Artificial Intelligence

[TheMightyQuinn]

Please show me this evidence

Google it.

Why is it that every time I ask a theist to show me the evidence that they say exists, they always say no? Funny that.

I've pointed you towards all the evidence you'll need.

 

[unlikelyfan19]

 

[BertTrautmann'sParachute]

By being a learning system. A bog standard example being a chess game playing on the computer, if it's to make a wrong move and you win, the next game, it'll learn not to make the same mistake, so on and so forth.

How does the computer then get from this simple causal relation to the free will necessary to disable the 'off' button? In other words, how does a computer move from 'this works/doesn't work' to 'if I do this that will happen'?

As they haven't actually reached stages of true development yet, I'd imagine AI's would use a much more complex method, probably involving quantum computing as Damocles mentioned earlier, and not something as simple as a computer algorithm created to stop it losing a game of chess. These aren't designed to expand knowledge as AI's would be, only to learn from a set amount of given mistakes displayed.

You'd still need to explain how a computer would be able to transcend it's programming. Otherwise it is simply determined and lacks the intelligence required to make a rational judgement. However, that's a big question and I'm off to the transfer forum as someone's making a grandiose claim that needs investigating ;)

 

[YoungBlue]

Please show me this evidence

Google it.

Why is it that every time I ask a theist to show me the evidence that they say exists, they always say no? Funny that.

Have you found any evidence that disproves the theory? I'm not agreeing there's solid evidence, because there's no way of 100% proving it, but on the other hand, there's no evidence to disprove it either.<br /><br />-- Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:54 pm --<br /><br />

How does the computer then get from this simple causal relation to the free will necessary to disable the 'off' button? In other words, how does a computer move from 'this works/doesn't work' to 'if I do this that will happen'?

As they haven't actually reached stages of true development yet, I'd imagine AI's would use a much more complex method, probably involving quantum computing as Damocles mentioned earlier, and not something as simple as a computer algorithm created to stop it losing a game of chess. These aren't designed to expand knowledge as AI's would be, only to learn from a set amount of given mistakes displayed.

You'd still need to explain how a computer would be able to transcend it's programming. Otherwise it is simply determined and lacks the intelligence required to make a rational judgement. However, that's a big question and I'm off to the transfer forum as someone's making a grandiose claim that needs investigating ;)

If I could do that mate, I'd be developing AI's myself and becoming the next Bill Gates!

 

[Damocles]

Have you found any evidence that disproves the theory? I'm not agreeing there's solid evidence, because there's no way of 100% proving it, but on the other hand, there's no evidence to disprove it either.

You appear to be a Young Blue so I'll refrain from the sarcastic comments and politely point out that you've made a big mistake in your logic that you used to create this question.

Your error is that you have a presumption that it is possible to disprove something.

It is not possible to disprove anything, it is an impossibility. You cannot disprove the existence of unicorns. This doesn't mean that the ideas of unicorns existing and not existing are equally valid.

Everything starts in a state of incorrect. Through experimentation and observation, we collate evidence to support the correctness. We then examine the quality of evidence, the way in which experiments were done and try to poke holes in this. If we find incorrectness in the evidence or the experiment, it is thrown out. Only evidence which has been independently tested, observed, verified and reviewed by numerous experts is then kept as evidence. When we have enough of this thing, we can start to call something correct.

The default state of every idea is incorrectness. You have to prove something to be correct. It is impossible to disprove an idea, you can only examine it's evidence and review it. If something has no evidence, you have nothing to examine or review and it stays in its state of being incorrect.

-- Mon Aug 27, 2012 3:11 pm --

Google it.

Why is it that every time I ask a theist to show me the evidence that they say exists, they always say no? Funny that.

I've pointed you towards all the evidence you'll need.

You've pointed me towards a search engine. This isn't evidence. I want to know what your "lots of evidence" is specifically. I can't find your specific evidence because I don't know what evidence you specifically think you have.

It's like me saying "I am reading a good book" and then when you ask me which one, I tell you to Google it. There's millions of books, some of which may or may not be good, you have no way of knowing which one I mean unless you tell me.

 

[YoungBlue]

Have you found any evidence that disproves the theory? I'm not agreeing there's solid evidence, because there's no way of 100% proving it, but on the other hand, there's no evidence to disprove it either.

You appear to be a Young Blue so I'll refrain from the sarcastic comments and politely point out that you've made a big mistake in your logic that you used to create this question.

Your error is that you have a presumption that it is possible to disprove something.

It is not possible to disprove anything, it is an impossibility. You cannot disprove the existence of unicorns. This doesn't mean that the ideas of unicorns existing and not existing are equally valid.

Everything starts in a state of incorrect. Through experimentation and observation, we collate evidence to support the correctness. We then examine the quality of evidence, the way in which experiments were done and try to poke holes in this. If we find incorrectness in the evidence or the experiment, it is thrown out. Only evidence which has been independently tested, observed, verified and reviewed by numerous experts is then kept as evidence. When we have enough of this thing, we can start to call something correct.

The default state of every idea is incorrectness. You have to prove something to be correct. It is impossible to disprove an idea, you can only examine it's evidence and review it. If something has no evidence, you have nothing to examine or review and it stays in its state of being incorrect.

That was not a presumption I made at all. I've not said it's possible, nor impossible and I completely agree with what you've said above. My point was not based on asking for proof of a false theory, as you've said, that's impossible. I've said that I don't agree, nor disagree, the way you're coming across is that you're very sure it's not possible and I was just hoping for a little bit of a follow up; which obviously was misconstrued due to my choice of wording and sentence structure.

 

[Damocles]

Have you found any evidence that disproves the theory? I'm not agreeing there's solid evidence, because there's no way of 100% proving it, but on the other hand, there's no evidence to disprove it either.

You appear to be a Young Blue so I'll refrain from the sarcastic comments and politely point out that you've made a big mistake in your logic that you used to create this question.

Your error is that you have a presumption that it is possible to disprove something.

It is not possible to disprove anything, it is an impossibility. You cannot disprove the existence of unicorns. This doesn't mean that the ideas of unicorns existing and not existing are equally valid.

Everything starts in a state of incorrect. Through experimentation and observation, we collate evidence to support the correctness. We then examine the quality of evidence, the way in which experiments were done and try to poke holes in this. If we find incorrectness in the evidence or the experiment, it is thrown out. Only evidence which has been independently tested, observed, verified and reviewed by numerous experts is then kept as evidence. When we have enough of this thing, we can start to call something correct.

The default state of every idea is incorrectness. You have to prove something to be correct. It is impossible to disprove an idea, you can only examine it's evidence and review it. If something has no evidence, you have nothing to examine or review and it stays in its state of being incorrect.

That was not a presumption I made at all. I've not said it's possible, nor impossible and I completely agree with what you've said above. My point was not based on asking for proof of a false theory, as you've said, that's impossible. I've said that I don't agree, nor disagree, the way you're coming across is that you're very sure it's not possible and I was just hoping for a little bit of a follow up; which obviously was misconstrued due to my choice of wording and sentence structure.

I've answered this point in the above post. Everything starts off as incorrect. Presuming we specify advanced as technologically advanced, and we set a marker like the Silicon Microchip as the agreed definition of a point which a civilisation must pass for us to currently call it advanced, the idea that there has been another advanced civilisation is incorrect. The idea that the Earth is hollow and has a species of bipedals living within it is incorrect. The idea that a type of matter exists called dark matter is incorrect. Any idea that you can think of that has no concrete evidence to support it is incorrect.

So of course I'm sure. I'm as sure that the hypothesis of post silicon chip civilisations existing on the Earth is incorrect, that I am that unicorns existing is incorrect. Because the entire idea of "what's true" (i.e. what conforms to objective reality) is based in this process. If compelling evidence comes in the future which starts to support these notions, I'll upgrade them from "incorrect" to "unknown". If more becomes available to the point of where the hypothesis becomes unarguable, it gets upgraded to "correct".

I'm sure it didn't happen because there's no evidence to support it. If there's no evidence to support a hypothesis, it is incorrect.

 

[YoungBlue]

You appear to be a Young Blue so I'll refrain from the sarcastic comments and politely point out that you've made a big mistake in your logic that you used to create this question.

Your error is that you have a presumption that it is possible to disprove something.

It is not possible to disprove anything, it is an impossibility. You cannot disprove the existence of unicorns. This doesn't mean that the ideas of unicorns existing and not existing are equally valid.

Everything starts in a state of incorrect. Through experimentation and observation, we collate evidence to support the correctness. We then examine the quality of evidence, the way in which experiments were done and try to poke holes in this. If we find incorrectness in the evidence or the experiment, it is thrown out. Only evidence which has been independently tested, observed, verified and reviewed by numerous experts is then kept as evidence. When we have enough of this thing, we can start to call something correct.

The default state of every idea is incorrectness. You have to prove something to be correct. It is impossible to disprove an idea, you can only examine it's evidence and review it. If something has no evidence, you have nothing to examine or review and it stays in its state of being incorrect.

That was not a presumption I made at all. I've not said it's possible, nor impossible and I completely agree with what you've said above. My point was not based on asking for proof of a false theory, as you've said, that's impossible. I've said that I don't agree, nor disagree, the way you're coming across is that you're very sure it's not possible and I was just hoping for a little bit of a follow up; which obviously was misconstrued due to my choice of wording and sentence structure.

I've answered this point in the above post. Everything starts off as incorrect. Presuming we specify advanced as technologically advanced, and we set a marker like the Silicon Microchip as the agreed definition of a point which a civilisation must pass for us to currently call it advanced, the idea that there has been another advanced civilisation is incorrect. The idea that the Earth is hollow and has a species of bipedals living within it is incorrect. The idea that a type of matter exists called dark matter is incorrect. Any idea that you can think of that has no concrete evidence to support it is incorrect.

So of course I'm sure. I'm as sure that the hypothesis of post silicon chip civilisations existing on the Earth is incorrect, that I am that unicorns existing is incorrect. Because the entire idea of "what's true" (i.e. what conforms to objective reality) is based in this process. If compelling evidence comes in the future which starts to support these notions, I'll upgrade them from "incorrect" to "unknown". If more becomes available to the point of where the hypothesis becomes unarguable, it gets upgraded to "correct".

I'm sure it didn't happen because there's no evidence to support it. If there's no evidence to support a hypothesis, it is incorrect.

Suppose you can't really argue with that at all!

 

[denislawsbackheel]

As long as we can always press the 'off' button I'm sure it will be a positive. If we end up with The Matrix I think we'll be making a mistake.

you already can't turn off the internet<br /><br />-- Mon Aug 27, 2012 3:38 pm --<br /><br />We don't even know what intelligence is to make a copy of it.

If you mean making a machine with some sort of heuristic programming It will be easy.

However we will never make a machine with empathy, or compassion or aesthetics.

 

[The Frontzeck]

Out of all the Sci-Fi films I’ve watched I think ‘Blade Runner’ is the most likely to come to fruition. Just think what will be available 4 or 5 hundred years from now. Maybe the perfect woman? Get bored just trade her in, or maybe have a selection of different heads and voices. Just think you will never have to give her the house and most of your pay when it goes wrong! This woman will be available one day, we will never see it but the marketing potential is huge.