PDA

View Full Version : Interesting forum on Aritifical Intelligence



era86
April 14th, 2008, 05:45 AM
I was at a community forum at my campus on the discussion of "Simulating Human Intelligence"

The discussion led into whether or not a "computer" that can simulate human emotions, feelings, etc. is really a "simulation" anymore.

If we can simulate exactly what humans feel, do, think, etc., is it still a simulation? Or is it an actual life?

Sorry if this has been posted before, but I wanted to see if anyone was interested in this.

swoll1980
April 14th, 2008, 05:53 AM
Life Life (l[imac]f), n.; pl. Lives (l[imac]vz). [AS.
l[imac]f; akin to D. lijf body, G. leib body, MHG. l[imac]p
life, body, OHG. l[imac]b life, Icel. l[imac]f, life, body,
Sw. lif, Dan. liv, and E. live, v. [root]119. See Live, and
cf. Alive.]
1. The state of being which begins with generation, birth, or
germination, and ends with death; also, the time during
which this state continues; that state of an animal or
plant in which all or any of its organs are capable of
performing all or any of their functions; -- used of all
animal and vegetable organisms.
[1913 Webster]

if it eats, drinks, reproduces, releases waste, and metabolizes then yes, if not then no
if you want to take a different route it would always be limited to its programing or what it learned from observation it wouldn't be able to imagine or invent original thought

chewearn
April 14th, 2008, 06:24 AM
Yes, the topic has been discussed to death:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=739436
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=731237
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=715183

Tundro Walker
April 14th, 2008, 06:38 AM
So, in other words, by Webster's definition, a computer virus could be considered "alive" while your realistic AI wouldn't.

Actually, in Biology, the definition of life is still pretty hotly debated. Viruses seem to be the "gray area" scientists want to include or exclude from the elitist club of "the living". Not talking computer viruses here, just your run-of-the-mill biologic viruses.

It's actually interesting, though, since computer viruses are almost more "alive" than a realistic human AI. Computer viruses, although man-made, are designed to adapt, propogate, infect their host but keep it alive to utilize it (like a parasite ... well, most viruses anyways, there are some that just bomb the system they infect). If the virus could re-write it's own code and "evolve", I'd say it's the invention of a real "AI", even though it's not an AI in the classical sense of an intelligent, communicating entity. But, single-celled organisms are not intelligent & communicating, and they're still considered alive.

I guess what makes this interesting is that is an artificial environment, like a computer network, considered a "real" enough "environment" for "life" to exist in? You shut the power off on the network, you can lose the intelligence that might be floating around there if it can't save itself to media or something. But, you shut off the sun, and you'll lose the life on our planet. Technology has really caused Biologists to re-think what we consider "real", "environment" and "life", and I think some folks are having to swallow their ego by admitting that the more complex computers get, the more they can "simulate" life to the point of perhaps creating and fostering an adaptive "artificial entity" which could meet the criteria for "life". This is both fascinating, and shattering at the same time for some folks, because it means we can play God by creating artificial life, but we can get sort of depressed when we start to think we're nothing more than advanced analog machines with sophisticated pattern-matching software loaded into our brains.

swoll1980
April 14th, 2008, 06:54 AM
biological viruses can't reproduce. They infect a cell, then the infected cell reproduces it's self virus included. It is this inability to reproduce that makes it not alive

hyper_ch
April 14th, 2008, 08:29 AM
Artificial Intelligence (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=19) has his own forum? ^^

popch
April 14th, 2008, 08:41 AM
Artificial Intelligence
is better than none.

Tundro Walker
April 14th, 2008, 04:28 PM
biological viruses can't reproduce. They infect a cell, then the infected cell reproduces it's self virus included. It is this inability to reproduce that makes it not alive

But some scientists would argue that that still qualifies as "living", which was my point. Even though it doesn't directly reproduce, it can propagate. Otherwise viruses would no longer exist. As long as it has some ability to adapt and stick around, then some scientists argue that that is "life".

I think this is why I like Biology over other sciences, like Chemistry or Physics ... because Biology still has a lot of room for interpretation & theory.

LaRoza
April 14th, 2008, 04:33 PM
Artificial Intelligence
is better than none.



Ahh! Indigo. It hurts my eyes! How dare you torture me like that...

(jk)

Koori23
April 14th, 2008, 04:45 PM
Hmm.. I thought we were talking about the Ubuntu Member.

I first read this and thought "Man, that person has a serious impact"..

Sorry, I'm stupid.

LaRoza
April 14th, 2008, 04:51 PM
Hmm.. I thought we were talking about the Ubuntu Member.

I first read this and thought "Man, that person has a serious impact"..

Sorry, I'm stupid.

Ever thread on Artificial Intelligence meantions AI at some point.

popch
April 14th, 2008, 04:53 PM
Ahh! Indigo. It hurts my eyes! How dare you torture me like that...

(jk)

The inuit are said to use an oblong piece of wood (or was it tusk) with two narrow slots for the eyes as 'sunglasses'. That might tone down the aggressive luminance of the indigo text. It also helps with poorly focussing eyes.

If you don't like the message, you might also use an oblong piece without the slots.

LaRoza
April 14th, 2008, 04:58 PM
The inuit are said to use an oblong piece of wood (or was it tusk) with two narrow slots for the eyes as 'sunglasses'. That might tone down the aggressive luminance of the indigo text. It also helps with poorly focussing eyes.

If you don't like the message, you might also use an oblong piece without the slots.

Is that what you do now in OPP?

popch
April 14th, 2008, 05:00 PM
Is that what you do now in OPP?

I would (without the slots), but I cannot stand the pink voice when I have the PC read the posts to me.

Ahem, that's a perfunctory attempt to somehow return to topic. Sorry for the detraction.

hyper_ch
April 14th, 2008, 06:13 PM
Artificial Intelligence is a bot?

Rinzwind
April 14th, 2008, 06:16 PM
Hmm.. I thought we were talking about the Ubuntu Member.

I first read this and thought "Man, that person has a serious impact"..

Sorry, I'm stupid.

Don't feel stupid. Hell, I had the exact same thought :popcorn:

mips
April 14th, 2008, 08:20 PM
The inuit are said to use an oblong piece of wood (or was it tusk) with two narrow slots for the eyes as 'sunglasses'. That might tone down the aggressive luminance of the indigo text. It also helps with poorly focussing eyes.

If you don't like the message, you might also use an oblong piece without the slots.

Seems like a simplified version of polaroid sunglasses and makes sense.