Weak AI beat Chess, now on to Jeopoardy!

[Read-Only]

Consciousness is just a cycled pattern of reiteration through a biological logicgate network. a Biological system's logicgate's however can alter in shape and form to either support or disrupt continuation. It's the main reason why if a person gets a knock on the head they can suffer amnesia and why when you sleep at night you are unaware of the passage of time etc, as each of those has instances where areas of the brain are no longer accessed or are suffering from a disruption.

Death occurs naturally when the Conscious cycle can no longer be reiterated due to cellular ageing.

I guess you could say that Consciousness is just continued re-evaluation of property states while it is still possible to evaluate.

Stryder, that's far, FAR to shallow a view! Except for the 'biological' part, what you've described is much what any computer that can handle a few hundred digits is doing when you order it to compute pi as far out as it can. :shrug:

You make absolutely no allowance for self-awareness or for original thought - and both of those are VERY much an integral part of consciousness.

 

[Read-Only]

Ah, but can I? Certainly I could spend hours mining for a quote, but I don't have the time or desire to do so, does that mean I'm wrong? Does lack of evidence for something prove its not there? So to answer your question, No I can't, but that does really answer your question, sorry. :shrug:

But certainly if you wish to believe genetic algorithms have neither surprised or even dumbfounded a single one of their creators I'm not stopping you. I'm just trying to contextualize that belief into something relevant to this thread.

Pretty much what I expected. Nothing at all to substantiate your glorious claim, just an attempt to poke nonsense in this thread and try to duck out of responding to a direct and honest question. Sad - very sad.

 

[Shogun]

Death occurs naturally when the Conscious cycle can no longer be reiterated due to cellular ageing.

Death is irreversible damage to the organism causing shutdown of life processes. Aging is damage, no offense to senior citizens.....

 

[Shogun]

Humans' neural systems are more advanced as to this day, because of our ability to understand abstract, intangible concepts, use abstract solutions and be creative. There is no reason to doubt that Quantum computers will not surpass humans, quantum computers have huge potential, but as of now, we are the creators of the OS, the software, and the machine itself. To machines, we are like god, well......in a sense.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Pretty much what I expected. Nothing at all to substantiate your glorious claim, just an attempt to poke nonsense in this thread and try to duck out of responding to a direct and honest question. Sad - very sad.

And your not adding anything useful to this thread at all.

 

[Read-Only]

And your not adding anything useful to this thread at all.

I beg to differ - because I'm shooting down this very stupid concept that some people have about creating a true AI. We can make machines that mimic human behavior and even improve on them greatly. But we'll never, ever be able to create the REAL thing in metal and semiconductors alone.

Sure, something like Watson could fool a cave man into thinking it was actually intelligent. But you, I and the very people who built that machine know, that it isn't even close. It's a doggoned good electronic calculator - but it's still light-years away from being independently intelligent.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Perhaps we are all this as well and consciousness is an illusion?



Perhaps for a turing machine, but I think your are wrong about all machines, as we are machines, therefor machines have already achieved consciousness. Even if only a biological or analog machine is the only thing that can achieve consciousness eventually technology will make it, if technology continues to progress as it does.

Unless your saying we have properties that make us conscious that are beyond the physical realm and thus can never be replicated or emulated, I'm not sure this is true but I think it worth testing. If we ever do make a Strong AI that is as smart or smarter than any human in every way and that claims to be conscious we must accept these conclusions:
1) Conscious can be an illusion, as the AI thinks it conscious but we disagree, ergo we may also be delusional about are own consciousness.
2) Consciousness is completely physical and can be replicated with known machinery (as opposed to the present state of biology which has unknowns) and thus a soul is irrelevant.

Certainly these are answer that could radically change our philosophy and theology, scary answers in fact, but I'm going to wait and see if these answers are true or not before passing judgment on them.



It cheating only if consciousness is required to play a game.



We don't need to know what it is, we could still replicate it via a black box system, many evolving programs for example already derive answers from which the creators are baffled at how it came to those answers. We don't know if consciousness is an emergent property that a machine sophisticated enough might not simply become self aware.

Lol pass me some of what your smoking,

No we are all of the fore-mentioned (Relays etc) except we have a ghost in the machine, something a computer will never have. The machine only "Comes Alive" when a Human is at the Helm or in the driving seat, which is again a "Ghost in the Machine" except this time it is a Ghost in a machine who got into an even bigger machine. (aka a car)


Don't you Over-Stand? it's all just cogs and wheels turning powered by a battery or mains source supply. It can;t comprehend anything no matter how many mirrors, cogs, relays or wheels you add to it. it will just end up being a really expensive machine with a tons of components. I have Studied Electrical Engineering in East London and I cann tell you truly your wasting your time with circuits and relays, you won't produce consciousness.

You can barely get more than 20 species of animals to pass a turing test so you are going to have to create something better than a Lion and moore complex to achieve what you want.


I would say "Good luck" but its Futile I tell you truly.


Ghost in the Machine.


Peace.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I beg to differ - because I'm shooting down this very stupid concept that some people have about creating a true AI. We can make machines that mimic human behavior and even improve on them greatly. But we'll never, ever be able to create the REAL thing in metal and semiconductors alone.

And how do you know this? Are you saying there are qualities to us beyond replication? If so what are these qualities and why can we not measure and define them?

Sure, something like Watson could fool a cave man into thinking it was actually intelligent. But you, I and the very people who built that machine know, that it isn't even close. It's a doggoned good electronic calculator - but it's still light-years away from being independently intelligent.

Watson is a Weak AI, it was never meant to be sapient, conscious or even intelligent in the general sense of the world, I don't think anyone here was saying that it was. But Watson is certainly light-years ahead of its predecessor Deep Blue, how far its from a Strong AI is hard to say, Watson was not designed to have sentience, nor was it meant to learn how to do anything more then to interpreted questions and search through and interpret written data better. But certainly its a capability we expect from a strong AI, to be able to understand language, it does mean that another component of a strong AI as been achieved.

No we are all of the fore-mentioned (Relays etc) except we have a ghost in the machine, something a computer will never have. The machine only "Comes Alive" when a Human is at the Helm or in the driving seat, which is again a "Ghost in the Machine" except this time it is a Ghost in a machine who got into an even bigger machine. (aka a car)

And how do you know computers will never have this? What is this ghost in the machine? Is it a set of desires, wants, what?

Don't you Over-Stand? it's all just cogs and wheels turning powered by a battery or mains source supply. It can;t comprehend anything no matter how many mirrors, cogs, relays or wheels you add to it. it will just end up being a really expensive machine with a tons of components. I have Studied Electrical Engineering in East London and I cann tell you truly your wasting your time with circuits and relays, you won't produce consciousness.

If that is true then how are we conscious? Are you saying our awareness is more then neural feedback mechanism and chemical reactions in our brains?

You can barely get more than 20 species of animals to pass a turing test so you are going to have to create something better than a Lion and moore complex to achieve what you want.

I like how you are sure it can't be done, you state it as if its faith, actually it is faith as you have no proof, no proof to this ghost in the machine, yet you believe it there anyways. Honestly I don't know if they will ever make a machine that thinks like humans (aside for say a bioroid of course) but I'm willing to wait and see and to postulate what meaning would come of it if it does succeed and if it does not. If it does not succeed it will be a vindication for theology, it will provide evidence of a soul, that consciousness is beyond the physical realm because it can be replicated, if it does succeed it will be the opposite it could even render consciousness as illusion. Here the interesting part: the computing power will within the next few decades be so great as to provide the answer, if it can't be done there will be no excuse then, and if is done then you will have to find a new religion.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

And how do you know computers will never have this? What is this ghost in the machine? Is it a set of desires, wants, what?



If that is true then how are we conscious? Are you saying our awareness is more then neural feedback mechanism and chemical reactions in our brains?



I like how you are sure it can't be done, you state it as if its faith, actually it is faith as you have no proof, no proof to this ghost in the machine, yet you believe it there anyways. Honestly I don't know if they will ever make a machine that thinks like humans (aside for say a bioroid of course) but I'm willing to wait and see and to postulate what meaning would come of it if it does succeed and if it does not. If it does not succeed it will be a vindication for theology, it will provide evidence of a soul, that consciousness is beyond the physical realm because it can be replicated, if it does succeed it will be the opposite it could even render consciousness as illusion. Here the interesting part: the computing power will within the next few decades be so great as to provide the answer, if it can't be done there will be no excuse then, and if is done then you will have to find a new religion.

No I stated why I know it can't be done, I never mention this on Sci-forums because I frankly can't stand the subject anymore but I am a Qualified Electrical Engineer aswell as a PT. I did a 3 year course On Electrical Engineering which consisted of split 50/50 Practical and Theory classes.

After playing around with mother-boards, power sources, circuits, Soldering-Irons and components for 3 years It was blatantly obvious to me that we are not just systems of transmitters and revievers linked with Wiring.

You think of humans on a purely physical matter level, you haven't even begun to consider the Quntum Mechanics of the brain.

I seriously hate to burst your Sci-Fi related cyborg desire bubble to have a Robot friend like Optimus -Prime but it really isnt going to happen, you are more than a mere set of circuits.

Being self aware isnt all human minds are either, being able to comprehend, visualize and actualy appreciate the sensations we recieve is beyond machinery.

The Ghost in the Machine is what your Ego and self is.


Peace and Wisdom.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

This has "new search engine" written all over it.

Watch out google

Good point!
IBM aren't doing this just to win a TV game.
This took massive investment.

If IBM crack the problem and make an intelligent search engine, they could present a serious challenge to google.

 

[ScribJellyDonut]

A light-year is a measure of length, not time

 

[Sarkus]

Good point!
IBM aren't doing this just to win a TV game.
This took massive investment.

If IBM crack the problem and make an intelligent search engine, they could present a serious challenge to google.

IBM do this because they do research into "intelligent" machines.

As a search engine it's not going to be hugely useful on a commercial scale: Google et al can already interpret, to a degree, most of the questions asked in the search-bars. People type fairly standard questions, such as "What is..." "How do I..." etc. And people tend to be reasonably precise in what they search for. Watson won't compete with these... it will be like designing a $1bn spoon for cracking an egg open.

What Watson is aiming for, I believe, is the ability of a machine to recognise idioms and to interpret natural language and to respond appropriately/accurately and quickly. The key is its ability to understand the question - not necessarily search for the answer (although it can do that as well).

When this is linked to speech recognition software, for example, you will have the user-interface for a machine that can take verbal commands in an incredibly versatile way - i.e. without needing to be precise with the language being used.



And it is apparently trouncing the opposition on the televised shows.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Good point!
IBM aren't doing this just to win a TV game.
This took massive investment.

If IBM crack the problem and make an intelligent search engine, they could present a serious challenge to google.

Google Is Basic, wouldn't be hard to top, I could top it if I cared enough to invest in this area. All Google does that's different to any other search engine is search and scan the content of the actual data in articles instead of just searching Key-words and Link adresses.


Peace.

 

[Dywyddyr]

A light-year is a measure of length, not time

So what?
You've never heard the expression "miles away"?

 

[cosmictraveler]

Well last nights show really showed how good Watson was. It blew the best of the best away and was even better than the first night, they must have "tweaked" it somehow. Tonights show is the final and I'm glad its over because that computer can blow away anyone that is pitted against it I'm certain. It was an interesting exhibit to watch and perhaps it could be done again sometime but I'd think that no one would want to compete with it after watching what it is capable of doing.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

A light-year is a measure of length, not time

A not so good point.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Google Is Basic, wouldn't be hard to top, I could top it if I cared enough to invest in this area. All Google does that's different to any other search engine is search and scan the content of the actual data in articles instead of just searching Key-words and Link adresses.


Peace.

The first search engine invented was the dictionary.
When Dr Johnson started it, he did not realise what an enormous task he had undertaken.
He initially believed that words had set meanings, and that he only needed to say what they were.
On embarking on the task, he found that words could only be defined according to how they were used, and usage changed with time.

An intelligent computer search engine is an enormous task.
Come back DJ!

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

The first search engine invented was the dictionary.
When Dr Johnson started it, he did not realise what an enormous task he had undertaken.
He initially believed that words had set meanings, and that he only needed to say what they were.
On embarking on the task, he found that words could only be defined according to how they were used, and usage changed with time.

An intelligent computer search engine is an enormous task.
Come back DJ!

The Coding and labour is extensive but the concept and IPR is simple.


Peace

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Deceptively simple I think.
When you are used to querying from google, you eventually learn a query language that fits in with the way it works. You have to put the most important word first, then the second etc, leaving out grammar.
eg. To search for a Victorian King of Prussia, you would put into google "Prussia, King, Victorian"

Using this method you very often get as your first option Wikipedia, which Google , if it ever had a chance, would pay Billions for.

Peace to you too
And to Wikipedia.
(I must get round to donating some money to them, seriously)

 

[adoucette]

Well last nights show really showed how good Watson was. It blew the best of the best away and was even better than the first night, they must have "tweaked" it somehow. Tonights show is the final and I'm glad its over because that computer can blow away anyone that is pitted against it I'm certain. It was an interesting exhibit to watch and perhaps it could be done again sometime but I'd think that no one would want to compete with it after watching what it is capable of doing.

I doubt they tweaked it, way too complex a system to make changes based on the results of just that one show.

It appeared that the questions asked on the second night were just more likely the kind that Watson would be better at (Extreme trivia about Hedgehogs and Etudes for instance), and that even the best players might not.

Arthur