artificial intelligense (91)
lifeisadream: Will the "machines" ever out run humans?
Effortlessly like they didn't even want to. But we're going to tax the man who owns the machine so we can buy an enormous bike and ride straight to the finish line.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Much better but not there yet !
Looks like a wax model to me, except the eyes have expression, but none anywhere else, that I've seen.
------ This thread is Archived ------
rizlared: Actually according to the OXFORD DICTIONARY.
Definition of artificial intelligence in English:
artificial intelligence
(also AI)
NOUN
mass noun
The theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, decision-making, and translation between languages.
Also for Merriam Webster
Definition of artificial intelligence
1 :a branch of computer science dealing with the simulation of intelligent behaviour in computers
2 :the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behaviour
The Phrase Artificial Intelligence was first used in 1955, and has been in use since that time when referring to any mechanical/electronic form of intelligence.
Definition of artificial intelligence in English:
artificial intelligence
(also AI)
NOUN
mass noun
The theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, decision-making, and translation between languages.
Also for Merriam Webster
Definition of artificial intelligence
1 :a branch of computer science dealing with the simulation of intelligent behaviour in computers
2 :the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behaviour
The Phrase Artificial Intelligence was first used in 1955, and has been in use since that time when referring to any mechanical/electronic form of intelligence.
AI
- Artificial Narrow Intelligence (ANI): Sometimes referred to as Weak AI, Artificial Narrow Intelligence is AI that specializes in one area. There’s AI that can beat the world chess champion in chess, but that’s the only thing it does. Ask it to figure out a better way to store data on a hard drive, and it’ll look at you blankly.
- Artificial General Intelligence (AGI): Sometimes referred to as Strong AI, or Human-Level AI, Artificial General Intelligence refers to a computer that is as smart as a human across the board—a machine that can perform any intellectual task that a human being can. Creating AGI is a much harder task than creating ANI, and we’re yet to do it
-Artificial Superintelligence (ASI): Oxford philosopher and leading AI thinker Nick Bostrom defines superintelligence as “an intellect that is much smarter than the best human brains in practically every field, including scientific creativity, general wisdom and social skills.” Artificial Superintelligence ranges from a computer that’s just a little smarter than a human to one that’s trillions of times smarter—across the board...
if it is of any help.
------ This thread is Archived ------
lifeisadream: AI
- Artificial Narrow Intelligence (ANI): Sometimes referred to as Weak AI, Artificial Narrow Intelligence is AI that specializes in one area. There’s AI that can beat the world chess champion in chess, but that’s the only thing it does. Ask it to figure out a better way to store data on a hard drive, and it’ll look at you blankly.
- Artificial General Intelligence (AGI): Sometimes referred to as Strong AI, or Human-Level AI, Artificial General Intelligence refers to a computer that is as smart as a human across the board—a machine that can perform any intellectual task that a human being can. Creating AGI is a much harder task than creating ANI, and we’re yet to do it
-Artificial Superintelligence (ASI): Oxford philosopher and leading AI thinker Nick Bostrom defines superintelligence as “an intellect that is much smarter than the best human brains in practically every field, including scientific creativity, general wisdom and social skills.” Artificial Superintelligence ranges from a computer that’s just a little smarter than a human to one that’s trillions of times smarter—across the board...
if it is of any help.
- Artificial Narrow Intelligence (ANI): Sometimes referred to as Weak AI, Artificial Narrow Intelligence is AI that specializes in one area. There’s AI that can beat the world chess champion in chess, but that’s the only thing it does. Ask it to figure out a better way to store data on a hard drive, and it’ll look at you blankly.
- Artificial General Intelligence (AGI): Sometimes referred to as Strong AI, or Human-Level AI, Artificial General Intelligence refers to a computer that is as smart as a human across the board—a machine that can perform any intellectual task that a human being can. Creating AGI is a much harder task than creating ANI, and we’re yet to do it
-Artificial Superintelligence (ASI): Oxford philosopher and leading AI thinker Nick Bostrom defines superintelligence as “an intellect that is much smarter than the best human brains in practically every field, including scientific creativity, general wisdom and social skills.” Artificial Superintelligence ranges from a computer that’s just a little smarter than a human to one that’s trillions of times smarter—across the board...
if it is of any help.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Innocentia00122: I am also not an expert :-)
I understand what you mean, but if you would develop such an algorithm for the ability to judge more objectively, how could that be useful for human beings who can include in their process of coming to a conclusion so much more than these artificial humans?
