Do you think that AI will ever feel emotions?

[DaveC426913]

Bad or good DaveC426913 do you think safe to take WU off Iggy?

Not unless you want the same-ol' same ol'. Word salad, non sequitur conclusions, weasel words.

He's on my Iggy too, but for the good of science, it's my duty to root out non-science in the darkest corners.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

I did not say otherwise. A differential equation exists between objects of different weights, regardless of form, i.e. in dynamical systems, like the universe .

basic quantum theory yes ?
i think i have listened to green & kako make similar type statements when leading into more complex comments.
to a similar conceptualization format

this would be based on mass relationships which is expressed through the gravitational fields & all other bonds
the simple fact of the non equality defines a nature of relationship toward a centric property in theory toward moving-away-from-less-order entropic etc
outward expansion of the universe

?

how am i doing ?

assuming
super massive at the centre
total expansion in all places ?
except the super massive ?(has anyone done that yet?)

if everything is expanding, then should the super massive be-becoming less super massive and becoming bigger as it is stretched ?
or is the super massive a closed unit system ? staying the same relative process equation as it travels away from a central point
but its consuming matter ?
consuming matter as it goes into less matter, at an ever increasing speed.

but does basic science laws suggest the black hole must in turn, in theory become less dense as it travels further ?

thread subject
someone said something something about something which i kinda missed except that to say that im not going to say anything about that something because that is a bit sensitive
so i wont

so at what point does a learning process like say google being programmed to collect data & block peoples ips and content.
so its acting as an almost autonomous function
what point does it become considered insular to its own function as self driven ?
is it self driven ?
maybe not

in theory it cant perform functions outside its command profile
so it has no independent ability to choose anything that is already not pre validated.

humans are not really much different in a similar manner of real world cause and effect.
but the difference between generated living intelligent biological life forms and a robot with a range of algorithms, is very stark


is a black hole an intelligent machine ?
if it absorbs all things can you in jest suggest it absorbs information and in so much learns ?

queue
consumer of knowledge versus learner of knowledge
/ learning AI ? subjective inaccuracy of precise functions
'consuming knowledge' or 'learning knowledge'
how many humans can literarily define the difference

note
"consumer culture self actuation defines the self as legitimated by the act of choosing something"
false reality very babyboomer
but that's life in all its weird strange beautiful ugliness
now the species has evolved to be more than just the ability to "i choose there for i am"
and is now

"create there for i can"(development of human rights & equal rights concepts & laws)
to its more cutting edge of "i am there for you must"(human rights & equality being defined as moral culture mandates to form compulsory social order)

 

[Write4U]

I am dismantling your arguments - the ones you present here with your own words.

Yes, my own words interpreting the logical extension of scientific ideas and theories, backed by links to mainstream scientific articles, explaining the words, which always fail to acknowledge.

That you have yet to see them is part of the ongoing problem.

No, that YOU fail too see what I am positing is part of my problem.

No matter how high you try to build your argument, it's built on faulty foundations, and will not stand up.

Yet you constantly fail to address the flaws in these faulty foundations. Show me where I am wrong or try to follow my thought processes without useless attacks on my person and intelligence.

Show me where my use of and links to the science are wrong. You present no positive argument at all, except negative ad hominem. If you know better, you are a terrible teacher in a discussion forum of the sciences and their common denominators. Keep it fragmented until nothing makes any sense at all. You are not an asset to science. You are an obstacle to scientific inquiry.

Once again you have managed to sidetrack the OP into personal name calling. Give it a rest .
You have an obligation to protect Science from me? LMAO.....

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Science

sciences

processes

common denominators

makes me think of gravitational lensing
i wonder if some laws can be reverse written from gravitational lensing
we know they effectively were theorized before it was discovered.

https://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/grav_lensing_history/

As early as 1912, a good three years before his final breakthrough in the formulation of general relativity, Einstein wrote down a concise description of one of the most important consequences of the deflection of light: The possibility of a (geometric) gravitational lens.

gravitational lensing

 

[Michael 345]

Bad or good DaveC426913 do you think safe to take WU off Iggy?

you

To answer my own question I am going to go with NO

Not unless you want the same-ol' same ol'. Word salad, non sequitur conclusions, weasel words.

He's on my Iggy too, but for the good of science, it's my duty to root out non-science in the darkest corners.

Sorry I posted the above before I got to your reply

Cheers

 

[Write4U]

so at what point does a learning process like say google being programmed to collect data & block peoples ips and content.
so its acting as an almost autonomous function
what point does it become considered insular to its own function as self driven ?
is it self driven ? maybe not

But it is already . Alpha-Zero is a completely autonomous AI, which can create its own superior Boardgame playing strategies, given only the rules of the game, including the 2500 year old game of Go which is considered the most difficult board game ever invented.

