Artificial Intelligence

Theemile wrote:So, we'd need to start with a Migratory Bird's brain and start from there?

That would be one starting point. Another would be to emulate a specific category of malfunctions in human cognition, where a person will believe that their center of self is an object external to the human body; in other words, people who believe they're common household objects.
The point is to create an intelligence that has an impaired sense of self (and thus believes itself to be the thing you want it to take care of) and then imbue it with qualities that make it useful (such as a plane that derives pleasure from keeping its passengers safe and comfortable and from being on time, that sort of thing).

The E wrote:

JohnRoth wrote:He had a point, though. The only people who want an "artificial intelligence" are researchers. Everyone else wants machines you can talk to about the job at hand and that will learn from experience. If we get an "artificial intelligence," it's most likely to be the result of two things: more and more "intelligent" tools, and the realization that these things really do unify on a deep level so that they don't have to be as domain-specific as we currently make them - at least in terms of the underlying mechanisms.

Yes, pretty much. The very last thing we want is a human-equivalent AI, because humans (as a rule) tend to not be very good at only doing what they're told.

What we want instead are systems that can take care of themselves intelligently; To use an analogy, instead of having an AI that replaces an airplanes' pilot, we want an AI that thinks it's a plane.

Since Frankenstein was introduced to us, man has craved an A.I. Look at us now. From the laughs I've been getting from family, friends, Romans and countrymen, I think I was the last holdout of the state-of-the-art dinosaur -- the flip-phone. I just gave up my Mororola T-720! I had it for 12-years and I miss it dearly! I would still have it now if I hadn't dropped it overboard while on the ocean! It cost a pretty penny back then when miniaturization was all the rage. Now the phone industry has somehow convinced us that "smart" is in. No matter the size. So our phones are again approaching the size of the old military field units that called in airstrikes! Why? Because we are gluttons for technology and "smart". There's a family joke now where everyone was trying to talk me into a smart phone. "Hey brother your old flip phone won't do this or this or this. And I can talk to it. Hey Siri..."

But I don't want to talk to my phone. I want to talk to whoever I call and sometimes not. And your smart phone won't do this... (picture me drawing my flip phone like a six-shooter and flipping it open!) what a laugh that got from everyone. I've bought all of my nieces and nephews I-phones yet they can't understand why I don't want one. I just want a very small phone. I don't want a bulky mini television bulging out of my designer clothing! And a brother of mine found out that his expensive smart phone isn't so smart. It pocket dialed his gf while he was out cheating. lol All smart phones pocket dial it seems. My flip phone never crossed that line! lol


Humans are very addictive in nature. And lazy! There is no way I'd believe that if A.I.s were hitting the shelves, we would see them sitting in crates collecting dust. In no time at all there'd be an A.I. in every home. Businesses would have them taking your order at the local burger joints. Unemployment will skyrocket because businesses would deploy them in every area they can. Mail carriers (because the postal service is drowning), sanitation workers, security guards, bell hops, concierges, switchboard operators (oops too late, that happened long ago) etc. Heck, we'd be arguing at our best friend because his current love interest is artificial. Although he wouldn't admit that she's his gf, but his assistant. Yet you know he is always with her and hasn't had a gf in years! Latchkey kids would become silicon-key kids. Man's addictive nature would see A.I.'s intruding in every conceivable and inconceivable aspect of our lives.

And remember, there would be varying degrees of implementation. You are considering the Frankenstein implementation only. Consider true A.I. implemented smartphones. Giving a new meaning to... Iphone.


The fledgling airline industry wouldn't want true A.I.'s? Please! First one to go is a cost cutting A.I. replacement of the co-pilot. Then after commuters become more comfortable, because their fares would drop, then both pilots would be replaced. Stress-free air traffic controllers that can handle several planes at once! Further plunging ticket fare! Before long, half the elevators would be artificial girl fridays! lol

Build it and they will come. They always come because man doesn't have a mind of his own and doesn't know what he wants until someone else builds it. They're working on a car that will do the driving for us!

Some of us. I want a very very small flip-phone! A wrist-watch phone I'd spend a fortune on!

cthia wrote:The fledgling airline industry wouldn't want true A.I.'s? Please! First one to go is a cost cutting A.I. replacement of the co-pilot. Then after commuters become more comfortable, because their fares would drop, then both pilots would be replaced. Stress-free air traffic controllers that can handle several planes at once! Further plunging ticket fare! Before long, half the elevators would be artificial girl fridays! lol

No, they really don't. A "true" (or rather "human equivalent") AI is more trouble than it's worth. The industry wants intelligent tools, things that can perform actions in an intelligent way. They do not want an emulation of a human with all the baggage human beings generally bring to the table; all those demands to make them emotionally stable, capable of and willing to be doing what you want them to do are a giant business expense that seems eminently cuttable.

Never mind that emulating humans is a giant can of worms waiting to be opened in terms of ethics (is an emulated human consciousness human? Does it have rights? If so, which ones?).

