Artificial Intelligence

[MolecularMan14]

What is ALI? Some independent AI project? What sort of feedback would you need on it/ Is anyone else confused, or did I just miss a post or something?

I would strongly suggest talking to an expert on the topic of the thread. Finding the most qualified professional would be the best option.

[Guest lordroho]

Think Hal...you know the computer in 2001..now think a million times smarter..Computers control many things and with more advanced A I's the sky's the limit.

It scares me because it only takes one person to misuse the technology then we will all be screwed,but hopefully I'll be maggot bait by then..

[reverse]

Oh sorry, Ali is short for ALICE.

 

AIML type, by Dr Wallace.

[Spyman]

My Vote: Yes, but not within my lifetime.

 

Thats leaves a really looong time for us to develop anything we want.

[Kylonicus]

In about 22.5 years(supposing the downward limit on computer chips doesn't impede us), we should have computers with enough processing power to equal a human brain(actually more!). With that kind of processing power, it will be concievable to build AI.

 

The software problem?

 

The software problem I think could be taken care of by "guided" neural networks. Basically, neural networks that have their possibilities limited in such a fashion that it increases the likelyhood of them forming the right connections. Also, a "guiding" program that was evolved from a neural network could help form more efficient pathways faster. First we develop the program that allows for rapid self-programming, then we work on the AI program.

 

However, even if we do use neural networks to evolve into a progressively faster, self-programming AI, and even if we "guide" the neural networks, without sufficient processing power, it's pretty much a doomed effort.

 

However, soon we will have sufficient processing power, and I look forward to when they will have artificial wives.

[MineralMan]

you cant create something more clever than you' date=' if it is based on your brain!!!!!

[/quote']

 

*I strongly disagree with this statement, and I'll tell you why.

 

EXAMPLE:

- Let's say that a robot was being programmed, and AS YOU SAID, it's being programmed "based on our own brain." NOW let's say that what we're programming into the robot is the knowledge of an auto mechanic. (We're making a robot that can fix cars...) - If we were to take 20 of the best mechanics in the world, and have them take tests that would later be transfered into data that could be programmed into the robot... the robot would have the now have the knowledge of 20 extraordinary mechanics.

 

Now...

 

- Let's say that the robot was released to the public, and every family in the world was buying thier own Car Fixing Bot. I think it's safe to say that THIS robot would be more clever than any of the mechanics who gave it knowledge, because it's performing the tips-tricks-and shortcuts that ALL of the mechanics combined didn't know individually. Therefore... the robot has the knowledge of 20 mechanics, thus making it smarter than a human mechanic. On top of that, based on the speed of the robot - it would also most likely be able to do the physical labor of the car work faster as well... again, making it more efficient than the humans who enlightened it.

[TheGeek]

I know it is posible but not in my lifetime.

[calbiterol]

EXAMPLE:

- Let's say that a robot was being programmed' date=' and AS YOU SAID, it's being programmed "based on our own brain." NOW let's say that what we're programming into the robot is the knowledge of an auto mechanic. (We're making a robot that can fix cars...) - If we were to take 20 of the best mechanics in the world, and have them take tests that would later be transfered into data that could be programmed into the robot... the robot would have the now have the knowledge of 20 extraordinary mechanics.

 

Now...

 

- Let's say that the robot was released to the public, and every family in the world was buying thier own Car Fixing Bot. I think it's safe to say that THIS robot would be more clever than any of the mechanics who gave it knowledge, because it's performing the tips-tricks-and shortcuts that ALL of the mechanics combined didn't know individually. Therefore... the robot has the knowledge of 20 mechanics, thus making it smarter than a human mechanic. On top of that, based on the speed of the robot - it would also most likely be able to do the physical labor of the car work faster as well... again, making it more efficient than the humans who enlightened it.[/quote']

 

Plus, if it is a true AI construct and it has the ability to learn from experience (neural networking), then it would be able to teach itself things. It might wreck a few hundred cars in the process, but it could then (in theory) know almost everything there is to know - much more than he/she/it started out with.

