When will an AI achieve the same intelligence as a human being?

[alpine]

A computer can simulate human intelligence, or even super-human intelligence. A computer cannot be intelligent, not in the way a human is intelligent.

A computer processes information. A computer cannot have an original thought, and no computer will ever have an original thought. Computers don't have thoughts at all. They are machines that take in inputs and spit out outputs.

And what kind of an original thought human beings come up with?

Archaeologists date the dawning of intelligence with the discovery of ceremonial burial. This indicates a belief in life after death, a belief in a spirit world beyond the physical world, a believe that we are eternal creatures. Animals do not believe in life after death, and when an animal dies (except for elephants), the other animals leave it where it is to be eaten.

Belief systems did not just appear in human mind all of a sudden.

They rather evolved in thousands of years, just like human mind itself.

When claiming an idea being original, you should show how it is independent and unique.

Humans looking at stars and thinking there might be "another" world out there doesn't seem to be original in that sense, but rather depended on "observation", like a lot of other ideas we have come up with...

Being practical and beneficial therefore selectively pressuring at the same time aside... which is the exact point why AI could actually be capable of beating human mind...

 

[Blackrook]

A computer is incapable of wondering why it exists, which is the the definition of what it means to be a man.

 

[westwall]

A computer is incapable of wondering why it exists, which is the the definition of what it means to be a man.

Currently. We have no clue just how far AI can go. Just think. A little over 100 years ago it was assumed that man could travel no faster than a train and the suggestion that man could fly was grounds for ridicule. I guess those narrow thinkers were wrong.

 

[alpine]

A computer is incapable of wondering why it exists, which is the the definition of what it means to be a man.

The point is that; computers will not be a "man",
they will be better than a "man",
because they wont be wasting time wondering why they exist...

 

[bripat9643]

AI is not self-awareness. I watch my dog and cat and turtle, and I think the dog may be somewhat self-aware, the cat maybe almost self-aware, but not quite, and the turtle is not even close to self-aware, it is more like a machine that is programmed to do what it does.

How does that prove computers can't be self aware?

 

[bripat9643]

A computer can simulate human intelligence, or even super-human intelligence. A computer cannot be intelligent, not in the way a human is intelligent.

A computer processes information. A computer cannot have an original thought, and no computer will ever have an original thought. Computers don't have thoughts at all. They are machines that take in inputs and spit out outputs.

Hmmm, sorry, but your claims are totally unsupported.

I am basing my claims on what I learned in college while earning a degree in computer science. I took a class in AI, and came to the conclusion that AI scientists were making promises they couldn't keep to get funding.

You're correct about that kind of AI, but we aren't talking about that. We're talking about computers that learn just like your brain does. They aren't programmed.

 

[bripat9643]

A computer can simulate human intelligence, or even super-human intelligence. A computer cannot be intelligent, not in the way a human is intelligent.

A computer processes information. A computer cannot have an original thought, and no computer will ever have an original thought. Computers don't have thoughts at all. They are machines that take in inputs and spit out outputs.

And what kind of an original thought human beings come up with?

Archaeologists date the dawning of intelligence with the discovery of ceremonial burial. This indicates a belief in life after death, a belief in a spirit world beyond the physical world, a believe that we are eternal creatures. Animals do not believe in life after death, and when an animal dies (except for elephants), the other animals leave it where it is to be eaten.

Even that is wrong. Have you ever seen video of Elephants caressing the bones of dead elephants? They obviously don't look at it as just a bone.

 

[bripat9643]

A computer is incapable of wondering why it exists, which is the the definition of what it means to be a man.

That's true of existing computers. You're like the guy who said "man will never fly" in 1902.

 

[bripat9643]

A computer is incapable of wondering why it exists, which is the the definition of what it means to be a man.

Currently. We have no clue just how far AI can go. Just think. A little over 100 years ago it was assumed that man could travel no faster than a train and the suggestion that man could fly was grounds for ridicule. I guess those narrow thinkers were wrong.

Most of the thinkers on this subject believe that computers will become thousands or even billions of times smarter than the average human. Once a computer is capable of designing another computer smarter than itself, the process will proceed exponentially, and in very short order we will no longer be in control of our own destiny.

 

[westwall]

A computer is incapable of wondering why it exists, which is the the definition of what it means to be a man.

