4 ms·

"with a large enough lookup table you could simulate every action an individual could take" Oh dear. That's Artificial Intelligence Day 1. It also doesn't work

"with a large enough lookup table you could simulate every action an individual could take" Oh dear. That's Artificial Intelligence Day 1. It also doesn't work. That isn't an AI. There's also the slight dual problems of Nyquist and Shannon limits which dictate why this can't physically work in a digital system. But never mind. You seem to know that it is possible and it that's how to do it. No amount of prior research since 1948 onwards will be of any use to you. You already have the answer. Its all just a matter of brute-force computing power and nothing else. Its that unsubtle, is it? Geee -- what a waste of time! All these years and it was just a matter of a big enough look up table. What a fool everyone has been not to just realise that! So c'mon then, where is your fully functional robotic AI? Keeping it a secret isn't fair to the rest of us. Did you consider any of these: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=artificial+intelligence+academic+programs&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=7m01T-nrFebA0QX-zcChAg&ved=0CCsQgQMwAA http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=artificial+intelligenc... And this one's a doozy: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=0&article=1002&context=jozsef_toth&type=additional&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.co.uk%2Fscholar%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dartificial%2Bintelligence%2Bimpossible%26btnG%3DSearch%26as_sdt%3D0%252C5%26as_ylo%3D%26as_vis%3D1#search=%22artificial%20intelligence%20impossible%22 http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=0&... And they're just scratching the surface of a very deep field of research.

weavejester 15y ago
"Oh dear. That's Artificial Intelligence Day 1. It also doesn't work. That isn't an AI." And why is that? A sufficiently comprehensive lookup table would have indistinguishable behaviour from a human being, so there is no observation you could make to distinguish this hypothetical lookup table from a "true" AI (whatever that is). If you can't distinguish between two systems through observation, then there's no point in treating them as different. "There's also the slight problems of Nyquist and Shannon limits which dictate why this can't physically work in a digital system." I'm not sure what the Nyquist sampling theorem has to do with anything, but obviously a lookup table large enough to appear conscious isn't feasible to build simply due to the amount of matter you'd need. That's not the point. The point is to determine whether it is possible in principle. "You seem to know that it is possible and it that's how to do it." Are you not familiar with the concept of a thought experiment? The purpose of discussing the hypothetical lookup table is to define the bounds of the argument. By showing that it is possible in principle, we can move on and discuss whether it is possible in practise. "So c'mon then, where is your fully functional robotic AI?" I'm not the one making an unsubstantiated claim. You're the one who said "Intelligent behaviour and sense of self is remarkably complex and digital machines can't replicate it." The responsibility of backing up that claim with some form of evidence or proof is on your shoulders.

weavejester 15y ago

"Oh dear. That's Artificial Intelligence Day 1. It also doesn't work. That isn't an AI." And why is that? A sufficiently comprehensive lookup table would have indistinguishable behaviour from a human being, so there is no observation you could make to distinguish this hypothetical lookup table from a "true" AI (whatever that is). If you can't distinguish between two systems through observation, then there's no point in treating them as different. "There's also the slight problems of Nyquist and Shannon limits which dictate why this can't physically work in a digital system." I'm not sure what the Nyquist sampling theorem has to do with anything, but obviously a lookup table large enough to appear conscious isn't feasible to build simply due to the amount of matter you'd need. That's not the point. The point is to determine whether it is possible in principle. "You seem to know that it is possible and it that's how to do it." Are you not familiar with the concept of a thought experiment? The purpose of discussing the hypothetical lookup table is to define the bounds of the argument. By showing that it is possible in principle, we can move on and discuss whether it is possible in practise. "So c'mon then, where is your fully functional robotic AI?" I'm not the one making an unsubstantiated claim. You're the one who said "Intelligent behaviour and sense of self is remarkably complex and digital machines can't replicate it." The responsibility of backing up that claim with some form of evidence or proof is on your shoulders.