Do you think that AI will ever feel emotions?
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
Yet you can't prove it . Because if you could you would . Isn't that not right dywdyr ?
Last edited:
Where you quite clearly stated that there is unlikely to be any corroboration of your claim.
Um, that's sorta obvious given the quotes I gave.
Did you not read the post you quoted?
What post# . I'm not going to search . Nor guess .
Here we go again.
The usual river dishonesty...
Write4U:
I just want to weigh in briefly to the whole differential equation debacle, to support DaveC.
You wrote this:
To try to support your statements, you referred to various sites that give definitions of the term "differential equation" and refer to applications of differential equations, reproducing quotes like these:
DaveC's objections relate to your (Write4U's) statements about what differential equations are, and these two quotes you have reproduced are irrelevant to addressing that point.
So, let's go back to your original statements and unpack them. First one:
So, your statement about what a "differential equation is" is just wrong.
Your second statement:
And what is a "positive pole" or a "negative pole"? Are you thinking about physical battery terminals or something like that? How can a differential equation "produce" anything physical between physical poles?
If we squint a lot and interpret your words, it might be possible to eventually arrive at a mathematical definition like i=dq/dt, which mathematically defines current as the rate of charge passing a point in unit time, but that's certainly a stretch from what you actually wrote.
---
You went on to complain to DaveC that:
I hope this post has addressed your complaint that there was no "argument proving [you] wrong". It is true that DaveC did not provide the argument. His reason was that he is not obliged to teach you mathematics from the ground up. Nor am I, for that matter. His advice to you, which you would do well to heed, was to avoid trying to make authoritative pronouncements about things you don't understand properly. When you make basic mistakes, you end up looking a bit stupid. Worse, you risk misleading other people, who may know even less than you do, by posting information that is misleading at best or just wrong/false at worst.
You mentioned the matter of ad hominem attacks. Notice that DaveC did not say you are an idiot, or that you're stupid for not knowing what a differential equation is. That would be an ad hominem attack. What he said, rather, was that some of your statements were wrong/false. That is, he is attacking the accuracy of the content you posted, not your personal attributes.
If differential equations (or whatever) are important to you, you can learn what they actually are in many different places on the internet. You could even ask questions here, since there are obviously a number of people here who have some formal education in that subject and who know what they are talking about in that regard. What is silly is trying to set yourself up as an authority when you haven't done much more than read the first paragraph or two of the "differential equations" article on wikipedia, if that.
I hope this helps clarify things for you.
I just want to weigh in briefly to the whole differential equation debacle, to support DaveC.
You wrote this:
And DaveC wrote this:
DaveC is correct and you are wrong, Write4U.
To try to support your statements, you referred to various sites that give definitions of the term "differential equation" and refer to applications of differential equations, reproducing quotes like these:
The first thing to note is that neither of these quotes tells us what differential equations are. They only tell us what they are used for.
DaveC's objections relate to your (Write4U's) statements about what differential equations are, and these two quotes you have reproduced are irrelevant to addressing that point.
So, let's go back to your original statements and unpack them. First one:
A differential equation is the rate of difference between two values.
That's wrong. Take two values, x and y. The "rate of difference" between those two might conceivably be something like (x-y)/t, maybe, where t is a time. That's going to be physically meaningless unless x and y are the same type of quantity, so let's assume they are the same type of quantity. We're talking differential equations here, so the term "rate of difference" isn't very helpful. Maybe you mean an actual "differential", like an infinitesimal dx, and maybe you mean a differential "rate of difference" like dx/dt. Is that a differential equation, then? No, we're still not there, because every equation has an equals sign in it, and so far there's no sign of any equals sign. That is, the description "rate of difference" doesn't describe an equation of any kind, let alone a differential one.
So, your statement about what a "differential equation is" is just wrong.
Your second statement:
Electrical current is produced by the differential equation between a positive and a negative pole.
This is a potential category error, for starters. Electrical current is a flow of charged particles. No equation can create charged particles or make them flow, not even a differential equation. So it is just wrong to claim that "electrical current is produced by [a] differential equation..."
And what is a "positive pole" or a "negative pole"? Are you thinking about physical battery terminals or something like that? How can a differential equation "produce" anything physical between physical poles?
If we squint a lot and interpret your words, it might be possible to eventually arrive at a mathematical definition like i=dq/dt, which mathematically defines current as the rate of charge passing a point in unit time, but that's certainly a stretch from what you actually wrote.
---
You went on to complain to DaveC that:
What DaveC pointed out to you is that your grasp of the "basic definition of differential equation" is deficient, because you're apparently unable to produce a coherent definition of it without directly quoting some other source. When you try to do it yourself, you produce a sort of mangled shadow of a real definition, or else an erroneous one.
