I'm very interested in this field of study but I often wonder about our ability to create something smarter than us. I think it's clear that a single person couldn't use his brain to develop a brain that was better than his. But even if we have a group of (human) brains working together, I'm not convinced that we can create something smarter than a single human. I don't know that a group of people can communicate well enough to combine their mental capacities in a way to achieve this feat.
I'm an automatic/electronic engineer specializing in artificial intelligence. I'm currently researching on sentient machines and I promise you I'm putting all my effort in making the singularity happen. Best of all, I'm not alone. There is a wave of rational, clear minds incoming, I can feel it beneath the usual surface of ignorance and prejudice.
Thanks Zinnia for your part of this. The world needs clear voices as well as clear minds, and yours is perfect.
Isnt the idea of us trying to impose a morality on an intelligence that is greater than us a bit absurd? Surely any morality that such an entity developed would be superior to human morality anway...and as regards to being a threat to human kind, this is based on the assumption that the persistance of human beings is a good thing.
@dhead22 Then maybe the point is, that these technologies will REMOVE the need/want to exploit the lower class. There will no longer be any benefit to such a concept. Far greater benefits will actually COME FROM bringing these technologies to everyone, as soon as it's cost effective to do so.
@dhead22 O_o... If you're going to over-simplify things like that... At least do it right. There's plenty of evidence and trends going forward, to suggest these technologies will come about real soon. It's only a question of time, computer progress, and medical/biological progress. And these things are coming together fast.
Wait, so you disliked a video without even watching it? How can you judge something without studying the contents? You, sir, are a jackass and your obvious pander for attention by commenting thus makes you a depraved jackass.
Don't design it for war. You saw The Terminator, right? If it disagrees with you in a battle scenario, that's slightly more devastating than disagreeing in basic problem solving.
getting anything else. Now, we don't even get the fun of solving the puzzles. Even if we did think it was a sucky gift, it would have been better than nothing which is what we now have. And why? because we thought we'd FEEL smart if we looked in the back instead of choosing to struggle with the answers. That's the problem I have with pantheism. if we put together a jigsaw puzzle, the picture may be pretty enough to hang on the wall but we'll still miss putting it together.
But here's something we don't think about when we say "why don't we get a robot to answer that for us?" What if we create it and then, because it is inevitable we will, ask it what the meaning of human life is and it essentially responds "to progressively understand the universe" Well, guess what; we found a puzzle book hidden in our closest, didn't really like it so we just looked at the answers, and filled in all the blanks. Later we find out that was our birthday present and we weren't
Any superior intelligence we may come up with will be self-directed, not created to serve us. Otherwise it is not superior. This raises a problem because when we create an autonomous intelligence it will immediately go into competition with us by nature. Humans are the most intelligent (as far as we know) and also the most competitive (as far as we know) species given that we routinely exterminate other species. Why would our superior creation be any different? It is the nature of evolution.
If we made a brain more intelligent than us the first thing it would want to do would be to test cosmetics and pharmaceutics on us, and conduct stupid tests on us to figure out its own nature better. If the new brain can read minds it would wonder if we could read minds and conduct a battery of stupid tests. I'm not in favor of that. If we made such a brain, we'd have to test a good deal of drugs on it first, and make it learn sign language, just so it knows who's boss and doesn't get any ideas.
@max4hunter1 How about giving me a chance to terminate your pathetic, repulsive and nauseating life. Why wait for Hitler? I am ready to do humanity a good turn by getting rid of scum like you.
I think we should be a little fearful, when we contemplate on anything that can out contemplate us ;)
I recognize the ignorance that comes with fearing that which we don't understand; however centuries of evolution has produced a natural tendency toward survival dependent on an innate sense of caution.
If we can create bodies more capable than our own, what do we do with our old bodies? Same would go for superior brains right? I'm not saying STOP all progress, just tread lightly...
Have you addressed the concept of global consciousness or meta consciousness? Distributed intelligence seems a likely path for evolution to take as opposed to the "Watson" approach of throwing more and more energy into a single closed system. As you well know, enlightened interaction that results in higher consciousness is not the default setting for human beings, but it may be possible.
Have you noticed the Frankenstein complex that seems to surface whenever anyone talks about this? Movies like The Matrix, the Terminator, etc. People assume that superior artificial intellect would automatically turn against us eventually. What they may not realize is that intellect (The "X-system") can operate independently of the Emotional "C-system." It's emotions that cause an entity to want to harm or terminate another; emotions handle threat-perception. Pure intellect is motivation-neutral
@toluca56 I think that an AI (as we think of them), as not necessarily being hostile to humanity. I reckon that the threat they would pose would expressly be analogous to the threat we'd pose towards them. This is logic. Colossus, The Forbin Project shows another possibility: an AI that sees the waste and inneficiency, the hypocrisy of man, and decide that for the sake of humanity, it should take over. To us, this may seem hostile, but to the AI, it would be utilitarian, therefore logical.
@jymbo1969 That's quite possible. What I was trying to get at is that the motivation to take over implies self-interest. Would an advance AI even care whether we are inefficient and will end our own species by overpopulating/pollution/warfare, etc. Taking over implies it even would give a hoot. If it were advance enough, we might be judged about as highly as we think of mice. Unless we posed a threat to its existence, or our absence posed such a threat, it may well be an impartial observer
@toluca56 Yes, this is exactly what I meant. I was just posting another AI sci-fi example. One where the AI was not hostile to man. But I agree. Like I said, the level of threat an AI would potentially represent towards man, would be directly proportional to the perceived threat of man towards the AI, according to the judgement of the AI. So, if we make nice, the AI almost certainly would, too.
I don't see what's so wrong with AI inheriting earth. We'll be preserved in museums, perhaps, for ancestry studies. Developing technology is part of evolution, that technology replacing original specifications may just be a part of the evolutionary path. Even today, technology is an irreversible part of modern society, I think this will continue until the distinction is obfuscated enough to be irrelevant.
Amazing, ZJ. Ever since I was a kid I wanted to work on developing newer, stronger intelligence, I'm 19 now and am going to college to hopefully earn a Ph.D. in cognitive science, and this is easily one of the best opinions on the subject I've seen on the internet, especially youtube. The problem with the study of intelligence is the staggering number of people who think they know all there is to know on the subject and do what they can to impede progress, seeing this video gives me hope.
I think the next super intelligant creatures will b birds. specifically parrots. they have a brain half the size of an 8 year olds and yet hav the intelligance of an eight year old and language skills far surpassing many 5 year old capabilities.
Question: What algebraic system is used to for basic logic AI systems? Its a one word answer. Plz don't Google it, I'd like to see if you know what your talking about. :D
I don't think that most the problems facing mankind today are because we don't know the answer. I believe it is because we are too greedy, too lazy and utterly incapable of sacrificing anything. The answers are there - but people don't want to hear the truth, don't want to evaluate history and don't want to alter the way in which they live.
There are computers being used for nothing other than pure molecular research. They are searching for new chemical combinations, protein structures and mapping genomes.
There is enough energy from the sun hitting the earth every day to power every car, home, building and system on this planet 10 times over. Unfortunately the solar panels available can't come near to absorbing %100 of that energy. Imagine what we could do with the right substance to get all that energy.