Despite its relatively simple rules, Go is extremely complex. Compared to chess, Go has both a larger board with more scope for play and longer games and, on average, many more alternatives to consider per move. The number of legal board positions in Go has been calculated to be approximately 2.1 × 10^170,[11][a] which is vastly greater than the number of atoms in the known, observable universe, estimated to be about 1 × 10^80

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)

AlphaZero doesn’t work like this. Unlike Stockfish, which does use learning derived from human experience, AlphaZero “taught” itself chess. After being given the rules, it played itself over and over, essentially reinventing the history of chess through millions of self-played games. Through what’s known as reinforcement learning, the machine took note of the behavior and patterns that led to a win, then incorporated that information into its blossoming style, over and over and over.

AlphaZero also looks at a significantly smaller number of positions per move than Stockfish, just 80,000 or so. The 19-page paper written by AlphaZero’s creators goes deeper into the workings of the computer, but those are the key points: Taken in tandem, they mean that AlphaZero doesn’t just play differently than Stockfish does—it plays more like a human.

https://www.theringer.com/tech/2018...o-go-stockfish-artificial-intelligence-future

When it learns to play it plays against itself and when it learns, it teaches itself as a learning opponent as well and the contest becomes more and more sophisticated in parallel to itself.

 

[Write4U]

The power of self learning systems.

 

[Michael 345]

autonomous function

The answer I think is the Autonomous Function is almost totally here

The question now becomes

• is it happy
• sad
• bored
• ready to kill the next person who turns up to service it?

 

[Write4U]

gravitational lensing

makes me think of gravitational lensing
i wonder if some laws can be reverse written from gravitational lensing
we know they effectively were theorized before it was discovered.

It took some time,

Although Einstein made unpublished calculations on the subject in 1912,[4] Orest Khvolson (1924)[5] and Frantisek Link (1936)[6] are generally credited with being the first to discuss the effect in print. However, this effect is more commonly associated with Einstein, who published an article on the subject in 1936.[7]

Fritz Zwicky posited in 1937 that the effect could allow galaxy clusters to act as gravitational lenses. It was not until 1979 that this effect was confirmed by observation of the so-called Twin QSO SBS 0957+561.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

 

[DaveC426913]

[DUPE]

 

[DaveC426913]

Once again you have managed to sidetrack the OP into personal name calling. Give it a rest .

Nobody's name-calling.
You're just wrong, that's all. I'm merely pointing that out for the sake of posterity.

But when you're wrong so often in such a particular way, it must be observed that the wrongness is merely a symptom of a larger lack of understanding.

You have an obligation to protect Science from me?

No, I have an obligation to set the record straight for other readers.

You mangle terms and definitions; I point out where they're wrong.
You try to draw faulty conclusions from things you don't understand; I point out that those conclusions are faulty.

If a new poster came along and said 2+2=red and was corrected, and then went on to say 3+3=clouds, it would be our duty to stop them from spreading such nonsense. And, were they to keep making faulty assertions, we would be bound to question the member's grasp of basic math.

If you want to stop being criticized, stop quoting stuff you don't understand and stop mangling stuff you pretend to be quoting.**
It's really that simple.
This is, after all, a science forum. You really need to review the posting rules.

**See post 453 as just the latest example.

 

[Write4U]

If a new poster came along and said 2+2=red and was corrected, and then went on to say 3+3=clouds, it would be our duty to stop them from spreading such nonsense. And, were they to keep making faulty assertions, we would be bound to question the member's grasp of basic math.

I am neither a new poster, nor do I say that 2+2 = red, or that 3+3 = clouds. Nor do I keep spreading nonsense. It is you who is spreading this nonsense!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you want to stop being criticized, stop quoting stuff you don't understand and stop mangling stuff you pretend to be quoting.**
It's really that simple.

You have yet to demonstrate exactly how I mangle stuff I don't understand. Calling me ignorant is not a persuasive argument, but IS ad hominem!!!!!!!

This is, after all, a science forum. You really need to review the posting rules.

You may want to avail yourself of a refresher.

**See post 453 as just the latest example

Where exactly does that post contradict the following;

Differential Equations Applications - In Maths and In Real Life

Ordinary differential equations applications in real life are used to calculate the movement or flow of electricity, motion of an object to and fro like a pendulum, to explain thermodynamics concepts. Also, in medical terms, they are used to check the growth of diseases in graphical representation

byjus.com › Maths › Math Article

Oh and in mathematics they apply to the exponential function.

Applications of Differential Equations

G is the exponential growth model. Newton's law of cooling, Newton's law of fall of an object, Circuit theory or Resistance and Inductor, RL circuit are also some of the applications of differential equations.

In this article, we will learn about various applications in real life and in mathematics along with its definition and its types.

https://byjus.com/maths/differential-equations-applications/#

Now, exactly where did my condensed posit contradict the basic definition of Differential Equation?

Perhaps you may want to do a little more reading on the subject, in order to expand your horizons.

 

[DaveC426913]

I am neither a new poster, nor do I say that 2+2 = red, or that 3+3 = clouds. Nor do I keep spreading nonsense.

You're not new; you should know better. Yet you still post crap like this:

• A differential equation is the rate of difference between two values. (false)
• Electrical current is produced by the differential equation between a positive and a negative pole. (false)
• An AI depends on electrical differential equations which it can detect, monitor and measure (false)

Stick to the facts.

You have yet to demonstrate exactly how I mangle stuff I don't understand.

