What is your take on it?
Do you think the true artificial intelligence will be possible someday?
Some bitch ass robot attack me I'll pour water on that motherfucker and watch his ass burn.
Hank wants more madness
I doubt we will ever create "true" artificial intelligence until we discover all of the secrets behind our own intellect. It seems logical that this should be a prerequisite before creating a being with true intelligence.
I was formerly known as "Jedi-Master."
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."--Dr. Seuss
At 2/23/11 11:05 PM, Jedi-Master wrote: I doubt we will ever create "true" artificial intelligence until we discover all of the secrets behind our own intellect. It seems logical that this should be a prerequisite before creating a being with true intelligence.
I agree, but scientist have already mapped parts of the brain and how they function, so we are not too far off.
At 2/23/11 11:08 PM, CalvinGodly wrote: I agree, but scientist have already mapped parts of the brain and how they function, so we are not too far off.
I watched a documentary a few years back, and at the time, they stated that artificial intelligence was at the level of a "retarded cockroach". So, maybe we're at a "retarded ant" now.
At 2/23/11 11:05 PM, Jedi-Master wrote: I doubt we will ever create "true" artificial intelligence until we discover all of the secrets behind our own intellect. It seems logical that this should be a prerequisite before creating a being with true intelligence.
No, not really.
In theory, one can simulate every neuron in a human nervous system and all its inputs, and if even that is insufficient one could theoretically simulate every protein complex, ATP molecule, neurotransmitter, et cetera, right down to the atomic level, with a large enough computer. Since that simulation would be functionally equivalent to a real human brain, it would be a faithful simulation of human consciousness, i.e. strong AI.
In practice, however, I doubt you would need to; all you would need to do is simulate the various neural pathways that regulate human thought processes, maybe insert a few advanced pattern recognition algorithms, teach it to understand language, et cetera -- and voilà, you have an AI that can at least pass the Turing test.
I don't know. I think we might be able to someday but I think it's pretty far off still. And I mean that we'll probably be long dead before it rolls around, but hey, It would be interesting to be proven wrong.
Always links to my most recent track :D
At 2/23/11 11:11 PM, Narcissy wrote:At 2/23/11 11:08 PM, CalvinGodly wrote: I agree, but scientist have already mapped parts of the brain and how they function, so we are not too far off.I watched a documentary a few years back, and at the time, they stated that artificial intelligence was at the level of a "retarded cockroach". So, maybe we're at a "retarded ant" now.
Yeah, with A.I. now, we have to program them to do everything, how to respond to everything, and to react to everything.
Hopefully we make it that A.I. will learn for it's self.
Back in the 50's or so, people thought with the way that technology was exploding that we'd have robots that could communicate like humans in about twenty years. 1970 came and we realized that it is much more difficult than it seems. Computers are good at computation/math. Language is one barrier that computers still fail to comprehend as well as human emotion and logic.
In very recent news, the IBM computer, Watson, that beat two of the best Jeopardy players last week is a good start in the right direction. Being able to understand the puns, jokes, and subtleties of a Jeopardy question is a massive learning curve for computers.
So not impossible, but we still have lots of work to do.
At 2/23/11 11:14 PM, LaForge wrote: A.I. already exists. Ever heard of Marine Blue? It's a chess playing robot that's beaten those considered masters of the game.
Besides that, you have automatic vacuum cleaners, video game A.I., and you could consider the internet to be one huge A.I., because it accesses vast amounts of information and streams it, filtered down, directly to the user.
Also the movie Artificial Intelligence is pretty good.
That isn't true A.I. True artificial inteligence is a machine that has the ability to reason and find solutions to situations that are not in it's origional parameters to solve, and to learn from it's mistakes.
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things: Of shoes and ships and sealing-wax. Of cabbages and kings!"
I do realize that we would have to program some part of it, but it would be great to let it go and it form a personality on its own.
At 2/23/11 11:22 PM, LaForge wrote:At 2/23/11 11:18 PM, zalecot wrote: That isn't true A.I. True artificial inteligence is a machine that has the ability to reason and find solutions to situations that are not in it's origional parameters to solve, and to learn from it's mistakes.It all depends on how you look at it. You've described the ultimate form of A.I., one that matches our own human intellect. But it does take intelligence (memorization of vast amounts of ways to move chess pieces strategically) to win a chess game, and in my book that's artificial intelligence.