If a synthetic human, or an artificial brain should solve problems or judge like we do, then we had to be able first to create a program that stores all our knowledge, our experiences, our intentions and our phantasy. How can ever our phantasy be stored?
I understand what you mean, but if you would develop such an algorithm for the ability to judge more objectively, how could that be useful for human beings who can include in their process of coming to a conclusion so much more than these artificial humans?
If a synthetic human, or an artificial brain should solve problems or judge like we do, then we had to be able first to create a program that stores all our knowledge, our experiences, our intentions and our phantasy. How can ever our phantasy be stored?
My comment about myself not being an expert, was just that.
The human brain has limitations.
In one gathering with friends someone was talking about putting several computers' brains at work and in making that the capabilities of the machines go higher than of the common human brain and perhaps above the most intelligent ones, what is the limit? I do believe there is not limit.
I was reading this article that I found it interesting.
(that is the part 2)
------ This thread is Archived ------
ChesneyChrist: Effortlessly like they didn't even want to. But we're going to tax the man (there will always be Panamá 
) who owns the machine so we can buy an enormous bike and ride straight to the finish line.
) who owns the machine so we can buy an enormous bike and ride straight to the finish line.but what is the finish line?
immortality?
extinction?
a boring existence ?
a useless existence?
------ This thread is Archived ------
rizlared: A language is a living thing and like most living things it evolves, English is one of the foremost languages in the world for evolving, Engish is made up of so many original and modern languages that any dictionary has to modify and take into account new words or meanings.
For example, the word "selfie", a newly created word, that is now a part of standard English and has been added to the two main English dictionaries Oxford/Cambridge. Definitions change over time and so that also needs to be modified.
Can you refrain from shouting please, it is not necessary and makes it hard to read your posts, thank you.
Oh a dictionary is not an encyclopedia, but unless you understood the use and meaning of a dictionary, I guess easy to make that mistake.
If you are a writer, how come you don't understand the basic meaning of dictionary? It would be impossible to communicate if all words were left unacountable and any meaning attached to those words.
For example, the word "selfie", a newly created word, that is now a part of standard English and has been added to the two main English dictionaries Oxford/Cambridge. Definitions change over time and so that also needs to be modified.
Can you refrain from shouting please, it is not necessary and makes it hard to read your posts, thank you.
Oh a dictionary is not an encyclopedia, but unless you understood the use and meaning of a dictionary, I guess easy to make that mistake.
If you are a writer, how come you don't understand the basic meaning of dictionary? It would be impossible to communicate if all words were left unacountable and any meaning attached to those words.
Do you BOTHER to read what you SAY? 
YES! I AGREE! Language IS a "living" thing. And YES, it evolves (Which "I" asserted, NOT you). And YES, English IS the fastest evolving language in common use, today. And I agree that ONE of the purposes of printing NEW dictionaries IS to include words that have been "coined" since the previous edition was published! But THIS discussion ISN'T concerned with ANY newly coined words! "Artificial" and "intelligence" are BOTH words that have been around and in common usage NOT for years, but for CENTURIES! So, PLEASE, don't try to "DISTRACT" me (OR our audience) from the point of this discussion! (Comments about words like "selfie" bear NO RELATIONSHIP to THIS discussion! And the FACT that it's been added to ANY "dictionary" is IRRELEVANT, TO ANYTHING herein included!)"Can (I) refrain from "shouting"? I'm sorry, but, as far as MY "understanding" of "ink/printed words" goes, NONE of them MAKE "NOISE"! "Shouting" is a trait of creating VIGOROUS vibrating molecules. Is your computer SHAKING??????
