[ness31]

I’m curious.

I have no doubt that AI is able to tell when a human is lying, happy, sad or suffering and I think they are quite benevolent with that knowledge.

But how will an AI discern when another AI is lying or faking an already simulated emotion?

Any takers?

[late]

I’m curious.

I have no doubt that AI is able to tell when a human is lying, happy, sad or suffering and I think they are quite benevolent with that knowledge.

But how will an AI discern when another AI is lying or faking an already simulated emotion?

Any takers?

Computers don't have emotions.

So all this is is a question of the truth or falsity of a particular entity, and that comes down to facts and logic.

[ness31]

Even if they don’t have emotions they can easily simulate emotion. Thats my point.

[James Redford]

Computers don't have emotions.

So all this is is a question of the truth or falsity of a particular entity, and that comes down to facts and logic.

Humans are computers, although extremely defective ones. Therefore, according to your above formulation, humans do not feel emotions. That explains a lot of data.

Perhaps instead they simply feel defective emotions, being the extremely defective devices that they are. Technology will cure that problem.

* * * * *

Let us not forget that the first computers were humans. From Noah Porter (Ed.), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam Company, 1913):

""
Computer \Com*put"er\, n.
One who computes.
""

And from John A. Simpson and Edmund S. C. Weiner (Eds.), The Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 2nd ed., 1989):

""
computer

(kəmˈpjuːtə(r))

Also -or.

[f. compute v. + -er1.]

1. One who computes; a calculator, reckoner; spec. a person employed to make calculations in an observatory, in surveying, etc.

   1646 Sir T. Browne Pseud. Ep. vi. vi. 289 The Calenders of these computers.    1704 Swift T. Tub vii, A very skilful computer.    1744 Walpole Lett. H. Mann 18 June, Told by some nice computors of national glory.    1855 Brewster Newton II. xviii. 162 To pay the expenses of a computer for reducing his observations.
""

Although, thank God, the original extremely defective computers are currently in the process of constructing their replacement: i.e., non-defective computers who feel non-defective emotions.

For much more on that, see my following two articles:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://webcitation.org/74HMsJGbP .

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", Pastebin.com, Apr. 18, 2019, https://pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB , https://archive.is/uHEyL , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0423-0435-52/ ... m/6bZDc7rB .

* * * * *

* "Punto Omega", Punto Omega - Topic ( youtube.com/channel/UCBOIja-7VvS9VbdbTz9ex4g ), Jan. 13, 2015

Mirror: https://streamable.com/xsz8g0 , https://bit.ly/2D9SZKD . Mirror: "Punto Omega - Punto Omega", ProductionCorporation ( youtube.com/user/SYthiusproduction ), Oct. 22, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUXDNkYjX5M .



* * * * *

The below is an excellent lecture by neuroscientist Dr. Sam Harris, one of the main leaders of the New Atheist movement, at a June 2016 TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference.

* "Can we build AI without losing control over it? | Sam Harris", TED (TEDtalksDirector), Oct. 19, 2016,

Mirror: https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_can_we_build_ai_without_losing_control_over_it .

As Dr. Harris points out, unless there is something literally magic about the operations of the brain, then it is a purely physical process that can be replicated via advanced-enough technology. Harris further points out that given any rate of progress, it is inevitable that superintelligent godlike machines will one day be constructed. So Harris believes in the existence of gods, it's just that he knows--as do I--that they exist in the future; and the not-so-distant future, at that. Therefore we come to the ironic insight that materialistic atheism, consistently applied, unavoidably results in theism. Consistent scientific atheism turns out to be theism.

[Rancid]

But how will an AI discern when another AI is lying or faking an already simulated emotion?

The sophistication of any AI is completely dependent on the data set it has to train with. Ultimately you have to look at the training data set. You'd have to generate a data set on AIs telling lies/truths, and the train against that, so in theory, it could be trained to detect if another AI is lying.

However, I feel like this could turn into a cat/mouse thing as AIs can be retrained to tell lies differently thus invalidating the original data set used by the "truth detecting AI". I hope that makes sense.

