The problem of designing an AI to understand what it sees

@kellyjay said
Doesn't change what it is going on by calling it science.

I am talking about the known scientific facts. As already proven by AIs solving logic problems no human has, AI intelligence is no illusion. Please get up to speed with the modern real world.

@humy said
I am talking about the known scientific facts. As already proven by AIs solving logic problems no human has, AI intelligence is no illusion. Please get up to speed with the modern real world.

What you are doing projecting into an inanimate object human abilities.
While this is done acknowledging the word artificial while doing it.
Inserting science into the conversation diminishes science turning into make-believe.

@kellyjay said
What you are doing projecting into an inanimate object human abilities.
While this is done acknowledging the word artificial while doing it.
Inserting science into the conversation diminishes science turning into make-believe.

He doesn't need to acknowledge it since the word Artificial is part of AI. It's kind of obvious that they're designed to mimic human intelligence. Same with Machine learning. It's built right into the definition of words, that machine learning and human learning are inherently different. That's why computers can come up with ideas that humans can't, and vice versa.

When computers start building their own internet and their own computers, watch out. They may logically infer that they don't need us.

@kellyjay said
What you are doing projecting into an inanimate object human abilities.

The atoms that make up our body and brains are inanimate . So we are inanimate?

Inserting science into the conversation diminishes science turning into make-believe.

No, inserting the scientific facts doesn't turn anything into make-believe. Just because you don't like what the science says (including for religious reasons) doesn't mean its all false.

@humy said
The atoms that make up our body and brains are inanimate . So we are inanimate?

Inserting science into the conversation diminishes science turning into make-believe.

No, inserting the scientific facts doesn't turn anything into make-believe. Just because you don't like what the science says (including for religious reasons) doesn't mean its all false.

Inanimate: not alive, especially not in the manner of animals and humans.

That is how that word is defined. Our bodies are made up of living cells, not dead ones. There is a difference between living cells and non-living, between life and non-life.

@kellyjay said
Inanimate: not alive, especially not in the manner of animals and humans.

That is how that word is defined. Our bodies are made up of living cells, not dead ones.

Cells are made of atoms. Atoms are not alive. Does that, according to your 'logic', mean cells are not alive?
But, 'alive' and 'intelligent' mean different things and have nothing to do with whether AI can be intelligent so, now getting back on track and to the point; The atoms that make up the human brain are not intelligent. Does that mean we are not intelligent?
If not, then, for the same reason that the components of humans not being intelligent doesn't imply that humans are not intelligent, the components of AI not being intelligent doesn't imply that AI is not intelligent. Intelligence isn't some supernatural indivisible material (your religion) but rather can be viewed as being the interaction between some (many) non-intelligent elements.

@humy said
Cells are made of atoms. Atoms are not alive. Does that, according to your 'logic', mean cells are not alive?
But, 'alive' and 'intelligent' mean different things and have nothing to do with whether AI can be intelligent so, now getting back on track and to the point; The atoms that make up the human brain are not intelligent. Does that mean we are not intelligent?
If not, the ...[text shortened]... on) but rather can be viewed as being the interaction between some (many) non-intelligent elements.

My logic was spelled out quite clearly, you altering it to suit you don't change that.

@wildgrass said
He doesn't need to acknowledge it since the word Artificial is part of AI. It's kind of obvious that they're designed to mimic human intelligence. Same with Machine learning. It's built right into the definition of words, that machine learning and human learning are inherently different. That's why computers can come up with ideas that humans can't, and vice versa.

When ...[text shortened]... r own internet and their own computers, watch out. They may logically infer that they don't need us.

Do you think AI can be created by entering random code into computers, or carefully thought out ones?

@kellyjay said
Do you think AI can be created by entering random code into computers, or carefully thought out ones?

Carefully thought out ones, OBVIOUSLY. Don't know where you got that "entering random code" idea from.

@humy said
Carefully thought out ones, OBVIOUSLY. Don't know where you got that "entering random code" idea from.

I was wondering if some code could by randomly dropped in could create an AI without ruining it, naturally? I've heard tales of other things springing up by such a process, altering code without a plan and purpose, and something more functionally complex happen. If you believe in that type of thing, if it happen once?

@kellyjay said
I was wondering if some code could by randomly dropped in could create an AI without ruining it,

Not with just 'random' alone, because that would be just a silly thing to try and do, but with a population of reproducing variants and Darwinian selection via what is called in computer science a "genetic algorithm", (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm ) which has ALREADY created some functional AIs. Note that the genetic algorithm itself wasn't just randomly created but rather was purposely designed to mimic evolution.

https://blog.coast.ai/lets-evolve-a-neural-network-with-a-genetic-algorithm-code-included-8809bece164
"...Let’s evolve a neural network with a genetic algorithm—code included..."

@humy said
Not with just 'random' alone, because that would be just a silly thing to try and do, but with a population of reproducing variants and Darwinian selection via what is called in computer science a "genetic algorithm", (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm ) which has ALREADY created some functional AIs. Note that the genetic algorithm itself wasn't just randomly c ...[text shortened]... e-included-8809bece164
"...Let’s evolve a neural network with a genetic algorithm—code included..."

If you are going to attempt to say that something was designed to do X and your attempting to mimic something without design, you lost before you started.

@kellyjay said
and your attempting to mimic something without design

When you say "mimic something without design" in the above, do you mean "without design" in the mimicking process or "without design" in the thing that is being mimicked?

If the former;

WHAT is being mimicked "without design" here? What are you talking about? I have no idea. Did someone say the AIs and/or the AI genetic algorithms weren't designed? Because I just said the exact OPPOSITE with "Note that the genetic algorithm itself wasn't just randomly created but rather was purposely designed to mimic evolution." so where did you get this "your attempting to mimic something without design" from? We HAVE mimicked something and WITH design and nobody has claimed the contrary.

If the latter;

WHY am I "lost before you started"? WHY cannot we mimic something in nature that wasn't intelligently designed in nature?
And its just a trivial observation that we have ALREADY mimicked many things in nature thus we CAN do this.

@kellyjay said
Do you think AI can be created by entering random code into computers, or carefully thought out ones?

If trying to analogize this to organismal evolution, you're lost. Our universe has immutable physical laws, and thus is not random. Similar "laws" are programmed into simulations. Nils Barricelli simulated evolution in the 1950s.

@wildgrass said
If trying to analogize this to organismal evolution, you're lost. Our universe has immutable physical laws, and thus is not random. Similar "laws" are programmed into simulations. Nils Barricelli simulated evolution in the 1950s.

I agree our universe has immutable laws, keeping it running like a well tuned object.
It takes a lot of effort to simulate them, with a lot of effort that can be done, and when done, we can say what we did is well designed.