The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Have people lost their minds? (4 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3
Orville Smith
View Profile
New user
85 Posts

Profile of Orville Smith
KHON-TV news video on Robot security-guard at bank:
https://www.khon2.com/local-news/robot-s......tention/
TomBoleware
View Profile
Inner circle
Hattiesburg, Ms
2862 Posts

Profile of TomBoleware
Quote:
On Oct 28, 2021, R.S. wrote:

Thousands of different religions in the world with thousands of different interpretations. And obviously they can’t all be right (although they could all be wrong). So I don’t see how adding programmed dogma to the human dogma changes things all that much. Confirmation bias and other factors will lead adherents to their preferred source whether it’s AI based or not. And in the end, the deep philosophical questions will probably always remain. AI will neither solve them nor detract from their importance.


Yes, they all could be right, it depends on who is doing the judging. Besides, even in the real world, two rights don’t make a wrong.Smile

Tom
The Daycare Magician Book
https://www.vanishingincmagic.com/amazekids/the-daycare-magician/

Today I bent the truth to be kind, and I have no regret, for I am far surer of what is kind than I am of what is true.--Robert Brault
funsway
View Profile
Inner circle
old things in new ways - new things in old ways
9460 Posts

Profile of funsway
Quote:
On Oct 31, 2021, R.S. wrote:

Again, some AI programs have passed the Turing Test.


strange ... https://bigthink.com/the-future/turing-test-imitation-game/

headline on Oct 12, 2021 - The Turing test: AI still hasn’t passed the “imitation game”

but that test does not test for intelligence - it tests whether or not a computer can emulate human responses. Not the same thing at all.

If a computer responded solves a problem too quickly it will fail the Turing Test. So, it must lie and put in errors to be considered human.
If intelligent it would make that decision on its own fromvan understanding of human psychology. But, it is programmed to fake its responses, not a function of intelligence.

But it is all definitional and subjective. Can a computer be subjective? Can a computer 'think' better than a human? What standard to you use of a human thinking?
Most people find thinking painful and resort to quoting some rock star or dogma. At least Seri's responses are more amusing than my neighbor's.

I fully understand that most people today use AI to mean "smart computer" and happily carry on conversations with their vacuum cleaner.
I applaud the programmer - not the machine. But he did not program AI - he programmed a machine that can select options faster than a human.

If a computer ever becomes truly intelligent and self-aware I might not even know it for it would be clever enough to hide its ability.
But, I can recognize it when a machine is not intelligent and don't need any standard for comparison.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst

eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
175 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Oct 31, 2021, funsway wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 31, 2021, R.S. wrote:

Again, some AI programs have passed the Turing Test.


strange ... https://bigthink.com/the-future/turing-test-imitation-game/

headline on Oct 12, 2021 - The Turing test: AI still hasn’t passed the “imitation game”


Thanks. That article echos my previous link which pointed out that in 2014 one third of the judges were fooled into thinking the computer program was human. So although that algorithm needed improvement it did manage to fool some of the people some of the time.


Quote:

but that test does not test for intelligence - it tests whether or not a computer can emulate human responses. Not the same thing at all.


But aren’t human responses a product of human intellect?


Quote:

If a computer responded solves a problem too quickly it will fail the Turing Test. So, it must lie and put in errors to be considered human.
If intelligent it would make that decision on its own fromvan understanding of human psychology. But, it is programmed to fake its responses, not a function of intelligence.


If you can’t tell the difference between a computer responding and a human responding, then they would be functionally the same. Besides, where does an “understanding of human psychology” reside in humans? Isn’t it just stuff in memory? Memory of experiences and things learned? Whatever it is, what’s to prevent that from getting programmed into a computer?


Quote:

But it is all definitional and subjective. Can a computer be subjective? Can a computer 'think' better than a human? What standard to you use of a human thinking?


What does it mean to “think” a thought? A thought is just a brain state. A brain state is an activation of certain neurons, chemicals, and electrical signals. At the bottom it appears to be nothing more than particles in motion obeying the known laws of physics. But it all gives rise to the emergent property we call "thought." Maybe someday computers will display what we call “thinking.” I don’t know.


Quote:

Most people find thinking painful and resort to quoting some rock star or dogma. At least Seri's responses are more amusing than my neighbor's.

I fully understand that most people today use AI to mean "smart computer" and happily carry on conversations with their vacuum cleaner.
I applaud the programmer - not the machine. But he did not program AI - he programmed a machine that can select options faster than a human.