Well, notice the huge difference between post 453 and post 472.

When called out for your nonsense, you have to recant and try again.
Just don't make stuff up.

Calling me ignorant is not a persuasive argument, but IS ad hominem!!!!!!!

No it isn't. You are demonstrably ignorant of the things you post.
Criticism of your ignorance about the subject is not ad hominem - it is ad rem - "relevant to what is being done or discussed at the time".

You may want to avail yourself of a refresher. Where exactly does that post contradict the following;
Differential Equations Applications - In Maths and In Real Life byjus.com › Maths › Math Article
Oh and in mathematics they apply to the exponential function.
Applications of Differential Equations https://byjus.com/maths/differential-equations-applications/#
Now, exactly where did my condensed posit contradict the basic definition of Differential Equation?

In post 253, you tried to paraphrase, but didn't know how.

And it's not my job to teach you science from the ground up.

For God's sake, stop - before you get banned for spreading lies.

 

[Write4U]

Well, notice the huge difference between post 453 and post 472.

Really? Lets see

W4U said;
A differential equation is the rate of difference between two values.
Electrical current is produced by the differential equation between a positive and a negative pole.

and the science from the link I provided:
Differential Equations Applications - In Maths and In Real Life

Ordinary differential equations applications in real life are used to calculate the movement or flow of electricity, motion of an object to and fro like a pendulum, to explain thermodynamics concepts. Also, in medical terms, they are used to check the growth of diseases in graphical representation

Oh and in mathematics they apply to the exponential function:
Applications of Differential Equations

G is the exponential growth model. Newton's law of cooling, Newton's law of fall of an object, Circuit theory or Resistance and Inductor, RL circuit are also some of the applications of differential equations.

Perhaps you have forgotten the basic definition of differential equation.

In mathematics, a differential equation is an equation that relates one or more functions and their derivatives.[1] In applications, the functions generally represent physical quantities, the derivatives represent their rates of change, and the differential equation defines a relationship between the two. Such relations are common; therefore, differential equations play a prominent role in many disciplines including engineering, physics, economics, and biology.

And it's not my job to teach you science from the ground up.

So you just persist in slinging mud, without argument proving me wrong. You are not a moderator and your threats don't mean a thing to me.
OTOH, your manners in your role as just another poster are atrocious. You lack the the most basic civility for productive exchange.

Learn to discuss issues, instead of constantly going off topic with personal insults on every thread you post in. Your body of work is not very productive in content, in fact your attitude is quite distracting from almost every subject under discussion.

 

[DaveC426913]

You are not a moderator and your threats don't mean a thing to me.

Correct. I'm not a moderator, which is why they're not threats. You have received plenty of warnings from the mods though.

My posts aren't for you; they're for the benefit of posterity - for others who might otherwise be led astray by the stuff you make up.

 

[Write4U]

You have received plenty of warnings from the mods though.

The only warnings I have had from mods were about perceived off-topic subject matter, not about scientific accuracy. The reason is that I am never the inventor of a new scientific revelation, but offer acknowledgement of new and interesting areas of serious scientific inquiry into fundamental areas of natural phenomema to which no one has any authoritative knowledge yet. For you to dismiss these subjects as woo is premature and prejudicial on your part.

And this not a science only forum, in case you need reminding.

When you fail to understand the thrust of my posits, you just invent reasons to criticize on some very narrow issue, without first asking what is meant by a certain terminology or conceptual posit.

You have a very limited imagination and often fail to understand the concept of scientific "common denominators" in nature and physics. Your perspective is fractured and disconnected. And you compound it by trying to stifle robust discussion of the most interesting topics, many of which are still very much open to review and refinement.

You espouse the open ended nature of scientific inquiry, but slam the door in the face of anybody who dares probe beyond the mainstream. Boring!!!!!

 

[Write4U]

He's on my Iggy too, but for the good of science, it's my duty to root out non-science in the darkest corners.

That is a contradictory statement!
And are you now claiming deep psychological knowledge of the dark corners of the mind? Interesting, wanna discuss that? Open a new thread!

 

[Mohat]

I was thinking about how if robots become more capable of autonomous actions, will they ever be capable of caring about us? Just as ''good people'' do, will robots ever reach a point of being able to act in our best interests? (your opinion)

Or do you envision that as robots become more independent, will they only look out for themselves?

Just some random thoughts I felt like tossing out there for discussion.

Hello , artificial intelligent humanoids will never be able to develop a consciousness and ''care'' without a specific program coding to achieve such a possibility . An artificial intelligent humanoid can have physical feelings (being touched) , by piezoelectric technology !

 

[DaveC426913]

That is a contradictory statement!

No it isn't.

And are you now claiming deep psychological knowledge of the dark corners of the mind?

No I am not. You can tell, because I never used the terms 'psychological' or 'of the mind'. That was you.

This is another example of you not understanding the words you read, and going off on a tangent.

 

[wegs]

Hello , artificial intelligent humanoids will never be able to develop a consciousness and ''care'' without a specific program coding to achieve such a possibility . An artificial intelligent humanoid can have physical feelings (being touched) , by piezoelectric technology !

Can or can’t?