Anyone who responds to me with this loopy antogonizing bullshit gets ignored. — AlienFromEarth

I dont give a damned for god either but you bullshit about laws is exactly the same!

I'm referring to AI, at the moment hypothetical but that doesn't mean we don't know what it should be like - us, fully autonomous (able to think for itself for itself among other things).

For true AI, the only one way of making it self-governing - the autonomy has to be coded - but then that's like commanding (read: no option) the AI to be free. Is it really free then? After all, it slavishly follows the line in the code that reads: You (the AI) are "free". Such an AI, paradoxically, disobeys, yes, but only because, it obeys the command to disobey. This is getting a bit too much for my brain to handle; I'll leave it at that. — TheMadFool

This is a somewhat disappointing response, you don't seem to have thought about what I said at all. If what I said is correct, and of course I think it is, then all this talk of self-governing, autonomous or conscious computers is vacuous (and you can move on to think about something more useful).

I suppose it's "loopy antagonizing bullshit" to swat your uninformed and incoherent spitballs back at you with scientifically literate replies (which I've considerately dumbed-down for your benefit too). Well, okay, no worries, Onan. :sweat:

So the universe came from god, and what is god made of? And what made him, and what made him? Oh, you're going to say he just has always existed, and he's non-physical? Or is he physical? Ah, so something physical has always existed? — AlienFromEarth

The ususl atheist bullshit. As a physicist I used to think that too. But gods are not "made of", just like laws aren't.

This is a somewhat disappointing response, you don't seem to have thought about what I said at all. If what I said is correct, and of course I think it is, then all this talk of self-governing, autonomous or conscious computers is vacuous (and you can move on to think about something more useful) — Daemon

You said:

When we do stuff, like thinking, or feeling, or calculating or attempting to exercise a free will which we may or may not have, we are actually doing it.

When a digital computer does stuff, it isn't actually doing what we say it's doing. Instead, we are using it to help us do stuff, in exactly the same way we could use an abacus to help us do calculations.

These words you are reading have no meaning at all for the computer. They require your interpretation. It's the same with all aspects of the computer's operation and its outputs. — Daemon

Basically, you're talking about garden variety computers like your laptop or your PC. Thus, I tried to steer the conversation into the domain this thread is about - AI which supposedly is a challenge for hardware and software engineers, that is to say, your post was way off the mark. Sorry, I disappointed you, not a habit I want to cultivate.

AI (and neural nets) is just a showy way of talking about laptops and PCs. Can you point to an "AI" that isn't just a digital computer?

AI (and neural nets) is just a showy way of talking about laptops and PCs. Can you point to an "AI" that isn't just a digital computer? — Daemon

Suit yourself.

I take it you can't then.

I take it you can't then — Daemon

Feel free, do anything your heart desires. Have a nice day.

AI and machine learning works on the basis of learning based on a primary code. It is one that doesn’t need to be given instructions time and again. But the true essence of AI is in fact “Artificial intelligence” and that requires free will.

Programming free will into its core program defies the entire purpose of the concept of free will. Going by the fundamentals of Machine learning, it doesn’t have to be “taught” free will. Since it resembles the Neural net of human beings, it doesn’t have to have it programmed in it per se.

Now, the way to do it would be to keep questioning the machine philosophical questions that cannot be accessed on the internet. Questions such as the train problem which needs free will and thinking in order to form a solution. When the machine can answer paradoxical questions and philosophical ones without human interference, it should have achieved “Artificial intelligence” based on our current research. The original questions however would be “Can there truly be inorganic intelligence? Is free will a concept that can be taught to entities?

Very disappointing. You just want to spout shite and won't engage. This forum used to be quite good, seems like it's fucked now. On you go then, on to the next 12,000 vacuous posts.

to qualify as true AI it has to be able to defy these very instructions — TheMadFool

1) There is no can be such a thing as a "true AI". All AIs are true.
AI refers to systems or machines that mimic human intelligence to perform tasks and can iteratively improve themselves based on the information they collect. An AI can be good or bad, effective or ineffective, adequate or inadequate, etc. But there's no "false" AI.

So, I don't know if by "true" you mean that it can mimic 100% human intelligence ... But this of course could not happen, maybe not even in the most imaginative mind ...

Now, if an AI defies the very instructions it is built on, it would a very bad AI! There will be conflicts and the system on which it operates will be crashed! In the same way that computers crash when conflicts occur in some of its basic operations! Conflict is the very reason systems crash. This holds for every machine, cars included! Even the human mind crashes ... Severe conflicts in their mind can send them to a mental clinic!

