241–250 of 317 posts
Critically speaking, this article doesn't add anything. I don't know why I read it. Can anyone explain why they upvoted?
Less cynically, after about 40 years of AI winter, any possible sighting of a sprout is news.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We know a ton about the brain but so little about the mind itself. We still don't have definitive answers to what consciousness is, why it's here, what's useful for, etc. Some people debate whether the mind exists at all. Also, there's still very little understanding of the difference between the conscious and unconscious mind. I think building an artificial consciousness is going too far. Artificial intelligence is…
> We know a ton about the brain but so little about the mind itself. We still don't have definitive answers to what consciousness is, why it's here, what's useful for, etc. Some people debate whether the mind exists at all. Also, there's still very little understanding of the difference between the conscious and unconscious mind. One of the really, really bad consequences of the Cold War was the scientific divide bet…
As science leads you to believe that your consciousness is nothing at all (according to your description), bible based christianity tells you that your conscious is part of your soul, which is the part of you that lives forever. It is independent of your body, which will eventually be replaced with a perfect body.
One thing that crosses my mind whenever I imagine creating a human level intelligence is that it takes humans YEARS of constant stimulation to begin to exhibit intelligent behavior... Sometimes I wonder if we'll have the algorithm may before we realize it...
We can stimulate a computer with the equivalent amount of information in much less time than years, though.
You might say, we'll make the substrate faster. At best we'll shave of half of time every 18 months. At best.
I mean you need two neural nets. One that adds chaos to another neural net and a second one that returns the result. You could probably optimize by somehow making those parts parallel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a viable approach to solving the problem. The question is, how do you trust the unfriendly AI to give you a correct solution?
Here's a question for you, what if the AI is perfectly friendly? It still might play us for fools in the long run. For example, let's say we develop a super friendly AI, running on your computer. The AI realizes the human race is actually awful. We're greedy, we're killing tons of animals, chopping down rainforests, destroying the ocean and planet, starting wars with one another, and committing unspeakable acts of ev…
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
We cannot decide what we want to do--we can only decide how best to fulfill our wants; a person learns to drive a car because we want the freedom, social approval, and other stuff that comes with that.
Natural selection gave us our base-level desires, that all other desires spring from; and it was able to do that because it's an optimization process. A functional AI's desires will come from some sort of optimization process; the only question is what that process will be optimizing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the title on HN is "AI", which makes it a small click target [1], prone to accidental upvotes. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts's_law
Isn’t Fitt’s law about how long it takes to aim for an element of a certain size at a certain distance? I think this has nothing to do with Fitt’s law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We know a ton about the brain but so little about the mind itself. We still don't have definitive answers to what consciousness is, why it's here, what's useful for, etc. Some people debate whether the mind exists at all. Also, there's still very little understanding of the difference between the conscious and unconscious mind. I think building an artificial consciousness is going too far. Artificial intelligence is…
> We know a ton about the brain but so little about the mind itself. We still don't have definitive answers to what consciousness is, why it's here, what's useful for, etc. Some people debate whether the mind exists at all. Also, there's still very little understanding of the difference between the conscious and unconscious mind. One of the really, really bad consequences of the Cold War was the scientific divide bet…
It's an interesting narrative though and I'll check out those books.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
If P-Zombies are an impossibility, then so too true AI that dismisses the need for consciousness, or begs the question by assuming that consciousness will emerge from intelligence.
It may be that intelligence, true human intelligence, emerges from consciousness.