It will change our life only as much, as we allow it to be. At least we have free will. I think that's the essence of consciousness. The human body is the hardware and gets programmed with software (education, conditioning).
Robots have no free will. That's, what makes us superior to AI, but some people in the modern science are blaming social problems on this freedom, they want us to be robots too. Many people now ask questions like "are we computers?". No coincidence, it's all preparation...
This is a fun problem to puzzle over...it seems that
what we call Mind or Thinking,maybe completley
incorporeal or lacking all substance. As one example, a player piano,the music it makes is real,in time,as a process,but can "exist" as a frozen pattern of punched holes in paper,or not?
@zigzagolot77: Exactly. In CS, this is called abstraction. This is the same with software. It is contingent upon the physical to be executed, but it also has a mathematical existence, which is separate from the physical world. This is not a problem but rather a very powerful tool, employed by both science and evolution.
The Chinese room never made any sense to me. Here's my thought experiment: Give words to an organ made of atoms, since the atoms don't understand what the words mean, the organ can't either - Reductio ad absurdum. No the system understands
One difficulity that I foresee between imitating the brain with computers is that computer has only one clock (or few). While the neurons in the brain, each one of them have their own timing. (But I think this is beoming less true as I write this paragraph.)
This is also relavant to the issue: is the brain an algorithm? We used to think the brain had one clock, projecting how we thought about the computer. But now we make the computer with a parallel processing ability.
What about hive/cloud computing? There are already early versions of it in use with server applications where all connected machines can operate on the same code... a similar thing could be used instead of a simple increase in core/processor counts.
Personally I think alot of the arguments AGAINST true AI is simply hung up on current technology. The question shouldn't be if it can be done now, it should be 'is it possible someday'. I would definitely answer yes to that question.
The problem with a computer that doesn't have a central controling device is that we won't know what we are calculating. We won't have an algorithm.
So, you might say, humans don't have an algorithm. But then humans don't have any goals. Human are made humans to the bottom up, meaning, humans are humans from the micro-atoms up to the individual.
Very interesting! I really liked the video. Just on a funnier note, doesn't she speak a bit like a computer? It would have been even better if she spoke in a conversational way, not sounding like reading off a script.
To answer the question in the video's title, I'd say that the mind is a software and the brain is a computer.
The term 'like a' should be used to imply that the brain is very different from your pc, but in essence, which I think is what you are talking about, it is a computer, and the mind is software.
Understand that the claims you're making about the mind being software and the brain being a computer are all, at the very least, highly contentious. In my opinion, it doesn't make any sense to talk about the brain being a computer. What would that mean? Syntax, as Searle points out, is relative to the observer, and therefore is not intrinsic to the physics of the system in question. That means that the capacity the brain has for consciousness results from its own set of distinct causal factors.
Syntax isnt relative to any observer. Maybe semantics are, but how does this contradict what I said? Are you really going to the "we don't understand consciousness and therefore there's some kind of magic in the brain" kind of argument? Really? I can give supporting facts, and better yet, I can tell you what would falsify my claim. What would falsify yours? Or is that a faith based claim?
Hi, thanks for your response. I am a bit puzzled that you ascribe to me a faith based account of mind, since I clearly stated my view that the brain causes it, and that you dont think anything in my original post is relevant. You may not agree with me that syntax is observer relative, but if it is, then the brain is not a biological computer (since nothing could be). No system we identify as a computer has syntax in it at a physical level; there are no zeros and ones in my computer.
@bevay I agree; I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise. I was trying to say that the syntactic nature of computation is relative to us as observers. We have to assign computational descriptions to systems in the world; thus, they don't have any causal powers above and beyond the causal forces present in the system in question to begin with.
@BearsEatBeats914: Show me a scientific test that proves a human (other than me) is conscious, and I'll show you a conscious AI (eventually).
By saying the brain is a computer, I mean it is computationally equivalent to or less than a Turing machine. Interestingly enough, according to recent findings, the brain appears to be strictly less than a Turing machine. So really, computers should be offended when I make the comparison, not brains :)
Very interesting topic. People think computer science (badly named) is just about man made computers. But the more general topic is any kind of computer. Not just 'AI' but also 'I'. In Turing's time, computer simply meant 'one who computes'. He invented the 'automatic computer'.
The chinese room can be used to show that understanding can be a property of the system, not of its components. And Turing's test stresses that it is wrong to be biased towards human brains.