I hope this post has addressed your complaint that there was no "argument proving [you] wrong". It is true that DaveC did not provide the argument. His reason was that he is not obliged to teach you mathematics from the ground up. Nor am I, for that matter. His advice to you, which you would do well to heed, was to avoid trying to make authoritative pronouncements about things you don't understand properly. When you make basic mistakes, you end up looking a bit stupid. Worse, you risk misleading other people, who may know even less than you do, by posting information that is misleading at best or just wrong/false at worst.
You mentioned the matter of ad hominem attacks. Notice that DaveC did not say you are an idiot, or that you're stupid for not knowing what a differential equation is. That would be an ad hominem attack. What he said, rather, was that some of your statements were wrong/false. That is, he is attacking the accuracy of the content you posted, not your personal attributes.
If differential equations (or whatever) are important to you, you can learn what they actually are in many different places on the internet. You could even ask questions here, since there are obviously a number of people here who have some formal education in that subject and who know what they are talking about in that regard. What is silly is trying to set yourself up as an authority when you haven't done much more than read the first paragraph or two of the "differential equations" article on wikipedia, if that.
I hope this helps clarify things for you.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Thank you James for offering a productive correction. This at least allows me to explain my reasons for my original posit and why I thought the term "differential equation" might apply in some general sense.
I did read the commonly accepted definition and use of the term "differential equation", but I believe there is an underlying principle that may be applicable in context of the particular
Post 253 :
What did reference to post 253 have anything to do with the discussion?
I always provide links to sites of good reputation in which I believe support my perspective, but they are almost always ignored. Hence the oft misinterpretation of my posits.
I did read the commonly accepted definition and use of the term "differential equation", but I believe there is an underlying principle that may be applicable in context of the particular
And my posts do not reflect that?
Replace "weights" with "values".
Now, exactly where did my condensed posit contradict the basic definition of Differential Equation?
OK, lets see what post 253 said.
Post 253 :
What did reference to post 253 have anything to do with the discussion?
I always provide links to sites of good reputation in which I believe support my perspective, but they are almost always ignored. Hence the oft misinterpretation of my posits.
Last edited:
For AI to experience emotions I would expect whatever form (stuff - metal / plastic / biological) the AI is composed of and whatever processing method is used it would NEED to LIVE
I am guessing we could leave off being able to reproduce. But it should have free reign to learn. More importantly I contend to learn subjects like morals, ethics, empathy and CARE about other life forms. To have an investment IN other life forms
Big ask. There could be a could not care less life form. A pathetic apathetic life form
I am guessing we could leave off being able to reproduce. But it should have free reign to learn. More importantly I contend to learn subjects like morals, ethics, empathy and CARE about other life forms. To have an investment IN other life forms
Big ask. There could be a could not care less life form. A pathetic apathetic life form
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
This is exactly what Anil Seth posits; "You don't need to be smart to feel pain, but you probably have to be alive".
AFAIK, that is not a problem in nature. Self assembly occurs everywhere and learning memory is also prevalent in non-living objects.
I agree.
That is the big fear of future autonomous AI robots considering humans as unnecessary .Big ask. There could be a could not care less life form. A pathetic apathetic life form
NT News newspaper Darwin 25 March 2021
Looks a bit sad emotionally. Perhaps need more than just WD 40
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Of all those posts, only post 453 is mine. All the others are your posts! .........
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Yes.Of all those posts, only post 453 is mine. All the others are your posts! .........
In those four posts, I referenced your errors in post 453. In post 530, I made an error, and accidentally referenced post 253.
James R has been good enough to explain in great detail in post 529 why your post 453 is in error in multiple ways. He has inhuman patience.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Yes, it took you 4 post to call me wrong without producing a single scientific fact of how or why.
Yes, and it took him 1 post to point out where he believes I am wrong and why.
I started a defense of my position, but don't wish to stay off topic any longer. Perhaps another day.
The thread is about the evolution of AI and I am very interested in this subject.
Especially GPT3, which produces intelligent responses that easily pass the Turing test.
See post #527
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPT-3
Last edited:
Sorry not read all of this
Few panics going on
Hope read soon - few hours
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/15/eabe3996
Thanks
Few panics going on
Hope read soon - few hours
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/15/eabe3996
Thanks
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
That is exactly what Anil Seth posited about the probability of AI feeling emotions; " You don't have to be smart to feel pain, but you probably have to be alive". but in a way it depends somewhat on your interpretation of discomfort .
Again in close agreement with AI like GPT3 Watson's own stated goals and duties. AI should be an extension of human interests and assist in research and handling poisonous materials, do extremely precise repetitive actions, work in extreme environments, IOW, do the work humans are unable to do.
Or conversely, become a self-aware life form which views humans as too delicate and subject to injury for ultimately being sufficiently equipped with the right survival abilities and sets about to make a more permanent humanlike android....Big ask. There could be a could not care less life form. A pathetic apathetic life form .......
From the wonderful Japanese
Fully functional robot
Looks nothing like Arnold
Fully functional robot
Looks nothing like Arnold