Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910
Results 91 to 96 of 96

Thread: The Fermi Paradox

  1. #91

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter View Post
    The reason people are trying to emulate human intelligence in a machine is because they think it's a really nifty thing to do. In other words, they see it as a challenge, something they want to conquer to fulfill some emotional need. Some may feel a need to 'prove' you don't need a god to explain the existence of intelligence. Others may want the glory of accomplishing something many people say can't be done. Some have a soft spot for mankind and feel a need to believe they are doing something to benefit humanity. Wouldn't emulating human intelligence require some level of emotional baggage like this to make it realistic?

    For nearly a hundred years computers have been able to do calculations so much faster and more accurately than humans. We would have to considerably dumb-down that aspect of computers if we wanted a reasonable facsimile of human intelligence. We would also have to have something in the role of the subconscious to influence decisions with intuition, emotions, and the false data it created to fill in the gaps in perception and memory. This is human intelligence. Is there a good reason to try to duplicate that in a machine? ...or are we just wasting brain power that could be better applied to something else?
    Interesting thoughts, though I'm sure there are many motives for developing AI. In "narrow" AI the whole point is only to solve problems more effectively than humans and traditional computing can. A major application is in medical diagnosis, for example. One of the things I would find most exciting, and intriguing, is an artificial superintelligence. As jokingly illustrated in the Hitchhiker's Guide, a super-genius-in-a-box is something we would look to for answers we don't know how to find ourselves — even if they might turn out to be disappointingly impossible to comprehend. ^.^;

    Curiously, Google's first generation TPU units, which are designed for machine learning, are only 8-bit machines. I think what this demonstrates is that the human brain's architecture is of a vastly different design than, say, an x86. It is a massively parallel system, for starters. Maybe an even better example is the abacus, which can outperform most humans at arithmetic computations, but is clearly not on the same order of magnitude of processing power.
    Last edited by Sapphyre; 08-Aug-2018 at 17:41.

  2. #92

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter View Post
    The reason people are trying to emulate human intelligence in a machine is because they think it's a really nifty thing to do. In other words, they see it as a challenge, something they want to conquer to fulfill some emotional need. Some may feel a need to 'prove' you don't need a god to explain the existence of intelligence. Others may want the glory of accomplishing something many people say can't be done. Some have a soft spot for mankind and feel a need to believe they are doing something to benefit humanity. Wouldn't emulating human intelligence require some level of emotional baggage like this to make it realistic?

    For nearly a hundred years computers have been able to do calculations so much faster and more accurately than humans. We would have to considerably dumb-down that aspect of computers if we wanted a reasonable facsimile of human intelligence. We would also have to have something in the role of the subconscious to influence decisions with intuition, emotions, and the false data it created to fill in the gaps in perception and memory. This is human intelligence. Is there a good reason to try to duplicate that in a machine? ...or are we just wasting brain power that could be better applied to something else?
    There isn't any point in just mimicking what we already are and have. If we are going to build a sentient computer surely we are going to want to build something smarter, stronger and faster than we are and hope that it in turn can either produce either a better computer or can come up with some answers to the mess we have got ourselves into to?

  3. #93

    Default

    I have to keep looking up "sentient" to try to get a handle on what people are actually trying to accomplish with artificial intelligence or artificial consciousness. Replacing people with machines can be profitable for businesses, but some jobs, such as customer service, require human to human contact to prevent customers from becoming alienated over their resentment of being forced to talk to machines. Having a machine that can consistently fool people into believing it is a human being could be a practical and profitable application of AI for any dishonest business. I'm just not convinced that's a good thing. And I'm still not convinced a machine can actually have feelings or awareness.

    A good animator can create the subtle facial expressions and body language in a cartoon character that sends loads of information to a person's brain resulting in an emotional response even though, intellectually, the person knows it's only a cartoon. Cartoons aren't sentient, but the people who create them and the people who watch them are. Animation is only the medium for that type of human communication. I view AI in pretty much the same way.

    Let's say we are able to create convincing, capable, robotic, customer service reps and salespeople. Should we stop there? If we have that kind of AI expertise, why not go ahead and build better consumers? I can't help but think of Marvin in the "Hitchhiker's Guide" whenever the subject of sentient machines come up.

  4. #94

    Default

    Interstellar travel is orders of magnitude more difficult than interplanetary travel. I still think that aliens venture out to the stars less frequently than Fermi assumed and that technological civilizations don't leave behind much detectable evidence.

  5. #95

    Default

    The Japaneshave already come up with an android like receptionist that is capable of handling most reception desk jobs as well as being multilingual. whilst it has fairly resonable features it's mouth moves in sync with whatever language it is using, it uses some basic facial expressions including moving eys, eye brows, lids etc. I don't belive we will have a truly sentiene robot or computer in my life time but isn't there a law about computing capacity doubling every year?

  6. #96

    Default

    There is plenty of evidence, it is just being ignored. The 'experts' insist written accounts are nothing more that myth, even in the face of archaeological evidence.

Similar Threads

  1. a wierd paradox
    By Angelic in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-Apr-2017, 16:45
  2. Does anyone here play paradox games ?
    By siriusblack in forum Computers & Gaming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-Jun-2014, 00:30
  3. The Enjoyment Paradox?
    By jnk1 in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 26-Dec-2013, 07:32
  4. Paradox's Grand Strategy Games
    By Hex in forum Computers & Gaming
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 17-May-2012, 20:34
  5. Paradox Interactive, Hearts of Iron 3 (suddenly, lets invade Yunnan!)
    By MysteriousVisitor in forum Computers & Gaming
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-Sep-2010, 07:00

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.