[TheProphet]

A such smart AI might become dangerous, since it would think like us or even more advanced and with less "feelings". Especielly if it learned that it were being used so that humans wouldn't need too work.

 

Another problem with such an AI would be that i would make that Human carmechanic out of a jobb. I belive that we don't need to take away humans jobb, but instead use robots were can't - or were it is to hazardous - go.

[Sayonara]

I don't see why it needs "feelings" to be dangerous.

[elfstone]

I don't think an advanced AI would be dangerous without feelings. If it can't feel joy, sadness, jealousy etc, I don't see how it can be dangerous. Besides, can intelligence alone account for self-awareness?

[Sayonara]

Harmful intentions do not necessarily arise from emotive decisions (even in humans), so I disagree. Even self-preservation is not an emotive drive. I don't see the question of intelligence alone being enough for AI as being relevant, since I'm not making that argument - I said that AI doesn't need "feelings" (which is in quotes because that's how you introduced it) in order to be dangerous, not that it won't have them.

[beautyundone]

^ true... without feelings, they would have no sympathy, no conscience, no guilt. so essentially, they could do anything they thought necessary without having any remorse over what happened to the people involved. because of that, i think they would be more dangerous without emotions than with.

anyone here ever seen the movie Irobot? that's what this is beginning to remind me of. that movie made some good points, though.

[TheProphet]

Weel we don't real know for shure what our "feelings" are - acording to me - so that's why i feel suspicious.

[Sayonara]

anyone here ever seen the movie Irobot? that's what this is beginning to remind me of. that movie made some good points, though.

Or, even better, read the books, which deal with this specific problem (among others) in depth.

[beautyundone]

oh really? i wasn't aware of any books on that kind of thing... i'm more of a mystery novel person, myself. but yes, by all means, if there are books, read them. (they're almost always better than movies. hah.) i was simply making a connection between the movie and the topic

[Sayonara]

Isaac Asimov. There are a few in the "Robot" series, I think all of them are anthologies of short "robot laws"-oriented stories.

 

The film is a souped-up composite of several of Asimov's stories.

[beautyundone]

awesome. i'll have to check those out sometime

thanks!

[Firedragon52]

We may one day create an A.I. that can simulate intellect, but that doesn't mean that it will be TRUE intellect...

[elfstone]

Harmful intentions do not necessarily arise from emotive decisions (even in humans), so I disagree. Even self-preservation is not an emotive drive. I don't see the question of intelligence alone being enough for AI as being relevant, since I'm not making that argument - I said that AI doesn't need[/i'] "feelings" (which is in quotes because that's how you introduced it) in order to be dangerous, not that it won't have them.

 

Totally overlooked that. Maybe cause it's such a sci-fi scenario in my head, "the unfeeling AI decides to destroy humanity because it's not useful anymore"

The question was more a wondering, didn't direct it to you specifically. I hope it's still on topic. So, what do you think, is intelligence alone enough for an AI that won't reply "This is a wrong statement. I do not even possess anything similar to the anatomy of a rectum" to "You're an asshole!"

[Daecon]

How do they program the AI of Game Sprites in software?

[Sayonara]

We may one day create an A.I. that can simulate intellect, but that doesn't mean that it will be TRUE[/b'] intellect...

That's why it's called "artificial"...?

 

How do they program the AI of Game Sprites in software?

Responses to pre-determined triggers, which can be selected based on another set of triggers. It's not real AI - it's the program making decisions based on the intelligence of the designer.

[Kedas]

It is called "artificial" because we completely understand its being.

[[Tycho?]]

It is called "artificial" because we completely understand its being.

 

...no. Something is artificial if humans make it. The opposite of natural.

[Newtonian]

More academically intelligent yes ,but not smarter.

Because its pre-programmed it must have purpose(perform a task).Otherwise it would end up as neurotic as us asking itself WHY???