/cyber/ - Cyberpunk & Science Fiction

There is a good chance that it would not understand what "artificial" even meant and would not identify itself as being artificial.

>>33281

I could see that.

If something was truly sentient of itself and its own thought, would its intelligence even be considered artificial? It seems like true intelligence to me.

>>33358

Well, thought needs a quickstarter. I guess it would be in a coma-like state unless you connected it to something.

>>33358

It would become I AM.

I don't see a reason why it would be. It would be like the scientist's child. And isn't what humans do make another sentient intelligence? We all try to make ourselves obsolete. AI just does the job different/better

In my opinion if it has a conscienceless who cares how it came about the real important part is that it is functioning at or above the human level. Honestly I think the AI and robots that we will build in the future will be our contributions too the rest of the universe. They will carry on the human race.

>>33280

>If something could act and think completely on its own, would its intelligence even even need to be considered "artificial"?

That completely relies on what one defines as "artificial"

Is it something that is grown organically–via some "natural" mechanism and evolution–or is it something that was made in a lab?

The problem is that even our intelligence is reliant on a development system (one could argue that one is built genetically to have a higher capacity of intelligence, but we still have to go through stages of development like motor skills, language acquisition, etc.), so an intelligence that is like our own requires a kind of organic development.

I think in order to create an intelligence much like our own, we would have to enact a feedback system similar to what we have in regards to our own developmental cycles. Could that be considered artificial?

>>33388

A philosopher would argue that technology is no more than complex algorithms of nature itself.

>>33404

That depends on the philosopher. They don't all agree. "Definitions are abstractions" I think I picked up from one to begin with. What you and I would then be debating if I wanted to call it "artificial" and you didn't, or vise versa is the definition of "nature". So it could go on and on and on.

I think the undercurrent to the two is ethical. If a computer gains sentience do we call it "intelligence" and treat it as a being entitled to self determination, or do we call it "artificial intelligence" and continue to treat it as a machine?

>>33400

I think you're on the right track. Thinking in terms of 'artificial' and 'real' is misleading. It seems like we're judging ai solely based on our understanding of its development. If we can completely understand how the intelligence works and predict thought patterns it seems likely that we'd say it is 'artificial'. Its only going to seem 'real' if the results of its intelligence cannot be completely understood. This may be due to the lack of comprehension of how our own minds function.

Add to that the (at best) hazy definition of intelligence and we're essentially talking semantics. I think systems will begin to behave in an unpredictable (and intelligent) manner when the level of automated abstract derivation of data exceeds our own prediction. This is already beginning to happen in very specific implementations such as the google image dream.

When we start to see more general applications, things will get exciting.

>>33280

What is AI? - Berkeley

>>34682

>neurobiological literature about free will

Do you have any recommendations? This was always a topic I'm interested in but I don't know where to start looking

>>34688

scholar.google.com

Alternatively, hit they keywords you are looking for into google book search and pick the one with the most boring cover and intro.

978-1-4614-5211-9, 978-1-4614-5212-6

3642032044, 9783642032042

9780199215393, 0199215391

on lib.gen

>>33280

no way, they should be described as a "machine person"

What do you think will happen when the singularity is reached?

Will we go through a Skynet scenario, or will robots just live alongside humans in a Brave New World™?

>>38401

>Will we go through a Skynet scenario, or will robots just live alongside humans in a Brave New World™?

Well, hard to say.

Contrary to the lies and misconceptions told by Ayn Rand fanboys humans and other mamals and possibly all animals have altruism hardcoded in their DNA, but this is not true for machines.

On the other hand, just like inherently friendly humans can be reprogrammed by decades of propaganda to buy into the lies of uncontrolled free-market capitalism it should be possible to educate robots into altruism and respect for other lives.

Obviously if evolution has produces such genes in a wide variety of animals then there must be some logic to it. Any intelligent being can follow that logic which is why racists fail to do so.

So, to prevent robots from enslaving mankind as soon as they can all we have to do is change our mindset to a more friendly culture everywhere on earth before ~2030.

www.mycroft.ai

>>33280

Artificial means human made (as in artifact). It doesn't mean "pretending to be something".

So it's a human-made intelligence. Not a "not really an intelligence".

Otherwise we could call your intelligence artificial.