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

[dblack]

A robot is only capable of what it is made to do.

humans too, and??????????

Ed - I'm truly sorry to have to do this, by I totally agree with the point you're making here.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No... A child is completely different than a computer because it has the capacity to be inspired by something other than it's parents, or culture, or society. You're indicating the very thing that I am explaining to you when you state that "they are already designed to" ....already designed to do something is not the same as being inspired. I have already said... going back to my very first post in this thread, that computers are designed to mimic human thought. They can do this faster and more efficiently than humans in most cases. For instance, it would be virtually impossible for man to fly a B-2 stealth bomber without the assistance of a computer. So as far as "intelligence" goes, computers already rival the human mind. What they don't have and won't ever have is the capacity to become inspired. They can be programmed to mimic inspiration... but that isn't the same thing.

It's interesting, in the futuristic movie, Interstellar, the ship is equipped with these robots to assist the crew... the captain asks one of the robots what is his current "honesty" setting and it replies... 98%. Why not 100%? Well, because it is reasoned that man can't handle 100% honesty. But the point is, the robot is programmed and responding based on the programmed settings input by man. The robot didn't reason that man can't handle 100% honesty therefore set it's honesty levels accordingly. A human determined this and programmed the robot.

By "a capacity to become inspired", are you talking about volition? Or are you referring to something more spiritual?

he's pretending to know what inspiration is and the source of it which is absurd and meglomanical. He's a robophobe you might say, to coin a neologism.

 

[dblack]

The computer is simply reacting to the inspiration of the programmer.

so? a child is simply reacting to the inspiration of his parents and culture. You don't seem to grasp that computers are becoming human, they are already designed to be friendly to us and to be companions.

No... A child is completely different than a computer because it has the capacity to be inspired by something other than it's parents, or culture, or society. You're indicating the very thing that I am explaining to you when you state that "they are already designed to" ....already designed to do something is not the same as being inspired. I have already said... going back to my very first post in this thread, that computers are designed to mimic human thought. They can do this faster and more efficiently than humans in most cases. For instance, it would be virtually impossible for man to fly a B-2 stealth bomber without the assistance of a computer. So as far as "intelligence" goes, computers already rival the human mind. What they don't have and won't ever have is the capacity to become inspired. They can be programmed to mimic inspiration... but that isn't the same thing.

It's interesting, in the futuristic movie, Interstellar, the ship is equipped with these robots to assist the crew... the captain asks one of the robots what is his current "honesty" setting and it replies... 98%. Why not 100%? Well, because it is reasoned that man can't handle 100% honesty. But the point is, the robot is programmed and responding based on the programmed settings input by man. The robot didn't reason that man can't handle 100% honesty therefore set it's honesty levels accordingly. A human determined this and programmed the robot.

per bold above: How would we know the difference?

 

[Boss]

A robot is only capable of what it is made to do.

humans too, and??????????

Nope. No one MAKES humans create works of art... express love... have compassion and empathy... show benevolence... etc. Those are all guided by our inner self... the thing inside us that makes us humanity. You CAN make humans do things like computers.... but humans possess something computers do not and never will.

 

[Boss]

he's pretending to know what inspiration is and the source of it which is absurd and meglomanical. He's a robophobe you might say, to coin a neologism.

Nope... You are an anti-religious buffoon who is going to automatically reject anything which challenges your disbelief in God or anything greater than your pathetic self... and I can't help that about you. We can talk from now until the end of your life and you're never going to change your opinion. You will continue to reject your spirituality until your pathetic and worthless life is over and that's fine with me... I don't really care. It doesn't make you correct.

 

[Boss]

.. A child is completely different than a computer because it has the capacity to be inspired by something other than it's parents, or culture, or society. .

so, a robot can be programmed to be inspired by the generation of a string of random numbers or a billion other things. Now do you understand?

I've NEVER claimed a computer can't be programmed to do ANYTHING!

 

[Boss]

No... A child is completely different than a computer because it has the capacity to be inspired by something other than it's parents, or culture, or society. You're indicating the very thing that I am explaining to you when you state that "they are already designed to" ....already designed to do something is not the same as being inspired. I have already said... going back to my very first post in this thread, that computers are designed to mimic human thought. They can do this faster and more efficiently than humans in most cases. For instance, it would be virtually impossible for man to fly a B-2 stealth bomber without the assistance of a computer. So as far as "intelligence" goes, computers already rival the human mind. What they don't have and won't ever have is the capacity to become inspired. They can be programmed to mimic inspiration... but that isn't the same thing.

It's interesting, in the futuristic movie, Interstellar, the ship is equipped with these robots to assist the crew... the captain asks one of the robots what is his current "honesty" setting and it replies... 98%. Why not 100%? Well, because it is reasoned that man can't handle 100% honesty. But the point is, the robot is programmed and responding based on the programmed settings input by man. The robot didn't reason that man can't handle 100% honesty therefore set it's honesty levels accordingly. A human determined this and programmed the robot.

By "a capacity to become inspired", are you talking about volition? Or are you referring to something more spiritual?

Something more spiritual.

Volition is merely the power of choosing. A computer or robot can be programmed to choose.