A dictionary is not an encyclopedia! Gee? Are you wising up? IF i had been trying to EQUATE a dictionary and an encyclopedia, I wouldn't have bother to DESIGNATE BOTH, together. YES! They ARE different! Which is WHY I mentioned both! But they BOTH have a SOMEWHAT SIMILAR use/purpose! To inform/educate. They are BOTH repositories of SUPPOSED "information"! Which is WHY "I" included encyclopedias in this discussion! Because what I was saying about dictionaries applies EQUALLY to encyclopedias! But, since THIS fact APPARENTLY ESCAPES YOU, I guess my doing so WAS a "mistake"! Easily made, as I PRESUMED that you had a brain, WERE "intelligent", and COULD make the "LEAP" necessary to UNDERSTAND this "connection".
How come you don't understand the basic meaning of dictionary? (For an etymologist, WHY don't you use the CORRECT word/phrasing"? I would HOPE that you would KNOW [or at the very LEAST, understand] the proper use and formulation of English words and sentences.) "Why" don't (I) you understand the basic meaning of dictionary? I'm GLAD you brought that up! (I wonder why YOU DON'T understand what a dictionary IS!) A dictionary is NOT the final arbiter of the "meaning/definition" of ANY word! In fact, as you AGREE, it CAN'T BE BECAUSE words DON'T HAVE absolute/final "definitions". As YOU agree, words EVOLVE! So there ARE NO absolute definitions! And NEVER WILL BE! But YOUR position SEEMS to be that WHAT THE DICTIONARY SAYS, is ABSOLUTE, NONMODIFIABLE "LAW"! Dictionaries are ONLY compilations of currently common USAGES of the words therein! And meant to be GUIDELINES to/for that usage. There is NOTHING "sacred/sacrosanct" about, or IN a dictionary! To THINK there is, is the HEIGHT of foolishness! I'm sorry, but YOU make my case BETTER than "I" do!
------ This thread is Archived ------
rizlared: A language is a living thing and like most living things it evolves, English is one of the foremost languages in the world for evolving, Engish is made up of so many original and modern languages that any dictionary has to modify and take into account new words or meanings.
For example, the word "selfie", a newly created word, that is now a part of standard English and has been added to the two main English dictionaries Oxford/Cambridge. Definitions change over time and so that also needs to be modified.
Can you refrain from shouting please, it is not necessary and makes it hard to read your posts, thank you.
Oh a dictionary is not an encyclopedia, but unless you understood the use and meaning of a dictionary, I guess easy to make that mistake.
If you are a writer, how come you don't understand the basic meaning of dictionary? It would be impossible to communicate if all words were left unacountable and any meaning attached to those words.
For example, the word "selfie", a newly created word, that is now a part of standard English and has been added to the two main English dictionaries Oxford/Cambridge. Definitions change over time and so that also needs to be modified.
Can you refrain from shouting please, it is not necessary and makes it hard to read your posts, thank you.
Oh a dictionary is not an encyclopedia, but unless you understood the use and meaning of a dictionary, I guess easy to make that mistake.
If you are a writer, how come you don't understand the basic meaning of dictionary? It would be impossible to communicate if all words were left unacountable and any meaning attached to those words.
I'm sorry, but I went back and REread what you have written. (I tend to CHECK my data MORE than once.) And, in the process, I stubbed my toe (an ANALOGY! You DO know what an "ANALOGY" is, I HOPE!) on the ABOVE highlighted phrase! Are you REALLY asserting that "English" is made up of MORE THAN ONE modern "languages"? YOU'RE the one saying that dictionaries and encyclopedias have NO similarities/relationships. Are you NOW saying that "Words" and "Languages" ARE the same thing? DO have similarities/relationships? Kinda makes ME think you're one of those people that WANTS their cake! But wants to EAT IT, too! But "I" don't bear grudges. "I" have ENOUGH 'intelligence" to INTERPRET what you MEANT!
------ This thread is Archived ------
lifeisadream: My comment about myself not being an expert, was just that.
The human brain has limitations.