Well, that isn't inteligence. Programming as we do it now is like the flow of water. We dig the ditches that the water can run through, and while we can make it so that that under certain circumstances it can flow down other ditches they will always be ditches that we have dug. In my eyes what artificial inteligence is when the machine will be able to dig it's own ditches.
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things: Of shoes and ships and sealing-wax. Of cabbages and kings!"
With the level of competence the worlds most "brilliant minds" have I hope not and highly doubt it. They can barely manage maintaining the crap technology we have now.
Thread killer and proud of it :)
At 2/23/11 11:28 PM, Mo-ni wrote: With the level of competence the worlds most "brilliant minds" have I hope not and highly doubt it. They can barely manage maintaining the crap technology we have now.
What I love about this post is how you don't even qualify the claim that "our technology" is crap.
At 2/23/11 11:22 PM, LaForge wrote:At 2/23/11 11:18 PM, zalecot wrote: That isn't true A.I. True artificial inteligence is a machine that has the ability to reason and find solutions to situations that are not in it's origional parameters to solve, and to learn from it's mistakes.It all depends on how you look at it. You've described the ultimate form of A.I., one that matches our own human intellect. But it does take intelligence (memorization of vast amounts of ways to move chess pieces strategically) to win a chess game, and in my book that's artificial intelligence.
Chess can be translated into mathematical calculations pretty easily which is what computers are great at understanding.
Understanding human logic and reasoning and language is probably the farthest from math you can get, which is something a computer will certainly struggle with.
At 2/23/11 11:35 PM, LaForge wrote:At 2/23/11 11:26 PM, zalecot wrote: Well, that isn't inteligence. Programming as we do it now is like the flow of water. We dig the ditches that the water can run through, and while we can make it so that that under certain circumstances it can flow down other ditches they will always be ditches that we have dug. In my eyes what artificial inteligence is when the machine will be able to dig it's own ditches.I'm sure you've heard of Asimo. This little Japanese delight can recognize objects, learn new ones, identify facial expressions and respond to them. In my book, the ability to learn is the ability to dig the metaphorical ditches.
No, the metaphorical water is still traveling down the metaphorical ditches to simply record the data. All Asimo does is download data in an extremely inefficent way. The water is still running down the paths the people have programmed in order to covert and record the data. There are no "new ditches" being built in order to apply the data that is recorded onto situations that the machine was not originally programmed to encounter.
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things: Of shoes and ships and sealing-wax. Of cabbages and kings!"
At 2/23/11 11:31 PM, KemCab wrote:
What I love about this post is how you don't even qualify the claim that "our technology" is crap.
Clearly I do not think that ALL technology is crap. I don't have to think everything that is suppose to be technologically advance is actually what it claims to be. Most of the things that are cutting edge is 3-4 generation or later because first generation of anything new has so many problems after years of testing and researching is fucking CRAP. So yeah, I do not feel in this current state of technological advancement that a AI in its truest sense can not and will never be created.
Thread killer and proud of it :)
At 2/23/11 11:51 PM, LaForge wrote: It's obvious that artificial intelligence cannot exist if man doesn't make it. In your own terms, define the way a system breaks away from it's creator and becomes true A.I.
In your own terms, explain why I should care enough to explain anything to you
Thread killer and proud of it :)
At 2/23/11 11:51 PM, LaForge wrote: It's obvious that artificial intelligence cannot exist if man doesn't make it. In your own terms, define the way a system breaks away from it's creator and becomes true A.I.
That's the point. I can't or I would have invented artifical intelligence.
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things: Of shoes and ships and sealing-wax. Of cabbages and kings!"
I don't think it's possible to just program artificial intelligence, at least not with our current means of creating artificial intelligence. We're capable of creating artificial intelligence that work with very specific functions in mind, but figuring out a way for artificial intelligence to handle all the infinite possibilities that it could run into is the holy grail. I think the best bet would be to create a blank slate that's able to learn like a human would and in essence could create its own intelligence, but that has its own world of troubles to contend with.
Where's that confounded bridge?
At 2/23/11 11:40 PM, Mo-ni wrote: Clearly I do not think that ALL technology is crap.
... and I'm certainly not thinking that all American food sucks when I say "American food sucks." It is a generalization, an abstraction of the concept of "American food." In your case, I am assuming you are referring to most technology, not all.
I don't have to think everything that is suppose to be technologically advance is actually what it claims to be. Most of the things that are cutting edge is 3-4 generation or later because first generation of anything new has so many problems after years of testing and researching is fucking CRAP.
This makes no sense. The sentences aren't not even logically coherent or grammatically correct for Christ's sake. What kind of technology? What's wrong with it? You didn't clarify anything at all.
At 2/23/11 11:59 PM, KemCab wrote: This makes no sense. The sentences aren't not even logically coherent or grammatically correct for Christ's sake. What kind of technology? What's wrong with it? You didn't clarify anything at all.
I guess he's assuming that the kind of development that goes into projects that are done purely for scientific advancement is analogous to the kind of development that goes into, let's say, an Xbox.
Where's that confounded bridge?
At 2/23/11 11:18 PM, zalecot wrote: That isn't true A.I. True artificial inteligence is a machine that has the ability to reason and find solutions to situations that are not in it's origional parameters to solve, and to learn from it's mistakes.
That is not possible. You are asking for a human construct to step outside of its given bounds and purpose entirely of its own accord. Even if we were to design a machine that could reason in different situations it is still governed by human rule.
At 2/23/11 11:59 PM, KemCab wrote:
... and I'm certainly not thinking that all American food sucks when I say "American food sucks." It is a generalization, an abstraction of the concept of "American food." In your case, I am assuming you are referring to most technology, not all.
How you choose to interpret what I said is a personal problem. Yes, I am being general because there is a lot of shitty technology in different categories. I shouldn't have to give you an example but since clearly you lack the ability to think without someone holding your hand here you go:
Example: Some cars have a wireless remote that opens the car doors BUT if the battery dies the person have no way of knowing WHEN the battery will die and no other alternative ways to open the door because there is no place to put the key to manually open the car. I suppose people can avoid that by carrying around extra batteries and a mini screwdriver to open the thing up and replace the battery.
Example 2: The breathalyzers that many multiple DUI s must use is programed in such a retarded way its just laughable. Instead of having you breathe into something attached near the steering wheel at the top of it when you are in PARK and the car is NOT mobile, the thing will ask you to do the test WHILE DRIVING...does NOT give one enough time to pull over to do the test. If you take to long to breathe into it..the fuckign DRIVING CAR IN TRAFFIC shuts OFF, putting YOU in danger as well as other drivers.
SO yes much of things today is crap. IF you think i need to list all crappy technology out there, then you my friend are out of your fucking mind.
This makes no sense. The sentences aren't not even logically coherent or grammatically correct for Christ's sake. What kind of technology? What's wrong with it? You didn't clarify anything at all.
I honestly don't care enough to be grammatically correct. What i said was pretty clear. It may not be up to part structually with half the English majors on newgrounds but guess what...THIS isn't a paper and you aren't my teacher. Even though I have grammar errors in this sentence I know enough that aren't is ARE NOT! The fact that you just added not after aren't means that what i said WAS coherent. If you are going to try and try and belittle how I choose to type then maybe you should follow all the rules. If you can't come up with a decent rebuttal to what I said then don't say anything. Resorting to attaching my English is pathetic and a douche move on your part. Half the people on this site type in such ways that I feel like my brain will implode but I dont LIE and say their shit is impossible to understand.
Thread killer and proud of it :)
Full A.I? It sounds scary because it would be. All these movies about robots going bad might be a little overkill but it certainly seems likely that something given the intelligence of humans but not actually human would go against it's 'master'.
We should just stop trying to meddle with life sometimes.
[I've been wandering round but I still come back to you]
At 2/24/11 12:11 AM, GiantDouche wrote:At 2/23/11 11:18 PM, zalecot wrote: That isn't true A.I. True artificial inteligence is a machine that has the ability to reason and find solutions to situations that are not in it's origional parameters to solve, and to learn from it's mistakes.That is not possible. You are asking for a human construct to step outside of its given bounds and purpose entirely of its own accord. Even if we were to design a machine that could reason in different situations it is still governed by human rule.
That is why the creation of true A.I. is impossible. We can create an illusion of it using suffisticaated enough system or "ditches" as I previously described them, but there will always be limits to the machine's ability to expand. At a point it will reach the outer edge of what it's programing allows it to do, and not be able to function outside these parameters.
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things: Of shoes and ships and sealing-wax. Of cabbages and kings!"
At 2/24/11 12:21 AM, zalecot wrote: That is why the creation of true A.I. is impossible. We can create an illusion of it using suffisticaated enough system or "ditches" as I previously described them, but there will always be limits to the machine's ability to expand. At a point it will reach the outer edge of what it's programing allows it to do, and not be able to function outside these parameters.
Idk I don't like to think in absolutes about subjects like these. Who are we to know that things won't be completely different 500 years from now?
