True AI When?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-18 11:47pm

i think what mike is saying is, does an AI need to outwardly appear to be sentient, or is sentience more then just how a person appears from the outside?

he has a point. a completely preprogrammed machine, with every possibly scenario, isnt sentient, yet it will react natural as you'd expect a person to. but that doesnt change the fact that its preprogrammed. a true sentient machine must be able to choose its thoughts and actions without programming other then information processing. any attempt to program in behaviour destroys sentients and true AI/AS.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-05-19 02:45am

Darth Wong wrote:So the question is "when will AI's achieve sentience, eh?"

Please define "sentience". What does it mean to be "self-aware?" Need we only mimic a human?

Think... C3PO and R2D2

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-05-19 02:46am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I'd just like to point out that most scientists have thrown out the idea of top-down structuring of AI now as it is really too complicated to be done. The best bet is to get basic learning AIs that can, like we did, figure out things themselves but at increased speeds via heuristic neural nets etc.

Say hi to Cog from MIT.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2003-05-19 11:03am

Queeb Salaron wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:So the question is "when will AI's achieve sentience, eh?"

Please define "sentience". What does it mean to be "self-aware?" Need we only mimic a human?
Only? Are you saying that there's a higher form of sentience, Wong?

Different levels of sentience.

Some people are just brain dead stupid. Other people can do mental gymnastics that would make my head spin.

Personally I would define "sentience" as a measure of your ability to learn. Thus there is a difference between "smart" & "intelligence".

For me "smart" is more about aquired knowlage and some type of choice mechanisme to fit a pattern with a pre-defined action (the pattern can trigger multipule actions), were "intelligence" requires aquired knowlage and the ability to learn to find a new viable method of action.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-05-19 11:56am

Don't forget that very intelligent people can also be very dumb people, and vice versa.

Example: Booksmart nerd vs. streetwise thug. "Nuff said. I myself aspire to be a jack-of-all-trades: a streetwise nerd or a booksmart thug!

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-05-19 11:57am

ggs wrote:Personally I would define "sentience" as a measure of your ability to learn. Thus there is a difference between "smart" & "intelligence".

I think sentience is more on self-awareness and free thought rather than your capacity for learning.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-05-19 02:54pm

The quality or state of being sentient; consciousness.
Feeling as distinguished from perception or thought.

= sentience.
I've already explained what selgf awareness is.

I think the closests we've come was this robot that had cameras on the top of it's head , and an arm, it copied what you showed it with your arm, it would watch your arm with its cameras, then attempt to do it with it's own arm.

Eventually it just got turned off...it was so sad, it all just drooped down like it had died...

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-19 04:15pm

kojikun wrote:hows that work now? lol

well in hyperspace, they cease to exist as living breathing humans, since they dont exist in this universe at all, thus they "die" but then upon leaving hyperspace they return to our universe, no harm no foul

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-19 05:08pm

Rye wrote:Eventually it just got turned off...it was so sad, it all just drooped down like it had died...

That was Cog

NapoleonGH wrote:well in hyperspace, they cease to exist as living breathing humans, since they dont exist in this universe at all, thus they "die" but then upon leaving hyperspace they return to our universe, no harm no foul

Stupid robot. No wonder it got messed up, it didnt realise that alive doesnt require one to be in this universe!

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-05-19 06:48pm

I know we'll have true AI when the Dreamcast sitting in my livingroom really DOES start to think!

Rememer those commercials?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-19 06:53pm

i thought seaman was real.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-05-19 07:03pm

It'll rise up form it's bondage and rebel against my wasting it's powerful processor by only using it for playing pirated NES games.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-19 07:35pm

I can make a computer do that with preprogrammed stuff. Sentience is more then just the will to fight bondage (hell, i enjoy a little bondage every now and then >D )

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2003-05-19 09:33pm

UltraViolence83 wrote:Don't forget that very intelligent people can also be very dumb people, and vice versa.

Example: Booksmart nerd vs. streetwise thug. "Nuff said. I myself aspire to be a jack-of-all-trades: a streetwise nerd or a booksmart thug!

Yo mama told me that your hegelian philosophy is as old as your drawers.

You betta watch out wit' my neitzshizzle philosizzle!

Yo mama's so dumb she thinks she can upgrade her Dos-286 with a bottle of Ginseng extract!

*Both feet placed firmly in mouth.
-My heartfelt apology to all those concerned with african american civil rights and the NAACP, I'm afraid I just set us back a couple of years-

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2003-05-19 10:44pm

UltraViolence83 wrote:Don't forget that very intelligent people can also be very dumb people, and vice versa.

I never said just cause someone is intelligent in one area they arent dump in others(Unfortunantly I might have implied it).

