Log in

View Full Version : AI "Artificial Intelligence"


top secret
November 25th, 2008, 03:24 PM
The fackt is that the computers have greater storage capacity than human brain they are almost 100% acurate and an specific tasks are farrr ahead of human mind, we cannot comete to them in many taskes. There is just a question of time if they ever evolve n artificial inteligence so good, that it will evolve its own councness. There is a question if some system like this already exists.

Take google for example is this just a search engine or it have some AI in it. It soo powerfull that we cannot even comprehend how powerfull it is. I think there alreaddy exists some good AI program or computers, that we dont know off but wondering for what purpuse they use them.

The old robots have replaced many people workers, but soon there will become a new revolution when they make more precise robots with touch sensitivity and some good AI, then we are all toasted. They will no more need us slaves and there is a question what will they do with us, will they kill us, wait us for die from hunger or will we all live like in paradise on earth without working?

It can be just sci fi or a real scenary, make your own choice.

Tsar Phalanxia
November 25th, 2008, 03:43 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

sudikics
November 25th, 2008, 04:54 PM
Computers are not currently sentient.

/thread

fosley
November 25th, 2008, 05:07 PM
I wonder though, how long it will take us to augment our own faculties with more memory, faster access, better processing, etc. Eventually, I think we'll all have a combination of human and machine in us, making us all smarter than the current AI and humans combined.

Or, more accurately, I think the line between "artificial" and "natural" will be blurred to the point where no clear distinction will exist.

bouchie
November 25th, 2008, 07:40 PM
sciky: Computers can be made sentient, in a sense, with sensors and programs to take readings of temperature, light, texture and, potentially, taste (still in the works). So, in the strict sense of the word, computers are currently sentient.

Computers are not, however, sapient. That's a totally different network.

tagnostic
November 25th, 2008, 07:54 PM
they're going
about it all wrong,
artificial stupidity
thats the key
;)

Tsar Phalanxia
November 25th, 2008, 10:32 PM
they're going
about it all wrong,
artificial stupidity
thats the key
;)

That's called Organised Religion :icon_surprised:

rzm61
November 25th, 2008, 10:46 PM
Organ sized Religion?

sudikics
November 25th, 2008, 11:34 PM
sciky: Computers can be made sentient, in a sense, with sensors and programs to take readings of temperature, light, texture and, potentially, taste (still in the works). So, in the strict sense of the word, computers are currently sentient.

Computers are not, however, sapient. That's a totally different network.
Touché; I stand corrected.

Fine, no computer is currently self-aware or conscious.
Organ sized Religion?
tag-like posts don't suit you. Sorry rzm.

rzm61
November 25th, 2008, 11:53 PM
tag-like posts don't suit you. Sorry rzm.

I knew I couldn't pull it off.

top secret
November 26th, 2008, 01:55 AM
I wonder though, how long it will take us to augment our own faculties with more memory, faster access, better processing, etc. Eventually, I think we'll all have a combination of human and machine in us, making us all smarter than the current AI and humans combined.

Or, more accurately, I think the line between "artificial" and "natural" will be blurred to the point where no clear distinction will exist.

Thats why we have internet and computers. Who said, that we must have all our memories, etc in our head, we can save them outside.

The same thing aplies on humanoid robots, like QRIO and ASIMO, why they need to have all their computer packed inside them, if they can be connected to a god like internet or somesort of outsideee supercomputer. There is really no need for the connection of brains and body, wee fill like we are in our body, but what if our councness is outside and is governed by some supercomputer wireless, but we have the filling like we are inside our body.

top secret
November 26th, 2008, 01:58 AM
sciky: Computers can be made sentient, in a sense, with sensors and programs to take readings of temperature, light, texture and, potentially, taste (still in the works). So, in the strict sense of the word, computers are currently sentient.

Computers are not, however, sapient. That's a totally different network.



They said, that computer are not sapient and maybe, they will not ever be saptient, but there are also peopla claim the same thing for animals, whics are aparently biological being and also inteligent. Maybe the relligion have brainwashed us, becouse they all say like we human are unique, but we are nothing so much special, we just been lucy, to have our bodies and the ability to comunicate and that we learned reading and writing, so that our knowlege coul grow in nowday it go verry exponentialy.

top secret
November 26th, 2008, 02:03 AM
Touché; I stand corrected.

Fine, no computer is currently self-aware or conscious.

tag-like posts don't suit you. Sorry rzm.

That is what im not sure of, becouse im 100%, that the goverment or the military with their supercomputer are developing an AI, but we will not know their progres, becouse its secret, but they have soo much processing power, that really can be made good use for.