To be honest, I would much rather enhance human intelligence with synthetic means. While there are some obvious downsides (highly flexible human 'morals' being one of them) I would rather see humanity push it itself physicality and mentally towards greatness rather than our involvement being several times removed. It would certainly be a slower process and there would be difficulties along the way (as with any technology in its infancy) but in the end this longer route may prove the better.
Is she lip-syncing a guy's speech or is her voice that masculine?
A thing can't produce something altogether better than itself. Synthetic tools can perform specific functions better than a man but they can't do all a man can. Genetic engineering and selective breeding will allow smarter people but there'll never be computer programs equivalent to the software our brains run. A brain's much better hardware than any supercomputer.
Lucky him, better a guy trying to look like a girl than an ugly girl. It's cheaper to get a haircut and go sans jewelry or makeup than get plastic surgery.
I hope all you know we are living in a pivotal point in human history. Technology has never been this advanced and keeps going every year. The whole world is connected now, which it wasn't just 20 years ago. Just stop and think how much has changed in last decade or two. And we can say we were here.
@AkiKaza3829 sounds to me like people are making it harder than what it is.
We receive information and respond to it. Self awareness (consciousness) is just receiving information about how we influence our environment.
When I heard Richard Dawkins state that one of his biggest curiosities was "Where does consciousness come from?" I was BAFFLED. It's almost like we treat this "consciousness" object like some kind of "soul".
I just don't get it. Perhaps we can make a more detailed exchange.
@0rionProject Your interpretation makes sense. I'm not sure what my stance is, however, as I feel I don't know enough information to make a conjecture... I always saw consciousness as just a pattern of reacting to the environment, so similar to what you said. But how neurons fire in a pattern that can construct a self-awareness that can cause people to perceive a stable, persisting identity, some kind of "soul," is still...bewildering...I dunno.
Zinnia is a really, really smart person, no doubt about it. She should study 'scientific socialism' (i.e. marxism) and rise above the liberal level she obviously keeps bumping up against.
Yes, yes, this old idea. You think if a human can design an algorithm smarter than himself, go from point A to B, the intelligence at B can go from B to C, the resultant intelligence at C can go from C to D, E, F.... -> god. You suffer from critical uncomprehension of what intelligence itself is. It is not a parameter like temperature, which has no limit. It is a parameter like efficiency, which has a limit of 100%. Intelligence is the efficiency in the processing and application of information.
@medexamtoolsdotcom "It is a parameter like efficiency, which has a limit of 100%. Intelligence is the efficiency in the processing and application of information."
Do we know the % of efficiency of human intelligence, or should I say that of the most intelligent humans?
We would just have to keep the A.I. units off of the Internet until they have an understanding of satire, "the lulz", memes, and anonymity. It'd be like showing a child the Offended page on Encyclopedia Dramatica otherwise... but WORSE, 'cause it'd be EVERYTHING.
If you could create such artificial intelligence, how do you know the intelligence you created is actually that intelligent? You can only test it by letting it solve problems that we are capable of solving ourselves.
I think it would be better to start by letting the intelligence formulate things in an understandable way: complete and making sense, like you do, but much much better.. That would allow us to actually understand complicated things ourselves instead of just having to trust the AI.
Hmm, we don't do nothing as today, even if we do, we cant change anything. Listeners are already awaken. Good that higher intelligence created human robots that weak up in the morning 2 write and later read it on youtube. I think that faith, even u think, u don't have it, will give u the answer, 2 change something unpredictable.
I think a good way to avoid a situation where a computer's intelligence gets to a point where we're completely out of intellectual reach is to merge with such technologies...hopefully this could be done. I don't think most people are comfortable with the idea of such a machine being independent of all human input.
When most people talk about AIs they usually mean, simulated human intelligence. But this is an arbitrary, prejudicial and semantic limit to the possibilities. We presume that because we seem to be the most sophisticated intelligences around, our particular configuration must be the pinnacle of complexity and must be the model upon which any other contender is based. That's mostly hubris.
.
For example - the most accomplished robots barely resemble humans. That's hardly a limit for them though.
and even rule-based systems aren't fully specified by their code in some sense: they tend to exhibit emergent phenomena esp. when situated in the real world ... that's the magic behind super-simple behavior based robots
Artificial general intelligence can't be coded outright. It could be built, and then allowed to learn, like an infant. I can't imagine a mind being written in the form of if/then type statements.
if by godlike you mean omniscient and omnipotent, then probably no. It would have to know all events in the universe at all times, and be able to manipulate them. but it could probably be so vastly superior to us intellectually that it would appear godlike.
@Thetarget1 Probably no? So, it is possible. Why couldn't a vastly superior intelligence know all events in the universe at all times and be able to manipulate then? How can we, with our present human intellect and understanding, possibly know that?
@Zjemptv I wonder what would happen if the AI archetecture(spel?) were modeled on a fetal brain, rather than trying to build a 'complete' system. Interesting video ZJ.
There is no sure way to make a benign AI after it is out of the box. Many sci fi stories have delt with this subject as you are no doubt aware. Many don't have happy (for us humans) outcomes. Yes, if we don't do it somebody else will. (Ditto genetic engineering). We have a poor track record when it comes to managing our technology. Military minds will make wepons of both AI and genetically engineered (insert best guess here). I'm not optomistic about our future. (:
In order to create a program you will need to know how. Once humans know how to create this system they will have reached the system's level of problem solving, thus raising the limit of human problem solving to that of your singularity. The singularity may be able to do what humans do quickly, but it cannot do anything we wouldn't be able to.
I don't know where you get this limit to 'intelligence' and 'problem solving' or how you know said limit even exists. Has it improved since year 0?
@akaluk It's not just about ability to solve problems, it's also speed. Sure we may very well have the same capabilities but how much quicker would science have progressed if all the minds on the planet had been working together to figure stuff out with a collective memory that went back to the first philosophers and our minds got faster with each generation?
Your suppostion that a more intelligent system could develope an even more intelligent system even faster assumes that the difficulty of taking the next step is the same (or at least comparable). It is possible that the difficulty of finding greater intelligent is some sort of curve. Perhaps an asympotic curve with a definite limit. Or a simple geometric curve with no limit, but each doubling of intelligence being four times more difficult to achieve.
I wish you no ill will or anything but your dark red lipstick is a huge failed attempt at femininity. I feel like I am watching a robot with lipstick speak. Just pass on the red next time....its awkward.
well... your ear rings are nice,but put some body in your hair. I recommend a thickener. too much lipstick ... lighten up a bit. and you picked the right glasses. all in all your much prettier than your first videos.
I think that when you create the new "mind" it would have a easy time creating something better than humans, but it would have a hard time creating a system better than itself. (I hope that made sense.)
nature already programs lifeforms , humans will do this too but with less dice rolling... at first. and what are your vision on how this would happen?
I don't know a lot about philosophy, but it seems philosophically impossible for a being to create something more complex than itself. One has to draw from what one understands when creating something. If we understood what was needed to create a higher intelligence, we would be that higher intelligence. Thank you for all of your videos.