In one gathering with friends someone was talking about putting several computers' brains at work and in making that the capabilities of the machines go higher than of the common human brain and perhaps above the most intelligent ones, what is the limit? I do believe there is not limit.
I was reading this article that I found it interesting.
(that is the part 2)
The human brain has limitations.
In one gathering with friends someone was talking about putting several computers' brains at work and in making that the capabilities of the machines go higher than of the common human brain and perhaps above the most intelligent ones, what is the limit? I do believe there is not limit.
I was reading this article that I found it interesting.
(that is the part 2)
lifeisadream
, that article is very interesting. I agree that, when humans would be able to build an artificial brain that could continue developing itself naturally, then that would be indeed an artificial super intelligence and would coexist with us or replace us probably, but I think for that we do not know yet how to build that I have a friend who has a very high IQ (more than 160 StD 15). Sometimes I try to do some tests that he developed. The steps of that tests have, like all proper IQ tests, time limits. They are easy for him, too easy. And it is insane how fast you have to see, think and decide in these tests.
And computers can be even much faster (as you also said).
------ This thread is Archived ------
Innocentia00122: lifeisadream , that article is very interesting. I agree that, when humans would be able to build an artificial brain that could continue developing itself naturally, then that would be indeed an artificial super intelligence and would coexist with us or replace us probably, but I think for that we do not know yet how to build that
I have a friend who has a very high IQ (more than 160 StD 15). Sometimes I try to do some tests that he developed. The steps of that tests have, like all proper IQ tests, time limits. They are easy for him, too easy. And it is insane how fast you have to see, think and decide in these tests.
And computers can be even much faster (as you also said).
I have a friend who has a very high IQ (more than 160 StD 15). Sometimes I try to do some tests that he developed. The steps of that tests have, like all proper IQ tests, time limits. They are easy for him, too easy. And it is insane how fast you have to see, think and decide in these tests.
And computers can be even much faster (as you also said).
I just hope the human race is smart enough not to blow humanity off the face of plastic-planet
(known as planet-earth before)
------ This thread is Archived ------
------ This thread is Archived ------
stringman: https://futureoflife.org/background/benefits-risks-of-artificial-intelligence/
So?
anything in favor?
anything against?
neither?
ok!
------ This thread is Archived ------
Innocentia00122: Hi, Let-Us,
Artificial Intelligence is not an Oxymoron. An Oxymoron is a stylistic device and is used to make the reader stop and think. I don´t think that that was the intention when the use of that term started long ago. If it would have been then it would be even a contradictio in adiecto.
But I understand what you mean with that "artificial" and "intelligence" are contradicting each other. I always understood intelligence as the substantive of intellegere (Latin infinitive). It means to understand, to realize. The ability to understand and realize naturally (without any help) only have creatures.
The things that are called "artificially intelligent" are things developed by intelligent people to support or make stronger the natural intelligence.
Artificial Intelligence is not an Oxymoron. An Oxymoron is a stylistic device and is used to make the reader stop and think. I don´t think that that was the intention when the use of that term started long ago. If it would have been then it would be even a contradictio in adiecto.
But I understand what you mean with that "artificial" and "intelligence" are contradicting each other. I always understood intelligence as the substantive of intellegere (Latin infinitive). It means to understand, to realize. The ability to understand and realize naturally (without any help) only have creatures.
The things that are called "artificially intelligent" are things developed by intelligent people to support or make stronger the natural intelligence.
Okay. No problem. If YOU choose to see an "Oxymoron" as a "stylistic device", I can't appreciate your point of view. And I'll even use them PURPOSELY, for that SPECIFIC purpose. To make my reader STOP! And think! But "I" SEE an oxymoron as a word or phrase that is, on it's face, INHERENTLY NONsensical! In OTHER words, that it DOESN'T make ANY "sense". Which "I" interpret to mean that there is NO logical relationship INHERENT in the word or phrase. Which is the BASIS of my argument concerning "artificial intelligence". There is NO COMPREHENSIBLE "relationship" between these two words! "Intelligence" CAN NOT "BE" artificial". By definition, artificial means NOT "real"! MY position is that intelligence IS intelligence! And, therefore/thereby, CANNOT be "artificial"! It either IS, or it ISN'T! You CAN'T "BE" a little bit pregnant! Just like you CAN'T BE ARTIFICIALLY intelligent! Pills CAN'T make you intelligent! MORE intelligent, YES! But intelligent, NO! Can a machine be made to be intelligent? Maybe. But not PRESENTLY! SMART, YES! Intelligent, NO!
I have NO PROBLEM with "enhanced intelligence". Or "machine intelligence" (although I don't BELIEVE that machine intelligence exist! At least, NOT yet!) Machines are pretty good at PROCESSING large amounts of information. And programmers are beginning to get a handle on pattern recognition, which will start a revolution in that machines will THEN be able to "learn". But having large amounts of information and being able to analyse patterns therein, is NOT "intelligence"! It's "LEARNING". And the two are DIFFERENT things!
I agree that the INTENT, when the term "artificial intelligence" was coined, was NOT to be a "contradiction in terms" (as you so accurately describe it), OR to make people think. I think it's "origins" are ENTIRELY INNOCENT of ANY "ulterior" motive.
And I have no problem with your "derivation" of the word "intelligent/ce". But I have SOME problems with defining it as "understanding". To ME, "intelligence" provides/allows "understanding", but the "understanding" is DIFFERENT than/from "intelligence". I don't have a language (or language skills) that allow me to describe the difference well. About the best I can do (I think), is to say that "intelligence" is an "ability", whereas "understanding" is a "condition" or "state" of being. I don't know if that makes any sense to you. But I don't know any words that express it better.
But I appreciated reading your REASONED "analysis" of the discussion underway. You stated your position MUCH BETTER than the man who was objecting to my commentary. Thanks for jumping in!
------ This thread is Archived ------
lifeisadream: Will the "machines" ever out run humans?
I don't think so. NOT because of any reason you're probably considering. But because ONCE/IF a machine becomes smart enough to be ABLE to dispense with us, it will recognize our usefulness as a "foil"! So, if we start "dying off", they'll start breeding/cloning us!
------ This thread is Archived ------
Let_Us: I don't think so. NOT because of any reason you're probably considering. But because ONCE/IF a machine becomes smart enough to be ABLE to dispense with us, it will recognize our usefulness as a "foil"! So, if we start "dying off", they'll start breeding/cloning us!
Have you ever heard of errors?
error -128
user cancelled
------ This thread is Archived ------
Interesting read.
I liked one of the comments in the link below who said : Justin329 Artificial Intelligence will make humans obsolete one of these days.I am calling it.Humans are too arrogant and egotistical for their own goods.We'll be the creator of our own destruction.Maybe we should merge with them.
I liked one of the comments in the link below who said : Justin329 Artificial Intelligence will make humans obsolete one of these days.I am calling it.Humans are too arrogant and egotistical for their own goods.We'll be the creator of our own destruction.Maybe we should merge with them.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Innocentia00122: lifeisadream , that article is very interesting. I agree that, when humans would be able to build an artificial brain that could continue developing itself naturally, then that would be indeed an artificial super intelligence and would coexist with us or replace us probably, but I think for that we do not know yet how to build that
I have a friend who has a very high IQ (more than 160 StD 15). Sometimes I try to do some tests that he developed. The steps of that tests have, like all proper IQ tests, time limits. They are easy for him, too easy. And it is insane how fast you have to see, think and decide in these tests.
And computers can be even much faster (as you also said).
I have a friend who has a very high IQ (more than 160 StD 15). Sometimes I try to do some tests that he developed. The steps of that tests have, like all proper IQ tests, time limits. They are easy for him, too easy. And it is insane how fast you have to see, think and decide in these tests.
And computers can be even much faster (as you also said).
Hi (again) Innocentia.
I haven't read/watched the article you're discussing (yet). But, as I'm prone to do, I'm going to insert a thought (based on "assumptions".)
