4 ms·

Call it what it is, an expert system, market research, a database of decisions/observations. Real "artificial intelligence" only exists in science fiction, in

Call it what it is, an expert system, market research, a database of decisions/observations. Real "artificial intelligence" only exists in science fiction, in the minds of children playing with toys. Your computer (doll) won't ever love you back or have any awareness or understanding no matter how bad you want it to. It's a cool sounding buzzword for marketing, but if there's any intelligence here it's coming from a few developers hiding behind their tricky algorithms. A computer will never have intelligence, no matter how many factors and randomizations you code in to give the illusion of intelligence. Calling a collection of observations "intelligence" is an insult and severe underestimation of what intelligence is. If you believe artificial intelligence is possible, you're missing out on what life has to offer--or you would never think a box of switches could come alive. There's no hint of evidence you = your brain. It's safe to say the brain processes information literally. But we have no idea where intelligence originates. Sadly, some people never get beyond a literal interpretation of things.

gnaritas 13y ago
You have no idea what you're talking about, please just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.
ethanbond 13y ago
> But we have no idea where intelligence originates. It seems to me we don't even have a good definition of intelligence, never mind an understanding of it. You admit it yourself, so why the diatribe on how (not even why) "real artificial intelligence" is impossible? You haven't defined what AI is nor demonstrated why it will never happen.
JamesArgo 13y ago
Sadly, some people confuse their ignorance with knowledge and make all kinds of embarrassing claims. >There's no hint of evidence you = your brain. Sign up for a lobotomy we'll see much "you" is left afterwords. > If you believe artificial intelligence is possible, you're missing out on what life has to offer--or you would never think a box of switches could come alive. You got me. Believing x would make me think life has less meaning. Therefore, x is false. What an argument.
- enupten 13y ago
  It would seem, we now have another instance of, Monty Python's proof.
- pjbrunet 13y ago
  "Sign up for a lobotomy" Correlation does not imply causation. If I unplug your LCD, that doesn't imply the application failed. If I pull out your CPU, doesn't imply the cloud app is not still functioning. Possible examples of this, people who are "brain dead" that have reached out to grab a scalpel (organs about to be harvested) or have come back to life after brain death or pronounced dead but can quote a conversation that happened in the room while brain dead, etc.
z3phyr 13y ago
Can you define intelligence, before you claim 'stuff'?
- pjbrunet 13y ago
  Try a dictionary. Look at the latin root. That's the original meaning of intelligence.
nevada_smith 13y ago
In your case, intelligence does not seem to originate from the brain. Possibly from the epiglottis...
Vardhan 13y ago
This idea is absurd which I believe arises from a certain type of perspective that humanity needs to go beyond. Humanity needs to be less caged in perception. Let me expound on a point of view that maybe different to what see. To separate matter, and mind is a paradoxical argument, because they're both of the same thing. Going back to the old idea of the fallen tree, if there's no mind then matter does not exist, and if matter doesn't exist then mind can not arise. To put in other terms, if there's nothing receiving the projection, then what is the projection projecting on? Projection, and reception are another way of looking at mind, and matter. Mind being reception, matter being projection. So going by that logic, and assuming that we're all made of matter, we can say that matter itself is both projection, and reception. So if matter is both projection, and reception, then what does that mean? Are we all "just" matter? Yes. Exactly. But the argument isn't whether or not we're made of matter. I think we all agree that we're made of matter. I think the argument is that we humans share a certain inexorable feeling of qualia that arises from being human. Yes that's it. It's that qualia that distinguishes us from the rest of everything, except... The problem is that qualia arises from our material form. Of course assuming that everything is matter, and the idea of the eternal soul, or other such argument, is false. Then that means qualia itself is matter. Ok. What the hell am I getting at? Maybe matter is more complex, more interesting than we perceive. Maybe matter itself is "intelligent", and it's just another form distinct from human perception. hmmm... So am I saying that everything that is matter is "intelligent"? Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying, BUT there are different forms of material patterns that form different constructs intelligence. Meaning that how we receive, or in what form we receive the projection determines our perspective. Right now it just so happens we humans have a POV of humans. The thing is that due to our incredible ability to not just receive, but to also project what we receive onto different things gives us the power of empathy. The illusion that we can perceive from a different POV. That we can somehow distill our perspective, and project it onto another thing. It's worked quite well so far. Mathematics, language, science, etc. But once we try to see from another perspective that's unimaginably different then it all breaks down. Let's try to look at the perspective of ant for instance. Well we can't, because if you think about it you can't think of non-thought. Think of non-thinking, is an oxymoron. An ant doesn't think, I mean I'm sure it thinks, but it has completely different sense organs, a completely different set of logical processes, it has a completely different structure, and a completely different perspective than humans. It's unimaginable, because we can only view it from our perspective, which in its renders the idea false. We can only view the world from our perspective. Yet we can't call the ant unintelligent, an ant is very intelligent. What we see is just that, and what we see differently, is still just seeing. We can't stop seeing, and once we stop seeing, then we stop being human. A human being is just another form of seeing, ants another, computers yet another. Everything has intelligence, it's just not in a recognizable form. In a relatable form. We're all just a box of switches. A mesh of material patterns that filters through existence to produce being. Demeaning different forms of being as lesser is a very human centric perspective. See differently, from the top of the mount, and realize you'll only ever see like a human being.
Houshalter 13y ago
Man will never fly. You can't prove that birds fly because of their wings or air pressure. Therefore I am 100% certain that it's magic and can never be achieved by mere machinery. Calling a air pressure differential machine "flying" is an insult and severe underestimation of what flying is. If you believe artificial flying is possible, you're missing out on what life has to offer--or you would never think a box of gears could come alive.