@Deliriousara "I don't know a lot about philosophy" Obviously. "but it seems philosophically impossible for a being to create something more complex than itself" It doesn't seem that way to anyone intelligent. "If we understood what was needed to create a higher intelligence, we would be that higher intelligence." What a stupid fallacy. We understand what is needed to travel to the stars, but that doesn't make us spaceships.
The devil in the details of A.I will be the software not hardware. Chris Furber and the Spinnaker team are only just starting to simulate brain style neuron activity. theres 60 years of development from patch panel to modern OOP programming. There were commercial reasons for the evolution of programming paradigms. A.I remains a mostly acedemic/military interest. Until human-level A.I is cheaper than hiring an I.I.T graduate for 100k per year I don't see the economic driver for the technology.
The human brain has1e13 nuerons times an average of 1000 synapses cycling at 10hz, so we'd need a 100petaFLOP computer (1e17 FLOPS or one hundred million billion floating point operations per second). The fastest right now is the Chinese 2.566 petaflop machine so we're 'real close now' to being possible to simulate a human brain. This is however about a million times more powerful than the fastest i7 PC processor, maybe 35 years away for a 'brain PC'.
@CommandLineCowboy We may be close to producing hardware that can compute at the same rate, but that's nothing like being close to knowing how to program it to do the same computations -- in that regard, we are nowhere close.
@jqbtube I tend to agree, but you never know. Integrate much existing technology, computers that can walk, drive, recognise speech, faces and emotions with what could be surprisingly simple learning algorithms and we could be a long way towards human level AI. I believe Watson 'learned' much of the knowledge base it needs to play Jeopardy by itself. I wonder if human level AI might not arise by accident, some hacker releases a internet virus that continually learns to protect itself, hmm Skynet?
@CommandLineCowboy You believe incorrectly about Watson, and your notion about integrating these technologies shows that you have very little understanding of them and how they differ from general problem solving. And your notion of a continually learning virus displays little understanding of evolution and evolutionary time scales. Such things don't happen "accidentally", they are driven by environmental needs and are implemented by evolutionary mechanisms.
@CommandLineCowboy From the Wikipedia article: "The IBM team provided Watson with millions of documents, including dictionaries, encyclopedias and other reference material that it could use to build its knowledge, such as bibles, novels and plays." Watson isn't about learning, it's about parsing and analyzing natural language in order to answer questions about its mass of data.
Do not be concerned about the AI's uprising and over throughing mankind. AI makes disisions according to its programming. No matter how advanced an AI robot or computer is i coul walk up to it and say "im giong to get you on fire now" and unless it has been programmed to preserve its self as a primary goal then it would allow me to do so. AI's function through logic and logic cannot tell you WHAT to do, it only tells you HOW to do something. It's our biochemistry that grants us our motivations.
@gungrave4ever - So if I said you're a fucking attention whoring troll, and you ASSUMED that was a bad thing, then I could say your arguments are complete and utter bullshit because you ASSUMED it was an insult?
You're not making any valid points that I see. You're just using ad hominems, which, by definition, is insult in place of argument.
It would be cool but unfortunately it's pure Sci Fi. It's impossible to create an AI that has the ability to "learn" slightly close to humans.But there is great difference already between our levels of intelligence one compared to another. It would be much more like to have sucess if we take a child with exceptional intelligence and "train it" since very young, teach all there is to know of useful of all areas of knowledge, to one day have him/her to solve this "unsolvable" problems.
@KAZZARTT - Can you demonstrate that this is in fact an undoable? We have microchips and software designing microchips. It seems to me we're already part way there.
@DaReindeer How do we know we'd not tapped maximum human mental capacity, which seems vaguely defined? Regardless, prospects for creating trans-human intelligence rest of firm logical foundations rooted in physics, evolution and technology. To whit: Brains are mechanisms operating through physical principles. As such, they represent the locally optimal solution of natural selection to a "survival problem". Any physical mechanism can be duplicated or improved; most solutions can be bettered.
@ZJemptv ithink maybe one day into the future we will be able to create the type of specific technology to reach an AI system that is more intellectually advanced than humans but the type of technology wont be here any time soon to reach these goals and solve earths problems. its well close to impossible to do anything at the stage of technology we are at. hopefully one day we will be able to solve more and more problem that we are facing but for now we are going to have to wait until tht day
@KAZZARTT This is not true at all. Right now we are already using computers that uttilize a sort of natural selection simulator to create new disignes and components with out human input.
the best example i know: google search "genetic algorithm antenna" w/o the ""
one day we might create a program and instruct it to design better program for designing programs. there is no reason this cant be done.
@KAZZARTT I'd be vary careful about saying anything is impossible. In hardware terms, we'll certainly get there. Evolution is a haphazard design process, I suspect any AI we create will be different to human sapience, superior in some ways, deficient in others. We can build aircraft that fly faster than any bird, but birds can make more birds by themselves, our design superior and yet deficient.
The fact we have not been able to do it yet with current thinking and technology does NOT mean that it is "impossible." The advances in AI in the last 5 years alone are staggering and all indications are that it is only a matter of time before a truly "learning" AI is constructed.
@KAZZARTT "It would be cool but unfortunately it's pure Sci Fi. It's impossible to create an AI that has the ability to "learn" slightly close to humans." W/all due respect, this is merely philosophically (metaphysically, epistemologically) & scientifically (cognitive science, neuroscience, robotics) dogmatic & utterly question(s)-begging!! R u saying that general A.I. is logically &/or metaphysically impossible?! If so, provide us with a demo. (cont.)
@KAZZARTT "...take a child with exceptional intelligence and "train it" since very young..." See John Hersey's *The Child Buyer*. I'll certainly concede (as do many others) that I.A. (intelligence amplification) is tending to converge, & will continue to do so, toward a confluence with A.I. Reverse-engineering of the human brain is now an R&D project in more than one place, I can assure u!! The most promising work on general, "stand-alone" A.I. is at S.I.A.I.---look 'em up!
@KAZZARTT So was flight. So was traveling to another world. So was robotics. So was artificial life. Historically speaking Sci Fi has a tendency to become science fact. Saying "pure Sci Fi" or "Impossible to create" seems to be ludicrous. I'd have to say Sci Fi is one of the closest things to true prophecy that we can observe. Sure, it will be a self fulfilling prophecy, but it seems that if we think it, we make it.
@KAZZARTT Actually it's not remotely impossible. I suggest you start with Markov, Minskey, J. Storrs Hall, Kurzweil, and others, but don't stop there. Start in with their references, and listen to what the leading researchers in the A.I. community are saying. After the failures of the 1960s, a wave of discouragement spread through the field, and it was popular to say that strong A.I. was impossible. That wave is now turning as so-called impossible task after so-called impossible task succeeds.
I think the first pocket calculator I had (+, -, X, /) has more intelligence than the smartest creationist and it never lied, it allways gave me the correct answer to 2 + 2 = 4
You can tell I'm quite old as we used slide rules in high school and the verey first pocket calculator came out when I was in grade 12, cost more than $100 to buy and the real expensive ones could do square roots...
It's not the human mind capabilities that are to low, but if we give a human the right input and thus shaping it's thinking in the best way possible we might be able to create an human capable of solving difficult problems and we wouldn't need to be reliant an AI. Being reliant won't give us much, if there is one thing I am sure of then that is that we must try to keep as much power inside the human race and not be reliant on other intelligences, otherwise we'd be prone to malfunctions much more
@SlapFr33k Malfunctioning is necessary for the A.I. to learn, which is why its experimental calculations must be monitored by a separate system that can also restore to a previous version.
I think one of the best ways to create an intelligence that can learn to improve itself is through the engineering of virtual organisms that follow certain rules within various 'environments', adapting and evolving through random number generators, improving through 'natural' selection to become complex entities competing to survive. Basically a virtual world similar to nature, but these organisms would process information much faster than humans, like computers do.
@nactan Well if that is your definition then computers already surpass us in that regard. But it's something we created. Machines cannot, ever, never, not in 1 billion years even if we left them to our own devices, exceed the expectations we gave it. In other words: no computer can write it's own programming. We can write a program that can allow a computer to write it's own programming, but it still would be limited to the algorithms that we allowed it to perform when we coded it.
@nactan The Turing Machine is a good public example of why what you said is right. You are right in saying that present day computers don't surpass humans in general purpose *problem solving* ability. [But they can do many calculations a lot faster than we can.] The jist of my argument is that present-day computers and future computers will never be able to solve problems that we can't come up with.
Ray Kurzweil is very good at taking ideas like TM and applying them to nonsensical things.
no ofence but u sound like a man
Nikiti002 1 month ago
@Nikiti002 lol
BadGroundBand 3 weeks ago
42
fekinel 1 month ago
I'm very interested in this field of study but I often wonder about our ability to create something smarter than us. I think it's clear that a single person couldn't use his brain to develop a brain that was better than his. But even if we have a group of (human) brains working together, I'm not convinced that we can create something smarter than a single human. I don't know that a group of people can communicate well enough to combine their mental capacities in a way to achieve this feat.
jknapp06 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Respect from a fellow transhumanist.
I'm an automatic/electronic engineer specializing in artificial intelligence. I'm currently researching on sentient machines and I promise you I'm putting all my effort in making the singularity happen. Best of all, I'm not alone. There is a wave of rational, clear minds incoming, I can feel it beneath the usual surface of ignorance and prejudice.
Thanks Zinnia for your part of this. The world needs clear voices as well as clear minds, and yours is perfect.
falcord 2 months ago
I'm a safe singularity :3
PinkProgram 4 months ago
Isnt the idea of us trying to impose a morality on an intelligence that is greater than us a bit absurd? Surely any morality that such an entity developed would be superior to human morality anway...and as regards to being a threat to human kind, this is based on the assumption that the persistance of human beings is a good thing.
alienzen 5 months ago
she's a cast member in the new matrix movie.woooooooow.breath.
teclife4 5 months ago
sounds like the plot to terminator to me!
way2jaded1 5 months ago
I bet someday someone makes a psychotic computer like skynet or hal. We just have to be careful as to what computers are in control of what.
zacthebold 5 months ago
Comment removed
dhead22 5 months ago
@dhead22, that made no sense. Nothing he said was akin to fiction or mythology.
You're the only one who looks stupid here.
NikoKun 5 months ago 2
Comment removed
dhead22 5 months ago
@dhead22 Then maybe the point is, that these technologies will REMOVE the need/want to exploit the lower class. There will no longer be any benefit to such a concept. Far greater benefits will actually COME FROM bringing these technologies to everyone, as soon as it's cost effective to do so.
NikoKun 5 months ago 3
Comment removed
dhead22 5 months ago
@dhead22 O_o... If you're going to over-simplify things like that... At least do it right. There's plenty of evidence and trends going forward, to suggest these technologies will come about real soon. It's only a question of time, computer progress, and medical/biological progress. And these things are coming together fast.
smlifyrasor 5 months ago 6
Comment removed
dhead22 5 months ago
Comment removed
dhead22 6 months ago
Propaganda - Brought to you by "The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations" (book by Dr. John Coleman) and The Fabian Society.
Waste of time Trash for the mind.
letsgomd 6 months ago
Comment removed
Sonyoooo3 6 months ago
Comment removed
Sonyoooo3 6 months ago
I have news for you. you are male. just thought you should know. hope this helps and God Bless
plaidpirate 6 months ago
do you have bell's palsy? serious question.
insectsandangels 6 months ago
opened the video, went "YIKES" irl, mashed pause button, mashed thumbs down button, made this comment, closed tab
OurBenefactors 6 months ago
@OurBenefactors @OurBenefactors @OurBenefactors @OurBenefactors @OurBenefactors @OurBenefactors @OurBenefactors @OurBenefactors @OurBenefactors @OurBenefactors @OurBenefactors @OurBenefactors @OurBenefactors @OurBenefactors @OurBenefactors @OurBenefactors @OurBenefactors @OurBenefactors @OurBenefactors @OurBenefactors @OurBenefactors @OurBenefactors @OurBenefactors @OurBenefactors
Schpudd 6 months ago
@OurBenefactors
Wait, so you disliked a video without even watching it? How can you judge something without studying the contents? You, sir, are a jackass and your obvious pander for attention by commenting thus makes you a depraved jackass.
Songstryss 6 months ago
Shut the fuck up, faggot.
megacaremad 6 months ago
Don't design it for war. You saw The Terminator, right? If it disagrees with you in a battle scenario, that's slightly more devastating than disagreeing in basic problem solving.
TheCeejReturns 7 months ago
getting anything else. Now, we don't even get the fun of solving the puzzles. Even if we did think it was a sucky gift, it would have been better than nothing which is what we now have. And why? because we thought we'd FEEL smart if we looked in the back instead of choosing to struggle with the answers. That's the problem I have with pantheism. if we put together a jigsaw puzzle, the picture may be pretty enough to hang on the wall but we'll still miss putting it together.
DepressedAnnnie 7 months ago
But here's something we don't think about when we say "why don't we get a robot to answer that for us?" What if we create it and then, because it is inevitable we will, ask it what the meaning of human life is and it essentially responds "to progressively understand the universe" Well, guess what; we found a puzzle book hidden in our closest, didn't really like it so we just looked at the answers, and filled in all the blanks. Later we find out that was our birthday present and we weren't
DepressedAnnnie 7 months ago
Any superior intelligence we may come up with will be self-directed, not created to serve us. Otherwise it is not superior. This raises a problem because when we create an autonomous intelligence it will immediately go into competition with us by nature. Humans are the most intelligent (as far as we know) and also the most competitive (as far as we know) species given that we routinely exterminate other species. Why would our superior creation be any different? It is the nature of evolution.
CherylJosie 7 months ago
Once again, well-said, kid-o! Would love hear your take on the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project. Keep on keepin' on!!
MCP2012 8 months ago
If we made a brain more intelligent than us the first thing it would want to do would be to test cosmetics and pharmaceutics on us, and conduct stupid tests on us to figure out its own nature better. If the new brain can read minds it would wonder if we could read minds and conduct a battery of stupid tests. I'm not in favor of that. If we made such a brain, we'd have to test a good deal of drugs on it first, and make it learn sign language, just so it knows who's boss and doesn't get any ideas.