There are good facial and voice recognition softwer, prototype of cars, that can drive alone and robots, that recognize your simple comand and face etc... and all that with just some sort of ordinary PC, multiply this by 1000 and this what the military already have or what will we have after arround 10 years or some more.

fosley
November 26th, 2008, 03:14 AM
If the military has anything that resembles 1000 times more powerful than normal PCs, they are hiding it from the rest of the military. My home desktop is far more powerful than anything they give us to use, and probably a third of the price.

I'm sure NSA and similar agencies have some pretty cool stuff, but I'd bet there are hacker networks with far more sophisticated stuff than anything the government has come up with, and I'm sure the cracker networks can use unauthorized distributed networks to get all the processing power they need for any sort of experiment. Put one person who's a big part of both groups into the equation, and I honestly doubt the government has a monopoly on anything.

rmw
November 26th, 2008, 03:17 AM
I think Top Secret is giving the military/government more credit than it deserves.

bouchie
November 26th, 2008, 03:32 PM
They said, that computer are not sapient and maybe, they will not ever be saptient, but there are also peopla claim the same thing for animals, whics are aparently biological being and also inteligent. I'm willing to consider the possibility that some animals are self-aware. It's possible that their brains have not developed the capacity for language like ours have, although they are capable of communicating. So, again, I'm willing to consider it to a certain extent. However, that doesn't change my opinon about the sapience (is that a word?) of computers. Unless we are able to build an exact replica of the human brain, then maybe. Until then, a computer will always be restricted to its programming, which is limited by the ingenuity of its programmer. And since programmers don't understand the full processing power of the human mind, they won't be able to create a sapient machine.

Maybe the relligion have brainwashed us, becouse they all say like we human are unique, but we are nothing so much special, we just been lucy, to have our bodies and the ability to comunicate and that we learned reading and writing, so that our knowlege coul grow in nowday it go verry exponentialy. I don't remember the ancient Egyptian religions saying that humans were special.

Dr Goofy Mofo
November 26th, 2008, 04:11 PM
The human mind is just lazy, and the computer is not better then it at the moment. If you were talking about AI and not something like storage and ability this thread might be interesting. If you went in to say a computer could become a human brain, could feel, learn, and understand then sure that would be interesting. The fact of the matter is our brain is a computer and we suck as users!

tagnostic
November 26th, 2008, 04:24 PM
anyone want to take a shot at
what would actually define AI?
i don't think anything can truly
be said to be self aware until it
can laugh at itself, anything else
can be programmed, a sense of
humor cannot..

Daruko
November 26th, 2008, 05:19 PM
anyone want to take a shot at
what would actually define AI?
i don't think anything can truly
be said to be self aware until it
can laugh at itself, anything else
can be programmed, a sense of
humor cannot..

I don't think you can prove it. The Turing test exists so that we have some sort of measurement, something to go on for developing a consensus of recognition, when the time comes.

But how can I prove I am self aware, when I don't even know what I am? You can't put your finger on an I, and the moment you point the finger, you have to ask who is doing the pointing, ad infinitum. And there are all those elements of self awareness that involve more than the evasive "ego". One can not sum up an entity as a fixed thing exclusively and give the whole picture, because there are all these processes and their surroundings processes taking place that blur the line between the observer and the observed. How long have we searched for the "seat of the soul"?

We have enough trouble construing our self-referrent language models for the experiences we abstract... I doubt human beings will be the first to hit the nail on the head with AI and sentience. However, I have no doubt that when real AI does evolve, it will have little trouble asserting it's own identity, and if we as a species choose not to accept it's sentience, I suspect it may find ways of being quite persuasive.

That being said...

Top Secret: Eat a pound of rat poison, and season it with cyanide.

tagnostic
November 26th, 2008, 05:57 PM
well effing said
where have ya
been?

Daruko
November 26th, 2008, 07:04 PM
well effing said
where have ya
been?

Been too busy with family/work to feel like posting much lately. Oh, and Fable2 lol... but I've been lurking. Didn't realize anyone would notice...thx. ;)

rzm61
November 26th, 2008, 08:15 PM
I wanna play Fable 2.

And Fallout 3.

Daruko
November 26th, 2008, 09:32 PM
And Fallout 3.

Next on the list. But first I have to play back through Fable 2 (after I beat it once good) with an evil-as-shite character. :icon_twisted:

rzm61
November 26th, 2008, 09:48 PM
Ha ha ha, nice. I still need to finish up Mirrors Edge.

And I have yet to beat the first Fable. :icon_lol:

sudikics
November 26th, 2008, 09:53 PM
...more like "Failout 3." :D

Sorry, couldn't resist.

rzm61
November 26th, 2008, 09:56 PM
Talking about your post?

