14
   

Is Artificial Intelligence Even Possible?

 
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2015 02:52 am
@neologist,
Once again, consider the word artificial. You and others here are simply defining intelligence in such a manner as to preclude the possibility that it can be artificially created. In your case, i would say that's a product of your theistic obsession. Max, of course, just wants to argue with anything i say.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2015 02:54 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Did you miss the part about "artificial?" Do you understand why it is called artificial intelligence?
The point I was intending to get at in the OP was that the fear mongering by the people I've mentioned (Bill Gates et al) is groundless. The artificial intelligence they warn about is so far beyond your definition as to be a completely different animal.

To give you credit, your definition is the only real one I believe exists and possible. But it is not something we need to be afraid of per se. What we should be afraid of is human error in implementing 'artificial intelligence'. I just have trouble with the term itself since it's not really intelligent in the sense that humans are.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2015 03:40 am
@Leadfoot,
Then your objection is to that definition of intelligence. I was just accused of comparing machines to children. All i was actually pointing out is that that is a quibble of how the "intelligence" has been acquired. Whether or not one substitutes another term for intelligence, artificial means created by humans. Here's the number one definition of artifice from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

a : clever or artful skill : ingenuity <believing that characters had to be created from within rather than with artifice — Garson Kanin>
b : an ingenious device or expedient

This is why i have been emphasizing the word artificial to people. Of course it's created by humans. Leaving aside the possible inaptitude of the term intelligence, intelligence does not mean creativity, and until the term is defined for purposes of discussion, any reference to consciousness is also not axiomatic.

For what its worth, i think this could be an interesting topic, but it would need to start from a set of definitions. As i've pointed out, AIs are already in use on Mars, and, in fact, are already used in a great many other applications. People who want to argue about what constitutes artificial intelligence will be up against a wall of years of customary usage.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2015 07:52 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
i think this could be an interesting topic, but it would need to start from a set of definitions.

I've said as much already. We need to define what we mean by "artificial intelligence", and it's probably not just the mere addition of "artificial" and "intelligence"... Because if we define it as some sort of machine-based intelligence akin to human intelligence, then computers are all very stupid.

Wikipedia define intelligence as "the ability to perceive information, and retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment". Computers don't even KNOW they have an environment... They are just sophisticated abacus, beads moving up and down.

A frequent definition human intelligence is "the ability to solve new problems". When is the last time you saw a computer solve a probblem it was not pre-programme to solve?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2015 10:00 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
I've said as much already. We need to define what we mean by "artificial intelligence", and it's probably not just the mere addition of "artificial" and "intelligence"... Because if we define it as some sort of machine-based intelligence akin to human intelligence, then computers are all very stupid.


This is a discussion that has going on by people in the industry over the past 70 years.

The Turing test is part of that discussion.

Quote:
A frequent definition human intelligence is "the ability to solve new problems". When is the last time you saw a computer solve a probblem it was not pre-programme to solve?


Even this definition gets a little tricky. Some AI techniques, such as Neural Nets and Genetic Algorithms, are adaptive. When they are confronted with new unforeseen stimuli they have the ability to "change" their algorithm to reach their goal given the new conditions. On one sense this seems like solving a new problem.

Some of these are pretty impressive. Whether that meets your definition, or is even a step in the right direction, is a matter of interesting debate.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2015 12:24 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

This is a discussion that has going on by people in the industry over the past 70 years.

The Turing test is part of that discussion.

Yes, not knowing what human intelligence is precisely, makes it hard to emulate in machines. Vice versa, the hope is that trying to recreate "intelligent functions" in machines may help understand how the brain works. E.g. help solve the mind-brain duality problem, aka the so-called "hard problem of consciousness".

Quote:

Quote:
A frequent definition human intelligence is "the ability to solve new problems". When is the last time you saw a computer solve a probblem it was not pre-programme to solve?

Even this definition gets a little tricky. Some AI techniques, such as Neural Nets and Genetic Algorithms, are adaptive. When they are confronted with new unforeseen stimuli they have the ability to "change" their algorithm to reach their goal given the new conditions. On one sense this seems like solving a new problem.

Some of these are pretty impressive. Whether that meets your definition, or is even a step in the right direction, is a matter of interesting debate.

I guess they go some way in the right direction: The capacity to change one's own code, and write and rewrite new code, to be aware of it and on top of it.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  3  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2015 02:16 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
. . . intelligence does not mean creativity . . .
Quite true. But it includes creativity.
Setanta wrote:
For what its worth, i think this could be an interesting topic, but it would need to start from a set of definitions. . .
Duly noted.
0 Replies
 
michaellipsey
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2015 12:10 am

Hello All,

The arguments against AI are several. I believe the most convincing is the argument about representation and instantiation of universals.
On the other hand, To see why a machine cannot think, consider the difference between universals and particulars. Particulars are specific things that exist in the world -- a particular apple, or pencil, or person. Universals are concepts which do not exist as particulars, but are real in some sense. Love, mercy, and justice are universals. Thought is the perception of particulars and the contemplation of universals.

Regards,
Michael Lipsey

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/23/2021 at 09:46:10