At 2/24/11 12:31 AM, GiantDouche wrote:
Idk I don't like to think in absolutes about subjects like these. Who are we to know that things won't be completely different 500 years from now?
Who knows if we will even be using computers by that point? I suspect we will have moved onto to a form of bio-technology in order to cirvumvent the entire issue. Though such views can't be given much merit because it is simply my opinion.
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things: Of shoes and ships and sealing-wax. Of cabbages and kings!"
At 2/24/11 12:13 AM, Mo-ni wrote: How you choose to interpret what I said is a personal problem. Yes, I am being general because there is a lot of shitty technology in different categories.
You were making a wide generalization without giving any explanation for it whatsoever. It's only natural that someone challenge it.
I shouldn't have to give you an example but since clearly you lack the ability to think without someone holding your hand
Wow, that's really dumb reasoning. If it were just a personal opinion I would have paid no attention, but basically the logic of your post was, "technology sucks therefore AI will never develop," i.e. nonsensical.
Example: Some cars have a wireless remote that opens the car doors BUT if the battery dies the person have no way of knowing WHEN the battery will die and no other alternative ways to open the door because there is no place to put the key to manually open the car.
That's just called terrible design and has nothing to do with artificial intelligence. People who would design a car that does not have a key to manually open the door are TERRIBLE ENGINEERS. When designing any sort of device, one thing you always need is REDUNDANCY. Even if the remote can open the door it makes no sense whatsoever not to have a key... especially since the battery can fail.
There is no practical reason NOT to have a key, and the only reason anyone would ever think about making a car like that is to impress the consumer by trying to make the car look futuristic.
I suppose people can avoid that by carrying around extra batteries and a mini screwdriver to open the thing up and replace the battery.
Or how about by just not buying a car like that lol.
Example 2: The breathalyzers that many multiple DUI s must use is programed in such a retarded way its just laughable. Instead of having you breathe into something attached near the steering wheel at the top of it when you are in PARK and the car is NOT mobile, the thing will ask you to do the test WHILE DRIVING...
Again, that's probably because the engineers who designed the breathalyser in question were probably idiots.
does NOT give one enough time to pull over to do the test. If you take to long to breathe into it..the fuckign DRIVING CAR IN TRAFFIC shuts OFF, putting YOU in danger as well as other drivers.
How long could it take to breathe into a little device?
SO yes much of things today is crap.
You gave me TWO examples of things that aren't even mainstream consumer products. Neither of them have to do with AI.
I honestly don't care enough to be grammatically correct. What i said was pretty clear.
Well, you said, "I don't have to think everything that is suppose to be technologically advance is actually what it claims to be. " Which makes no sense because I have no idea what you're referring to, nor do I have any idea of what "it claims to be," either. And of course you "don't have to think" everything that is supposed to be technologically advanced is as technologically advanced as it seems -- you don't "have to" think anything at all. You just think.
So considering that I could probably spend a paragraph breaking down that one sentence for all its logical inconsistencies, I'd say it wasn't pretty clear.
It may not be up to part structually with half the English majors on newgrounds but guess what...THIS isn't a paper and you aren't my teacher.
I'm not even an English major lol.
The fact that you just added not after aren't means that what i said WAS coherent.
Oh, my bad, my eyes must have glazed over after trying to read your sentence. I forgot about that not there. I was initially going to say "are not" but instead I decided to go with the contraction "aren't" instead. Typos happen, whatever. It doesn't make my sentences illegible.
If you are going to try and try and belittle how I choose to type then maybe you should follow all the rules. If you can't come up with a decent rebuttal to what I said then don't say anything. Resorting to attaching my English is pathetic and a douche move on your part.
I usually don't call people out on this, but when I do it's because it's so unreadable that I have difficulty making sense of it on the first read-through. Normally I just ignore it. For example, "everything that is suppose to be technologically advance" is a minor error because I can actually understand what you meant to say. I don't care about that. But the other parts of the sentence I have to read twice.
When grammar is that bad, I could still probably make sense of it if I really tried, but it's like having a large wrench into thrown into my flow of thought. I could also add that you weren't even really saying anything in those two sentences, too. The first part is a redundant construction and the last part makes no sense because nobody is "claiming" technology to be all that advanced in the first place. You don't even define what "advanced" is, so I can't even use it as a reference point.
Petty grammar rules aside, the sentence doesn't make any logical sense. The only thing it does is express unqualified doubt about modern technology.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
