What if ! Sentience is created

[Vagrant0]

 

What a machine cannot be programmed to do is to be human. We cannot program a machine to do something that we do not fully understand ourselves. To think that it will "just happen" once machines learn how to improve learning algorithms which it would then apply to itself or other machines is like thinking a tornado can go through a junkyard and a functional jumbo jet could be created in its wake. It's not going to happen.

 

The idea that I underestimate Man's ability to innovate is an assumption that has no basis. As stated in my previous post, I believe that Man has been far more advanced for a much longer time than most people alive would give us credit for. But regardless of our abilities, we still cannot replicate, in Artificial Intelligence, that which we do not comprehend.

 

You're right, they won't be thinking or behaving exactly the same as humans, but even humans do not think or behave exactly like other humans. But we are not talking about making artificial humans. At best, we would only ever be able to make an emulation of specific human behaviors so that an AI can act in ways that a human might, but this would only be based on programming (internally or externally dictated) telling them how to act and not some sort of natural behavior. But that only makes sense since there is no natural component in place and all the architecture was intentionally designed to mimic known behaviors.

 

What we're talking about is making an AI advanced enough to be able to autonomously engage with humans on a social, intellectual, or even creative level. For this, we don't actually want something that merely acts like a human. Instead what we want is something that thinks in differing ways which can formulate ideas that would not normally occur to humans.

[gandalftw]

First of all, i don't believe true sentience will ever emerge from a computerized AI program.The best one could hope for is a very good simulation.True sentience,when it does appear, will be a biological creation.That is, it will be created in and from mans image.Hehe...

 

Look toward synthetic biology and bioengineering for the next step in human evolution.As for capitalism and the idea of property, that will be the least of your worries for the moralists will keep you in contention and litigation for decades.

 

 

BTW Moralist definition:Religiosity is not of prime importance here for a person who has strong feelings and opinions about what is right and who tries to control the moral behavior of other people is a moralist whether or not they subscribe to a belief system..

Edited March 31, 2015 by Vagrant0

[QQuix]

. . . Then our first step should be to define. Otherwise, any discussion is pointless.

 

Agreed. From the Wikipedia

• Sentience
• Consciousness
• Awareness
• Self-awareness

I suppose the latter is the real theme of this thread.

[gandalftw]

The concepts presented here have been defined for several hundred years,why they should be redefined via the internet is beyond me.I don't see the point.

 

 

The REAL theme is:

"If we (the human species) are able to create , build , make a construct of the level of sentience as presented in the video , basically one that is just as self aware as we are in all respects . Do we as humans have the right to claim that construct as property . If not then what happens to the capitalist notions of property and the right to benefit by the fruits of your own labor."

 

 

At the risk of being off topic,2015 is not the time for the emergence or acceptance of true sentience, artificial or no, for we still can't accept that criminality is linked to neurological disorders and we still insist on punishing brain damaged people for their actions.We can't even accept our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters enough to allow them to enjoy the same rights as we enjoy so as far as i'm concerned we have a lot of growing to do before we'll ever be able to tackle the concept or make any reliable judgements toward that of sentience.

[QQuix]

From this article: The AI Revolution: The Road to Superintelligence

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2015 by QQuix

[gandalftw]

<clicked too early>

Alcoholics Anonymous good for you. :wink:

 

 

Games,games and more games....

 

 

Tra,la,la,la,LA,LA.....

 

 

Shoop da da loop loop da loop bam boom!

 

 

Delete this crap please.

 

 

Hello! Is anybody in there just nod if you can hear me,is there anyone at home?

 

Gandalf is done,goodbye says Gandalf. :tongue:

Edited March 31, 2015 by Vagrant0

[DrakeTheDragon]

Don't know why you need to spam the topic with nonsense posts with only a few seconds delay between them, this isn't live chat and it will take some time for your fellow discussion participants to return and even read you, and when I see two pages full of crap instead of new arguments to think about, I'm tempted to just go away and leave the topic alone, nor does it support your points the slightest or bring your message across any better, not that I think I know what your point 'is' exactly...

 

...but I watched a really thought-provoking movie last night, which, while it definitely is still science fiction by far and not even close to becoming reality, yet, just as much leaves an interesting after-thought in your mind once you watched it.

 

The thing I'm currently thinking about more than "What if ! Sentience is created" right now is looking at it from a completely different point of view... Regardless of if we will ever figure out how to do it, or if it'll really happen by accident, just like 'we' just 'happened' at one point out of the blue, the real question I'm currently having in my mind is... "What... if we already did?" :ermm:

[HotAssassin]

Please give a specific definition of 'sentient'. Otherwise, I don't think your arguments hold water. For the purposes of this discussion, I am *assuming* that it is defined as "self-aware". NONE of the learning machines we have today can make that particular claim, however, as the technology improves, (more processing power) it is going to become easier to make that particular step. If you simply claim that 'we don't understand what it is, so therefore, we can never replicate it.' Then our first step should be to define. Otherwise, any discussion is pointless.

 

 

You're right, they won't be thinking or behaving exactly the same as humans, but even humans do not think or behave exactly like other humans. But we are not talking about making artificial humans. At best, we would only ever be able to make an emulation of specific human behaviors so that an AI can act in ways that a human might, but this would only be based on programming (internally or externally dictated) telling them how to act and not some sort of natural behavior. But that only makes sense since there is no natural component in place and all the architecture was intentionally designed to mimic known behaviors.

 

What we're talking about is making an AI advanced enough to be able to autonomously engage with humans on a social, intellectual, or even creative level. For this, we don't actually want something that merely acts like a human. Instead what we want is something that thinks in differing ways which can formulate ideas that would not normally occur to humans.

 

 

 

 

Agreed. From the Wikipedia

• Sentience
• Consciousness
• Awareness
• Self-awareness

I suppose the latter is the real theme of this thread.

 

 

I believe the specific definition of "Sentient" was laid out in the initial post as:

 

the level of sentience as presented in the video , basically one that is just as self aware as we are in all respects .

 

But, I do agree that the common, modern connotation of this word has gone far beyond its original definition to encompass the meaning of several related words combined... And, I am guilty of using the word in that same manner in previous posts.

 

I think it would be more fitting to say: that "je ne sais quoi" of being Human. And I can only chose Human because we know of no other entity possessing that certain something.

 

Saying that my point of view "doesn't hold water" is a poor excuse for a counter-argument. Especially if you are going to site "advances in processing power" as your path to the creation of anything that is completely beyond possibility. No matter how far we advance the gasoline powered internal combustion engine, it will never make a car that can run across the surface of the earth at the speed of light. Make a valid argument that man will ever understand the complexities of what it means to be human, even just on an intellectual level, nevermind a spiritual level, or concede that I am correct.

 

 

when it comes to the 'rights' such constructs should or shouldn't be merited, well, I think it clearly depends on the intent behind their creation.

 

You want an intelligent worker, learning by mistakes and improving itself, but never going to disagree with you or even have an opinion of its own? Fine, then create it so. It'll be a machine, will never become self-aware, and thus will never need any rights or freedom or whatever.

 

But if you truly want to create a 'living' artificial being, with the intent to create it as close to a human being as possible... Then are you really going to be surprised it'll come the point where you'll have to grant it the same rights and freedoms you grant other living beings and humans? The closer you make it to 'human', the more you must consider it 'as' human.

 

When you create an AI that is 'aware' of itself and values its own 'life' as much as you do your's, and the first thing you show it is the button you just need to press to end its existence... then don't be surprised the first task it'll perform is find the way to prevent you from ever pushing it.

 

Do you want machines? Then create machines.

Do you want to create sentient living beings? Then you also damn better treat them as such!

 

Very well said and actually on topic. My intention was never to derail this thread, but this last part of your post makes me fear I may have done just that.

[QQuix]

Religion apart, the human brain is just a bunch of electronic 'circuits' communicating with each other. The number of interactions has been measured. Specialists forecast that by 2025 we will have a computer with the processing power compared to the human brain. So, theoretically, then we could simulate ALL of its functions and behaviors.

 

But . . . to simulate something we must, first, understand it. And, then, put A LOT of money into the development of the simulation. I don't see this happening any time soon.

 

Using HotAssassin's analogy: Yes !!. We will have that car. What we will not have is someone to drive it.

 

 

 

 

[soupdragon1234]

Watch the video the question will follow.

 

If we (the human species) are able to create , build , make a construct of the level of sentience as presented in the video , basically one that is just as self aware as we are in all respects . Do we as humans have the right to claim that construct as property . If not then what happens to the capitalist notions of property and the right to benefit by the fruits of your own labor.

 

If such a "construct" could be construed as "sentient" (assuming we can define exactly what sentience is) then no, we do not have the right to claim such an object as "property".

 

This whole argument reminds me of Data's Trial which I agreed with at the time and my opinions havn't changed. To assume that a biological brain is somehow special and can never be understood or replicated or in some way set upon a pedestal above all others is basically magical thinking and very close to religious dogma.