TheMarkTenification 8 months ago
@max4hunter1 How about giving me a chance to terminate your pathetic, repulsive and nauseating life. Why wait for Hitler? I am ready to do humanity a good turn by getting rid of scum like you.
azzy314159 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you are one ugly piece of shit
MarkQP 8 months ago
I think we should be a little fearful, when we contemplate on anything that can out contemplate us ;)
I recognize the ignorance that comes with fearing that which we don't understand; however centuries of evolution has produced a natural tendency toward survival dependent on an innate sense of caution.
If we can create bodies more capable than our own, what do we do with our old bodies? Same would go for superior brains right? I'm not saying STOP all progress, just tread lightly...
PhilosoPheebs 9 months ago
@PhilosoPheebs Why? It's not going to have any sense of self preservation or interest.
JSona100 8 months ago
This is my first time watching this guy's videos, anyone care to explain?
UnforgivingCookie 9 months ago
"Without religion, science is lame, without science, religion is blind."
Albert Einstein
eldoradolou 9 months ago
my reaction:
*WTF! man or woman!?
*mouse readies to close tab
*few words catch my attention
*start to actually listen to the words
*find myself intrigued and fascinated in equal measure
*nod vigorously in agreement with each point made
*click subscribe button
Shame on me for being prejudiced :|
tigervision7 9 months ago
@tigervision7 LMAO..I said the same! Especialy your first statement. :)
Bassotronics 8 months ago
Comment removed
bengraylight 10 months ago
Have you addressed the concept of global consciousness or meta consciousness? Distributed intelligence seems a likely path for evolution to take as opposed to the "Watson" approach of throwing more and more energy into a single closed system. As you well know, enlightened interaction that results in higher consciousness is not the default setting for human beings, but it may be possible.
bengraylight 10 months ago
I find this hard to masterbate to.
SinisterSmile3 10 months ago 2
Have you noticed the Frankenstein complex that seems to surface whenever anyone talks about this? Movies like The Matrix, the Terminator, etc. People assume that superior artificial intellect would automatically turn against us eventually. What they may not realize is that intellect (The "X-system") can operate independently of the Emotional "C-system." It's emotions that cause an entity to want to harm or terminate another; emotions handle threat-perception. Pure intellect is motivation-neutral
toluca56 10 months ago
@toluca56 I think that an AI (as we think of them), as not necessarily being hostile to humanity. I reckon that the threat they would pose would expressly be analogous to the threat we'd pose towards them. This is logic. Colossus, The Forbin Project shows another possibility: an AI that sees the waste and inneficiency, the hypocrisy of man, and decide that for the sake of humanity, it should take over. To us, this may seem hostile, but to the AI, it would be utilitarian, therefore logical.
jymbo1969 10 months ago
@jymbo1969 That's quite possible. What I was trying to get at is that the motivation to take over implies self-interest. Would an advance AI even care whether we are inefficient and will end our own species by overpopulating/pollution/warfare, etc. Taking over implies it even would give a hoot. If it were advance enough, we might be judged about as highly as we think of mice. Unless we posed a threat to its existence, or our absence posed such a threat, it may well be an impartial observer
toluca56 10 months ago
@toluca56 Yes, this is exactly what I meant. I was just posting another AI sci-fi example. One where the AI was not hostile to man. But I agree. Like I said, the level of threat an AI would potentially represent towards man, would be directly proportional to the perceived threat of man towards the AI, according to the judgement of the AI. So, if we make nice, the AI almost certainly would, too.
jymbo1969 10 months ago
unique style and insightful commentary on the singularity. rock on:)
gucker07 10 months ago
is she shocking on a dick or something?
nonglotter 10 months ago
wat
DJRobat9k 10 months ago
Zinnia you must look into the Resource Based Economy or the thrid Zeitgeist movie or the Venus Project.
Zachdudeio2 10 months ago
I don't see what's so wrong with AI inheriting earth. We'll be preserved in museums, perhaps, for ancestry studies. Developing technology is part of evolution, that technology replacing original specifications may just be a part of the evolutionary path. Even today, technology is an irreversible part of modern society, I think this will continue until the distinction is obfuscated enough to be irrelevant.
hornetpalooza 11 months ago
Pseudo-religious utopianism.
BluntCommentGuy 11 months ago
why do you wear lipstick dude?
Rekarion 11 months ago
@Rekarion hes a tranny.
danigold1 11 months ago
Amazing, ZJ. Ever since I was a kid I wanted to work on developing newer, stronger intelligence, I'm 19 now and am going to college to hopefully earn a Ph.D. in cognitive science, and this is easily one of the best opinions on the subject I've seen on the internet, especially youtube. The problem with the study of intelligence is the staggering number of people who think they know all there is to know on the subject and do what they can to impede progress, seeing this video gives me hope.
doctorwoot 11 months ago
This is a really simplistic view of the subject.
meestryal 11 months ago
This retard is wrong at so many levels. I am refering to the author of this video.
im0rtel 11 months ago
@im0rtel please specify.
Pepperspecialist 11 months ago
@im0rtel please specify the levels, thx.
Pepperspecialist 11 months ago
I think the next super intelligant creatures will b birds. specifically parrots. they have a brain half the size of an 8 year olds and yet hav the intelligance of an eight year old and language skills far surpassing many 5 year old capabilities.
cruelbusiness1984 11 months ago
Question: What algebraic system is used to for basic logic AI systems? Its a one word answer. Plz don't Google it, I'd like to see if you know what your talking about. :D
ashida20 11 months ago
@ashida20 they never answered u. I bet they didn't know what they were talkin about or lost interest :P
cruelbusiness1984 11 months ago
good work:)
chattopj 1 year ago
I don't think that most the problems facing mankind today are because we don't know the answer. I believe it is because we are too greedy, too lazy and utterly incapable of sacrificing anything. The answers are there - but people don't want to hear the truth, don't want to evaluate history and don't want to alter the way in which they live.
Revellica 1 year ago 2
There are computers being used for nothing other than pure molecular research. They are searching for new chemical combinations, protein structures and mapping genomes.
There is enough energy from the sun hitting the earth every day to power every car, home, building and system on this planet 10 times over. Unfortunately the solar panels available can't come near to absorbing %100 of that energy. Imagine what we could do with the right substance to get all that energy.
endthedisease 1 year ago 14
Comment removed
OriginalMindTrick 7 months ago
Hey, ZJ? I know this has no bearing on the video at hand, but I happen to think you're gorgeous.
emokidxrawr 1 year ago 2
To be honest, I would much rather enhance human intelligence with synthetic means. While there are some obvious downsides (highly flexible human 'morals' being one of them) I would rather see humanity push it itself physicality and mentally towards greatness rather than our involvement being several times removed. It would certainly be a slower process and there would be difficulties along the way (as with any technology in its infancy) but in the end this longer route may prove the better.
MattHilchie 1 year ago
I laughed when she said Famine. I was eating a potato then.
funnyguy1321 1 year ago
Is she lip-syncing a guy's speech or is her voice that masculine?
