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

[CultureCitizen]

Just the AI , not a fully functional robot + AI.

well considering they developed one that can beat the chess master, I'd say they did it already.
On a specialized level.


and considering what we 'know' and what we think is possible is never all that far apart (triangle shaped ufos were actually stealth jets) 2030 is more that far off enough.


the real question is; When does it kill us all?

That is exactly the problem right now.On specialized fields computers can beat humans, but they can only do so operating in a sandboxed environment. Add noise to the environment and their "intelligence" starts falling appart.

We are in the process of creating a general AI , but we are not there yet.
Slowly the pieces will be put toghether and when that happens we will have to figure out what will be the role of human beings.

 

[CultureCitizen]

A computer can never be "self aware" which I believe is the definition of A.I. that people are looking for.

I don't know if that is actually true. There are scientists working on deep AI and they are doing some pretty amazing, and concerning things. This video is an example of that....and maybe a robot actually getting close to being self aware...

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

Recently an AI powered by IBM Watson fooled the students int thinking it was a human.

" And then by April, the algorithm was posting by itself. Goel used IBM's Watson platform to build the bot.
Of course, being a class of A.I. students (students learning about artificial intelligence, not students who were A.I.s), some became suspicious. After the A.I. posted a slightly vague answer, another T.A. jumped in, and students started to question whether Watson was a computer."

That's darn close to passing the Turing test.
Would You Be Fooled By An A.I. Teaching Assistant?

 

[CultureCitizen]

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.

Blackrook:
Neurons also do that : take inputs process them and produce outputs. But billions of them combined create the most complex structure of the known universe: the brain.
Artificial neural networks can be trainned and connected. Also there is such a thing as statistical inference.
As far as having an original thought. No, we are not there yet, but it is hard to tell we will not be getting there.
We need a computer with nearly 800 TB of RAM and 800 Tflops to achieve the raw computing power fo the brain. We already have that kind of hardware . We are still missing the algorithms and the data structures.
Maybe we will have them when the average computer can process 1 Petaflop of data .

 

[CultureCitizen]

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.

How do you explain that computers have learned to drive ? Or recognize faces or voice commands or perform OCR?
Or that an AI has fooled for a time AI students into thinking it was a person.

All these happens through trainning, not by coding ( ah, well yes, some coding , but mostly through trainning).

 

[Blackrook]

Yes, we may someday have a computer that looks, talks, sees, hears, walks, and in every other way appear to be human.

But it will never think like a human.

The human mind is not a mere product of chemicals in the brain or the firing of neurons.

The human mind has a connection with a human soul, and a human soul has a connection with an all-powerful being which we call God.

And that connection with God gives a human being a conscience, which is an internal mechanism that tells us the difference between right and wrong. And the conscience nags at us, and makes us uncomfortable, when we are doing what we think is wrong.

And a machine will never have a conscience, and will never have an ability to know the difference between right and wrong. All it will ever know is what it has been programmed to know, and it will kill without question, and make the ultimate soldier, if that is what it is ordered to do, and it will never feel uncomfortable or uneasy after it has killed, or feel the need to confess what it did.

 

[westwall]

A computer can never be "self aware" which I believe is the definition of A.I. that people are looking for.

I don't know if that is actually true. There are scientists working on deep AI and they are doing some pretty amazing, and concerning things. This video is an example of that....and maybe a robot actually getting close to being self aware...

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

Recently an AI powered by IBM Watson fooled the students int thinking it was a human.

" And then by April, the algorithm was posting by itself. Goel used IBM's Watson platform to build the bot.
Of course, being a class of A.I. students (students learning about artificial intelligence, not students who were A.I.s), some became suspicious. After the A.I. posted a slightly vague answer, another T.A. jumped in, and students started to question whether Watson was a computer."

That's darn close to passing the Turing test.
Would You Be Fooled By An A.I. Teaching Assistant?

That's not that impressive to me to be honest. I would expect an expert program to be able to do that. I am surprised it took as long as it did to be honest with you.

 

[westwall]

Yes, we may someday have a computer that looks, talks, sees, hears, walks, and in every other way appear to be human.

But it will never think like a human.

The human mind is not a mere product of chemicals in the brain or the firing of neurons.