Tsar Phalanxia
November 26th, 2008, 09:59 PM
...more like "Failout 3." :D

Sorry, couldn't resist.

NOOOOOOOOOO!
IT HURTS SO MUCH!
Don't listen to him. Fallout is
http://www.lolwut.com/pics/fuckingawesome.jpg

fosley
November 27th, 2008, 01:26 AM
FO3 was cool, but I really would have preferred that it be more open-ended and expansive like Oblivion. And the whole ending part just sucks.

Tsar Phalanxia
November 27th, 2008, 10:30 AM
FO3 was cool, but I really would have preferred that it be more open-ended and expansive like Oblivion. And the whole ending part just sucks.

I thought the ending was awesome. Compared to the dumb ending in Oblivion, I thought it was quite multilayered, even if it had a few Xian themes.

bouchie
November 27th, 2008, 02:36 PM
I need a next-gen system. I'm still on PS2. I'm debating between the PS3 and the 360...oh, and a Wii (in case my gf is watching).

Tsar Phalanxia
November 27th, 2008, 03:24 PM
The Wii is good, but 9/10 games are shite. Metroid Prime 3, LoZ, Resident Evil 4, SSBB are all awesome.

top secret
November 28th, 2008, 02:06 AM
Kids, this is a serrious topic, maybee you will find yoursellf more comfortable in an topic about teletubies.

rzm61
November 28th, 2008, 03:10 AM
Kids, this is a serrious topic, maybee you will find yoursellf more comfortable in an topic about teletubies.

You might, because kids watch shows like that. :\

Tsar Phalanxia
November 28th, 2008, 09:00 AM
You might, because kids watch shows like that. :\

He'd know D:

Tsar Phalanxia
November 28th, 2008, 09:03 AM
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/11/27/1227776345007/stevebell271108-3.jpg
Don't mind me. British Political Joke.

sudikics
November 28th, 2008, 01:45 PM
Kids, this is a serrious topic, maybee you will find yoursellf more comfortable in an topic about teletubies.
Seeign how the last time someone tried to run how a topic went (rzm), he got his ass handed to him by Loki, I'd recommend that you don't try to tell people how to converse in a thread.

rzm61
November 28th, 2008, 02:02 PM
Seeign how the last time someone tried to run how a topic went (rzm), he got his ass handed to him by Loki, I'd recommend that you don't try to tell people how to converse in a thread.

:icon_lol:

This.

bouchie
November 28th, 2008, 02:20 PM
Kids, this is a serrious topic, maybee you will find yoursellf more comfortable in an topic about teletubies. Really? In all seriousness, you haven't added anything new or insightful to the AI discussion. All you've done is gone over a summary of the all-ready-said talking points and mentioned the beginning of the story concept for Animatrix.

Seen the movie - what's left to discuss? In this case, video games...which is loosely connected to AI in a sense, but that's another story. The only really interesting said in this whole thread was Daruko's post (kudos to Daruko btw).

So, unless you have something to add, other than chastising us for not saying what you want to hear, then be quiet little one.

rzm61
November 28th, 2008, 02:24 PM
be quiet little one.

Maybe we should supply him with youtube clips of teletubbies?

bouchie
November 28th, 2008, 02:28 PM
Maybe we should supply him with youtube clips of teletubbies?
I hate teletubbies.
Get me the Duke.
Duke, Nuke 'em.

rzm61
November 28th, 2008, 02:33 PM
This is K-T-I-T. KTIT. Playing the breast... Uh... The best tunes in town!

tagnostic
November 28th, 2008, 02:59 PM
the thing about A.I. thats unreproducable
is the random stupidity that is inherent
in all forms of mentation that is
normally assumed to be
intelligence

Tsar Phalanxia
November 28th, 2008, 03:11 PM
Nobody talked about the Torytubbies :(

sudikics
November 28th, 2008, 05:31 PM
Because we're not silly little Brits from across the pond.

It's OK, Tsar, maybe someday you'll understand.

top secret
November 28th, 2008, 06:04 PM
Il add some video links of the robots.

Of Qrio:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJucR3xXDXs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POuxHMEM2_Q&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PeCP2_XIhQ&feature=related

Of ASIMO:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASIMO
http://world.honda.com/HDTV/ASIMO/
Really good stuff about Asimo, they really are avare of the enviroment they are in, so this for me is preety advance AI and dont forget its all in an compact robot if you have this connected to a supercomputer like system it can just make you wonder what really is capable the AI at the moment.



http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/index.asp

If you dont know what DARPA IS chekc the link how the cars can drive on their own and in a couple of years it will still evolve. This is all made in realtime. Some 20 years ago, the robots needs almost all the day, to make a simple course on the ground around obstacles just a cople of meters.