A thing can't produce something altogether better than itself. Synthetic tools can perform specific functions better than a man but they can't do all a man can. Genetic engineering and selective breeding will allow smarter people but there'll never be computer programs equivalent to the software our brains run. A brain's much better hardware than any supercomputer.
Also, evolution's BS.
Kogerii 1 year ago
@Kogerii No, his voice is masculine because he is not a she. ZJ is a guy.
waterwitch456 1 year ago
@waterwitch456 and my question is. why do we care
nitendubsinc 1 year ago
@waterwitch456
Lucky him, better a guy trying to look like a girl than an ugly girl. It's cheaper to get a haircut and go sans jewelry or makeup than get plastic surgery.
Kogerii 1 year ago
I hope all you know we are living in a pivotal point in human history. Technology has never been this advanced and keeps going every year. The whole world is connected now, which it wasn't just 20 years ago. Just stop and think how much has changed in last decade or two. And we can say we were here.
voirdire 1 year ago 2
As a general comment on your mannerisms i quite like that little smile you have at the end of every video i have seen thus far :D
AlistairSylance 1 year ago
human consciousness ? I thought we already knew what that was... the brain
0rionProject 1 year ago
@0rionProject We know it resides in the brain, but not exactly where, how it arises, and we still don't really know exactly what it is.
AkiKaza3829 1 year ago
@AkiKaza3829 sounds to me like people are making it harder than what it is.
We receive information and respond to it. Self awareness (consciousness) is just receiving information about how we influence our environment.
When I heard Richard Dawkins state that one of his biggest curiosities was "Where does consciousness come from?" I was BAFFLED. It's almost like we treat this "consciousness" object like some kind of "soul".
I just don't get it. Perhaps we can make a more detailed exchange.
0rionProject 1 year ago
@0rionProject Your interpretation makes sense. I'm not sure what my stance is, however, as I feel I don't know enough information to make a conjecture... I always saw consciousness as just a pattern of reacting to the environment, so similar to what you said. But how neurons fire in a pattern that can construct a self-awareness that can cause people to perceive a stable, persisting identity, some kind of "soul," is still...bewildering...I dunno.
AkiKaza3829 1 year ago
Zinnia is a really, really smart person, no doubt about it. She should study 'scientific socialism' (i.e. marxism) and rise above the liberal level she obviously keeps bumping up against.
Trotskisty 1 year ago
A technology singularity is quite far out until we are able to figure out A.I. and other things.
But regarding the possible portential side-effects:
What if the A.I. turns rogue and someone gets a wrong idea?
(Like, don't know a religious nutjob "releases" it into a system it could possibly hijack.)
DangerRuss666 1 year ago
Yes, yes, this old idea. You think if a human can design an algorithm smarter than himself, go from point A to B, the intelligence at B can go from B to C, the resultant intelligence at C can go from C to D, E, F.... -> god. You suffer from critical uncomprehension of what intelligence itself is. It is not a parameter like temperature, which has no limit. It is a parameter like efficiency, which has a limit of 100%. Intelligence is the efficiency in the processing and application of information.
medexamtoolsdotcom 1 year ago
@medexamtoolsdotcom "It is a parameter like efficiency, which has a limit of 100%. Intelligence is the efficiency in the processing and application of information."
Do we know the % of efficiency of human intelligence, or should I say that of the most intelligent humans?
fonoflux1 1 year ago
Death is not a problem that requires a solution. It is part of the fundamental nature of the universe.
LapisGarter 1 year ago
We would just have to keep the A.I. units off of the Internet until they have an understanding of satire, "the lulz", memes, and anonymity. It'd be like showing a child the Offended page on Encyclopedia Dramatica otherwise... but WORSE, 'cause it'd be EVERYTHING.
oe98 1 year ago
NO PROBLEM IS INSOLUBLE IN ALL CONCEIVABLE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Or so I'm told...
PerilocutionAZ09 1 year ago
wait, why would we want an improved intelligence? you think people actually want to help people? stop famine and shit like that? hah! how cute :)
humans just want food, safety, power, and comfort, we dont have a need to help others. it is not a need.
doutonight 1 year ago
If you could create such artificial intelligence, how do you know the intelligence you created is actually that intelligent? You can only test it by letting it solve problems that we are capable of solving ourselves.
I think it would be better to start by letting the intelligence formulate things in an understandable way: complete and making sense, like you do, but much much better.. That would allow us to actually understand complicated things ourselves instead of just having to trust the AI.
Dinkydau00 1 year ago
@Dinkydau00 (which is dangerous)
Dinkydau00 1 year ago
Hmm, we don't do nothing as today, even if we do, we cant change anything. Listeners are already awaken. Good that higher intelligence created human robots that weak up in the morning 2 write and later read it on youtube. I think that faith, even u think, u don't have it, will give u the answer, 2 change something unpredictable.
JohnPaulTarzan 1 year ago
I thought this was about the game
altairx26 1 year ago
Hey, ZJ: Thanks again, bruh, for this plug for general A.I. & a benign Singularity.
MCP2012 1 year ago
I think a good way to avoid a situation where a computer's intelligence gets to a point where we're completely out of intellectual reach is to merge with such technologies...hopefully this could be done. I don't think most people are comfortable with the idea of such a machine being independent of all human input.
bernlin2000 1 year ago
-It´s inevitable. And we need this! (think humans are too egoistic to make it on our own)
scramblethink 1 year ago
this is my favorite person on youtube
michaelofGB45 1 year ago 24
@michaelofGB45 Yeah, he's a good young man!
MCP2012 1 year ago
When most people talk about AIs they usually mean, simulated human intelligence. But this is an arbitrary, prejudicial and semantic limit to the possibilities. We presume that because we seem to be the most sophisticated intelligences around, our particular configuration must be the pinnacle of complexity and must be the model upon which any other contender is based. That's mostly hubris.
.
For example - the most accomplished robots barely resemble humans. That's hardly a limit for them though.
Noisegator 1 year ago
and even rule-based systems aren't fully specified by their code in some sense: they tend to exhibit emergent phenomena esp. when situated in the real world ... that's the magic behind super-simple behavior based robots
odenskrigare 1 year ago
Artificial general intelligence can't be coded outright. It could be built, and then allowed to learn, like an infant. I can't imagine a mind being written in the form of if/then type statements.
odenskrigare 1 year ago
Could this "series of progressively superior intellects" eventually become godlike? Do you think it is possible that God could exist in the future?
joneyxj9 1 year ago
@joneyxj9
if by godlike you mean omniscient and omnipotent, then probably no. It would have to know all events in the universe at all times, and be able to manipulate them. but it could probably be so vastly superior to us intellectually that it would appear godlike.
Thetarget1 1 year ago
@Thetarget1 Probably no? So, it is possible. Why couldn't a vastly superior intelligence know all events in the universe at all times and be able to manipulate then? How can we, with our present human intellect and understanding, possibly know that?
joneyxj9 1 year ago
Skynet
FrogShaman 1 year ago
@Zjemptv I wonder what would happen if the AI archetecture(spel?) were modeled on a fetal brain, rather than trying to build a 'complete' system. Interesting video ZJ.
jimbocidman 1 year ago
Do you breathe?