The E wrote:

Theemile wrote:So, we'd need to start with a Migratory Bird's brain and start from there?

That would be one starting point. Another would be to emulate a specific category of malfunctions in human cognition, where a person will believe that their center of self is an object external to the human body; in other words, people who believe they're common household objects.
The point is to create an intelligence that has an impaired sense of self (and thus believes itself to be the thing you want it to take care of) and then imbue it with qualities that make it useful (such as a plane that derives pleasure from keeping its passengers safe and comfortable and from being on time, that sort of thing).

I'm not so sure. Starting with the idea that we can somehow create a general (that is, human-like) A.I. and then tailor it seems to be putting the cart in front of the horse.

I'm coming to the realization that an A.I. that would be truly usable for the tasks we'd like it to do would be really alien. We're the (current) end result of the evolution of a bunch of predatory apes, and have grown to be the apex predator on the planet, as well as the most social species on the planet - these two are probably related. Do we really want those characteristics in our worker A.I.'s? Predator and social dominance don't seem like things we'd want.

cthia wrote:Some of us. I want a very very small flip-phone! A wrist-watch phone I'd spend a fortune on!

There are flip phones around still if you look, might have to go online to get it rather than in a shop though. Also wrist-watch phones have been around for quite a while, they have never really taken off though, the most recent I can think of is the Galaxy Gear S and is recent enough that it shouldn't be hard to get hold of, just be careful that you are getting the one that is a full up stand alone phone rather than the similar ones that are just smartwatch accessories for an Android phone

I'm curious and would like to conduct a little survey, of sorts, of all who would care to participate.

What do you personally consider to be the opposite of artificial intelligence?

cthia wrote:I'm curious and would like to conduct a little survey, of sorts, of all who would care to participate.

What do you personally consider to be the opposite of artificial intelligence?

Politics?

Seriously, that's a malformed question. "Artificial Intelligence" has two words - do you want the opposite of "artificial", the opposite of "intelligence" or both. In the latter case, I'd say "natural stupidity."

JohnRoth wrote:

cthia wrote:I'm curious and would like to conduct a little survey, of sorts, of all who would care to participate.

What do you personally consider to be the opposite of artificial intelligence?

Politics?

Seriously, that's a malformed question. "Artificial Intelligence" has two words - do you want the opposite of "artificial", the opposite of "intelligence" or both. In the latter case, I'd say "natural stupidity."

Just as I intend please. Not "artificial" not "intelligence."

What do you consider to be the opposite of the -- two words that together form -- one concept, "artificial intelligence?"

cthia wrote:I'm curious and would like to conduct a little survey, of sorts, of all who would care to participate.

What do you personally consider to be the opposite of artificial intelligence?

JohnRoth wrote:Politics?

Seriously, that's a malformed question. "Artificial Intelligence" has two words - do you want the opposite of "artificial", the opposite of "intelligence" or both. In the latter case, I'd say "natural stupidity."

cthia wrote:Just as I intend please. Not "artificial" not "intelligence."

What do you consider to be the opposite of the -- two words that together form -- one concept, "artificial intelligence?"

As I said, it's a malformed question, partly because "artificial intelligence" seems to be a placeholder for "we don't know how to make machines that behave the way we do." Once we crack one part of the problem, it moves out of the realm of "artificial intelligence."

If I was going to redo the definition, I'd call it something like "how to build a machine that seems to think like a human." There are simply too many dimensions to the problem to define an "opposite."

Besides which, thinking in polarities is a real bad habit. My background in [redacted] suggests that whenever you find a polarity, find a third factor that isn't simply part-way between the two.

JohnRoth wrote:

cthia wrote:I'm curious and would like to conduct a little survey, of sorts, of all who would care to participate.

What do you personally consider to be the opposite of artificial intelligence?

JohnRoth wrote:Politics?

Seriously, that's a malformed question. "Artificial Intelligence" has two words - do you want the opposite of "artificial", the opposite of "intelligence" or both. In the latter case, I'd say "natural stupidity."

cthia wrote:Just as I intend please. Not "artificial" not "intelligence."

What do you consider to be the opposite of the -- two words that together form -- one concept, "artificial intelligence?"

As I said, it's a malformed question, partly because "artificial intelligence" seems to be a placeholder for "we don't know how to make machines that behave the way we do." Once we crack one part of the problem, it moves out of the realm of "artificial intelligence."

If I was going to redo the definition, I'd call it something like "how to build a machine that seems to think like a human." There are simply too many dimensions to the problem to define an "opposite."

Besides which, thinking in polarities is a real bad habit. My background in [redacted] suggests that whenever you find a polarity, find a third factor that isn't simply part-way between the two.

It is the exact same question posed in one of my computer science courses by a professor. It prompted some very interesting responses. I am simply attempting to solicit wider data points.

There is intelligence within this forum, I know it.