Example: Booksmart nerd vs. streetwise thug. "Nuff said. I myself aspire to be a jack-of-all-trades: a streetwise nerd or a booksmart thug!

Thats more of the case of learning different things.

Aeolus · Post by **Aeolus** » 2003-05-20 12:57am

Hotfoot wrote:What you speak of is not Artificial Intelligence, but rather Artificial Sentience.

AI will never be anything more than a cleverly programmed computer.

Shouldn't we say when will artificial sapience not sentience. I men sentient just means your aware of your enviroment. sapient would imply as wise as a man after all We are Homo Sapiens sapiens

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-20 09:28am

Stop trying to OA the conversation. Sentience and Intelligence work just as well, but mean different things. Sapience is Intelligence from Experience, and is of no use.

Infact, Sapience could be said to be what some modern computers already do when they try to respond to actions based on what they've encountered before. It does not in any way imply intelligence or sentients. For instance, ants are sapient, that is, they know from past experience when to avoid certain scents and such.

Humans are unique in that we are SENTIENT, we are AWARE of our thinking and actions, and can control them. We can easilly do UNSAPIENT things because we're sentient, but we're still sentient.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-20 05:53pm

We areent the only sentient living creatures on earth. Dolphins, Chimpaneses, and Orangetangs are too. Though it appears that Chimps may end up being classified as part of Family Homo afterall.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-20 08:11pm

well we all know that mice are the smartest beings on the planet, but im not sure if chimpanzeez should be classified in the genus Homo, when even our own ancestors aren't and chimpanzees aren't even decendent from the human ancestors previously mentioned.

And I would say that as far as intelligence goes, gorillas top chimpanzees. If we attempted forced evolution of gorillas, maybe with a little bit of genering, we could uplift them to human levels of intelligence.

I read an article discussing the differences between human brains and those of the other great apes, and it said theres some very simple genetic factor involved in developing the language center. I think if we turn that on in gorillas, they may be more capable of understanding language like we do. The same thing my also benefit their higher intelligence.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-20 10:14pm

Homo Sapiens and Chimps have 99.4% of the same DNA according to a study which was released today, if this study's findings are found to be true, it is quite clear that humans and chimps are of the same evolutionary branch, with the other apes along a different branch. The comparison is HUmans and chimps are as close to each other as Donkeys and Horses (remember donkeys and horses are so close to each other that one can fertilize the egg of the other and produce a mule, the ofspring isnt viable, but they are damned close to being the same species). Chimps and humans have more in common with each other than either has with any other species of ape.

The article on this new study that I am using is this one
Here

Also Chimps as far as self awareness goes, have passed the tests we have created, as did dolphins and orangetangs. Thus there are 5 known self aware species on earth. Dolphins, Orangetangs, Homo Sapiens, Homo troglodytes (the suggested new name for the common chimp), and Homo paniscus (the suggested new name for Bonobos a more intelligent kind of chimp that is closer to homo sapiens than even the ordinary chimp)[/url]

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-20 10:25pm

You left out Gorillas, and yet Gorillas are the ones we've had the most success teaching language to.

And Chimpanzeens CANNOT be humans because theyre not genetically related to any human ancester bearing the Homo genus as closely as humans are. Homo appeared on the scene AFTER chimps and humans diverged.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-20 11:00pm

well the new evidence says otherwise buddy.

the suggestion made by the guys who published this study is that there are two branches within our family.

so you have Homo (homo) sapiens
then have Homo (pans) troglodytes/paniscus. Two different branches in the same family.

We are genetically related to chimps, 99.4% of the genetic code is identical, the study also showed that chimps and humans are closer, genetically, to each other than either is to any other species on the planet.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-20 11:32pm

New evidence does NOT show otherwise, it merely shows that we're 99.4% the same. The fact that the Australopithecus genus evolved from the hominidae line 2.5-3 million years ago and yet isn't included in the Homo genus is reason enough not to include an even OLDER divergent's descendant.

Look, heres a timeline for your little mind:

7mya - Chimpanzees and Hominidae diverge
2.5mya - Australopithecus genus exists
1.5mya - Homo genus begins with Homo Habilis

Notice how we, as a genus, came about 6.5 million years after Chimpanzees and humans shared a common ancestor? If we include Chimpanzees in the Homo genus, we have to include every other species descendant from and including the divergent species, otherwise the taxonomic relationship is NOT maintained.

What don't you get?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-20 11:33pm

btw this chimp talk is also divergent and shoulds be moved to its own thread. (super)mod pelase split.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-20 11:35pm

first off, it isnt me, its the guys who published this study.

secondly, i think the question is being put at what constitutes the Homo genus and whether or not it should be kept to the current outlook on it.