11–20 of 57 posts
PS: This scientist seems to be exponentiating incorrectly. In ten years he'll have 32-ish times as much processing power; he needs 10 million times as much to get to the level of the entire brain.
Things like that make me think it's time to make Asimov's Three Laws* a legal requirement. * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics
Things like that make me think it's time to make Asimov's Three Laws* a legal requirement. * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics
Asimov's Three Laws are a plot device, not an actual workable system for machine ethics. This is a very very important area for further research.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Asimov's Three Laws are a plot device, not an actual workable system for machine ethics. This is a very very important area for further research.
They are a very good foundation for a workable system for machine ethics.
Why am I the only person who's terrified rather than excited by every new incremental progression of AI? Do you guys actually look forward to the day when humans are made obsolete? PS: This scientist seems to be exponentiating incorrectly. In ten years he'll have 32-ish times as much processing power; he needs 10 million times as much to get to the level of the entire brain.
Most of the time when people ask about "obsolete humans" in context of AI, they really mean "programmers" or "doctors" or whatever. Yes, it might. It simply means that there are professions to be invented that will be to programmers as programmers are to janitors today.
Why am I the only person who's terrified rather than excited by every new incremental progression of AI? Do you guys actually look forward to the day when humans are made obsolete? PS: This scientist seems to be exponentiating incorrectly. In ten years he'll have 32-ish times as much processing power; he needs 10 million times as much to get to the level of the entire brain.
Not so long ago many people said a computer could not beat a grandmaster at chess without being intelligent. Enter Big Blue. Others have stated computers will never compose music that is emotionally meaningful to humans without being intelligent. Enter Experiments in Musical Intelligence and other widely-acclaimed composition programs.
Until the Turing test is passed people will be able to plausibly deny any advances in artificial intelligence. No matter how advanced such "brain in a box" models becomes, they won't pass the Turing test without being embedded in a rich environment with which they can interact.
Why am I the only person who's terrified rather than excited by every new incremental progression of AI? Do you guys actually look forward to the day when humans are made obsolete? PS: This scientist seems to be exponentiating incorrectly. In ten years he'll have 32-ish times as much processing power; he needs 10 million times as much to get to the level of the entire brain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Asimov's Three Laws are a plot device, not an actual workable system for machine ethics. This is a very very important area for further research.
They are a very good foundation for a workable system for machine ethics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt it. Our modeling capabilities continue to develop much faster than our knowledge of how the brain works. Of course, neural network modeling can still be of great use. Since we've more or less figured out how the brain does a variety of low-level processing tasks (like coordinating muscle movements, finding the visual depth and texture of observed surfaces, etc.), this knowledge can serve as a starting point f…
I think it's entirely possible we'll develop general AI without understanding consciousness or even some of the other functions of the brain.