gnaritas 13y ago

You have no idea what you're talking about, please just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

ethanbond 13y ago

> But we have no idea where intelligence originates. It seems to me we don't even have a good definition of intelligence, never mind an understanding of it. You admit it yourself, so why the diatribe on how (not even why) "real artificial intelligence" is impossible? You haven't defined what AI is nor demonstrated why it will never happen.

JamesArgo 13y ago

Sadly, some people confuse their ignorance with knowledge and make all kinds of embarrassing claims. >There's no hint of evidence you = your brain. Sign up for a lobotomy we'll see much "you" is left afterwords. > If you believe artificial intelligence is possible, you're missing out on what life has to offer--or you would never think a box of switches could come alive. You got me. Believing x would make me think life has less meaning. Therefore, x is false. What an argument.

enupten 13y ago
It would seem, we now have another instance of, Monty Python's proof.
pjbrunet 13y ago
"Sign up for a lobotomy" Correlation does not imply causation. If I unplug your LCD, that doesn't imply the application failed. If I pull out your CPU, doesn't imply the cloud app is not still functioning. Possible examples of this, people who are "brain dead" that have reached out to grab a scalpel (organs about to be harvested) or have come back to life after brain death or pronounced dead but can quote a conversation that happened in the room while brain dead, etc.

z3phyr 13y ago

Can you define intelligence, before you claim 'stuff'?

pjbrunet 13y ago
Try a dictionary. Look at the latin root. That's the original meaning of intelligence.

nevada_smith 13y ago

In your case, intelligence does not seem to originate from the brain. Possibly from the epiglottis...

Vardhan 13y ago

This idea is absurd which I believe arises from a certain type of perspective that humanity needs to go beyond. Humanity needs to be less caged in perception. Let me expound on a point of view that maybe different to what see. To separate matter, and mind is a paradoxical argument, because they're both of the same thing. Going back to the old idea of the fallen tree, if there's no mind then matter does not exist, and if matter doesn't exist then mind can not arise. To put in other terms, if there's nothing receiving the projection, then what is the projection projecting on? Projection, and reception are another way of looking at mind, and matter. Mind being reception, matter being projection. So going by that logic, and assuming that we're all made of matter, we can say that matter itself is both projection, and reception. So if matter is both projection, and reception, then what does that mean? Are we all "just" matter? Yes. Exactly. But the argument isn't whether or not we're made of matter. I think we all agree that we're made of matter. I think the argument is that we humans share a certain inexorable feeling of qualia that arises from being human. Yes that's it. It's that qualia that distinguishes us from the rest of everything, except... The problem is that qualia arises from our material form. Of course assuming that everything is matter, and the idea of the eternal soul, or other such argument, is false. Then that means qualia itself is matter. Ok. What the hell am I getting at? Maybe matter is more complex, more interesting than we perceive. Maybe matter itself is "intelligent", and it's just another form distinct from human perception. hmmm... So am I saying that everything that is matter is "intelligent"? Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying, BUT there are different forms of material patterns that form different constructs intelligence. Meaning that how we receive, or in what form we receive the projection determines our perspective. Right now it just so happens we humans have a POV of humans. The thing is that due to our incredible ability to not just receive, but to also project what we receive onto different things gives us the power of empathy. The illusion that we can perceive from a different POV. That we can somehow distill our perspective, and project it onto another thing. It's worked quite well so far. Mathematics, language, science, etc. But once we try to see from another perspective that's unimaginably different then it all breaks down. Let's try to look at the perspective of ant for instance. Well we can't, because if you think about it you can't think of non-thought. Think of non-thinking, is an oxymoron. An ant doesn't think, I mean I'm sure it thinks, but it has completely different sense organs, a completely different set of logical processes, it has a completely different structure, and a completely different perspective than humans. It's unimaginable, because we can only view it from our perspective, which in its renders the idea false. We can only view the world from our perspective. Yet we can't call the ant unintelligent, an ant is very intelligent. What we see is just that, and what we see differently, is still just seeing. We can't stop seeing, and once we stop seeing, then we stop being human. A human being is just another form of seeing, ants another, computers yet another. Everything has intelligence, it's just not in a recognizable form. In a relatable form. We're all just a box of switches. A mesh of material patterns that filters through existence to produce being. Demeaning different forms of being as lesser is a very human centric perspective. See differently, from the top of the mount, and realize you'll only ever see like a human being.

Houshalter 13y ago

Man will never fly. You can't prove that birds fly because of their wings or air pressure. Therefore I am 100% certain that it's magic and can never be achieved by mere machinery. Calling a air pressure differential machine "flying" is an insult and severe underestimation of what flying is. If you believe artificial flying is possible, you're missing out on what life has to offer--or you would never think a box of gears could come alive.