• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Artificial Intelligence thinks mushroom is a pretzel

Roboramma said:
Agreed. Did you notice this part of my post:



I tend to think that computers will be capable of thought because I think human brains are turing machines. But I agree with you that that's not yet clear: we need to learn more about brains before that is demonstrated. That doesn't mean that we won't be able to build systems that function in the same way as human brains though, but it may mean that thinking machines are further off than many of us think.

Do you disagree with that?
Click to expand...

Yes, I still disagree. Whatever machines end up capable of doing it won't be thought.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Yes, I still disagree. Whatever machines end up capable of doing it won't be thought.
Click to expand...

I think it depends on your definition of the word "thought". If you define "thought" as something going on in a functioning organic brain, then the whole discussion is oxymoronic, because by definition machines are then incapable of thinking.

Dave
 
TragicMonkey said:
Scroll up, it's what I've been arguing from the beginning!
Click to expand...

You argued that computers wouldn’t be capable of thought. I said I think that’s a valid viewpoint. You are now saying that you think that no machine could be capable of thought and if you think you’ve already made that case, well I’d appreciate it if you restated it, because I really don’t think you have.
 
Dave Rogers said:
I think it depends on your definition of the word "thought". If you define "thought" as something going on in a functioning organic brain, then the whole discussion is oxymoronic, because by definition machines are then incapable of thinking.

Dave
Click to expand...

That would be a weird definition though. If I define thought as something going on in my brain, then by definition you're not thinking. But I don't think that definition is what anyone means by thought. It's possible that TM has a good reason for thinking that no machine could ever be built that could be capable of thought. But I think if a machine were built that was having the same sort of conscious experience that he is having, he would consider it to be thinking, even if it didn't have a mother and father.

At least as far as I can tell he thinks that's impossible, not that we are defining thought differently from him.
 
Roboramma said:
That would be a weird definition though. If I define thought as something going on in my brain, then by definition you're not thinking. But I don't think that definition is what anyone means by thought. It's possible that TM has a good reason for thinking that no machine could ever be built that could be capable of thought. But I think if a machine were built that was having the same sort of conscious experience that he is having, he would consider it to be thinking, even if it didn't have a mother and father.

At least as far as I can tell he thinks that's impossible, not that we are defining thought differently from him.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I'm not sure how anyone in this thread is defining "thought." What is its definition?

Dave
 
TragicMonkey said:
I disagree. A person is more than a sum of their parts.







I agree.







No, it wouldn't. A copy is not the original.







Nope. Still a copy.







The body, fine. The brain, nope. You don't have to believe in a soul to believe a person ceases to be when they lose their brain, or that a copy of a brain is not the same individual as the original.



You're basically arguing that if I had a clever enough Xerox machine you'd be okay with me murdering you, so long as another individual existed afterward who was sufficiently similar to you. The copy wouldn't be you. You'd be a separate person, who is dead.
Click to expand...
This has come up before and I think it raises an interesting point. You are right any copy of me is not me, however if I was copied in my sleep and we both woke up in a room that was identical to the one we went to sleep in neither the copy nor me would be able to tell who was the original.

Where I think you are mistaken in your reasoning is that does not mean we would be happy with either of us being killed, after the point of copying we are two individuals that will start to diverge from the moment we are copies.

This usually comes up in regards to a thought experiment about teleportation and if it was destructive scan would you enter it, I wouldn't because the reconstructed person isn't me. But I do think that if we did ever invent such a thing we'd all as a society ignore that pretty quickly, it's amazing what we will overlook for the convenience.
 
Darat said:
This has come up before and I think it raises an interesting point. You are right any copy of me is not me, however if I was copied in my sleep and we both woke up in a room that was identical to the one we went to sleep in neither the copy nor me would be able to tell who was the original.

Where I think you are mistaken in your reasoning is that does not mean we would be happy with either of us being killed, after the point of copying we are two individuals that will start to diverge from the moment we are copies.

This usually comes up in regards to a thought experiment about teleportation and if it was destructive scan would you enter it, I wouldn't because the reconstructed person isn't me. But I do think that if we did ever invent such a thing we'd all as a society ignore that pretty quickly, it's amazing what we will overlook for the convenience.
Click to expand...

