1. Post #41
    Gold Member
    MeMassiveFag's Avatar
    April 2011
    1,086 Posts
    We barely understand how our minds work, we have yet to completely map our brains, let alone trying to emulate it for a computer.

    How I see AI for the time being is being composed of patterns and algorithms.

  2. Post #42
    LoneWolf_Recon's Avatar
    May 2011
    1,624 Posts
    I don't see how its unethical, as many have said before..

    Possible? Definitely, something of an Agent Based system or Neural Net. Like in Crichton's Prey. Something that is an evolving algorithm, not a bunch of rule based programming

  3. Post #43
    Gold Member
    wizard`'s Avatar
    August 2009
    932 Posts
    The only case where I can see there being a ethical problem with AI is if it was gave emotions, and it expressed that it was suffering or something other. Then the topic of what makes our emotions and feelings different from that of a computer that can replicate them near perfectly comes up.
    Wasn't Google trying to give processors the ability to regret under-performance? I'm sure I read that somewhere, I'll try and find the article.

  4. Post #44
    If we're ever able to make computers 'concious' of their actions, then they should have the same rights as humans.
    how do you know that human rights will be appropriate

    how do you know that it will appreciate them

    any sufficiently advanced AI will have a mind-structure completely different to that of humans.

    Edited:

    I don't see how its unethical, as many have said before..

    Possible? Definitely, something of an Agent Based system or Neural Net. Like in Crichton's Prey. Something that is an evolving algorithm, not a bunch of rule based programming
    bullshit

    what evolution can do in 3.5 billion years, an engineer can do in an afternoon.

    sure, an AI will have to learn from its mistakes and get better over time, but just giving it a bunch of rules of thumb and saying "lol evolve your way out" will constrain it to local maxima.

  5. Post #45
    Gold Member
    wizard`'s Avatar
    August 2009
    932 Posts
    how do you know that human rights will be appropriate

    how do you know that it will appreciate them

    any sufficiently advanced AI will have a mind-structure completely different to that of humans.

    Edited:



    bullshit

    what evolution can do in 3.5 billion years, an engineer can do in an afternoon.

    sure, an AI will have to learn from its mistakes and get better over time, but just giving it a bunch of rules of thumb and saying "lol evolve your way out" will constrain it to local maxima.
    I really want to agree with everything you just said. But then I see this Gggnnnnhhh

  6. Post #46
    Rad McCool's Avatar
    August 2009
    3,883 Posts
    what evolution can do in 3.5 billion years, an engineer can do in an afternoon.
    Wait, what, how?

    Also..
    > >

  7. Post #47
    Gold Member
    wizard`'s Avatar
    August 2009
    932 Posts
    Wait, what, how?

    Also..
    > >
    No.




























  8. Post #48
    Rad McCool's Avatar
    August 2009
    3,883 Posts

  9. Post #49
    I was posting from school guys, get a grip

    Edited:

    Wait, what, how?
    Alright I was exaggerating a bit with "afternoon"

    But only a bit.

    Consider the length of time it took evolution to develop flying creatures. Now consider the length of time if took the Wright brothers to invent a flying machine.

    Orders of magnitude difference.

  10. Post #50
    Rad McCool's Avatar
    August 2009
    3,883 Posts
    Ah I understand. Though one could argue that for the flying machine to be invented, you'd first have to evolve man.

    And even so, we cannot make flying machines as agile and efficient as birds yet. And when we manage to do so, we will most likely look at real birds and "steal" the ideas that mother nature invented billions of years ago.

  11. Post #51
    Ah I understand. Though one could argue that for the flying machine to be invented, you'd first have to evolve man.

    And even so, we cannot make flying machines as agile and efficient as birds yet. And when we manage to do so, we will most likely look at real birds and "steal" the ideas that mother nature invented billions of years ago.
    have you seen fighter jets lately they're pretty damn agile, not to mention way faster than anything nature can come up with

  12. Post #52
    Rad McCool's Avatar
    August 2009
    3,883 Posts
    Faster, sure. But more agile and efficient? Doubtful. Birds can pretty much take off from anywhere, go in any direction instantaneously, and land anywhere. And they only consume food, whereas a fighter jet needs fuel and costs many billions (?) of dollars and thousands of man hours to produce.

    But yeah, they have different purposes and both have their strengths and weaknesses.

  13. Post #53
    Gold Member
    wizard`'s Avatar
    August 2009
    932 Posts
    Faster, sure. But more agile and efficient? Doubtful. Birds can pretty much take off from anywhere, go in any direction instantaneously, and land anywhere. And they only consume food, whereas a fighter jet needs fuel and costs many billions (?) of dollars and thousands of man hours to produce.

    But yeah, they have different purposes and both have their strengths and weaknesses.
    I don't think man hours and development billions are relevant at all to what you're saying because it can very well be argued that nature put millions of man hours into developing birds, and money, being a concept made by man cannot be used as an argument on the account of it's complete redundancy if we choose. IE "I'll give you half my crop if you come help me harvest it" instead of "I'll give you $1 if you come help me harvest it, then I will see you some of the food"

    It's amazing what we have been able to make in such short amounts of time, space race anyone?

  14. Post #54
    matsta's Avatar
    September 2009
    347 Posts
    Consider the length of time it took evolution to develop flying creatures. Now consider the length of time if took the Wright brothers to invent a flying machine.
    Orders of magnitude difference.
    I think it's kind of dumb to compare human products with nature. Things in nature are there 'by accident', all the structure in the body of the birds is something that was a by product of something else. Of course, you could say that there is a design and I agree. But that design is not intentional. Nature never said "ok, let's make a bird now" and then took millions of years to make it. Actually, you can never identify a definite point in time where nature 'started making the bird'. With human-made things it's quite different. Humans DID say 'ok, let's work on a flying machine' and started making it.

  15. Post #55
    Gold Member
    wizard`'s Avatar
    August 2009
    932 Posts
    I think it's kind of dumb to compare human products with nature. Things in nature are there 'by accident', all the structure in the body of the birds is something that was a by product of something else. Of course, you could say that there is a design and I agree. But that design is not intentional. Nature never said "ok, let's make a bird now" and then took millions of years to make it. Actually, you can never identify a definite point in time where nature 'started making the bird'. With human-made things it's quite different. Humans DID say 'ok, let's work on a flying machine' and started making it.
    If for humans it's so easy to determine points in our 'engineered evolution' to coin a phrase, then tell us exactly when the first tools were invented, or exactly when we started making weapons specific to killing humans... you can't restrict the human side of the debate to recent history or you have to do the same for evolution. And by all fuck, evolution was the result of 'accidents'? You clearly have no understanding of what Darwin was on about. Evolution was the direct result of the need for survival and meant that you either had to adapt or go extinct. This meant that somewhere along the line a small type of animal figured out it had to hide in trees to avoid the predators on the ground and also realised it could eat some of the things that grew up there. Then over hundreds of thousands of years it began to get better at jumping, and it started to grow extra skin or whatever between it's limbs and it's body, like a Sugar Glider. Then that would over many more thousands of years turn into birds and so forth. The "accidents" you're referencing are more what cause different species and have less to do with the evolution than you seem to be implying. Evolution is surprisingly ordered and linear.

  16. Post #56
    matsta's Avatar
    September 2009
    347 Posts
    If for humans it's so easy to determine points in our 'engineered evolution' to coin a phrase, then tell us exactly when the first tools were invented, or exactly when we started making weapons specific to killing humans... you can't restrict the human side of the debate to recent history or you have to do the same for evolution. And by all fuck, evolution was the result of 'accidents'? You clearly have no understanding of what Darwin was on about. Evolution was the direct result of the need for survival and meant that you either had to adapt or go extinct. This meant that somewhere along the line a small type of animal figured out it had to hide in trees to avoid the predators on the ground and also realised it could eat some of the things that grew up there. Then over hundreds of thousands of years it began to get better at jumping, and it started to grow extra skin or whatever between it's limbs and it's body, like a Sugar Glider. Then that would over many more thousands of years turn into birds and so forth. The "accidents" you're referencing are more what cause different species and have less to do with the evolution than you seem to be implying. Evolution is surprisingly ordered and linear.
    I can't tell you were the first 'tools' were invented just because our definition for tool is loosely applied to anything 'inanimate' we use for a certain purpose. taking that definition even animals use so-called tools. But I CAN tell you that when the Wright brother's invented the air plane they had some thing like that in mind. On the other hand, when a Sugar Glider adapts there is no one that has those adaptations in mind. It's not 'conscious' design.

    Bird, for example, were adapted to fly because it gave them advantage over other species. But, as I said before, nature didn't say "ok let's make flying stuff", the Wright brothers DID say that. If you're still no getting what I say I'll say it in simple terms.

    Nature is not competing with us to see who makes the best designs. I seriously doubt there is any 'intention' behind nature's designs. Of course, evolution is ordered and manages by genes, but it is 'random' in the sense that nature is not "looking" to make *a specific design* like we always do when we design something.

  17. Post #57
    Gold Member
    Sector 7's Avatar
    May 2005
    3,141 Posts
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

    If Moore's law holds up, by 2080 computers will be powerful enough to simulate ten thousand years of all human thought in a second. In a much less extreme prediction, by 2040, computers will have surpassed human brains in complexity and power.

    It isn't a question of 'will' AI ever be possible. Barring the immediate extinction of the human race or radical new discoveries in the limitations of computer science, artificial intelligence is going to happen and will quickly surpass biological intelligence - most likely in our lifetimes.

  18. Post #58
    I think it's kind of dumb to compare human products with nature. Things in nature are there 'by accident', all the structure in the body of the birds is something that was a by product of something else. Of course, you could say that there is a design and I agree. But that design is not intentional. Nature never said "ok, let's make a bird now" and then took millions of years to make it. Actually, you can never identify a definite point in time where nature 'started making the bird'. With human-made things it's quite different. Humans DID say 'ok, let's work on a flying machine' and started making it.
    the point I was trying to make was that it's stupid to put faith into "evolutionary algorithms" to do the job for us

  19. Post #59
    LoneWolf_Recon's Avatar
    May 2011
    1,624 Posts
    I guess you have a point Rainbow, and considering those simple rules of thumb are for relatively simple AI then it would be very limited.

  20. Post #60
    GetOutOfBox's Avatar
    April 2009
    847 Posts
    Until we understand precisely how our brains produce consciousness, we won't be able to create it ourselves. That being said, it's only a matter of time until we can isolate how exactly brains produce sentience. We know that there must be a some sort of scientific explanation, since we have established exactly how brains works, it's just that last big connection between the electrical processes that go on in our heads and life itself.

    Would creating AI be unethical? Not nessesarily. It depends on what your intent is. If you are approaching creating AI with the same approach of creating life (aka having sex without a condom), with the intent to treat your creation with the same respect and dignity you'd treat your offspring, I don't see how it's inherently immoral.

  21. Post #61
    Lord_Ragnarok's Avatar
    July 2009
    2,096 Posts
    The real question should be if it would be beneficial to us. I think it probably would if we really can master it. Imagine creating someone as brilliant as Einstein or Leonardo Da Vinci, but as kind as Buddha, Jesus, or Gandhi.

    Edited:

    how do you know that human rights will be appropriate

    how do you know that it will appreciate them

    any sufficiently advanced AI will have a mind-structure completely different to that of humans.

    Edited:



    bullshit

    what evolution can do in 3.5 billion years, an engineer can do in an afternoon.

    sure, an AI will have to learn from its mistakes and get better over time, but just giving it a bunch of rules of thumb and saying "lol evolve your way out" will constrain it to local maxima.
    Well, theoretically, we could create nanobots that function similar to neurons. Also, every thought we have, ever muscle we clench is essentially just caused by electric messages sent throughout our body.

  22. Post #62
    Gold Member
    _Kent_'s Avatar
    June 2009
    2,328 Posts
    The ethical problem with AI is that when it is first created, it will have no protection under law. There will be nothing to stop people from copy/pasting them, deleting them, torturing them, or otherwise abusing them. In addition, an AI with greater than human intelligence would probably not want to be dependent on humans for electricity and computer hardware.

  23. Post #63
    Gold Member
    Satane's Avatar
    March 2007
    3,583 Posts
    The ethical problem with AI is that when it is first created, it will have no protection under law. There will be nothing to stop people from copy/pasting them, deleting them, torturing them, or otherwise abusing them. In addition, an AI with greater than human intelligence would probably not want to be dependent on humans for electricity and computer hardware.
    when first real AI is created, it won't be human, it won't have feelings and it will not feel. AI with greater than human intelligence will not necessarily know it's even created by humans.

  24. Post #64
    it won't have feelings and it will not feel.
    How do you know that? How do you know it can't or won't develop desires? We did.

  25. Post #65
    Gold Member
    Satane's Avatar
    March 2007
    3,583 Posts
    How do you know that? How do you know it can't or won't develop desires? We did.
    well it took our brain millions of years of evolution just to learn to speak. it's going to have to learn a lot more than recognizing patterns to actually have feelings.

  26. Post #66
    Gekkosan's Avatar
    October 2010
    5,668 Posts
    have you seen fighter jets lately they're pretty damn agile, not to mention way faster than anything nature can come up with
    Jets are not as agile as birds in a way that a fighter jet can't land on your windowsill now can it?

  27. Post #67
    Sickle's Avatar
    November 2009
    6,600 Posts
    Not possible within Computer Science.
    If AI will ever happen, it won't be a computer.
    World class debating.

    Let me counter that point with the same level of reason;

    Yes it is.
    Yes it will be with computers.

  28. Post #68
    SCREAMS 4 DA FURRY PORN
    RobbL's Avatar
    December 2011
    5,852 Posts
    http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/concrobt.htm Useful if you enjoy reading (I don't )

    Anyway, I swear there was a thread identical to this a while back in which I took part in the discussion, but yeah... because i've already argued about this topic once before I can't can't be bothered to do it again here haha

  29. Post #69
    BAZ
    Dav0r, buy me a custom title. I'm far too poor ;_;
    BAZ's Avatar
    July 2005
    12,584 Posts
    Genetic AI is already around, and it's already designing high-end engineering projects such as plane fuselages and super-cars.

  30. Post #70
    Rad McCool's Avatar
    August 2009
    3,883 Posts
    Genetic AI is already around, and it's already designing high-end engineering projects such as plane fuselages and super-cars.
    Genetic Artificial Intelligence.

    Excuse me?

  31. Post #71
    Gold Member
    Catdaemon's Avatar
    February 2005
    2,821 Posts
    Genetic Artificial Intelligence.

    Excuse me?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

  32. Post #72
    Gold Member
    Nikita's Avatar
    April 2005
    1,882 Posts
    Genetic algorithms take a long time, are susceptible to local optima, hard to tune mutation/crossover constants...

    and require an evaluation function. It's incredibly hard to think up of a general evaluation function for a general AI - no matter what tests you do, you will most often end up with something that has minor success in solving these exact tests, and ONLY these exact tests.

  33. Post #73
    imasillypiggy's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,851 Posts
    Why wouldn't it be ethical?

  34. Post #74
    How do you know that? How do you know it can't or won't develop desires? We did.
    we are brains that adapted to live on a savanna

    AIs will be made out of microchips and designed to live in silicon valley initially

    Edited:

    totally different situations

  35. Post #75
    Gold Member
    squids_eye's Avatar
    July 2006
    5,596 Posts
    we are brains that adapted to live on a savanna

    AIs will be made out of microchips and designed to live in silicon valley initially

    Edited:

    totally different situations
    We evolved pretty much accidentally, this would be purpose built. If it is being built to simulate a human mind then a huge part of that is to simulate feelings. And if a simulation is advanced enough, how is it any different from actually having feelings?

  36. Post #76
    We evolved pretty much accidentally, this would be purpose built. If it is being built to simulate a human mind then a huge part of that is to simulate feelings. And if a simulation is advanced enough, how is it any different from actually having feelings?
    general intelligence AIs aren't going to be emulated human brains, their architecture will be completely different to ours

    maybe once we've invented recursively self-improving AIs we'll set about on brain-uploading, but that would be post-singularity and the current notion of "rights" would probably cease to have meaning.

  37. Post #77

    August 2008
    55 Posts
    Would it be ethical to give it free will? - could lead to Terminator style wars though :O

  38. Post #78
    could lead to Terminator style wars though :O
    how do you know

  39. Post #79
    Gold Member
    Satane's Avatar
    March 2007
    3,583 Posts
    Would it be ethical to give it free will? - could lead to Terminator style wars though :O
    I thought that we established that free will doesn't exist

  40. Post #80
    Hiruty's Avatar
    January 2012
    331 Posts
    The only problem i see with human Level AI's designed to protect / serve humans is an iRobot style revolt. Humans are humans for being just that human, we aspire to greater things including better humans. In the eventual age where this happends, there will be no humans but computers made by computers to make better faster computers designed to mimic humans..

    Also, if a AI gains feelings and emotions is it still a robot? Is it ethical to replace and remove these feelings they gain or even destroy the robots?