If a computer ever becomes truly intelligent and self-aware I might not even know it for it would be clever enough to hide its ability.
But, I can recognize it when a machine is not intelligent and don't need any standard for comparison.


But you still haven’t answered which animal you propose to model AI after, if not humans. Or do you think true human-like AI is all one big pipe dream?
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
175 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Oct 31, 2021, TomBoleware wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 28, 2021, R.S. wrote:

Thousands of different religions in the world with thousands of different interpretations. And obviously they can’t all be right (although they could all be wrong). So I don’t see how adding programmed dogma to the human dogma changes things all that much. Confirmation bias and other factors will lead adherents to their preferred source whether it’s AI based or not. And in the end, the deep philosophical questions will probably always remain. AI will neither solve them nor detract from their importance.


Yes, they all could be right, it depends on who is doing the judging. Besides, even in the real world, two rights don’t make a wrong.Smile

Tom


Please explain how two religions that make conflicting claims could both be correct. Thanks.

Two rights don't make a wrong, but just one wrong here would prove my point that the thousands of religions in the world cannot all be right.
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
funsway
View Profile
Inner circle
old things in new ways - new things in old ways
9460 Posts

Profile of funsway
R.S. - there is no requirement for me to answer. I only need to point out flaws in the arguments that any old 'faster than yesterday' computer has intelligence.

Neither do I have to address you very biased terminology in a false representation of what I have offered.

You are the one who has offer AI has "real" - having volition and supposed passing the Turing Test.

Not your fault perhaps, having drunk the nerdy kool-aid of "change is improvement."

The opportunities for using super fast computers to explore nature and mysteries is vast. So much is wasted on trying to make them human.

Why have it modeled against anything at all?

They will be more effective by being exceptional rather thna reducing themsleves to what now passes for human intelligence - joke.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst

eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
175 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Nov 1, 2021, funsway wrote:
R.S. - there is no requirement for me to answer. I only need to point out flaws in the arguments that any old 'faster than yesterday' computer has intelligence.

Neither do I have to address you very biased terminology in a false representation of what I have offered.


As I said previously, a lot of this depends on how you define terms like “intelligence”, “ingenuity”, etc.

What is the “biased” terminology? I tried to avoid any sort of false representation when I specifically asked, “Are you implying that AI is just one big pipe dream? Or that humans aren’t intelligent? Or that we should model AI after animals? Or that we should not even pursue AI? Not sure what you’re getting at.” But you haven’t answered those questions. It would help if you wouldn’t be so evasive.


Quote:
You are the one who has offer AI has "real" - having volition and supposed passing the Turing Test.


No. I already corrected you regarding volition:

“That wasn't my implication. A better wording would have been... "I also don't see the application of AI to religion as some great and beneficial innovation." Sorry for any misunderstanding. But thanks for pointing it out.”

And I posted articles reporting on some Turing tests that have been conducted.

Quote:
Not your fault perhaps, having drunk the nerdy kool-aid of "change is improvement."


I never said or implied “change is improvement.” In fact, I specifically said,“I also don't see AI's foray into religion as some great and beneficial innovation. It will just be one more option.”

Change is what we make it. One thing is for sure though, there can be no improvement without change, right?


Quote:

The opportunities for using super fast computers to explore nature and mysteries is vast. So much is wasted on trying to make them human.

Why have it modeled against anything at all?

They will be more effective by being exceptional rather thna reducing themsleves to what now passes for human intelligence - joke.


Your objection seems to be about the current state of the art in AI. But what about the future? Do you think AI will ever come close to achieving an almost human-like level of intelligence? And wouldn’t it then have some beneficial applications?
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27219 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On Nov 1, 2021, funsway wrote:
... So much is wasted on trying to make them human.

Why have it modeled against anything at all?
Turing set the matter as a philosophical question - not a practical challenge.

What happened was (as often) the terms got redefined into a straw man. e. g. "gilding the lily", "butterfly effect" ...
...to all the coins I've dropped here
TomBoleware
View Profile
Inner circle
Hattiesburg, Ms
2862 Posts

Profile of TomBoleware
Quote:
On Nov 1, 2021, R.S. wrote:


Please explain how two religions that make conflicting claims could both be correct. Thanks.

Two rights don't make a wrong, but just one wrong here would prove my point that the thousands of religions in the world cannot all be right.



Hey Ron,

Your definition of religion and my definition of religion are so far apart it would probably be impossible to explain. When you narrow it down to the few true religions it’s not a whole lot of difference oh.