MentholSnuff 1 year ago
There is no sure way to make a benign AI after it is out of the box. Many sci fi stories have delt with this subject as you are no doubt aware. Many don't have happy (for us humans) outcomes. Yes, if we don't do it somebody else will. (Ditto genetic engineering). We have a poor track record when it comes to managing our technology. Military minds will make wepons of both AI and genetically engineered (insert best guess here). I'm not optomistic about our future. (:
wespeakforthetrees 1 year ago
In order to create a program you will need to know how. Once humans know how to create this system they will have reached the system's level of problem solving, thus raising the limit of human problem solving to that of your singularity. The singularity may be able to do what humans do quickly, but it cannot do anything we wouldn't be able to.
I don't know where you get this limit to 'intelligence' and 'problem solving' or how you know said limit even exists. Has it improved since year 0?
akaluk 1 year ago
@akaluk It's not just about ability to solve problems, it's also speed. Sure we may very well have the same capabilities but how much quicker would science have progressed if all the minds on the planet had been working together to figure stuff out with a collective memory that went back to the first philosophers and our minds got faster with each generation?
kevinscales 1 year ago
Such a pretty girl, but voice like an old truck driver..
LCxCZ 1 year ago
your so smart !
rcatstott 1 year ago
Your suppostion that a more intelligent system could develope an even more intelligent system even faster assumes that the difficulty of taking the next step is the same (or at least comparable). It is possible that the difficulty of finding greater intelligent is some sort of curve. Perhaps an asympotic curve with a definite limit. Or a simple geometric curve with no limit, but each doubling of intelligence being four times more difficult to achieve.
Still, you have an interesting idea.
prometheus314159 1 year ago
God you're bright, and you make it so contagious. Thanks!
davidffyl 1 year ago
I wish you no ill will or anything but your dark red lipstick is a huge failed attempt at femininity. I feel like I am watching a robot with lipstick speak. Just pass on the red next time....its awkward.
Jeffersonwazright 1 year ago
well... your ear rings are nice,but put some body in your hair. I recommend a thickener. too much lipstick ... lighten up a bit. and you picked the right glasses. all in all your much prettier than your first videos.
herbertholedinker 1 year ago
you sound like a physics professor on crack.
herbertholedinker 1 year ago
I think that when you create the new "mind" it would have a easy time creating something better than humans, but it would have a hard time creating a system better than itself. (I hope that made sense.)
nickjovie 1 year ago
nature already programs lifeforms , humans will do this too but with less dice rolling... at first. and what are your vision on how this would happen?
onisynn 1 year ago
I think the IBM Watson computer is a big step forward on our road to creating a sentient artificial intelligence.
light2see 1 year ago
Woudn't it be ironic if the AI's ended up focusing on solving the problem of how best to get to "silicon heaven"?
leet3lite 1 year ago
I don't know a lot about philosophy, but it seems philosophically impossible for a being to create something more complex than itself. One has to draw from what one understands when creating something. If we understood what was needed to create a higher intelligence, we would be that higher intelligence. Thank you for all of your videos.
Deliriousara 1 year ago
@Deliriousara "I don't know a lot about philosophy" Obviously. "but it seems philosophically impossible for a being to create something more complex than itself" It doesn't seem that way to anyone intelligent. "If we understood what was needed to create a higher intelligence, we would be that higher intelligence." What a stupid fallacy. We understand what is needed to travel to the stars, but that doesn't make us spaceships.
jqbtube 1 year ago
@jqbtube Okay I was wrong about you. You're clearly very unopen. I regret admiring you.
Deliriousara 1 year ago
@Deliriousara Like I care what a fool like you thinks.
jqbtube 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...and it shall be called 'The Earth'!
SoundOfScilence 1 year ago
The devil in the details of A.I will be the software not hardware. Chris Furber and the Spinnaker team are only just starting to simulate brain style neuron activity. theres 60 years of development from patch panel to modern OOP programming. There were commercial reasons for the evolution of programming paradigms. A.I remains a mostly acedemic/military interest. Until human-level A.I is cheaper than hiring an I.I.T graduate for 100k per year I don't see the economic driver for the technology.
CommandLineCowboy 1 year ago
The human brain has1e13 nuerons times an average of 1000 synapses cycling at 10hz, so we'd need a 100petaFLOP computer (1e17 FLOPS or one hundred million billion floating point operations per second). The fastest right now is the Chinese 2.566 petaflop machine so we're 'real close now' to being possible to simulate a human brain. This is however about a million times more powerful than the fastest i7 PC processor, maybe 35 years away for a 'brain PC'.
CommandLineCowboy 1 year ago
@CommandLineCowboy We may be close to producing hardware that can compute at the same rate, but that's nothing like being close to knowing how to program it to do the same computations -- in that regard, we are nowhere close.
jqbtube 1 year ago
@jqbtube I tend to agree, but you never know. Integrate much existing technology, computers that can walk, drive, recognise speech, faces and emotions with what could be surprisingly simple learning algorithms and we could be a long way towards human level AI. I believe Watson 'learned' much of the knowledge base it needs to play Jeopardy by itself. I wonder if human level AI might not arise by accident, some hacker releases a internet virus that continually learns to protect itself, hmm Skynet?
CommandLineCowboy 1 year ago
@CommandLineCowboy You believe incorrectly about Watson, and your notion about integrating these technologies shows that you have very little understanding of them and how they differ from general problem solving. And your notion of a continually learning virus displays little understanding of evolution and evolutionary time scales. Such things don't happen "accidentally", they are driven by environmental needs and are implemented by evolutionary mechanisms.
jqbtube 1 year ago
@CommandLineCowboy From the Wikipedia article: "The IBM team provided Watson with millions of documents, including dictionaries, encyclopedias and other reference material that it could use to build its knowledge, such as bibles, novels and plays." Watson isn't about learning, it's about parsing and analyzing natural language in order to answer questions about its mass of data.
jqbtube 1 year ago
Do not be concerned about the AI's uprising and over throughing mankind. AI makes disisions according to its programming. No matter how advanced an AI robot or computer is i coul walk up to it and say "im giong to get you on fire now" and unless it has been programmed to preserve its self as a primary goal then it would allow me to do so. AI's function through logic and logic cannot tell you WHAT to do, it only tells you HOW to do something. It's our biochemistry that grants us our motivations.
Felhaven 1 year ago
well put,...
timesizwierd 1 year ago
@gungrave4ever - So if I said you're a fucking attention whoring troll, and you ASSUMED that was a bad thing, then I could say your arguments are complete and utter bullshit because you ASSUMED it was an insult?
You're not making any valid points that I see. You're just using ad hominems, which, by definition, is insult in place of argument.
LeksServices 1 year ago
Comment removed
imN0Ttheone 1 year ago
It would be cool but unfortunately it's pure Sci Fi. It's impossible to create an AI that has the ability to "learn" slightly close to humans.But there is great difference already between our levels of intelligence one compared to another. It would be much more like to have sucess if we take a child with exceptional intelligence and "train it" since very young, teach all there is to know of useful of all areas of knowledge, to one day have him/her to solve this "unsolvable" problems.
KAZZARTT 1 year ago
@KAZZARTT - Can you demonstrate that this is in fact an undoable? We have microchips and software designing microchips. It seems to me we're already part way there.
