding how they learned it."

The programmers of course know Exactly and Precisely what the algorithm is that configured the Neural Net of the Machine. The configuration that results is not known at the beginning just as the Configuration of all the contents of RAM is not known. This kind of article is just Pandering to AI Hype Pushers that want you to think there is something Mysteriously Conscious going on in Computers.
Click to expand...

Computers can learn , not only absorb information . Computers can go beyond the initial programming . By themselves .
 
Last edited:
river said:
Computers can learn , not only absorb information . Computers can go beyond the initial programming . By themselves .
Click to expand...
Computers will write code if the Programmers program them to do that. Computers are not going to do that "By themselves". It's always an algorithm in the Code.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top