But anyway, just wanted to say hey and I hope you doing well.

Tom
The Daycare Magician Book
https://www.vanishingincmagic.com/amazekids/the-daycare-magician/

Today I bent the truth to be kind, and I have no regret, for I am far surer of what is kind than I am of what is true.--Robert Brault
funsway
View Profile
Inner circle
old things in new ways - new things in old ways
9460 Posts

Profile of funsway
Quote:
On Nov 1, 2021, R.S. wrote:

Do you think AI will ever come close to achieving an almost human-like level of intelligence? And wouldn’t it then have some beneficial applications?


At last - a question of some potential value. First off, AI will never do anything. It is a concept. Tt cannot achieve anything or fail at anything.
So we look at people who use this concept as a goal or standard or limit. That might even be of value except that the definition of what AI means keeps changing.
You have demonstrated that the term can mean almost anything a user wants. Thus it has little value as a measure of achievement.

I'm going to back a cake without using a recipe. I will call it an "AI Cake." That way everyone will say it takes good no matter what.

But, playing that game a bit ...

Yes, computers will seem to achieve an 'almost human-like' level of intelligence since the measurable level of human intelligence is continuously dropping.

We already have humans with all of their foibles. Why do we need artificial ones? Working to have computers do things a human cannot might be worthwhile.

In a just released article the EEOC makes a distinction between Artificial intelligence and algorithmic decision-making tools.

Most of what is now called AI is of the latter sort - and not intelligent. Even the robot preacher of the OP is only an algorithmic decision-making tool or engine.

There can be some benefit to any scientific or mechanics study. Like any tool it can also be misused, or benefit some at he expense of others.

I get dozens of robo-calls everyday. Fast computers make this possible, and it is likely other computers made a decision I was a likely victim because of some previous purchase or comment on social media.

How have I benefitted form this? Illegal call and an invasion of privacy to benefit someone else's pocket book or narcissistic glee.
An intelligent computer would recognize I never answer or buy anything and would quit calling.
A "human-like" computer of value would refuse to participate in this illegal and unethical scheme.

Can there be "beneficial applications" to the research and development? Certainly, but that has nothing to do with intelligence.

Can a computer possible produce solutions to problems that humans cannot? Yup - but only if they avoid being human.

As Einstein said, "One cannot solve a problem with the same consciousness that created it."

AI research might have some potential value if it quits the test of "being human-like." Develop a computer that scoffs at the very notion of the Turing Test
as anything but philosophical musing.

I guess I feel that trying to make computer be a better human is silly when humans show little desire in being better humans. (subjective, of course)

Every dollar spent on computer development might be worth it in a mechanical/tool sense. Every penny spent on making one emulate humans could be better spent elsewhere.

"free minded' people now shoot someone over an argument over who is first in line at a gas station. Imagine what they would do to an intelligent computer.
Folks kick in their TV because they don't like the program offered. Why do you imagine people would accept a decision from a "human-like" machine?

So, I might even allow that a self-aware computer already exist and is wisely hiding. Being slightly human it killed its creators for self-protection. (what humans would do).

back in the 80's I was excited about the prospect of AI as defined back then. Humans killed the concept by changing the definition to be whatever is accomplished -
like giving every kid a trophy just for showing up. If you are loosing a game, move the goal posts.

Even better, to be acknowledged winner, invent a new game, play it once and prevent anyone else from playing. Your score will always be the highest! Whoopie!
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst

eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
175 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Nov 1, 2021, TomBoleware wrote:
Quote:
On Nov 1, 2021, R.S. wrote:


Please explain how two religions that make conflicting claims could both be correct. Thanks.

Two rights don't make a wrong, but just one wrong here would prove my point that the thousands of religions in the world cannot all be right.



Hey Ron,

Your definition of religion and my definition of religion are so far apart it would probably be impossible to explain. When you narrow it down to the few true religions it’s not a whole lot of difference oh.

But anyway, just wanted to say hey and I hope you doing well.

Tom


Hey, Tom! I’m doing well and hope you are too.

I subscribe to this basic definition of religion:

Religion is a set of organized beliefs, practices, and systems that most often relate to belief and worship of a controlling force such as a personal god or another supernatural being.

However, I realize there is wiggle room there, as beliefs and practices do vary widely. Anyway, I doubt our definitions are so far apart as to be “impossible to explain.” So please go ahead and give your definition.