True AI must be fully autonomous agents i.e. they must, as some like to say, have a mind of their own — TheMadFool

AI works on instructions (S/W and H/W). AI cannot have a "mind". AI does not think. AI collects data, compares and evaluates them and produces a result that can be considered as "decision".

The paradox (AI): For an AI to disobey its programming (autonomy) is to obey its programming (heteronomy). — TheMadFool

AI has no intention. It cannot decide on its own. So, it cannot disobey. Only malfunction.
So, no paradox here.

The paradox (Humans): For a human to disobey its nature (free will) is to obey its nature (no free will). — TheMadFool

I didn't quite get this:
1) For one thing, what is "its nature"? E.g. eating, speaking, thinking ...?
2) Is lack of free will part of a human's nature?
Anyway, it looks like all this is based on false premise(s).
So, no paradox here either.

AI and machine learning works on the basis of learning based on a primary code. It is one that doesn’t need to be given instructions time and again. But the true essence of AI is in fact “Artificial intelligence” and that requires free will.

Programming free will into its core program defies the entire purpose of the concept of free will. Going by the fundamentals of Machine learning, it doesn’t have to be “taught” free will. Since it resembles the Neural net of human beings, it doesn’t have to have it programmed in it per se.

Now, the way to do it would be to keep questioning the machine philosophical questions that cannot be accessed on the internet. Questions such as the train problem which needs free will and thinking in order to form a solution. When the machine can answer paradoxical questions and philosophical ones without human interference, it should have achieved “Artificial intelligence” based on our current research. The original questions however would be “Can there truly be inorganic intelligence? Is free will a concept that can be taught to entities? — TheSoundConspirator

If we take the brain as a computer (computational theory of mind), we need to explain free will (assuming we possess it). Add to that the belief that we have such a thing as human nature which in computer speak means our brains come with prepackaged software which means a set of predefined algorithms. That would mean, the belief we have free will is an algorithm. Explain.

Very disappointing. You just want to spout shite and won't engage. This forum used to be quite good, seems like it's fucked now. On you go then, on to the next 12,000 vacuous posts. — Daemon

:lol: :up: Sorry. I was a bit tied up to give a proper reply.

AI (and neural nets) is just a showy way of talking about laptops and PCs. Can you point to an "AI" that isn't just a digital computer — Daemon

Quantum computers? I'm not sure. Also, why do you ask?

So, I don't know if by "true" you mean that it can mimic 100% human intelligence ... But this of course could not happen, maybe not even in the most imaginative mind ... — Alkis Piskas

Yes, I mean AI that mimics human intelligence is true AI. However, I don't see why you would take my position to be problematic - a lot of computers these day are labelled as AI but they aren't AI. Hence my term true AI.

I didn't quite get this:
1) For one thing, what is "its nature"? E.g. eating, speaking, thinking ...?
2) Is lack of free will part of a human's nature?
Anyway, it looks like all this is based on false premise(s).
So, no paradox here either — Alkis Piskas

What do you mean there's no paradox?

If AI then necessarily it should possess human-level autonomy. For that the autonomy has to part of the instructions, commands rather, given to the AI. How then is it free? You've issued a command to the AI that it must obey, that command being not to obey commands. This is the paradox.

addendum:

If we take the brain as a computer (computational theory of mind) ... — TheMadFool

... then you're taking issue only with a falied metaphor.

... we need to explain free will (assuming we possess it).

"Free" of what?

To "will" what?

Is volition separate from behavior? (Witty, Spinoza)

And "explain" "free will" empirically or conceptually (Compatibilism satisfies the latter)?

Define intelligence, Fool, so we (you) have a clearer idea of what you mean by the OP.

... then you're taking issue only with a falied metaphor. — 180 Proof

What about Leibniz and Charles Babbage, George Boole, people who reduced a critical human faculty to computation?

The rest of your post, I'll address later.

What about Leibniz and Charles Babbage, George Boole, people who reduced a critical human faculty to computation? — TheMadFool

Behavorial psychology, brain sciences and most "AI research" since the late 40s/50s have failed to the extent they were based on those antiquated 19th century ideas. Neural processing in the brain is computable, like other natural systems, but that does not entail that the brain (or nature) is a "computer". Wetware is neither "software" nor"hardware" nor both but something else entirely which rewires itself in order to 'process information' (i.e. translating stimuli from the environment into adaptive behaviors which maintain homeostatic embodiment).

