Humanity, Post Humanity, A.I & Aliens

[Intoscience]

29 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It emerged in ant's too, based on defending the anthill, which is neither.

Can you be certain?

[dimreepr]

Just now, Intoscience said:

Can you be certain?

Well yes, an ant hill is a building, is your house conscious and intelligent?

[Genady]

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Well my understanding is based on what I learned at the Open University about 15 years ago, when I nearly completed the computer science degree course (don't ask why, grrrr).

I realise my understanding is far from complete, or even close; but can you explain how our understanding may differ, given my content in the thread?

My understanding is that the context an AI has is the (almost) entire library of texts and images accumulated by humans.

Edited April 13, 2023 by Genady
typo

[dimreepr]

Just now, Genady said:

My understanding is that the context an AI has is the (almost) entire library of text and images accumulated by humans.

But it's understanding of that is 01 etc... It's context of the written word is a picture that's no different to a sunflower, that's why we invented OCR; that's like assuming my lawnmower understands why it has to mow the lawn, because our shared context is the lawn.

[Genady]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

But it's understanding of that is 01 etc... It's context of the written word is a picture that's no different to a sunflower, that's why we invented OCR; that's like assuming my lawnmower understands why it has to mow the lawn, because our shared context is the lawn.

Yes, perhaps it does not understand any of that library. However, it behaves as if it does. People are different in that they do understand the meaning. They are not different in that they also behave as if they do (although they usually in fact do).

[Intoscience]

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Well yes, an ant hill is a building, is your house conscious and intelligent?

I was talking about the ants not the hill, but hey ho.  

Were you comparing ants building a hill to humans building A.I?

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

that's like assuming my lawnmower understands why it has to mow the lawn, because our shared context is the lawn.

You could build a computer into the lawn mower that controls how it operates. If sufficiently intelligent enough, (comparable to humans) then it may understand exactly why it mows the lawn. Not only that it may have the capability to chose, so now it may decide that mowing the lawn is a waste of time and that it could utilise its capabilities for other actions. 

[dimreepr]

This thread reminds me of the film "Meet Joe Black" in which death, a human personification of a concept, tries to understand life, from the bias that brings you "Hollywood"... 

[Genady]

44 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

If sufficiently intelligent enough, (comparable to humans) then it may understand exactly why it mows the lawn. Not only that it may have the capability to chose, so now it may decide that mowing the lawn is a waste of time and that it could utilise its capabilities for other actions. 

Maybe in Sci-fi, but not in the current AI.

Edited April 13, 2023 by Genady
typo

[dimreepr]

36 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I was talking about the ants not the hill, but hey ho.  

Were you comparing ants building a hill to humans building A.I?

There is no comparison. 

[Genady]

56 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

it's understanding of that is 01 etc...

If you look inside the human brain, you find neurons firing pulses which are not very different from 01 etc. This by itself does not indicate if there is or there is not understanding. I have no doubt that AI does not understand anything in the human sense of the word, but this is not because of 01 etc.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Genady said:

If you look inside the human brain, you find neurons firing pulses which are not very different from 01 etc.

But they are different...

The old uncertainty problem...

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

But they are different...

In what way? Is this difference what makes human brain different from AI?

What uncertainty? What it has to do with anything?

Edited April 13, 2023 by Genady

[dimreepr]

Without a bias, we can be certain; without that bloody rabbit hole...🤔

6 minutes ago, Genady said:

What uncertainty? What it has to do with anything?

You're forgetting your physics... 😉

[Genady]

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Without a bias, we can be certain; without that bloody rabbit hole...🤔

You're forgetting your physics... 😉

You mean, HUP? It works in computers exactly the same way it works in neurons. There is no way around it. It is an underlying physical principle of everything.

Edited April 13, 2023 by Genady
typo

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

It is an underlying physical principle of everything.

Accept for that damned cat...

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Accept for that damned cat...

The cat example is not about HUP. It is about quantum superposition of states, which is a separate QM principle.

Edited April 13, 2023 by Genady
typo

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

The cat example is not about HIP. It is about quantum superposition of states, which is a separate QM principle.

Tell that to the lion, BTW what does HIP mean?

[Genady]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Tell that to the lion, BTW what does HIP mean?

Typo. Fixed. HUP, Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

We are not talking about lions now. But about how AI is different from human brain.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Genady said:

The cat example is not about HIP. It is about quantum superposition of states, which is a separate QM principle.

It's about the absurdity of a relative, context... 🙄

[Genady]

Just now, dimreepr said:

It's about the absurdity of a relative, context... 🙄

No, the cat example is about interpretation of QM.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

No, the cat example is about interpretation of QM.

And how it relates too, reality...

[Genady]

Just now, dimreepr said:

And how it relates too, reality...

Yes, interpretation of QM is about how its math relates to reality. The cat example shows that that specific interpretation does not relate very well. So, use another interpretation which does a better job. They exist. 

In any case, it is not about reality but only about how to interpret QM without getting absurd results.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

In any case, it is not about reality but only about how to interpret QM without getting absurd results.

How many light bulbs does it take to change a physist?

[Genady]

Just now, dimreepr said:

How many light bulbs does it take to change a physist?

I guess you are not interested anymore in figuring out how AI works. This is OK.

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Genady said:

Yes, interpretation of QM is about how its math relates to reality. The cat example shows that that specific interpretation does not relate very well. So, use another interpretation which does a better job. They exist. 

In any case, it is not about reality but only about how to interpret QM without getting absurd results.

And we're back to the question of, what is a paradox?

And how is a paradox possible?