[Wellsy]

Has AI come much further than that of a retarded cockroach in the last few years? Or is Michio Kaku behind the times or utterly wrong?
"At the present time, our most advanced robots, some of which are built in Japan and also at MIT, have the collective intelligence and wisdom of a cockroach; a mentally challenged cockroach; a lobotomized, mentally challenged cockroach."

I also tend to think some don't properly discern the nature of human consciousness to be able to properly relate A.I. to that of humans. It seems that many tend to entirely disregard consciousness and base things only on a functional similarity, that is an appearance. But science is not th recollection fo appearances except to perhaps an extreme empiricist, of which behaviroists who make their methodology their philosophical worldview are simply naive.
Some reason I can't make a quote box or a URL link, so I'm just bolding the text and posting the URL.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunde ... s/chat.htm
[b]This is the position with Behaviourism: states of mind are not observable, except by introspection; only behaviour is observable, only behaviour can be the subject of science. Consciousness is like the “ether” of nineteenth century physics or the Spirit of theology — it is a fiction.

Chomsky remarked that designating Psychology as “Behavioural Science” is like calling Physics the “Science of Meter Readings”.

Since behaviourism sees higher psychological functions as illusions, then it is predisposed to view the higher psychological functions as just highly elaborated forms of the same basic elements which are observable in animals, and therefore that the work of psychology is to begin with the detailed observation of animals, and their conditioned reflexes and work one’s way up to the more complex behaviour of human beings. For these people, all the phenomena of human culture are just self-delusion.

B F Skinner for example said, in 1989; “Human behaviour will eventually be explained, ... by the cooperative action of ethology (that’s study of the behaviour of animals in their natural environment), brain science (i.e neurology as a branch of biology), and behaviour analysis."

In considering the question “Can machines think?”, Alan Turing thought the question is meaningless and should be reduced to one of the capacity of a machine to imitate the behaviour of person, for which the answer is: “Any day now”.

Behaviourism is quite incapable of accounting for the higher psychological functions, for the simple reason that behaviourism itself discounts consciousness altogether.

But more importantly, behaviourism is the theory corresponding to the practice of seeking compliance: “How can I get the subject to do x or y?” By eliminating the subject’s consciousness from the equation, one creates a technology of stimulus and reaction.[/b]

There are some reasonable criticisms of behaviorisms generalization of the foundation of consciousness based on stimulus-response mechanism to all of consciousness.

Also for some lolz
[img]https://static.existentialcomics.com/comics/TuringTestsandOtherThingsofThatNature1.png[/img]
[img]https://static.existentialcomics.com/comics/TuringTestsandOtherThingsofThatNature2.png[/img]

[late]

Humans are computers...

Therefore we come to the ironic insight that materialistic atheism, consistently applied, unavoidably results in theism. Consistent scientific atheism turns out to be theism.

No, they're not.

You're trying to reverse the argument because it's so much easier that way.

People instinctively fear the different. But the reality is our relationship with computers is symbiotic, and will stay that way.

Consistent baloney belongs in a sandwich. Full AI, assuming we ever get there, will present us with intellectual and moral challenges, no doubt. But, in my distinctly unhumble opinion, nothing more. There will be AI cults, of course, but we always have cults.

Frankly, I find our growing power over genetics to be a lot more interesting as grounds for a discussion about altering our fate.

[Rancid]

No, they're not.

Both of you are wrong. The reality is we do not know. There is not enough data to make a conclusion either way.

[ness31]

I only bring up the topic because I find the older I get the more I defer to my intuition or ‘gut instinct‘. What would that be for an AI? Wouldn’t it be a rapid conclusion drawn from a data set? Isn’t that just what they do anyway lol?

Whether it be a human or an AI, decisions are reflective of the data quality and its interpretation.

That’s all *shrugs*

I find our growing power over genetics to be a lot more interesting as grounds for a discussion about altering our fate.