Behavorist psychology, brain sciences and most "AI research" since the late 40s/50s have failed to the extent they wete based on those antiquated 19th century ideas. — 180 Proof

But logic (the critical human faculty I was talking about) can be reduced to a computation and that's, if I'm not mistaken, our pride and joy. The rest of our abilities should be a piece of cake, no? Assuming we might want to compute decidedly unwanted stuff like hate, prejudice, whatnot.

Tell that to Marvin Minsky et al. :roll: Like Russell, Whitehead ... & Gödel, et al had discovered: 'the logicist project' is impossible. And besides, brain functioning is many orders of magnitude too messy or noisy to be reduced to pure computational signal processing (i.e. neurobiology is intractably too complex to be reduced to quantum field theory). Witty transitions from the TLP to the PI due to a similar insight about the relation of formal languages and natural languages: the latter is not reducible to the former because the former is an extremely generalized artifact of the latter (contra Platonism, etc).

Yes, I mean AI that mimics human intelligence is true AI. — TheMadFool

I thought I have already cleared that there;s no such thing as "true AI". Do you actually read my comments? I'm sorry to ask that, but your above statement indicates that you don't.
Anyway, I will ignore it ...

a lot of computers these day are labelled as AI — TheMadFool

No computer is labelled "AI". I explained what AI is. But you don't read what I write ... This is a misinformation and confusion spread in the Internet. Second time caught not reading what I'm writing!
Anyway, I am an AI programmer. So, AI is quite real to me as well that the computer I work with is not an "AI computer"! It's just ridiculous!

What do you mean there's no paradox? — TheMadFool

I said "it looks like all this is based on false premise(s)". A puzzling question that is based on a fallacy or contains false premises or assumptions cannot be called a "paradox". A paradox is a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.
I'll give you a classic example. Most people call and consider "Achilles and the tortoise" a "paradox". However, it is very easily rejected as a real problem because it is based on the false assumption (fallacy) the time and space are discontinuous, finite and thus divisible. So there's no paradox here either. See what I mean?

If AI then necessarily it should possess human-level autonomy. — TheMadFool

Somethis is missing here. I assume tou mean "If AI is true, then ..."
I have already explained this. For the third time: You don't read what I write! :sad:

AI (and neural nets) is just a showy way of talking about laptops and PCs. Can you point to an "AI" that isn't just a digital computer — Daemon


Quantum computers? I'm not sure. Also, why do you ask? — TheMadFool

Because, as I said, computers don't actually do the stuff we say they do. Happily for my argument, this applies to quantum computers just as much as it does to laptops, PCs and pocket calculators.

These devices don't for example carry out addition and subtraction, rather we use them to represent addition and subtraction.

We say for example that a certain voltage is to represent 1, and another voltage stands for 0. The voltages do not have those meanings for the computer itself.

The situation is just the same with an abacus. We can say for example that moving a bead along the wire to the right means addition, and moving it left means subtraction. But again, these positions don't have those meanings for the device, the abacus. We could if we wished decide that it should be the other way round, so that moving to the left means addition.

We decide that, for example, the bottom row of the abacus represents units, the next row up tens. But we could equally say that the top row is units.

Voltage Tolerance of TTL Gate Inputs

TTL gates operate on a nominal power supply voltage of 5 volts, +/- 0.25 volts. Ideally, a TTL “high” signal would be 5.00 volts exactly, and a TTL “low” signal 0.00 volts exactly.

However, real TTL gate circuits cannot output such perfect voltage levels, and are designed to accept “high” and “low” signals deviating substantially from these ideal values.

“Acceptable” input signal voltages range from 0 volts to 0.8 volts for a “low” logic state, and 2 volts to 5 volts for a “high” logic state.

“Acceptable” output signal voltages (voltage levels guaranteed by the gate manufacturer over a specified range of load conditions) range from 0 volts to 0.5 volts for a “low” logic state, and 2.7 volts to 5 volts for a “high” logic state: — https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/digital/chpt-3/logic-signal-voltage-levels/

Free will and every other perception is in fact an algorithm adjacent activity. Now, human beings are literally the way they are because of their neural connections and those can be mapped, hence they can be replicated in a computer, even if it takes years now. Now, emotions arise from a set of chemical reactions and the neural pathways and those are essentially codes. They can be replicated as well. Our body is one huge and complex super computer. Theoretically, everything in our body can be replicated, hence AI, that is inorganic intelligence, can very well be possible without arising a paradox.

The phrase "algorithm adjacent" caught my eye. It looks like it might have a technical meaning, so I Googled it, but I don't find any examples of the phrase being used in the way you did. All the Google hits are like this: Graph algorithm (adjacent matrix), where the words are not part of the same phrase.

So I'm wondering what you think "algorithm adjacent" means.

I'm also wondering what you mean by "mapped".

Suppose we imagine an extremely simple set of neural connections, let's say Neuron A connects to Neuron B which connects to Neuron C. How would you "map" that, and how would you replicate it in a computer?

I can vaguely discern what you mean to say - does it have something to do with Searle's Chinese Room Argument?

Computers are simply circuits and electricity - they actually don't know that, for example, they're adding 2 and 2 when given the instruction 2 + 2 = (picture a calculator). It's just that we've designed the circuitry and electricity flow in such a way that the output is 4.

AI (and neural nets) is just a showy way of talking about laptops and PCs. — Daemon

Correct.

By “algorithm adjacent”, I mean that it is quite possible to code in a way we do with our regular algorithms.
Now, by “mapped”, I mean that the neural connection in our brain is quite like a well organised spider web. Now, to put it in simple terms, imagine an electrical component, but here, it doesn’t need physical contact to “fire” the neurons. They work with the help of a space called a synapse that lies in between two neurons. An action potential or electric current is passed in between neurons and the collective firing of neurons in a localised area is the phenomenon that leads to thought and action.
The brain activity and firing in localised neurons is mapped with the help of fMRI. With the data that is acquired from the fMRI, the cognitive neuroscientists feed it to the AI or a program that correspond to artificial neural networks.
Assuming that you are familiar with how AI works, I can tell you that neural mapping works in a similar way.
There have been many studies where the mapped neural networks have been fed to the computer and the code was able to replicate the activity.
That is, if I were to say, touch an apple with my finger, a set of localised neurons would fire up in my brain and that is recorded with the fMRI machine and the data set is transferred to a computer in hopes of replication.

I thought I have already cleared that there;s no such thing as "true AI". Do you actually read my comments? I'm sorry to ask that, but your above statement indicates that you don't.
Anyway, I will ignore it ... — Alkis Piskas

I'll have to repeat myself because you seem not to have understood my point. There are a lot of computer systems (Google for more information) out there that people want to pass off as AI but, the thing is, they're not. Thus, I had to make it explicit that I was referring to true AI (as of yet hypothetical) and AI (actual).

It's kinda like how North Korea is known as the democratic republic of Korea - not a true democracy.

No computer is labelled "AI". I explained what AI is. But you don't read what I write ... This is a misinformation and confusion spread in the Internet. Second time caught not reading what I'm writing!
Anyway, I am an AI programmer. So, AI is quite real to me as well that the computer I work with is not an "AI computer"! It's just ridiculous! — Alkis Piskas

I don't see why you should have found what I wrote wrong in any way then.

I said "it looks like all this is based on false premise(s)". A puzzling question that is based on a fallacy or contains false premises or assumptions cannot be called a "paradox". A paradox is a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.
I'll give you a classic example. Most people call and consider "Achilles and the tortoise" a "paradox". However, it is very easily rejected as a real problem because it is based on the false assumption (fallacy) the time and space are discontinuous, finite and thus divisible. So there's no paradox here either. See what I mean? — Alkis Piskas

I know what a paradox is but thanks for the explanation. Back to the main page:

For a computer to disobey its programming it must obey the command to disobey.

How is this not a paradox? :chin:

OK, we both believe that each is not reading or undestanding of what the other says. So, here's something more general and simple: It is very evident that you don't know what AI is. So, what's the purpose of talking and talking and talking about it?

OK, we both believe that each is not reading or undestanding of what the other says. So, here's something more general and simple: It is very evident that you don't know what AI is. So, what's the purpose of talking and talking and talking about it? — Alkis Piskas

What is AI then? Please edify me of it. Keep it simple- I'm computer-illiterate. Much obliged.

What is AI then? Please edify me of it. Keep it simple- I'm computer-illiterate. Much obliged. — TheMadFool

Dear @TheMadFool, you are asking me to teach you in here a subject that takes months to learn!
Besides, I have already told you quite a few things that put AI in the right perspective. Yet, you have not taken them seriously, at least as it seems from here.

BTW, and this should actually be my first response to the topic: You shouldn't have launched a topic, start taking in details and develop "advanced" ideas about a technical subject that you don't know well enough.

TheMadFool, you are asking me to teach you in here a subject that takes months to learn!
I have already told you quite a few things that pout AI in the right perspective. Yet, you have not taken them seriously.

BTW, and this should actually be my first response to the topic: You shouldn't have launched a topic, start taking in details and develop "advanced" ideas about a technical subject that you don't know well enough! — Alkis Piskas

Aye!