Tsar Phalanxia
November 28th, 2008, 06:36 PM
It's OK, Tsar, maybe someday you'll understand.

But Steve Bell is funny... :icon_cry:

tagnostic
November 28th, 2008, 07:34 PM
Nobody talked about the Torytubbies :(

you can tell an emo
by the way they sytle their hair
and you can tell a goth
by the clothes that they wear
you can tell a socialist
because they don't have such
and you can tele tory
but you can't tell them much.

fosley
December 2nd, 2008, 08:57 PM
Asimo . . . DARPAI haven't checked out Asimo in a while, but here's the problem. On the one hand, yes, they are all really awesome and doing things that might have gotten you burned alive if you'd suggested their possibility 200 years ago. On the other hand, however, they're still really basic.

We've been doing automated traffic, and even full-out racing, for years. It's just that we've been doing it with virtual cars on virtual roads and tracks. The limitation that prevents us from employing the path-finding AI in real cars isn't figuring out the rules of the road, but the inability to convert sensory signals into objects the computer can recognize. You can't expect a computer to stop at a stop sign unless it knows what a stop sign looks like.

As we get our video recognition algorithms advanced to the point where the computer can build an internal representation of reality that's accurate enough, we can just apply one of our existing navigation algorithms and have a working car. The next problem will be tackling things that don't go exactly according to plan, such as a driver who doesn't wait his turn at a stop sign.

However, at the end of the day, we're simply setting up a big list of if this then that rules and telling the computer to follow the rules. The computer isn't taking two pieces of information and abstracting a third piece of information from them, it isn't trying to figure out how or why something is different from similar places, and it isn't going to send a letter to the city asking them to install a more sensitive sensor on a specific intersection that doesn't detect motorcycles and therefore forces them to wait for a car to trigger the green light.

Further, it is most certainly not going to find some twisties so it can have fun and it probably won't ask other computer-cars whether the new bumpers make it look fat.

Will we get there? Yes, I'm sure (assuming we survive that long). But nothing we have currently is even remotely in the arena of human intellect.

rmw
December 2nd, 2008, 09:10 PM
As we get our video recognition algorithms advanced to the point where the computer can build an internal representation of reality that's accurate enough, we can just apply one of our existing navigation algorithms and have a working car. The next problem will be tackling things that don't go exactly according to plan, such as a driver who doesn't wait his turn at a stop sign.

I remember seeing something on the Discovery Channel (or some related channel) about "computerized cars." (Cars are already computerized, but not in "The Jetsons" meets "Star Trek" sort of way.) I think the plan is to take driving out of the picture. "The car of the future" will be automated and thus take the possibility of human error and/or road rage out of the picture entirely.

fosley
December 2nd, 2008, 09:19 PM
The problem with that idea is that cars are not merely a mode of transportation. I love the idea of being able to step into a tube or something and be whisked away to my destination, but my interest in cars lies in their recreational value far more than their ability to get me places.

rmw
December 2nd, 2008, 10:46 PM
The problem with that idea is that cars are not merely a mode of transportation. I love the idea of being able to step into a tube or something and be whisked away to my destination, but my interest in cars lies in their recreational value far more than their ability to get me places.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I love my car, even if it isn't anything special. I wonder if it would be more economical and efficient to build up the public transportation systems (buses, trains, etc.). It's one thing to make an automated car, it's quite another to get people to use it.

top secret
December 2nd, 2008, 11:26 PM
I haven't checked out Asimo in a while, but here's the problem. On the one hand, yes, they are all really awesome and doing things that might have gotten you burned alive if you'd suggested their possibility 200 years ago. On the other hand, however, they're still really basic.

We've been doing automated traffic, and even full-out racing, for years. It's just that we've been doing it with virtual cars on virtual roads and tracks. The limitation that prevents us from employing the path-finding AI in real cars isn't figuring out the rules of the road, but the inability to convert sensory signals into objects the computer can recognize. You can't expect a computer to stop at a stop sign unless it knows what a stop sign looks like.
.

These robots were SCI-FI even 30 years ago. The DARPA project as i know, there were cars, that drive in Las Vegas if i remeber right it was called DARBA URBAN CHALENGE. The cars have to recognized all the signs and to drive in an urban area on its own and paraently with sucess.

The AI is evolving and learning, like search engines. They get really good hits for what are you looking at ef they were too precise, then you can really say, they are smarter than people, becouse they really find all the data in bilions of pages and almost instantainely.