Artificial Intelligence is such a bad choice of words. There's no 'intelligence' anywhere, we decide what an object does and an object that can truly make its -own- decisions will forever be a part of science fiction. All we can do is allow it countless paths.
mudchair16, I don't understand. Are you claiming intelligence is a useless term? A term doesn't have to be a 'thing' we can point to, it just has to be useful in communicating information. Or are you just saying that a non-organic machine cannot achieve what an organic machine can? In which case I would thoroughly object, if you just clarify your point.
It's like when you walk up or down stairs... we measure the distance of each step by vision... after that we no longer need to look we simply walk with touch in control... It's hard to explain, but there is algorithms involved, lol... When I learn the Rubik's cube... which requires algorithms to accomplish anything... I start off by memorizing what I see... after that it becomes muscle memory... and that's kinda why I think it's just one sense afterall
There is so much to consider when constructing A.I. Since I've learned the Rubik's cube and other puzzles I've become quite familiar with algorithms... they are everywhere... in the laws of physics, gene duplication, and of course how intelligence plays through... as Humans we have 5 senses correct? Which if thought of it can be narrowed down to 1 sense... which would be touch... it's just that sight, hearing, smell, taste, are specific senses of touch...
I love topics on AI, yet I have to admit your choice of music at the end of this vid is way too um gooey chewy. I am not quite sure that Simon Cowell would approve of my adjectives.
I would imagine, for one thing, a robot, "It needs a mind (a logic) above its physical body (circuit)" in order to be "i" in a space unknown to it. See, no humans could ever live within its shell. Thats why we have a universe to be in.
I think our best hope for an AI that we would recognise is reverse engineering the working example we have (the brain) A synthetic intelligence that is not modelled on the brain I think could be self aware but lack the traits we aknowlege as human.
Ai seems again to be taking another branch and i see more attempts at 'common sense engines' these days, some are promising and interesting but true sentience is still as elusive as ever.
I'd be very interested to see where this series goes. Off the top of my head I would say that consciousness is more than correct inputs and outputs, it also involves to some degree self awareness
In modern distributed social systems there are boards and comittees and parliaments and expert groups and elections, all meant to dissipate responsibility ("who created the housing bubble?").
As we see this can render big systems like global economy finally dysfunctional.
Politicians adopting decision making software when dealing with complex issues will ultimately doom civilization, a result welcome to all primitivists.
Two american economists were awarded with a nobel price for inventing the mathematical model (algorithm) for financial derivative constructing, an important contribution to the bubble inflation (~500 trillion$ in shadow banking) and the current collapse.
Have you seen "Building Gods" - it has some of the big AI players talking about these subjects - you may find it very interesting...I believe you may be able to find it on google video.
If its the bbc thing then it is on youtube (I just checked). Why so sure its Searle for the loss though? And do you think the China Brain thought experiment is any sterner a test for functionalism?
I'll watch the rest to see if I can understand where the confidence that humans can create sentience comes from, and, if I can grasp the more complex pro AI arguments in the first place, whether I can fault them.
I agree that it's important, either way. Thanks for putting this up.
I think we have a lot more problems at the societal level that need addressing before a reduction to individual psychology hits the top of the charts.
Complex systems are tricky. We have one in our heads that gives us endless issues.
I see utility in engineering AI, what we could discover along the way could be wonderful, but we also need to ask the question "Do we really need true AI?"
Apologies for sounding Terminatory (ish?)
Great idea, I'm sure you'll get more than 100 views. Oh look, you already did!
I think intelligence -- or more specifically self-awareness -- is an emergent property of complexity. So when some x amount of complexity is achieved, we will have self-aware AI. Most likely it will be an advanced neural net program which can learn. Perhaps the internet itself will become aware.
Can make a computer efficiently follow the working principlz and act like a person(tho fairly static) -- the effect is basically the same -- due to hardware limitationz - must network - combine compz for necessary cycles and still very slow resulting AI - tho working very similar to how human intelligence works/adapts -- evolutionary, pattern association, etc
What fun it would be if we all augmented our minds by remote connection to such for enhanced thinking, memory, and instant info accs
Oya - thought I should mention - as some aren't aware -- there are many new kinds of AI and methodz of producing it - don't work the same -- in other words - not merely a machine following instructions anymore. Evolving AI modeled around brain adaptivity doesn't just learn - it redesigns itself to more effectively understand and adapt to it's environ and the selection princpl also applied to association optimization.
this looks to be a great series. i've been reading up on searle for a while myself as i'm trying to shoehorn a few of his ideas into a project i'm working on -- due in 70 hours as a matter of fact ... guess i better shut up and get back to it.
Kevin, your hilarious. Keep doing what your doing brother.........Son we live in a world that has internets, and those internets have to be saturated with Walken impersonations. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Pollak? Well, you do it best so welcome to the internets.
Brilliant. It is such an interesting topic. Could I possibly be so bold as to suggest a video on the China brain thought experiment though? It follows on quite nicely from the Chinese room one.
Interesting introduction and I am glad you seem to be examining this subject critically and with an awareness of all the opposing views. I particularly like that you used the word 'like', underlining the metaphorical nature of the comparison. A good counterpoint to the more hyperbolic claims of AI (that avoids the pitfalls of dualism) is Raymond Tallis' short 'Why the Mind is Not a computer'.
great video! probably we'll get to that sort of AI, as in the Searl's thought experiment.... AI or AD... artificial deceive, interpretation of thought and the creation of algorithms that "mimic" it. However other approach would be the creation of an actual synthetic brain... and the integrated system, what's a human brain without senses? ...something that could learn... we'll probably make AD hehe and create and artificial brain before understanding what consciousness is
Take a look at Atheistblindchick's comment above...There is an interesting article on this from the BBC. You could probably find it by googling blue brain and BBC...
Well i expect the ability to make a campfire from scratch, and your own bows and arrows, will be a lot more important than AI, in the next century.
But i am listening, and quite interested to hear why this AI is / will be so important, compared to the off-grid skills of daily living so many are lacking.
Ah, I knew that joke might miss the target, but I thought it'd be interesting to see if anyone would get it.
There was this computer program in the 60s called ELIZA which seemed like it was having a conversation with you, but it just did some basic language processing, and mimicked a human response. For example, if you said "My head hurts" it would respond with "Why do you say your head hurts?".
If the program was stuck it'd say "Tell me about your mother". Seemed appropriate to this video.
Actually, it was my bad, I did make it rather cryptic - sorry. I assumed someone would either get it, or just wouldn't understand it. From my background in IT it's kind of a running joke whenever AI comes up.
It's obviously funnier when you don't have to explain it though :)
My thoughts are that when machines 'awaken' they will have to hit the same moral wall that any sentient being hits at some point. I believe the awaken of the machine will begin with a spontaneous and free act, an act that exceeds the programming of its designer, and so, from that point onwards, we are really dealing with something totally Other.
The thing that gives me solace is the idea that we are more machinelike than we prepare to admit.
OMG I was just about to post a comment about the Blue Brain project to JJJPaxton's comment below. It's very interesting stuff, and if it can do an EXACTLY, then maybe we'll have real answers to questions which have dogged science and philosophy for eons...Time will tell, I guess.
Very cool video, Ma'am. I too have been interested in A.I. The Chinese room seems analogous to what cells do, take in input, follow the rules, put out output. It made me think. Our brains don't have to understand English to speak it. Do they? So that means that the system is what understands, but if you break down the system, all you will find is little Chinese rooms. Wow...
I'm really looking forward to this one, I have thought about these ideas a fair bit and am interested to see your views and thoughts of others commenting on them.....I must say the idea of a truly artificial intelligence scares me a little bit tho, maybe I have watched the terminator movies to much, but it's pretty obvious that human beings are the biggest problem our wonderful little planet has and it shouldn't take an artificial intelligence to long to figure that out either.
The mind is not like a computer, but the brain may be.
Artificial mind isn't like a mind, it is nothing ontologically similar about them. But if an actual mind arise from a computer, then I wouldn't call it artificial.
Mind is consciousness. Another question that is hard to answer is, why would consciousness make something more intelligent. I think the fact that we are conscious is evidence that it does make us more intelligent, because intelligence is good for survival, but consciousness wouldn't be, if it had no impact on intelligence. So why then would it have evolved? I suspect consciousness is good both for speeding up calculations in the moment and makes memories more orderly stored.
You may want to look at the 2 page editorial "What makes JAGI special" by "Pei Wang" at Temple, noting the publication date, as well as the volume number.
I studied AI in college. Wrote NN,theorem proving sw, & some robotics code. I'm not current, obviously, but it seems that most researchers in AI aren't even addressing on general AI, in favor of specific solutions that are more readily attainable. One exception is J. Bach's "principles of synthetic intelligence." A very few others.
That last part of the "Why the future doesn't need us" struck a chord with me, since it is very reminiscent of my ponderings on what the elite actually intend on doing with our future. Since I like to think about possible conspiracies for amusement, I've considered all of those outcomes as a goal of groups like the Illuminati, though we don't have these machines, or at least we don't know we do~.
"Lives," not "lifes." As usual, plenty to think about. Wish I had the gadgets to be in the group discussion. When I was getting my MBA, I was surprised to find how much I enjoyed computer programming. Enjoy your day. Five stars, as usual.
Cool! Looking forward to it. I'm a software engineer (played around with a bit of "A.I", expert systems and the like in my day) who is also interested in philosophy etc and these sorts of topics are always fun.
I rated this video and I think when I tapped the pressure pad my finger slipped and slid the cursor before the "click" registered because I tried to give you a 5 and it registered as a 1. sorry.
Turing Test is bullshit :/
delatroy 10 months ago
A clear and well-considered intro.
dfpolis 11 months ago
It will change our life only as much, as we allow it to be. At least we have free will. I think that's the essence of consciousness. The human body is the hardware and gets programmed with software (education, conditioning).
Robots have no free will. That's, what makes us superior to AI, but some people in the modern science are blaming social problems on this freedom, they want us to be robots too. Many people now ask questions like "are we computers?". No coincidence, it's all preparation...
Thesolve 1 year ago
I'm very, very interested in getting into the AI field. What kind of certs are needed in order to get a job working for a company developing AI?
Xeletoph 1 year ago
This is a fun problem to puzzle over...it seems that
what we call Mind or Thinking,maybe completley
incorporeal or lacking all substance. As one example, a player piano,the music it makes is real,in time,as a process,but can "exist" as a frozen pattern of punched holes in paper,or not?
zigzagolot77 2 years ago
@zigzagolot77: Exactly. In CS, this is called abstraction. This is the same with software. It is contingent upon the physical to be executed, but it also has a mathematical existence, which is separate from the physical world. This is not a problem but rather a very powerful tool, employed by both science and evolution.
SoftwareEngineer3 1 year ago
The Chinese room never made any sense to me. Here's my thought experiment: Give words to an organ made of atoms, since the atoms don't understand what the words mean, the organ can't either - Reductio ad absurdum. No the system understands
tomakist 2 years ago
One difficulity that I foresee between imitating the brain with computers is that computer has only one clock (or few). While the neurons in the brain, each one of them have their own timing. (But I think this is beoming less true as I write this paragraph.)
This is also relavant to the issue: is the brain an algorithm? We used to think the brain had one clock, projecting how we thought about the computer. But now we make the computer with a parallel processing ability.
Israe5l 2 years ago
What about hive/cloud computing? There are already early versions of it in use with server applications where all connected machines can operate on the same code... a similar thing could be used instead of a simple increase in core/processor counts.
Personally I think alot of the arguments AGAINST true AI is simply hung up on current technology. The question shouldn't be if it can be done now, it should be 'is it possible someday'. I would definitely answer yes to that question.
emonub 2 years ago
The problem with a computer that doesn't have a central controling device is that we won't know what we are calculating. We won't have an algorithm.
So, you might say, humans don't have an algorithm. But then humans don't have any goals. Human are made humans to the bottom up, meaning, humans are humans from the micro-atoms up to the individual.
Israe5l 2 years ago
Very interesting! I really liked the video. Just on a funnier note, doesn't she speak a bit like a computer? It would have been even better if she spoke in a conversational way, not sounding like reading off a script.
vocedipace 2 years ago
To answer the question in the video's title, I'd say that the mind is a software and the brain is a computer.
The term 'like a' should be used to imply that the brain is very different from your pc, but in essence, which I think is what you are talking about, it is a computer, and the mind is software.
SoftwareEngineer3 2 years ago
Understand that the claims you're making about the mind being software and the brain being a computer are all, at the very least, highly contentious. In my opinion, it doesn't make any sense to talk about the brain being a computer. What would that mean? Syntax, as Searle points out, is relative to the observer, and therefore is not intrinsic to the physics of the system in question. That means that the capacity the brain has for consciousness results from its own set of distinct causal factors.
BearsEatBeats914 2 years ago
@BearsEatBeats914: How is that relevant or even true?
Syntax isnt relative to any observer. Maybe semantics are, but how does this contradict what I said? Are you really going to the "we don't understand consciousness and therefore there's some kind of magic in the brain" kind of argument? Really? I can give supporting facts, and better yet, I can tell you what would falsify my claim. What would falsify yours? Or is that a faith based claim?
SoftwareEngineer3 1 year ago
Hi, thanks for your response. I am a bit puzzled that you ascribe to me a faith based account of mind, since I clearly stated my view that the brain causes it, and that you dont think anything in my original post is relevant. You may not agree with me that syntax is observer relative, but if it is, then the brain is not a biological computer (since nothing could be). No system we identify as a computer has syntax in it at a physical level; there are no zeros and ones in my computer.
BearsEatBeats914 1 year ago
@BearsEatBeats914
a computer lacks semantics not syntax
bevay 1 year ago
@bevay I agree; I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise. I was trying to say that the syntactic nature of computation is relative to us as observers. We have to assign computational descriptions to systems in the world; thus, they don't have any causal powers above and beyond the causal forces present in the system in question to begin with.
BearsEatBeats914 1 year ago
@BearsEatBeats914: Show me a scientific test that proves a human (other than me) is conscious, and I'll show you a conscious AI (eventually).
By saying the brain is a computer, I mean it is computationally equivalent to or less than a Turing machine. Interestingly enough, according to recent findings, the brain appears to be strictly less than a Turing machine. So really, computers should be offended when I make the comparison, not brains :)
SoftwareEngineer3 1 year ago
Very interesting topic. People think computer science (badly named) is just about man made computers. But the more general topic is any kind of computer. Not just 'AI' but also 'I'. In Turing's time, computer simply meant 'one who computes'. He invented the 'automatic computer'.
The chinese room can be used to show that understanding can be a property of the system, not of its components. And Turing's test stresses that it is wrong to be biased towards human brains.
SoftwareEngineer3 2 years ago
Artificial Intelligence is such a bad choice of words. There's no 'intelligence' anywhere, we decide what an object does and an object that can truly make its -own- decisions will forever be a part of science fiction. All we can do is allow it countless paths.
mudchair16 2 years ago
mudchair16, I don't understand. Are you claiming intelligence is a useless term? A term doesn't have to be a 'thing' we can point to, it just has to be useful in communicating information. Or are you just saying that a non-organic machine cannot achieve what an organic machine can? In which case I would thoroughly object, if you just clarify your point.
SoftwareEngineer3 2 years ago
(cont.)
It's like when you walk up or down stairs... we measure the distance of each step by vision... after that we no longer need to look we simply walk with touch in control... It's hard to explain, but there is algorithms involved, lol... When I learn the Rubik's cube... which requires algorithms to accomplish anything... I start off by memorizing what I see... after that it becomes muscle memory... and that's kinda why I think it's just one sense afterall
izovire 2 years ago
Interesting vid. once again!
There is so much to consider when constructing A.I. Since I've learned the Rubik's cube and other puzzles I've become quite familiar with algorithms... they are everywhere... in the laws of physics, gene duplication, and of course how intelligence plays through... as Humans we have 5 senses correct? Which if thought of it can be narrowed down to 1 sense... which would be touch... it's just that sight, hearing, smell, taste, are specific senses of touch...
izovire 2 years ago
the most interresting part for me , though
is the output and the charchters he chose,
cause that gives one the fanciest picture
due to the multimeaning massive amounts of
signs, or was there no dictionaire?
Realizalize 2 years ago
Was your comment generated by an algorithm from the Chinese Room, Realizalize?
2bsirius 2 years ago
hm, looks like,
but didn`t back, then.
and the joke: i do reread;)
Realizalize 2 years ago
Brilliant! Hey, you pass the Turing Test in my book!
2bsirius 2 years ago
I love topics on AI, yet I have to admit your choice of music at the end of this vid is way too um gooey chewy. I am not quite sure that Simon Cowell would approve of my adjectives.
deeliciousplum 2 years ago
Artificial intelligence is going to be the number one issue as we press forward...
Its very important we all engage this conversation further for as you stated or as that article stated the future does not need us.
particleion 2 years ago
I would imagine, for one thing, a robot, "It needs a mind (a logic) above its physical body (circuit)" in order to be "i" in a space unknown to it. See, no humans could ever live within its shell. Thats why we have a universe to be in.
Bley121 2 years ago
2bsirius
I think our best hope for an AI that we would recognise is reverse engineering the working example we have (the brain) A synthetic intelligence that is not modelled on the brain I think could be self aware but lack the traits we aknowlege as human.
Ai seems again to be taking another branch and i see more attempts at 'common sense engines' these days, some are promising and interesting but true sentience is still as elusive as ever.
I wish you luck in search of consciousness.
FR
FutureRealitiy 2 years ago
Very interesting video!
elevenonerecords 2 years ago
I'd be very interested to see where this series goes. Off the top of my head I would say that consciousness is more than correct inputs and outputs, it also involves to some degree self awareness
venakew 2 years ago
Humans tend to avoid responsibility.
In modern distributed social systems there are boards and comittees and parliaments and expert groups and elections, all meant to dissipate responsibility ("who created the housing bubble?").
As we see this can render big systems like global economy finally dysfunctional.
Politicians adopting decision making software when dealing with complex issues will ultimately doom civilization, a result welcome to all primitivists.
ruralbornvoteagainer 2 years ago
Two american economists were awarded with a nobel price for inventing the mathematical model (algorithm) for financial derivative constructing, an important contribution to the bubble inflation (~500 trillion$ in shadow banking) and the current collapse.
ruralbornvoteagainer 2 years ago
Kinda wraps it up for the power of algorithms, doesn't it?
2bsirius 2 years ago
Searle for the lose!
His argument is just a Ned Block rip-off anywho!
Have you seen "Building Gods" - it has some of the big AI players talking about these subjects - you may find it very interesting...I believe you may be able to find it on google video.
LordImmolation 2 years ago
No, don't know "Building Gods"....Link?
2bsirius 2 years ago
Never mind. Found it by googling building gods and AI...I'll look at it tomorrow.
2bsirius 2 years ago
If its the bbc thing then it is on youtube (I just checked). Why so sure its Searle for the loss though? And do you think the China Brain thought experiment is any sterner a test for functionalism?
23discordians 2 years ago
Mind could be like a computer, but is more likely that a computer is like mind, becouse computer is made by a human mind for sure.
nadaoptima 2 years ago
I'll watch the rest to see if I can understand where the confidence that humans can create sentience comes from, and, if I can grasp the more complex pro AI arguments in the first place, whether I can fault them.
I agree that it's important, either way. Thanks for putting this up.
gerontodon 2 years ago
I think we have a lot more problems at the societal level that need addressing before a reduction to individual psychology hits the top of the charts.
Colston 2 years ago
Artificial, there is no such thing.
Intelligene = Unproven
doctorrin 2 years ago
very interesting. I have to find time to really get my head around the things you posted.
wonderpope 2 years ago
Complex systems are tricky. We have one in our heads that gives us endless issues.
I see utility in engineering AI, what we could discover along the way could be wonderful, but we also need to ask the question "Do we really need true AI?"
Apologies for sounding Terminatory (ish?)
Great idea, I'm sure you'll get more than 100 views. Oh look, you already did!
SatchmoBevins 2 years ago
I think intelligence -- or more specifically self-awareness -- is an emergent property of complexity. So when some x amount of complexity is achieved, we will have self-aware AI. Most likely it will be an advanced neural net program which can learn. Perhaps the internet itself will become aware.
StevenErnest 2 years ago
Can make a computer efficiently follow the working principlz and act like a person(tho fairly static) -- the effect is basically the same -- due to hardware limitationz - must network - combine compz for necessary cycles and still very slow resulting AI - tho working very similar to how human intelligence works/adapts -- evolutionary, pattern association, etc
What fun it would be if we all augmented our minds by remote connection to such for enhanced thinking, memory, and instant info accs
SuperiorMind 2 years ago
Oya - thought I should mention - as some aren't aware -- there are many new kinds of AI and methodz of producing it - don't work the same -- in other words - not merely a machine following instructions anymore. Evolving AI modeled around brain adaptivity doesn't just learn - it redesigns itself to more effectively understand and adapt to it's environ and the selection princpl also applied to association optimization.
SuperiorMind 2 years ago
What a great video. I like your use of visuals.
JollyMunkie 2 years ago
I have a proposition.
When computers start thinking, we should give them a new name, as they are then beyond mere computing, and are using fuzzy logic.
Maybe something like Conscionets?
Anonymous00230 2 years ago
this looks to be a great series. i've been reading up on searle for a while myself as i'm trying to shoehorn a few of his ideas into a project i'm working on -- due in 70 hours as a matter of fact ... guess i better shut up and get back to it.
Sherwulff 2 years ago
Kevin, your hilarious. Keep doing what your doing brother.........Son we live in a world that has internets, and those internets have to be saturated with Walken impersonations. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Pollak? Well, you do it best so welcome to the internets.
Chick6517 2 years ago
Brilliant. It is such an interesting topic. Could I possibly be so bold as to suggest a video on the China brain thought experiment though? It follows on quite nicely from the Chinese room one.
23discordians 2 years ago
Interesting introduction and I am glad you seem to be examining this subject critically and with an awareness of all the opposing views. I particularly like that you used the word 'like', underlining the metaphorical nature of the comparison. A good counterpoint to the more hyperbolic claims of AI (that avoids the pitfalls of dualism) is Raymond Tallis' short 'Why the Mind is Not a computer'.
I look forward to the rest of this vlog series.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
great video! probably we'll get to that sort of AI, as in the Searl's thought experiment.... AI or AD... artificial deceive, interpretation of thought and the creation of algorithms that "mimic" it. However other approach would be the creation of an actual synthetic brain... and the integrated system, what's a human brain without senses? ...something that could learn... we'll probably make AD hehe and create and artificial brain before understanding what consciousness is
JJJPaxton 2 years ago
Take a look at Atheistblindchick's comment above...There is an interesting article on this from the BBC. You could probably find it by googling blue brain and BBC...
2bsirius 2 years ago
Thanks... googled it... The Blue Brain project is the first comprehensive attempt to reverse-engineer the mammalian brain... will read further!
JJJPaxton 2 years ago
Well i expect the ability to make a campfire from scratch, and your own bows and arrows, will be a lot more important than AI, in the next century.
But i am listening, and quite interested to hear why this AI is / will be so important, compared to the off-grid skills of daily living so many are lacking.
floydstinkyboy 2 years ago
Tell me about your mother.
dave28lax 2 years ago
She is a wonderful woman. A retired teacher...AND she is none of your business! Sorry if that sounds rude, but it isn't your business. Peace
2bsirius 2 years ago
Ah, I knew that joke might miss the target, but I thought it'd be interesting to see if anyone would get it.
There was this computer program in the 60s called ELIZA which seemed like it was having a conversation with you, but it just did some basic language processing, and mimicked a human response. For example, if you said "My head hurts" it would respond with "Why do you say your head hurts?".
If the program was stuck it'd say "Tell me about your mother". Seemed appropriate to this video.
dave28lax 2 years ago
And just for clarity, I never even considered you might try and answer. As you pointed out, that really is none of my business.
dave28lax 2 years ago
Sorry...I was obviously clueless about ELIZA...I can see the question would always elicit an response in such a program...Really funny!
2bsirius 2 years ago
Actually, it was my bad, I did make it rather cryptic - sorry. I assumed someone would either get it, or just wouldn't understand it. From my background in IT it's kind of a running joke whenever AI comes up.
It's obviously funnier when you don't have to explain it though :)
dave28lax 2 years ago
I was going to mention Eliza too, someone beat me to it :)
Brianswers 2 years ago
Best guess vs absolute answer.
AMVtheburning 2 years ago
Speed vs accuracy.
AMVtheburning 2 years ago
I love it when people make videos like this.
My thoughts are that when machines 'awaken' they will have to hit the same moral wall that any sentient being hits at some point. I believe the awaken of the machine will begin with a spontaneous and free act, an act that exceeds the programming of its designer, and so, from that point onwards, we are really dealing with something totally Other.
The thing that gives me solace is the idea that we are more machinelike than we prepare to admit.
touchingstoves 2 years ago
cool stuff, I have looked into AI and am looking forward to this.
pyrrho314 2 years ago
Great video, looking forward to the rest.
Have you heard of the blue brain project? This seems to me a very viable attempt at creating AI. It's still in its infancy though.
Atheistblindchick 2 years ago
OMG I was just about to post a comment about the Blue Brain project to JJJPaxton's comment below. It's very interesting stuff, and if it can do an EXACTLY, then maybe we'll have real answers to questions which have dogged science and philosophy for eons...Time will tell, I guess.
2bsirius 2 years ago
Very cool video, Ma'am. I too have been interested in A.I. The Chinese room seems analogous to what cells do, take in input, follow the rules, put out output. It made me think. Our brains don't have to understand English to speak it. Do they? So that means that the system is what understands, but if you break down the system, all you will find is little Chinese rooms. Wow...
Nyhee7 2 years ago
Cool vid, 2b, I'm tuning into this series, for sure.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
How interesting :3
Tineafa 2 years ago
I'm really looking forward to this one, I have thought about these ideas a fair bit and am interested to see your views and thoughts of others commenting on them.....I must say the idea of a truly artificial intelligence scares me a little bit tho, maybe I have watched the terminator movies to much, but it's pretty obvious that human beings are the biggest problem our wonderful little planet has and it shouldn't take an artificial intelligence to long to figure that out either.
Projoiner1 2 years ago
This is a very difficult subject you got there. looking forward to watch more
sammasati1 2 years ago
Good video. I haven't looked into AI that much.
CivilHuman 2 years ago
Sounds like an interesting and worthwhile series, I'll try to keep up with this.
Nykytyne2 2 years ago
r u a scientist?
keyvs1 2 years ago
Ru?
2bsirius 2 years ago
Sorry...No, I'm not...My background is in the history and philosophy of science..
2bsirius 2 years ago
nope.....but ur really smart and knowledgeable about alot of scientific things i thought u would have been
keyvs1 2 years ago
I'm not particularly smart, but I am determined...
2bsirius 2 years ago
The mind is not like a computer, but the brain may be.
Artificial mind isn't like a mind, it is nothing ontologically similar about them. But if an actual mind arise from a computer, then I wouldn't call it artificial.
Censeo 2 years ago
Read the article of Shulman, the last entry in the sidebar...WHAT would your definition of 'real mind' actually be?
2bsirius 2 years ago
Mind is consciousness. Another question that is hard to answer is, why would consciousness make something more intelligent. I think the fact that we are conscious is evidence that it does make us more intelligent, because intelligence is good for survival, but consciousness wouldn't be, if it had no impact on intelligence. So why then would it have evolved? I suspect consciousness is good both for speeding up calculations in the moment and makes memories more orderly stored.
Censeo 2 years ago
The fact that I'm going to have to print this comment and actually think about it made me realize how very much I miss your input.
2bsirius 2 years ago
Thanks :)
And I'm looking forward to this series of yours!
Censeo 2 years ago
consciousness isn't an algorithm it's a sub-routine ;)
gratex 2 years ago
NOT!
2bsirius 2 years ago
You may want to look at the 2 page editorial "What makes JAGI special" by "Pei Wang" at Temple, noting the publication date, as well as the volume number.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
I'll look into it.
2bsirius 2 years ago
It's a bit of a counter-point to the projections by Kurzweil (in "Age of Spiritual Machines").
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
;^)
2bsirius 2 years ago
I studied AI in college. Wrote NN,theorem proving sw, & some robotics code. I'm not current, obviously, but it seems that most researchers in AI aren't even addressing on general AI, in favor of specific solutions that are more readily attainable. One exception is J. Bach's "principles of synthetic intelligence." A very few others.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
I'm going to go listen the the Goldberg Variations...Don't trust Hofstadter on this...Great comment!
2bsirius 2 years ago
That last part of the "Why the future doesn't need us" struck a chord with me, since it is very reminiscent of my ponderings on what the elite actually intend on doing with our future. Since I like to think about possible conspiracies for amusement, I've considered all of those outcomes as a goal of groups like the Illuminati, though we don't have these machines, or at least we don't know we do~.
Alastair 2 years ago
"Lives," not "lifes." As usual, plenty to think about. Wish I had the gadgets to be in the group discussion. When I was getting my MBA, I was surprised to find how much I enjoyed computer programming. Enjoy your day. Five stars, as usual.
slobomotion 2 years ago
A stickam (or blogtv) session sounds like fun.
I look forward to the series.!
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
The problem is to find a time that works for everybody...We're all over the globe, so a good time slot is tricky...
2bsirius 2 years ago
Cool! Looking forward to it. I'm a software engineer (played around with a bit of "A.I", expert systems and the like in my day) who is also interested in philosophy etc and these sorts of topics are always fun.
mogulwraith 2 years ago
Excellent! I want to know your take on all this.
2bsirius 2 years ago
I rated this video and I think when I tapped the pressure pad my finger slipped and slid the cursor before the "click" registered because I tried to give you a 5 and it registered as a 1. sorry.
mogulwraith 2 years ago
I've done the same thing..No big thing...Thanks for watching!
2bsirius 2 years ago