Currently. We have no clue just how far AI can go. Just think. A little over 100 years ago it was assumed that man could travel no faster than a train and the suggestion that man could fly was grounds for ridicule. I guess those narrow thinkers were wrong.

Most of the thinkers on this subject believe that computers will become thousands or even billions of times smarter than the average human. Once a computer is capable of designing another computer smarter than itself, the process will proceed exponentially, and in very short order we will no longer be in control of our own destiny.

Yep. Anyone who thinks that computers are going to remain simple dumb machines hasn't thought very deeply on the subject.

 

[Boss]

I voted never. Now let me qualify that. In terms of the capacity of AI to out-perform the human mind in terms of processing information, I think it's already there. Look at all the technological things that were impossible before computers. Look at the things we are able to accomplish with the aid of computers today. Examining the results of large hadron colliders would be impossible without the amazing power of computers. BUT....

There is something that no computer AI will ever be able to achieve and that involves mankind's spiritual connection. (Cue the anti-God nuts) Humans have the capacity to connect with spiritual nature which is the catalyst for our inspiration and our inspiration drives our achievement. Computers are not spiritually-connected and they never can be.... unless spiritual nature acts to convey that into them somehow. And it's entirely in that regard that AI will never match humanity.

Your "spiritual connection" is entirely an illusion. I experience no such connection.

Sure you do! If you didn't, you wouldn't have any understanding of what I was talking about. You experience it but you deny it because you fear it controlling you. Humans have also been doing that as long as they've existed too.

 

[bripat9643]

I voted never. Now let me qualify that. In terms of the capacity of AI to out-perform the human mind in terms of processing information, I think it's already there. Look at all the technological things that were impossible before computers. Look at the things we are able to accomplish with the aid of computers today. Examining the results of large hadron colliders would be impossible without the amazing power of computers. BUT....

There is something that no computer AI will ever be able to achieve and that involves mankind's spiritual connection. (Cue the anti-God nuts) Humans have the capacity to connect with spiritual nature which is the catalyst for our inspiration and our inspiration drives our achievement. Computers are not spiritually-connected and they never can be.... unless spiritual nature acts to convey that into them somehow. And it's entirely in that regard that AI will never match humanity.

Your "spiritual connection" is entirely an illusion. I experience no such connection.

Sure you do! If you didn't, you wouldn't have any understanding of what I was talking about. You experience it but you deny it because you fear it controlling you. Humans have also been doing that as long as they've existed too.

I don't have any understanding of what you are talking about, just as I have no understanding of what it's like to breath water like a fish.

 

[Boss]

But we already have all these answers now so...

So we can abandon science and adopt a faith-based belief in what we know as truth.

That's the real danger in your thought process.

You're looking for the religion and myth forum.

I am actually kicking open the door of Science to people who have adopted a belief in their faith. If you can't disprove spiritual nature with physics then you should shut your pie hole and stop pontificating your beliefs. It's not up to me to prove everything Science has not discovered yet. I can't possibly do that and I will never be able to do that. Neither will you... so we have to leave this question about "supernatural Gods" open with regard to Science. It's not disproved, it never can be... so stop assuming it is and get back to practicing SCIENCE!

You are one that looks for argument in all things. Knock yourself out. You also don't understand content in posts, you just look for ANYTHING that appears to your mind to be a red flag trigger for your anger center to start vomiting.

I'm talking to others in this thread that can actually just carry a conversation. Not you.

Go have a conversation with your cat... this is a message forum for discussion of thread topics and that's what I am engaged in with everyone here. not just you. I don't start arguments over anything that appears to my mind as a red flag... like most persons here, I look at thread topics, read the OP and then choose to interject my comments or pass. I weigh my thoughts, I listen respectfully to the opinions of others and I post my personal opinions on things.... that's what we're supposed to be doing here.

"If my answers frighten you, Vincent, you should cease asking scary questions."~ Jules Wingate

 

[Boss]

I don't have any understanding of what you are talking about, just as I have no understanding of what it's like to breath water like a fish.

Well now you say that but of course you'll say that since I cued you. Psychologically, you do know what we're talking about... you just reject it. You see.... you can't really reject something you don't understand. If you don't understand it, how do you know you reject it or what "it" is that you can reject? See... there's a dichotomy... a paradox. So the fact is, you know exactly what someone is talking about when they say "spiritual" ...there is no other way to rationalize it. Your personal position is one of rejection and denial.

