AIkonoklazt

Not a strawman against the titular claim of the article ("...by itself") as well as all others like it. The hardware level is still considered to be programming.

Don't think that his Great Noodliness cares as long as I keep wearing the colander.

Who or what wrote the algorithms that take the input? People started addressing my objection regarding the article cited by OP. I agree to split thread.

I will continue to post relevant points made by other people than me, since I myself have made all of my own points. I am blocking @StringJunky and this note is for him to block me as well. I'm not forcing anyone on to here. Then it is subject to philosophical principles, as I have indicated. This is still the philosophy subforum after all.

This random string is still an input. The capability came from human input. Terms like "self-driving car" or "self-modification / self-production" of any artifact are ignorant misattributions of agency (see the court case I mention below. The judge himself claimed ignorance on the subject) ...That capability came from human beings. Artifacts are not self-actuated entities. Please, let's slow down a moment and take a look at my linked article again, with its headline and (to me) badly chosen title illustration: https://www.science.org/content/article/artificial-intelligence-evolving-all-itself . Which kinds of underlying messages are those two things sending as a pair? I see so many news articles that do the same thing. Public perception is at once being warped and reinforced. Yes, I am arguing the semantics, and the semantics is important because that's exactly what policy hinges upon much of the time. Take a look at what happened in this Australian court case: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jul/30/im-sorry-dave-im-afraid-i-invented-that-australian-court-finds-ai-systems-can-be-recognised-under-patent-law (the same person is bringing a whole bunch of lawsuits into courtrooms all over the world, saying in an interview that the reason is he wants AI to be accepted by the public as people) AI legal personality was already banned by UN agency UNESCO in 2021, but another UN agency is gearing up for another around of guidelines without stating whether it would even take the previous precedent into consideration or not. I'm writing my own recommendation to them right now. Edit: In addition, the South African case https://ipwatchdog.com/2021/07/29/dabus-gets-first-patent-south-africa-formalities-examination/id=136116/

Self-proclaimed? Certainly you jest! Well, isn't the FSM still being in the sky somewhere the "point?" I don't see how anything being moot actually proving or disproving the existence of anything metaphysical, FSM included.

Hopefully smaller than the last one that happened on the steps of the capitol in 2021 I don't have the money to survive it in style like this guy: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/21/mark-zuckerberg-apocalypse-bunker-hawaii What to do?

@Airbrush Last couple of times I checked the polls (really should just stop checking...) this guy still has about a 50/50 chance of being elected president again

"MOOT POINT," says the non-colander-donning hoomahn...

Why are you replying if you don't have a point? Are you forgetting that "making a point" is "making a point regarding the topic at hand?" Do you have the ability to not respond to a thread in which you have no actual argument to contribute to? Your first sentence is beyond ironic. If you count "there is no such thing as programming without programming" as a law in computational science, then there is still "a scientific law or theorem that makes artificial consciousness impossible" UNLESS you subscribe to epiphenomenalism, which would push the issue to functionalism, which would only be refuted via philosophical principles and not scientific law.

Conterpoint: YES, IT IS. See again the article I pointed to earlier. It claims, specifically: There isn't such a thing. The "human input" in evolutionary algorithms is the required fitness function. Even if you change the article's title to "Artificial intelligence is changing all by itself," it's still an untrue statement. The point isn't the origin of the object in question but the origin of an object's purported teleology. Natural evolution never involve teleology (purposeful design), while artifacts inevitably do. Are you someone who absolutely doesn't know how to argue? You're just making personal insults instead of making any argument.

Dennett fans, here's your Dennett paper! https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~drkelly/DCDWhyCantMakeComputerFeelPain1978.pdf In it he sure wrote a lot, but ended up just dumping the whole issue onto functionalism, which of course is a fail. Why didn't he just change the title to "Why You Can't Make a Computer That Does Consciousness" since every single statement he makes in there referencing pain / pain production / whatever could just be rewritten to reference consciousness / consciousness "production"? Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, provided that anyone reads it (nah)

It is implicit in the claim of "AI evolution," especially with "news articles" like the one I just pointed to.

Obtuse? You mean the point in this entire thread where someone "proved God" via science? I'm reminded of "how many fingers am I holding up?" You dehydrated? It's not a game. The Internets is SERIOUS BUSINESS.

Really. In fact, nothing wrong with the title of "Artificial intelligence changing all by itself." Good grief. When you program something, you obviously "needed" to program it.

What do you mean? It's the title of the entire thread. Did I just miss someone doing it? Not the Geiger counter I was talking about. I want one that measures in Geigers (see above previous screenshot)

Ah therein lays the rub. Why not use the term "change over time" instead of (especially in "news articles") "evolving" (complete with misleading pictures to boot? https://www.science.org/content/article/artificial-intelligence-evolving-all-itself "Written to modify itself" makes as much sense as "program something so it doesn't need programming." It's self-contradictory.

The same reason you expect science to do some metaphysical proof. Yes, really.

p.s. this thread needs more memes Bet that's not the Geiger counter I'm talking about!

You took up the question, so now it's to you. Uh, what? I don't see anyone in this thread successfully using science to prove anything, least of all you.

Can a Geiger counter measure length? Thought this thread ended on page 1 How many oranges is an apple?

Oh boy... ...They just HAD to add that stupid bit in, didn't they? No. AI systems don't evolve and can't EVER evolve, because the process of evolution isn't that of design. There's no teleology involved in evolution, unlike any and all artifacts. Artifacts involve teleology by definition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artifact (substitute "alien," "green little men," etc for "human" if you want) Even so-called "evolutionary algorithms" come with fitness functions that have been programmed by a person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_function You can't just kick the can of programming down the road until it disappears into a hand-waving rhetorical background.

(Didn't know we can highlight page content in-line like that, neat... I also had to turn my VPN off to access that page, I don't blame them for VPN blocks) Using civilians as a buffer. Filed under "what could possibly go wrong." If I'm an Israeli, and one with nationalistic / religious leanings added on top, PLUS I want a "better life," I sure as heck wouldn't want to be a West Bank settler.

Great, you’re still trying hard to be useful in this thread. People don’t arse with reading my original post either and I don’t see you pointing that out.

Pre October 7th, the "policy" of the Israeli government had been one of marginalization and containment. Of course, that turned out to be an utter failure. It only "worked" for a while, until it completely didn't. Not really; see above Why should I ask someone else for a solution if I already had one, Your Brilliantness?