The human mind has a connection with a human soul, and a human soul has a connection with an all-powerful being which we call God.

And that connection with God gives a human being a conscience, which is an internal mechanism that tells us the difference between right and wrong. And the conscience nags at us, and makes us uncomfortable, when we are doing what we think is wrong.

And a machine will never have a conscience, and will never have an ability to know the difference between right and wrong. All it will ever know is what it has been programmed to know, and it will kill without question, and make the ultimate soldier, if that is what it is ordered to do, and it will never feel uncomfortable or uneasy after it has killed, or feel the need to confess what it did.

You have no idea if that is factual or not. Currently it is, but as we push the research ever further there is no idea how complex they will be able to make the AI.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Yes, we may someday have a computer that looks, talks, sees, hears, walks, and in every other way appear to be human.

But it will never think like a human.

The human mind is not a mere product of chemicals in the brain or the firing of neurons.

The human mind has a connection with a human soul, and a human soul has a connection with an all-powerful being which we call God.

And that connection with God gives a human being a conscience, which is an internal mechanism that tells us the difference between right and wrong. And the conscience nags at us, and makes us uncomfortable, when we are doing what we think is wrong.

And a machine will never have a conscience, and will never have an ability to know the difference between right and wrong. All it will ever know is what it has been programmed to know, and it will kill without question, and make the ultimate soldier, if that is what it is ordered to do, and it will never feel uncomfortable or uneasy after it has killed, or feel the need to confess what it did.

You have no idea if that is factual or not. Currently it is, but as we push the research ever further there is no idea how complex they will be able to make the AI.

Technology generally improves by leaps and bounds, especially computers. If you look at pc games, which 5-6 years ago still looked blocky and not very real, they are getting close very quickly to simulating what the real world looks like and how it acts.

 

[SixFoot]

My response wasn't listed on the poll, so:

"When Quantum Computers become everyday technology."

 

[SixFoot]

Yes, we may someday have a computer that looks, talks, sees, hears, walks, and in every other way appear to be human.

But it will never think like a human.

The human mind is not a mere product of chemicals in the brain or the firing of neurons.

The human mind has a connection with a human soul, and a human soul has a connection with an all-powerful being which we call God.

And that connection with God gives a human being a conscience, which is an internal mechanism that tells us the difference between right and wrong. And the conscience nags at us, and makes us uncomfortable, when we are doing what we think is wrong.

And a machine will never have a conscience, and will never have an ability to know the difference between right and wrong. All it will ever know is what it has been programmed to know, and it will kill without question, and make the ultimate soldier, if that is what it is ordered to do, and it will never feel uncomfortable or uneasy after it has killed, or feel the need to confess what it did.

You have no idea if that is factual or not. Currently it is, but as we push the research ever further there is no idea how complex they will be able to make the AI.

Technology generally improves by leaps and bounds, especially computers. If you look at pc games, which 5-6 years ago still looked blocky and not very real, they are getting close very quickly to simulating what the real world looks like and how it acts.

New Age video games always make me laugh at the old expression, "It ain't rocket science!"

 

[dblack]

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.

That's the thing. We'd know a computer is self-aware in exactly the same way we 'know' that another human is self-aware - by observing behavior.

 

[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.

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.

I think it can be proven scientifically that you can't reject something you don't know and can't react with. We can both claim things all day long, no science can prevent that. And I am most certain you don't think this is worth arguing about.

What can be proven or disproved with Science at any given moment of history is irrelevant. It's not only closed minded, it's pretty much self-defeating to declare that Science can't include anything it doesn't currently have evidence for. Think of all the things Science has discovered that could have never been discovered if we applied that logic? It's the things we don't have evidence for that Science was invented to explore and examine.

Okay... So Galileo is studying the shadows on the planets and such and he reasons that the planets are actually revolving around the sun. Many said... can't be proved or disproved so it's irrelevant. Many rejected the idea as preposterous. Eventually, Science, completely ignoring the naysayers, is able to prove what Galileo theorized through his observations with math. But what if we had rigidly adopted your philosophy? Science can't falsify what Galileo thought so it's not worth arguing about... right?

It's a hilarious argument to me whenever people say "can't be proven with science!" ...How do you know it can't? What is the point of Science if it already knows everything and nothing remains for it to prove?