In order to maintain that veneer of rejection and denial of something you intrinsically know, you will lie about it. You will tell me that you really truly don't believe in anything spiritual. You have to do this... it's natural human reaction.

Look.... let's take something from Science maybe you can relate to here... Dark Energy... we know it is traveling right through our bodies and all physical matter as we speak... it's there, all around us, we can't interact with it.... I cannot physically "reject" Dark Energy. I know what it is... I know it's all around me and going through me and through all material things... but I can't interact with it, therefore, I can't reject it... I don't understand it physically.... It obviously must not matter that I can't reject it... but you see... I simply can't reject something I can't relate to physically... Now, I can certainly make the bold proclamation that I reject Dark Energy! But how can I "reject" it?

The same can be said for spiritual nature. You can claim you reject it all day long... you can't reject it.

 

[Boss]

AI is not self-awareness. I watch my dog and cat and turtle, and I think the dog may be somewhat self-aware, the cat maybe almost self-aware, but not quite, and the turtle is not even close to self-aware, it is more like a machine that is programmed to do what it does.

How can you scientifically be determining self-awareness through simple observation? Many flowers are "self-aware" to the point of amazing transformations and behaviors. You are simply applying your own comprehensions of "self-awareness" as a human to other species you know very little about... and in doing that, you are actually making the poignant argument for the scientific method. Things are often not as they seem they should be.... that's where science comes in.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't have any understanding of what you are talking about, just as I have no understanding of what it's like to breath water like a fish.

Well now you say that but of course you'll say that since I cued you. Psychologically, you do know what we're talking about... you just reject it. You see.... you can't really reject something you don't understand. If you don't understand it, how do you know you reject it or what "it" is that you can reject? See... there's a dichotomy... a paradox. So the fact is, you know exactly what someone is talking about when they say "spiritual" ...there is no other way to rationalize it. Your personal position is one of rejection and denial.

In order to maintain that veneer of rejection and denial of something you intrinsically know, you will lie about it. You will tell me that you really truly don't believe in anything spiritual. You have to do this... it's natural human reaction.

Look.... let's take something from Science maybe you can relate to here... Dark Energy... we know it is traveling right through our bodies and all physical matter as we speak... it's there, all around us, we can't interact with it.... I cannot physically "reject" Dark Energy. I know what it is... I know it's all around me and going through me and through all material things... but I can't interact with it, therefore, I can't reject it... I don't understand it physically.... It obviously must not matter that I can't reject it... but you see... I simply can't reject something I can't relate to physically... Now, I can certainly make the bold proclamation that I reject Dark Energy! But how can I "reject" it?

The same can be said for spiritual nature. You can claim you reject it all day long... you can't reject it.

You realize, of course, that your claims are non-falsifiable. That means they can't be proven or disproven scientifically. They are scientifically irrelevant. You can claim until doomsday that I experience what you claim, and I can state until doomsday that I don't. That means the issue is outside of the realm of science, and therefore, as far as I'm concerned, not worth arguing about.

 

[bripat9643]

AI is not self-awareness. I watch my dog and cat and turtle, and I think the dog may be somewhat self-aware, the cat maybe almost self-aware, but not quite, and the turtle is not even close to self-aware, it is more like a machine that is programmed to do what it does.

How can you scientifically be determining self-awareness through simple observation? Many flowers are "self-aware" to the point of amazing transformations and behaviors. You are simply applying your own comprehensions of "self-awareness" as a human to other species you know very little about... and in doing that, you are actually making the poignant argument for the scientific method. Things are often not as they seem they should be.... that's where science comes in.

How would you know whether a flower is self aware? How would we know a computer is self aware? It would tell us.

 

[Blackrook]

I admit I don't know that much about dogs, cats or turtles that is why I said "I think" rather than "I know."

My dog appears to be very intelligent for an animal. She knows that when I wake up, it's time for her to be fed, and starts jumping around with excitement. The dog knows not to poop in the house, or run outside the front door, or chew on shoes, because we trained her not to do these things.

The cats appear to be run more on instinct than actual intelligence. While each cat has its own individual quirks, they all basically act the same.

All I see the turtle do is walk around his box, trying to get out. That's all he does.

Human children, on the other hand, have certain instincts common to them all, but each is, before birth, stamped with a unique personality that cannot be attributed only to genetics or environment. There is a third influence at work that makes my three children, raised by the same parents under similar circumstances, very different from each other. One is very shy, and has few friends, but is very nice. One is very clever and willful and stubborn. One is shy, and can't get a girlfriend, but has many friends. And none of them are anything like the personality of me or my wife.

A computer or a robot does not have this third element that makes each human being unique. It will never be anything more than what was put it into it. You can make it more and more complex, but increased complexity is not the same as human intelligence. All a computer will ever be able to do is fool you into thinking it's human, but I don't think even that will be possible for very long.

 

[bripat9643]

I admit I don't know that much about dogs, cats or turtles that is why I said "I think" rather than "I know."

My dog appears to be very intelligent for an animal. She knows that when I wake up, it's time for her to be fed, and starts jumping around with excitement. The dog knows not to poop in the house, or run outside the front door, or chew on shoes, because we trained her not to do these things.

The cats appear to be run more on instinct than actual intelligence. While each cat has its own individual quirks, they all basically act the same.

All I see the turtle do is walk around his box, trying to get out. That's all he does.

Human children, on the other hand, have certain instincts common to them all, but each is, before birth, stamped with a unique personality that cannot be attributed only to genetics or environment. There is a third influence at work that makes my three children, raised by the same parents under similar circumstances, very different from each other. One is very shy, and has few friends, but is very nice. One is very clever and willful and stubborn. One is shy, and can't get a girlfriend, but has many friends. And none of them are anything like the personality of me or my wife.

A computer or a robot does not have this third element that makes each human being unique. It will never be anything more than what was put it into it. You can make it more and more complex, but increased complexity is not the same as human intelligence. All a computer will ever be able to do is fool you into thinking it's human, but I don't think even that will be possible for very long.

So your theory is that computers can't be intelligent because they don't have personality. In the first place, we don't know they wouldn't have personality. In the second, who says they can't be given personality? In the third, where is it proven that intelligence is tied to personality?

 

[CultureCitizen]

I'm considering the theoretical objection raised by Boss, and others, that, even if a computer were programmed to do everything a human brain does, it wouldn't truly be intelligent - but merely a programmed simulation of intelligence. I think such a distinction is meaningless.

It depends on how you define intelligence. Computers can already do everything a human brain does. What a computer can't ever do is be spiritually aware. That involves connection with spirit and isn't something physical. I don't even know there is a way computers could simulate this.

Boss,
I'll have to admit that the number of "spiritually aware" humans is very very small. Else the world would not be in its current state.
Other than tibetan monks, some saints and profets I do not know many people whom I would catalog as spiritually aware.

No no no... You are assuming that "spiritually aware" also means "spiritually obedient" and it doesn't. Quite the contrary. Man has grappled with his spiritual awareness since the beginning... evidence: Religions. The simple fact that you cannot reject spirituality if you don't understand what it is, means that even those who vehemently reject it still comprehend it and understand it. This is understandable as we are intrinsically tied to it as a species.

We are intrinsically aware of something inside of us all that is greater than the sum total of our physical parts. If physics and science cannot disprove it, then it cannot state it doesn't exist or there is no evidence for it... all information is never known. There was no evidence for Jupiter until evidence was discovered. BEFORE it was discovered, you could certainly argue that Science "has no evidence" for Jupiter... it's a myth, folklore, magic, supernatural belief... nothing in science supports it. But that would have been a faith-based belief and not Science.... Science continues to ask questions and explore possibilities, it doesn't conclude.

Boss,
It seems we have VERY different opinions on what "spiritually aware" means. I would summarize my viewpoint with the phrase : what you do to your fellow men you do it to yourself. In such a context you can't really talk about disobedience:
Want to cheat with your neighbor's wife , that would be like being cheated by your wife.
Want to steal, rob , maim someone? Again that would be like trying it on yourself.

I can certainly see Jesus or Bhuda having this degree of "spiritual awareness" as well as some saints. Jefferson? Franklin? No , not by far. Muhammed ... no, I don't think so,

IMHO someone who is spiritual aware can actually see how his mind flows and how his acts ( fueled by hatred or love ) affect other people.

Spiritual awareness is only slightly related to religion.