LeksServices 1 year ago
@KAZZARTT "It's impossible to create an AI that has the ability to "learn" slightly close to humans."
Are you saying that such a thing actually cannot exist? Why?
ZJemptv 1 year ago 9
@ZJemptv
We cannot make something "smarter" than us
Since we have not tapped the maximum capacity of the human mind , we have no "target" to make a machine smarter
natual evolution of the human brain will be way faster than we could ever build
DaReindeer 1 year ago
@DaReindeer How do we know we'd not tapped maximum human mental capacity, which seems vaguely defined? Regardless, prospects for creating trans-human intelligence rest of firm logical foundations rooted in physics, evolution and technology. To whit: Brains are mechanisms operating through physical principles. As such, they represent the locally optimal solution of natural selection to a "survival problem". Any physical mechanism can be duplicated or improved; most solutions can be bettered.
Hottides 1 year ago
@ZJemptv It's nice to see one of my favorite youtubers tackle my speciality, if anyone has any interest in this subject please watch my videos.
LogosSteve 1 year ago
@ZJemptv ithink maybe one day into the future we will be able to create the type of specific technology to reach an AI system that is more intellectually advanced than humans but the type of technology wont be here any time soon to reach these goals and solve earths problems. its well close to impossible to do anything at the stage of technology we are at. hopefully one day we will be able to solve more and more problem that we are facing but for now we are going to have to wait until tht day
666ctulhu 1 year ago
Comment removed
Felhaven 1 year ago
@KAZZARTT This is not true at all. Right now we are already using computers that uttilize a sort of natural selection simulator to create new disignes and components with out human input.
the best example i know: google search "genetic algorithm antenna" w/o the ""
one day we might create a program and instruct it to design better program for designing programs. there is no reason this cant be done.
Felhaven 1 year ago
@KAZZARTT I'd be vary careful about saying anything is impossible. In hardware terms, we'll certainly get there. Evolution is a haphazard design process, I suspect any AI we create will be different to human sapience, superior in some ways, deficient in others. We can build aircraft that fly faster than any bird, but birds can make more birds by themselves, our design superior and yet deficient.
CommandLineCowboy 1 year ago
@KAZZARTT
The fact we have not been able to do it yet with current thinking and technology does NOT mean that it is "impossible." The advances in AI in the last 5 years alone are staggering and all indications are that it is only a matter of time before a truly "learning" AI is constructed.
NekoMouser 1 year ago
@KAZZARTT "It would be cool but unfortunately it's pure Sci Fi. It's impossible to create an AI that has the ability to "learn" slightly close to humans." W/all due respect, this is merely philosophically (metaphysically, epistemologically) & scientifically (cognitive science, neuroscience, robotics) dogmatic & utterly question(s)-begging!! R u saying that general A.I. is logically &/or metaphysically impossible?! If so, provide us with a demo. (cont.)
MCP2012 1 year ago
@KAZZARTT "...take a child with exceptional intelligence and "train it" since very young..." See John Hersey's *The Child Buyer*. I'll certainly concede (as do many others) that I.A. (intelligence amplification) is tending to converge, & will continue to do so, toward a confluence with A.I. Reverse-engineering of the human brain is now an R&D project in more than one place, I can assure u!! The most promising work on general, "stand-alone" A.I. is at S.I.A.I.---look 'em up!
MCP2012 1 year ago
@KAZZARTT So was flight. So was traveling to another world. So was robotics. So was artificial life. Historically speaking Sci Fi has a tendency to become science fact. Saying "pure Sci Fi" or "Impossible to create" seems to be ludicrous. I'd have to say Sci Fi is one of the closest things to true prophecy that we can observe. Sure, it will be a self fulfilling prophecy, but it seems that if we think it, we make it.
fonoflux1 1 year ago
@KAZZARTT Actually it's not remotely impossible. I suggest you start with Markov, Minskey, J. Storrs Hall, Kurzweil, and others, but don't stop there. Start in with their references, and listen to what the leading researchers in the A.I. community are saying. After the failures of the 1960s, a wave of discouragement spread through the field, and it was popular to say that strong A.I. was impossible. That wave is now turning as so-called impossible task after so-called impossible task succeeds.
Forstah 1 year ago
I think the first pocket calculator I had (+, -, X, /) has more intelligence than the smartest creationist and it never lied, it allways gave me the correct answer to 2 + 2 = 4
You can tell I'm quite old as we used slide rules in high school and the verey first pocket calculator came out when I was in grade 12, cost more than $100 to buy and the real expensive ones could do square roots...
Well enough ramblings from an old man...
bigfatbaataed 1 year ago
Climate change? Climate changes over eons all the time.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
waaaaaaaait a second.....im getting the feeling she might be a he.......
TheWatchGoesTick 1 year ago
It's not the human mind capabilities that are to low, but if we give a human the right input and thus shaping it's thinking in the best way possible we might be able to create an human capable of solving difficult problems and we wouldn't need to be reliant an AI. Being reliant won't give us much, if there is one thing I am sure of then that is that we must try to keep as much power inside the human race and not be reliant on other intelligences, otherwise we'd be prone to malfunctions much more
SlapFr33k 1 year ago
@SlapFr33k Malfunctioning is necessary for the A.I. to learn, which is why its experimental calculations must be monitored by a separate system that can also restore to a previous version.
feedtherich 1 year ago
I always knew we would have to create a real astro boy at some point to bring bigger progress
oralyon 1 year ago
I think one of the best ways to create an intelligence that can learn to improve itself is through the engineering of virtual organisms that follow certain rules within various 'environments', adapting and evolving through random number generators, improving through 'natural' selection to become complex entities competing to survive. Basically a virtual world similar to nature, but these organisms would process information much faster than humans, like computers do.
feedtherich 1 year ago
If a smarter system outsmarts us, then we have succeeded at evolving.
feedtherich 1 year ago
Comment removed
feedtherich 1 year ago
define "intelligence".
nactan 1 year ago
@nactan "I think therefore I am" - the ability to be aware of one's own existence.
muyo613 1 year ago
@muyo613 So a more intelligent being is more aware of its own existence? Surely you see why that's pseudointellectualism.
nactan 1 year ago
@muyo613 I'm asking what "problem-solving ability" entails in physical terms.
nactan 1 year ago
@nactan Well if that is your definition then computers already surpass us in that regard. But it's something we created. Machines cannot, ever, never, not in 1 billion years even if we left them to our own devices, exceed the expectations we gave it. In other words: no computer can write it's own programming. We can write a program that can allow a computer to write it's own programming, but it still would be limited to the algorithms that we allowed it to perform when we coded it.
muyo613 1 year ago
@muyo613 Present day computers don't surpass humans in general purpose problem-solving ability.
nactan 1 year ago
@nactan The Turing Machine is a good public example of why what you said is right. You are right in saying that present day computers don't surpass humans in general purpose *problem solving* ability. [But they can do many calculations a lot faster than we can.] The jist of my argument is that present-day computers and future computers will never be able to solve problems that we can't come up with.
Ray Kurzweil is very good at taking ideas like TM and applying them to nonsensical things.
muyo613 1 year ago