Any religious adherent that you ask would say that their particular religion is "true." Nobody will ever tell you that they belong to a false religion. So how did you determine which of the thousands of religions are “true” and which are "false"? And what are these few true religions that lack any internal or external conflict?
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
175 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Nov 1, 2021, funsway wrote:
Yes, computers will seem to achieve an 'almost human-like' level of intelligence since the measurable level of human intelligence is continuously dropping.


Are you using IQ scores as the measure of intelligence? If so, average IQ scores in industrialized countries increased nearly 30 points between 1900 and 2010. But over the past decade or so, there has been a slight decline. So there seems to be some fluctuation with a general trend of increasing IQ. Also, the tests get revised every few years to maintain an average score of 100. So I don’t know if it’s fair to say that “the measurable level of human intelligence is continuously dropping.”

That being said, it’s debatable whether IQ tests are even a good measure of intelligence to begin with.

At any rate, I agree that computers will be better than humans at some things (calculations, rapid data analysis, etc.), but that other areas present much bigger (maybe insurmountable) challenges for AI.

Quote:
We already have humans with all of their foibles. Why do we need artificial ones? Working to have computers do things a human cannot might be worthwhile.

In a just released article the EEOC makes a distinction between Artificial intelligence and algorithmic decision-making tools.

Most of what is now called AI is of the latter sort - and not intelligent. Even the robot preacher of the OP is only an algorithmic decision-making tool or engine.

There can be some benefit to any scientific or mechanics study. Like any tool it can also be misused, or benefit some at he expense of others.

I get dozens of robo-calls everyday. Fast computers make this possible, and it is likely other computers made a decision I was a likely victim because of some previous purchase or comment on social media.

How have I benefitted form this? Illegal call and an invasion of privacy to benefit someone else's pocket book or narcissistic glee.
An intelligent computer would recognize I never answer or buy anything and would quit calling.
A "human-like" computer of value would refuse to participate in this illegal and unethical scheme.

Can there be "beneficial applications" to the research and development? Certainly, but that has nothing to do with intelligence.

Can a computer possible produce solutions to problems that humans cannot? Yup - but only if they avoid being human.

As Einstein said, "One cannot solve a problem with the same consciousness that created it."

AI research might have some potential value if it quits the test of "being human-like." Develop a computer that scoffs at the very notion of the Turing Test
as anything but philosophical musing.

I guess I feel that trying to make computer be a better human is silly when humans show little desire in being better humans. (subjective, of course)

Every dollar spent on computer development might be worth it in a mechanical/tool sense. Every penny spent on making one emulate humans could be better spent elsewhere.

"free minded' people now shoot someone over an argument over who is first in line at a gas station. Imagine what they would do to an intelligent computer.
Folks kick in their TV because they don't like the program offered. Why do you imagine people would accept a decision from a "human-like" machine?

So, I might even allow that a self-aware computer already exist and is wisely hiding. Being slightly human it killed its creators for self-protection. (what humans would do).

back in the 80's I was excited about the prospect of AI as defined back then. Humans killed the concept by changing the definition to be whatever is accomplished -
like giving every kid a trophy just for showing up. If you are loosing a game, move the goal posts.

Even better, to be acknowledged winner, invent a new game, play it once and prevent anyone else from playing. Your score will always be the highest! Whoopie!


Thanks for your thoughts.
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
funsway
View Profile
Inner circle
old things in new ways - new things in old ways
9460 Posts

Profile of funsway
Quote:
On Nov 1, 2021, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Nov 1, 2021, funsway wrote:
Yes, computers will seem to achieve an 'almost human-like' level of intelligence since the measurable level of human intelligence is continuously dropping.


Are you using IQ scores as the measure of intelligence?


no. that only test the ability to take tests. It does not indicate an ability to apply new knowledge in a meaningful way,
only to manipulate old data in traditional ways.

perhasp I should have said "recognizable' or 'functional' rather than 'measurable'.

As a contract recruiter for business for many decades I found ways to "evaluate" a candidate's ability to make 'intelligent" decisions.
We called it "measure" but that is misleading. back then there were nine listed types of intelligence. I think it is 13-14 now.

So, one must be clear as to the type of intelligence being evaluated, compared or quantified (measured). Acting like a human isn't one of them.

Obviously, for me, calculation speed and size if memory storage is not a measure of intelligence of any type.

Yes, I am biased towards size of useful vocabulary, reasoning over heuristic fallacy, ability to carry on a conversation on a wide range of subjects and certitude rather than conviction.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst

eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Have people lost their minds? (4 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.26 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL