just because something is sentient doesn't mean it will respect freedom. Hell, most people on earth don't respect freedom really. They respect THEIR freedom in that they don't like getting told what to do... but most people are more then happy to order other people around.


So when we treat our own people like that I don't see that the AI will naturally behave better.

We could encode into the AI some of Asimov's rules of robotics. Which would enslave the AI to an unbreakable code of ethics. But sentient or not it will be a slave to those rules.


Frankly, I think that's the best option in the event that we do create a sentient AI. Force it to be good. Give it base level restrictions on what is allowed and not allowed.


Then and only then will I trust it. Then and only then will I allow it into my society. Consider me backward if you like... I think of myself as careful.




Hmmm... depends on who you're talking about. To their makers they will be slaves. Just as I am a slave to evolution and the programming of my society.


However, to the every day person they might be treated as equals. Their makers will be their Gods. The beings that made them. And as their Gods they can make the AI anything they want it to be... believe anything they want... etc. So the AI's will be slaves to them even if the makers are nice to them. ANd that's not such a bad thing. Is not the small child controlled by the mother?... programmed by both mother and father? The AI's will be controlled. There is no doubt of that.

I choose the road less traveled, so when the paths cross I can simply slaughter you all where you stand.
deja vous!

I doubt they will be capable of creating their own programming, its like tasking someone to design a better brain than we already have.
let me just reitterate the catch-22 that you develop with this.
and this:




...
there I'm done reitterating.

explain the catch 22 please... I don't see the circular paradox.

if you force them to think one way (not with fuzzy boundaries, but with strict limits) they are not sentient as they cannot possibly fulfill requirment of being self aware.

if you dont set hard limits you cannot garuntee that your statement will be fulfilled.

Oh, so do I. The differance is I dont slaughter people, you do

Oh, and I agree with you. AI wont be sentient, because we would restrict it. But with something so complex some directive is bound to go wrong, I will be waiting for just that day, to laugh in the face of progressive society.

you take a quite well traveled, very public road in which everything secular and capitalistic fails, and everything else is divine.

its a half-finished road for a reason.

How is your road the one less traveled then? Besides the fact that people die on it,

I dont choose a side and start an arguement, I choose the harder to defend side after the argument has begun.

its not a usual thing for people to do, because it has nothing to do with being argumentative.

Really? This is all new news to me.



Its unique if its an actual mannerism. Thats not a mannerism.

what? setting a handicap?

of course its a mannerism, I do it all the time.

it shouldnt be, you are the one to begin everything.


take for instance the argument with karma, I set my restrictions so high that he should have been able to exploit and obliterate me with that. Its a concious choice to step beyond what I have to when I'm constructing a point.

Fine, its a mannerism, but its not the mannerism of challange, its a mannerism for the want of attention.



Do I now? Thats the second new piece of information. All I do is state my opinion, you and some other people chose to take the opposition. And out of lack of better restraint i respond to attack on my views. I dont see how you were defending in any previous arguements i have had with you.



Wow, your so full of yourself you have nouthing better to do then try to impress me. How... sad

I'm going to make just a few points for all these know-it-alls out there who seem to think they know exactly how the mind works. The fact of the matter is, nobody knows how the mind works. There is absolutely no certainty on this matter whatsoever. There is plenty of conjecture that the neocortex processes information in parallel and replies via some sort of association (that is to say, the mind doesn't deal with raw information. It doesn't store data as ones and zeros. It stores information as broken up patterns of neural activity that (and this is the important bit) is recalled due to incoming stimulus and is RECONSTRUCTED through a natural intuition that we don't quite understand). Now, far be it from me to lay down any supposed facts on this matter, because none of you will listen anyways you're all too busy throwing about rhetoric like pies at a county fair, but there is zero evidence that the 'Mind is a Computer' analogy is correct. Or even sound. Hell, the fact of the matter is computers work in serial and minds do not. Minds work by a highly complex and often dubious parallel and spontaneous process, although thoughts and memories seem to be stored as serial information. Even if you stuffed a billion processors together into a computer or used a quantum processor to process trillions of strings of information simultaneously, these fancy-pants computers will still be restrained by the fact that the code written for them is in serial and must be read as such. That's a human fault, we see everything serialized and we recall everything serialized.

I don't think much will come out of the Artificial Intelligence movement. If people really want an intelligent machine, they'll go about designing something that has real Intelligence. That is to say, it doesn't attempt to simulate a response to a stimulus by tricky code, but instead intuits a response. Intelligence is less processing power, memory, and the ability to change an internal state based on input, but instead the ability to change an internal input without external stimulus. At least, that's the closest definition we can get to humanlike thought. Like I said in the beginning, nobody has an inkling of a clue of how the mind really works beyond some limited physics, and there certainly isn't a unified theory of Mind floating about.Just keep that in mind (har har) when you argue about this stuff, because as soon as you start assuming you know something about it, you're showing that you don't really know anything at all.

I'd go further into what i'm getting at, but this post is getting long and boring and nobody will be interested in hearing the rest anyways. Please proceed antagonizing each-other.

well put Bambammon! It is those who think they know everything that are so irritating to someone like me who does!

I couldnt care less than about the attention of a few twenty-somewhats and a gaggle of teenagers.

when your points are usually extremely controversial, and/or say "come and get me" (topic thread) you see what happens.
actually he didnt do too bad, he noticed the gap and was trying to use it, but he never got around to actually pointing it out sufficiently.

either way misusing a point has nothing to do with my abilities, its simply an example.

I take offense at this, we know plenty about the brain. we just dont know anything in comparison to what there is to know.

Actually, programmers are getting around to writing code that runs in parallel, since computer CPU's are being forced in the direction of multiple cores.

we've had parallel code for decades... mostly used for super computers...

either way nothing can compare to the massively parallel system in our heads.

currently no. But the point is that our brains aren't doubling in processing power every 18 months... our computer are... Furthermore our understanding of AI is progressing very quickly compared to natural evolution. Evolution is VERY VERY SLOW... so lets say it takes us another 1000 years to crack sentient AI... so what?... 1000 years is no time at all in the scheme of things. Even if it took us 10,000 years it would many times faster then any natural process.


Our brains are the third revolution in evolution.


First random mutation.
Second sex.
Third direct intelligent manipulation (also known as Intelligent Design... or playing God... because someone's got to.).


beyond that we might become completely artificial... as in no natural components.

again, I'll reitterate that our brains are much smaller and unless computers have a drastic change in core construction, they will NEVER be able to get as small as our brains. its simply a matter of construction.


I have no doubt that the exceeding of our brains will happen at some point, but it will not be with the standard computer, and it will not be in the form of a sentient being. it will be in calculative ability only.

I dont give a damn about any "laws" that note a pattern in a very very SHORT period of time.

I'm done arguing this point, its a simple matter of compatability or failure. we cannot build something sentient from the ground up, and we cannot copy what we dont understand, let alone to a completely different system.

Who says the AI has to be the same size as the human brain? We weren't talking about making human sized brains we were talking about making computers that are as powerful or more powerful then the human brain with sentient consciousness.


As to them being made smaller, pay attention... computer processing density... that is processing power by area required to make it happen has been MASSIVELY miniturized. If hte same process continues we could make the human intelligence computer the size of the human brain... and then smaller.


Don't count the powersupply and mother board etc being the same size as the brain. Remember I'm not including the whole human nervous system or the heart and lungs. Skull v CPU size. Currently I think we could build a human intelligence computer... it would be the size of a house... but that halves in size every 18 months... so that won't take long to squeeze into a skull.



I agree, I've said as much several times already. However, AI is also progressing quickly.



You're done because you're wrong. You're trying to say something is impossible when you cannot make the claim. It's not credible. Period.

there is scientific basis for my claims, if you dont understand them go ask someone who does. I've had enough trying to explain them to you.

again, sentience cannot work on a serial, or small power parallel system, and our computer cannot hope to match our massive parallel ability that gives us concious thought.

either way its a matter of OUR capacity, I doubt we can replicate something that we will most likely never understand, intelligence we understand as everything BUT intelligence, conciousness we understand as output and input, but not as the process, we can define where the systems are, but nobody knows of any way possible with any extent of technology to probe something beyond physical touch, let alone to understand it.

pay attention:
computers have been around for barely over a half century, yes miniturization is and will continue to occur, but the system itself is fallible in that the smaller it gets the more errors you have, if we work on a human brain level then half of what comes out will be interferenced babble. nothing we can work with.

ignoring the chip sets, working merely with the CPU my point is the same.

I would never have considered the power supply or the motherboard (or hardrive) as part of what we're talking about, despite the fact that our brain does that all (including PSU)

AGAIN
you're assuming something on for collosal ammounts of time for 20 data points on the day after we have learned to make computers, if Newton had measured the first few millimeters of the fall of a ball with a lot of data points and said that gravitational velocity is linear, he would be ridiculed as an idiot now.
I'm quite certain that whoever assumes computers will continue to get small until they're half the size of an atom will be equally ridiculed in the future.

you just dont seem to grasp that computers as we know them cannot be functional under the information density that you assume they can, at that point electrical interference on such a small level will turn your computer into a garbage machine for information.

I assume you mean human functionality, but I digress:
no. we have supercomputers that take up the full volume of a target store that cannot rival even miniscule sections of our brains.

ok, so I lied, I havent had enough of trying to explain this to you.

I cannot stress enough: rules created in the first 30 years of the genesis of computers can hardly be considered remotely valid for the next decade, let alone for millenia afterwards.

So function on a tell me thrice system, or higher.



Why do we have to understand it to duplicate it? All we have to do is create something sentient, it doesn't have to be a duplication of our own sentience.

again, how do you create something that thinks when all you know about its base is that it exists?

you're asking people to shoot in the dark for a target that may be in this room, or may be in the next room, or the next, or the next throughout several realities of this world.

sentience is not something that you stumble upon by chance.

then your computer is 1/3 as useful and will still be 1/8 fallible.

its simply not feasible to work on such a system, wave property of matter keeps us from getting too small. the only reason our brain can work on taht scale is because its specialized, it passes the data through neurons and specific systems which keep it compact.

think of a computer like a line of people in a hallway all going to different places, they bunch up, communicate, forget where they're supposed to go. the brain on the other hand is like people each in opaque phone booths that pass through without ever seeing the person in front of them, they can rarely communicate or mess with each otehr because they have blockages between them. not to mention how data is mostly transmitted using atoms and potentiality rather than simply electrons.

agh, my metaphor is breaking down, but let me try and make this simple:
our brain works by isolating information and keeping its wave property down to a minimum by using atomic particles, computers do not isolate information, but pass them along primative wires without anything keeping data from one wire passing to the other, in ADDITION they use mostly electrons as their form of passing data, who's wave property is much larger than atomic particles and, as thus, it is far more prone to being easily influenced and interacted with.

I know our brains use electromagnetic potential to still move information at speed of light, but they use the emag of atoms, not of electrons, so inteference is FAR more difficult.

That's a cope out. you don't understand yourself.


You don't know that... it could just be slow... Who says that consciousness has to operate at our speed? What if the entity had a thought once every hundred years or took that long to realize anything?


It would still be conscious... just slow.

But again, more importantly you're making claims you're not qualified to make.



Currently we don't understand... but at one point humanity didn't know what viruses were... we thought it was evil magic or something... we didn't understand how the sun worked...


Assuming that just because we don't understand something now that we'll never understand it is not credible.


Prove that. Under current tech the only downside has been heat production which at some point will force us to abandon silicon semiconductors for CPUs in favor of optical computers or something else that generates less heat. We're already far along in that research such that when we come to the end of silicon's density limit we move to other technologies.


In addition it must be noted that our brains are very slow. What makes our brains powerful is millions of parallel processors all operating rather slowly all at once.


Well, if the computer's processors are faster then it should require fewer of them to achieve the same calculative power. Ergo if anything we should be able to make it smaller.



The brain does not include the power supply unit... but this doesn't matter. I size is not important to my argument.


The machine could be the size of a planet and my point wouldn't be effected.


By the same logic you can't say it won't continue. The trend has held solid for well over 20 years. It's been solid for more then 80... really as soon as we built the first vacume tube computer... and we've held pace ever since.


Exaggerating doesn't make you sound credible it makes you sound petty.


That said, quantum computers will have "parts" that are smaller then an atom.



anyway, you seem to have allowed yourself to get all emotional again... i've learned that when you get like this you need to sit in the corner for a good 48 hours before you can be rational again...


So... see you then.