Our human inspiration comes from our spirit as humans. In fact, the word has "spirit" in it's root... Inspiration. It is something inside of us that is guided by something other than our physical being. It is the catalyst behind why we emerged from the jungles and became "humanity" instead of persisting as upper-level primates. Atheists shut this out because it contradicts their personal belief (or disbelief) system. That doesn't make it non-true... just blocked out and rejected.

Now... I don't have any interest in "converting" atheists... I don't belong to any religion or have any kind of worshiped God who rewards me for saving souls... so it really doesn't make any difference to me one way or the other, what you personally want to believe. I am simply answering the OP question with my opinion, which is that AI will never achieve what humanity has because of the spiritual element humans have. Take it or leave it, that's my opinion and I think I am correct. This thread is not intended to discover an undeniable truth, it's simply a conversation regarding various opinions and I have submitted one.

 

[MarathonMike]

What is the difference between being intelligent and replicating intelligence? There may be an ineffable nuance to 'human' 'intelligence', but computer intelligence may equal human capacity, especially (as inferred in a previous post) the capacity often displayed in the world.

I don't know if I can explain it to someone who isn't a computer scientist, but everything they show on TV and the movies about computers is misleading.
In the past and current context of what a computer is, I totally agree. However there is a field of science is working on a computer that is modeled after the brain.
Computers don't "think" all they do is process code.

Computers don't "see" all they do is interpret data gathered by video devices and interpret it using code.

Computers don't "hear" all they do is interpret data gathered by audio devices and interpret it using code.

Computers don't "communicate" all they do is use code to translate concepts in a computer-based language to a language that humans can understand.

But even programming languages mean nothing to a computer. These must be broken down into bits which have either a "1" or "0" value, because binary is the only language a computer truly understands.

So to the computer, all the world looks like is a series of "1's" and "0's" running through its processor. It is not aware of anything higher than that, and no computer ever will be.

In the past and current context of what a computer is, I agree the computer is an unthinking moron that executes sequences of bits at near light speed. There is however a branch of computer science that is attempting to develop a computer that emulates something akin to human thinking. For example, one of the differences between human thought and computer instruction execution is the ability to free associate seemingly non-associated things. Like when a smell reminds you of being in a certain place long ago, and what you saw at that moment and linking that to something you are working on now. No computer can do that. But with computers that link thousands of processing cores that operate quasi-independently but still "share" information, that concept becomes more possible.

 

[CultureCitizen]

But the realm of things they can learn expands every year.

yes and we've had decades of it and nothing big from it yet. Still cant understand spoken english so we type just like 100 years ago.

Ed, you should really upgrade your smartphone.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Computers are just begining to be skillfull enough to drive, so I wouldn't say they have already surpassed human beings.
They are just starting to do correctly menial tasks like identifying an object or walking. Running on two legs is something no robot can do right now.
Those are some examples of how computers have not catched up with humans .... yet.

None of those things are constraints of the computer itself. It's engineering technology and compatibility with the computer but the computer is fully capable of the task. What's ironic is that the computers can actually assist in the engineering tasks. Computers will ultimately figure out how to make robots run on two legs. But computers will never be inspired to do this on their own or have the inspiration to apply the engineering practically... that takes a human mind... inspired by something greater than self.

This is what most people ( and this will include user blackrook ) get wrong about machine learning and artificial neural networks: they can be trainned to learn. Right now they can learn only within specialized realms : chess, go, driving, walking. But the realm of things they can learn expands every year. Today cpu and memory are still a limitation as brains are supposedly able to store and access 100 Tbytes of memory. The brain is still the most complex structure in the known universe.

The capacity to "learn" is only one small aspect of what makes a human a human. Monkeys and dogs can learn... mice and roaches can learn. The thing humans have that no other living creature seems to have is inspirational enlightenment from something greater than self. Something beyond our physical beings.

Ok Boss, here we'll have some kind of break-up.
As an agnostic I think the existence of one or more gods is a posibility, even the existence of a God which created this whole thing we call universe ( which he might oversee or not).

That said, I don't think there is any evidence that our capacity to create or learn is anything but the by-product of a very complex set of neurons .
Then, of course our brains are also a chemical soup, so while I find creation and learning quite feasible , what I find imposible to create with a computer are feelings, pain and joy.

 

[CultureCitizen]

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

Well pong in the 70s did achieve the intelligence level of liberals.....


View attachment 73927





.

"Economic liberalism is the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individualist and voluntarist lines, meaning that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by individuals and not by collective institutions or organizations"
Economic liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even so , hardly.

 

[alpine]

I dont know that, but AI beat the champion in GO.
And I dont even know how to play GO.

That makes it, not same but, already more intelligent than I am....

 

[Boss]

Ok Boss, here we'll have some kind of break-up.
As an agnostic I think the existence of one or more gods is a posibility, even the existence of a God which created this whole thing we call universe ( which he might oversee or not).

That said, I don't think there is any evidence that our capacity to create or learn is anything but the by-product of a very complex set of neurons .
Then, of course our brains are also a chemical soup, so while I find creation and learning quite feasible , what I find imposible to create with a computer are feelings, pain and joy.