I have ALMOST absolute confidence that mankind WILL (eventually) build (or be ABLE to build) an "intelligent" computer. And that, eventually, THAT computer will reach a point of "development" where/that it COULD dispense with biological life. But I DON'T "think" it will.
YOUR question, is, of course, WHY I think that? So let me TRY to "explain" my "reasoning".
Biological life IS, and will PROBABLY always BE, basically/essentially DIFFERENT than "machine" life. Whereas machine life WILL be able to "crunch" more "numbers" than a biological brain, I can't/don't foresee that it will EVER have certain OTHER "capacities" of a biological brain. Even taking into account the marvels of quantum mechanics, a machine will NEVER (I think) be "conscious" in the way humans are.
The human brain has the capacity to be "NOWHERE" (I'll try to explain THAT, momentarily.), and I just don't see a machine having THAT capacity.
By "being NOWHERE", I'm going to have to go a little "FAR AFIELD", to explain. Buddhist philosophy points out that to REALLY "be", it is NECESSARY to be "Now Here". In other words, to exist IN the/each moment. And I agree with them, up to a point! But "I" think they're seeing the flower, and MISSING the garden! Yes! You SHOULD want to "live" in the "moment", NOT in the "future", or the Past". Otherwise you'll be MISSING your own "life". But "I" think they STATE their point poorly. They're "thinking" in the terms of "time", past, present, future. But, as ANY physicist will tell you, "TIME" is a fiction. A MAN created "concept", invented for his convenience, in talking about his "experience(s)". The concept of "time" allows him to "order" his existence, in a way that allows him to discuss it with ANOTHER human, in a COMPREHENSIBLE manner.
But, since "time" HAS no "existence", the idea of "BE"ing IN time, is absurd! What you WANT to do, is BE "outside" of time! To ELIMINATE "time", altogether. Which is what "I" mean, by "BEing nowhere". Theoretically, all "time" EXIST, EVERYWHERE, ALL the time. ANY/EVERY "time" is "accessible", to the human brain. Or, MAYBE this would be MORE comprehensible, if I said to each HUMAN! (The brain is only a "container" for the human "consciousness". And that consciousness DOESN'T have the "limitations" of the 3 dimensional "matter" that is "the brain".) In THIS way, man can EXIST IN/EXPERIENCE ALL of "time" (past, present, future) "simultaneously". Which, since space is a function of time, means that man can be EVERYWHERE simultaneously! Which means that ALL of "existence/reality" is open to him. This STATE of existence is what all the "mystic" religions/philosophies are describing.
And "I" think that THIS state of existence is OUTSIDE of machine intelligence's capacity, because of difference in the basic mechanical and biological "process(es)".
Can you FOLLOW my reasoning? Not AGREE with it, FOLLOW it.
------ This thread is Archived ------
lifeisadream: Have you ever heard of errors?
error -128
user cancelled
error -128
user cancelled
That's NOT "error 128"! That's "Catch 22", thank you!
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
Would you hire this guy - for any job?
The weird and the random facts around the world
Feel Good Music
Sleepy Don!
Happy Birthday MysteriousGirl80
More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
men's perspective towards women
the way you look
Unions support Democrats!
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Related Forums
- Would you hire this guy - for any job?
- The weird and the random facts around the world
- Feel Good Music
- Sleepy Don!
- Happy Birthday MysteriousGirl80
- More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
- Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
- men's perspective towards women
- the way you look
- Unions support Democrats!
"ability to judge"
An algorithm for the ability to judge?
it cold be developed if taken objective traits/parameters/tendencies/patters which could be better that taking emotions/bias into it as we humans do.
(I am not an expert in the subject but I find it interesting and my bet is on the machines )
I am also not an expert :-)
I understand what you mean, but if you would develop such an algorithm for the ability to judge more objectively, how could that be useful for human beings who can include in their process of coming to a conclusion so much more than these artificial humans?
If a synthetic human, or an artificial brain should solve problems or judge like we do, then we had to be able first to create a program that stores all our knowledge, our experiences, our intentions and our phantasy. How can ever our phantasy be stored?