If Everett was right, you are being copied countless times every second (I recently heard a simple estimate of a minimum of 25000 given the 5000 nuclear decays happening in your body every second). All of those future copies are you, but they aren't each other. They share an identity with each other in the past, but not in the future (or present, after the branching).

I will become multitudes.
 
Roboramma said:
If Everett was right, you are being copied countless times every second (I recently heard a simple estimate of a minimum of 25000 given the 5000 nuclear decays happening in your body every second). All of those future copies are you, but they aren't each other. They share an identity with each other in the past, but not in the future (or present, after the branching).

I will become multitudes.
Click to expand...

Apocatastasis. That's the theory that the universe will end, then trigger a new universe starting, exactly like the old one. Constant apocatastasis is the theory that this happens all the time, not just after a universe's lifespan from big bang to heat death. Every nanosecond (or whatever teeny tiny bit of time) the entire cosmos and everything in it is destroyed then rebuilt, and we can't even perceive it. If true then not only is every individual multitudes but so is literally everything!
 
Well, I was talking about the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, but that sounds cool too.
 
Roboramma said:
Well, I was talking about the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, but that sounds cool too.
Click to expand...

If there are many worlds maybe that's how it works: the universe is destroyed every instant and replaced by multiple universes each time, to reflect every possible outcome of every action.
 
Apparently identifying mushrooms is a thing. My nephew is a rock star AI developer. (He was even sought out by Musk to impart wisdom.) One of his early student projects was a program that identified mushrooms within a picture.
 
varwoche said:
Apparently identifying mushrooms is a thing. My nephew is a rock star AI developer. (He was even sought out by Musk to impart wisdom.) One of his early student projects was a program that identified mushrooms within a picture.
Click to expand...

Having read the news stories about Musk, I'm not the least surprised to find out he's heavily involved with mushrooms.
 
A Breakthrough for A.I. Technology: Passing an 8th-Grade Science Test

The New York Times said:
Four years ago, more than 700 computer scientists competed in a contest to build artificial intelligence that could pass an eighth-grade science test. There was $80,000 in prize money on the line.

They all flunked. Even the most sophisticated system couldn’t do better than 60 percent on the test. A.I. couldn’t match the language and logic skills that students are expected to have when they enter high school.

But on Wednesday, the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence, a prominent lab in Seattle, unveiled a new system that passed the test with room to spare. It correctly answered more than 90 percent of the questions on an eighth-grade science test and more than 80 percent on a 12th-grade exam.

The system, called Aristo, is an indication that in just the past several months researchers have made significant progress in developing A.I. that can understand languages and mimic the logic and decision-making of humans.

The world’s top research labs are rapidly improving a machine’s ability to understand and respond to natural language. Machines are getting better at analyzing documents, finding information, answering questions and even generating language of their own.

Aristo was built solely for multiple-choice tests. It took standard exams written for students in New York, though the Allen Institute removed all questions that included pictures and diagrams. Answering questions like that would have required additional skills that combine language understanding and logic with so-called computer vision...
Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/technology/artificial-intelligence-aristo-passed-test.html
 
arthwollipot said:
In other words, when we build a machine to perform a specific task, it can perform that task.
Click to expand...
That is not some kind of universal truism from our own experience.

We have built machines to perform the specific task of providing "free energy". They did not perform the task.

We have also built flapping airplanes to perform the specific task of flying with us on board. They did not perform the task.
 
William Parcher said:
That is not some kind of universal truism from our own experience.
Click to expand...
True. Very few of the things I have built perform the task adequately. But that's just because I'm not very good at building things.

William Parcher said:
We have built machines to perform the specific task of providing "free energy". They did not perform the task.
Click to expand...
"Free energy" is not an achievable task by any means, so it's not surprising that the machines people build for it don't work.

William Parcher said:
We have also built flapping airplanes to perform the specific task of flying with us on board. They did not perform the task.
Click to expand...
This was also not an achievable task so again it's not that surprising that the machines people build for it don't work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom