3 ms·

My thoughts exactly. How do we even define "Artificial"? Heck, we can't even define "consciousness" properly. Is a turtle artificially intelligent? What if a C

My thoughts exactly. How do we even define "Artificial"? Heck, we can't even define "consciousness" properly. Is a turtle artificially intelligent? What if a Chimp had titanium atoms instead of carbon? Would that make it AI? Overall I think it's an absurd question because right now the definition of "AI" is something that we/humans have created. Everything else is natural intelligence. A question of vernacular.

Razengan 10y ago
> What if a Chimp had titanium atoms instead of carbon? Would that make it AI? Exactly! I've always wondered; If we made advanced enough robots, why would they not count as life? If they could think, feel, explore, protect themselves, teach each other, affect their environment, process raw materials, build things, if they could make more robots like themselves, all without needing us — fast forward a few hundred years and they had a spacefaring civilization of their own — by WHAT criteria would they NOT classify as "life" in the grand scheme of the Universe? Just because they won't be made out of organic "cells?"
- 1_listerine_pls 10y ago
  Think about the reason you can feel something is cold/hot. It's a feeling that is not supposed to exist. Yet, people try to find the particular part or mechanism of the brain causing it, but is a logical circuit really causing such feeling?
kobeya 10y ago
It matters, and here's why: natural intelligences, reasonably defined as intelligence evolved through natural selection, can be expected to have some convergent properties. The convergent instrumental goals of resource acquisition and self-preservation naturally arise, of course, but the same is probably said of artificial entities too. Naturally evolved intelligences on the other hand are very likely to have moralities of a recognizable (even if foreign) sort -- the Pareto optimal solutions to resource sharing problems encountered in their ancestral evolutionary environment which likely resembles ours in important respects. These are, in the words of Daniel Dennett, "forced moves" which any evolutionary process is likely to stumble upon regardless of lineage. Artifacts, on the other hand, have no reason to be so constrained.
- unlikelymordant 10y ago
  For an artifact to survive a long time, won't it also undergo a sort of natural selection? Perhaps the only long surviving ai's are those with the exact qualities you ascribe to "naturally" occurring entities. I don't think there is a reason to differentiate intelligences into any natural artificial dichotomy.
  - kobeya 10y ago
    Not under similar selection pressures as we underwent during our evolution, and unlike natural selection it would not be limited to neighboring improvements in design space. The range of possible intelligences, and their drives, would be vastly expanded.

Razengan 10y ago

> What if a Chimp had titanium atoms instead of carbon? Would that make it AI? Exactly! I've always wondered; If we made advanced enough robots, why would they not count as life? If they could think, feel, explore, protect themselves, teach each other, affect their environment, process raw materials, build things, if they could make more robots like themselves, all without needing us — fast forward a few hundred years and they had a spacefaring civilization of their own — by WHAT criteria would they NOT classify as "life" in the grand scheme of the Universe? Just because they won't be made out of organic "cells?"

1_listerine_pls 10y ago
Think about the reason you can feel something is cold/hot. It's a feeling that is not supposed to exist. Yet, people try to find the particular part or mechanism of the brain causing it, but is a logical circuit really causing such feeling?

kobeya 10y ago

It matters, and here's why: natural intelligences, reasonably defined as intelligence evolved through natural selection, can be expected to have some convergent properties. The convergent instrumental goals of resource acquisition and self-preservation naturally arise, of course, but the same is probably said of artificial entities too. Naturally evolved intelligences on the other hand are very likely to have moralities of a recognizable (even if foreign) sort -- the Pareto optimal solutions to resource sharing problems encountered in their ancestral evolutionary environment which likely resembles ours in important respects. These are, in the words of Daniel Dennett, "forced moves" which any evolutionary process is likely to stumble upon regardless of lineage. Artifacts, on the other hand, have no reason to be so constrained.

unlikelymordant 10y ago
For an artifact to survive a long time, won't it also undergo a sort of natural selection? Perhaps the only long surviving ai's are those with the exact qualities you ascribe to "naturally" occurring entities. I don't think there is a reason to differentiate intelligences into any natural artificial dichotomy.
- kobeya 10y ago
  Not under similar selection pressures as we underwent during our evolution, and unlike natural selection it would not be limited to neighboring improvements in design space. The range of possible intelligences, and their drives, would be vastly expanded.