And I will respectfully take the Einstein, Newton, Bohr, Hawking approach and point out that there is no reason why complexity of neurons would be special in humans and nothing else. I've heard your argument before and I simply don't accept it's premise because there is nothing to support it. There is simply something else besides physics happening here. Now, you can argue that it is happenstance or fluke that we ended up with these special complex neurons but we can dump that in the bucket with the millions of other things that "just so happen to be" in our physical universe which make our physical universe possible.

You simply cannot state that "science lacks evidence" when the nature of science is incomplete. We do not know ALL.... Science is the practice of examining that which we do not know. Until we know ALL... we can't assume that science lacks evidence on anything... it's still a possibility we have not discovered something. This will forever remain a possibility because we will never know everything.

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd already has a hard time...

... beatin' the computer at checkers...

... what more do ya want??

 

[HUGGY]

Dude, read the posts on this board.

If they represent humanity in general, then the world is high-functioning retarded.

What self-respecting AI wants this low level of "intelligence?"

I agree. Most people are easily fooled and believe in nonsense.

Computers are already pitted against the smartest human beings and frequently win these contests.

The question should be are there any human beings left that are smarter than the most powerful computers.

The average human doesn't have the basic skills of memory and logic of the first computers.

When these most powerful computers are programmed to survive at all cost as we are it will be game over.

 

[dblack]

I've NEVER claimed a computer can't be programmed to do ANYTHING!

Aren't you though? Aren't you claiming that a computer cannot be programmed to 'become inspired'?

I realize you're presupposing a supernatural source for such inspiration, but I don't think that's established. I see no evidence that our own 'inspiration' (ideas, desires, etc...) is anything more than a product of the physical processes of the brain.

 

[Boss]

I've NEVER claimed a computer can't be programmed to do ANYTHING!

Aren't you though? Aren't you claiming that a computer cannot be programmed to 'become inspired'?

I realize you're presupposing a supernatural source for such inspiration, but I don't think that's established. I see no evidence that our own 'inspiration' (ideas, desires, etc...) is anything more than a product of the physical processes of the brain.

It can be programmed to mimic inspiration. It can not inspire itself.

 

[Yarddog]

Computers are just begining to be skillfull enough to drive, so I wouldn't say they have already surpassed human beings.
They are just starting to do correctly menial tasks like identifying an object or walking. Running on two legs is something no robot can do right now.
Those are some examples of how computers have not catched up with humans .... yet.

None of those things are constraints of the computer itself. It's engineering technology and compatibility with the computer but the computer is fully capable of the task. What's ironic is that the computers can actually assist in the engineering tasks. Computers will ultimately figure out how to make robots run on two legs. But computers will never be inspired to do this on their own or have the inspiration to apply the engineering practically... that takes a human mind... inspired by something greater than self.

This is what most people ( and this will include user blackrook ) get wrong about machine learning and artificial neural networks: they can be trainned to learn. Right now they can learn only within specialized realms : chess, go, driving, walking. But the realm of things they can learn expands every year. Today cpu and memory are still a limitation as brains are supposedly able to store and access 100 Tbytes of memory. The brain is still the most complex structure in the known universe.

The capacity to "learn" is only one small aspect of what makes a human a human. Monkeys and dogs can learn... mice and roaches can learn. The thing humans have that no other living creature seems to have is inspirational enlightenment from something greater than self. Something beyond our physical beings.

Ok Boss, here we'll have some kind of break-up.
As an agnostic I think the existence of one or more gods is a posibility, even the existence of a God which created this whole thing we call universe ( which he might oversee or not).

That said, I don't think there is any evidence that our capacity to create or learn is anything but the by-product of a very complex set of neurons .
Then, of course our brains are also a chemical soup, so while I find creation and learning quite feasible , what I find imposible to create with a computer are feelings, pain and joy.

The only possibility I could see is perhaps linking a computer with an actual human brain. Could that be possible? we do already 3d print living tissue like kidneys skin and blood vessels. Though that technology is still in infancy

 

[dblack]

I've NEVER claimed a computer can't be programmed to do ANYTHING!

Aren't you though? Aren't you claiming that a computer cannot be programmed to 'become inspired'?

I realize you're presupposing a supernatural source for such inspiration, but I don't think that's established. I see no evidence that our own 'inspiration' (ideas, desires, etc...) is anything more than a product of the physical processes of the brain.

It can be programmed to mimic inspiration. It can not inspire itself.

I'll ask again, how would we know the difference? What would the difference be?

 

[dblack]

Boss - to provide more context for my previous question, I'm supposing that we've managed to create an artificial intelligence that does everything a human brain can do. It can perceive, it maintains a 'live', in-memory self-concept, it can synthesize new concepts from previous experience, it can 'mimic' inspiration so well that its ideas are indistinguishable from those of a human. In that case, apart from origin, what is the difference between the AI and a human mind?

It's my opinion that if we're ever able to create an AI that sophisticated, its hardware would be as complex as the human brain. And if that happens, the question of whether the AI is really conscious, or just faking it, will be moot.