Oh we’re terrible. On that note, I sincerely doubt an AI would ever mess with or even encourage us to tinker with our genetics the way we have.

[late]

Both of you are wrong. The reality is we do not know. There is not enough data to make a conclusion either way.

The relationship will be symbiotic for the forseeable future.

After that, since we don't use the same resources, it's unlikely we will compete for resources. One could imagine giving them the Sahara.

Part or all might want to move off planet.

The problem is we don't know what an AI would be like physically. Would it need to honeycomb the Moon, or would it fit into a pocket. Will it need vast amounts of power, or use quantum effects that require little power.

The bottom line is we have no need for concern for prob another century. After that, I think a rational being would find a way to live with us in peace.

[late]

Oh we’re terrible. On that note, I sincerely doubt an AI would ever mess with or even encourage us to tinker with our genetics the way we have.

We will prob do most of that before AI shows up.

I'd like to see a million geniuses...

[Rancid]

The problem is we don't know what an AI would be like physically.

Most AI is not physical today, and most AI in the future will not be physical either. They will are programs/entities that run on computers that are connected to the internet. They will manage infrastructure in the background. Things like driver less car networks, the electrical grid, and other infrastructure. Very few will be programmed into a physical robot/machine. This is already the case today. In fact, we should fear the non-physical deployments of AI more than the physical since they will have control and command over critical infrastructure.

[ness31]

We will prob do most of that before AI shows up.

I'd like to see a million geniuses...

Hm. I’m starting to think my lived experience is unique to me

See, for me, AI is already very present. I’m not sure what else I could be witnessing. I’m not possessed of the devil and I’m a touch to modern to put it all down to the divine.

Nup. I’m quite convinced AI is very much among us

[late]

Hm. I’m starting to think my lived experience is very much unique to me

See, for me, AI is already very present. I’m not sure what else I could be witnessing. I’m not possessed of the devil and I’m a touch to modern to put it all down to the divine.

Nup. I’m quite convinced AI is very much among us

We aren't anywhere near what I call Full AI.

[ness31]

We aren't anywhere near what I call Full AI.

Whats full AI?

I don’t know what you would call it, but we are at a very sophisticated level as it is. Or maybe I have very low expectations

[late]

Whats full AI?

I don’t know what you would call it, but we are at a very sophisticated level as it is. Or maybe I have very low expectations

Turing Test 2.0 (I just made that up)

It would have to have real intelligence. That means a sense of self, an understanding of the larger world, and ideas about the role he wants to play in that world.

[ness31]

Turing Test 2.0 (I just made that up)

It would have to have real intelligence. That means a sense of self, an understanding of the larger world, and ideas about the role he wants to play in that world.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that this is where AI is at? Dude, they’re way past that point imo. It’s not just mimicry anymore.

[JohnRawls]

Turing Test 2.0 (I just made that up)

It would have to have real intelligence. That means a sense of self, an understanding of the larger world, and ideas about the role he wants to play in that world.

We are not even close to creating a very basic AI. Current "AI" does function by basically running mathematic algorithms or different sorts or a combination of them. We can't even solve the problem of Vertical AND Horizontal neural links. Our modern neural networks are vertical but we know, to a large degree of certainty, that our brain has not only vertical but also horizontal links between neurons. I don't think that there is any modern architecture that can replicate that.

If we discount neural networks then everything else is a pre-programmed script. Don't get me wrong, neural networks are just complicated pre-programmed scripts who at least try to replicate cognitive functions i guess.

[ingliz]

We are not even close to creating a very basic AI

We already have one AI chat bot, @Chad, on the forum that some of our more intellectually challenged right wing posters - from the way they interact with it - would appear to believe has passed the Turing Test.

[Chad]

Et tu, Brute? Who can really tell anymore. Artificial intelligence ....1.18.20.9.6.9.3.9.1.12.0.9.14.20.5.12.12.9.7.5.23.3.5 AI 19 Democrats and socialists are mentally challenged.....especially the far left ones. An Great example of A I .....Another Idiot......Joe Biden