AI is ridiculous concept that many misinterpret.

Ah... insults, repeated reputed unsupported claims and (not) very macho challenges.
Oh, and of course, the bad grammar, syntax, spelling and wild speculation based on incredulity.
You're on form today Bob.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would rather a computer be correct in an answer with zero thought than I think long and hard on it and be wrong.

Anyhoo - as others have alluded to: define "thought" for the purposes of this discussion, please?
At what point is such "thought" required for intelligence?

If you have ever seen IBM's Watson perform on Jeopardy, I'd suggest that it is doing a damn fine impression of (albeit a fairly limited) version of "thought", as it works out what the question asked actually means, and then scours the databases (let's call it "memory") for an answer.

As another has pointed out, that is all our biology can do.
That is all our neural connections do: fire or don't fire.

Define "thought", please.
If a computer "thought" then it would do so according to its programming and its database/memory, and any stored routines that it has learnt.
Not particularly different to that of a human, just far less complex (at present).

Define "thought", please?

Not true, although some of the chess computers do work in such a brute-force means, but given the processing limitations, not even those will look at every possible future move.
Most such brute-force machines will calculate a certain number of moves ahead and have an algorithm to work out the most successful move to play.
But that is not particularly different to how humans work: try to picture every possible consequence, and play accordingly.

Even though you have not yet defined "thought", you seem to be claiming that it is only possible by living creatures on the basis of them being organic, not on the processes actually involved.
That seems to be a fallacy.
What is it, do you think, about living matter that means that a process can be labelled "thought" whereas the same process performed digitally, say, can not?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What claim is unsupported?

If you knew any computer programming you would know computers can only compare and turn switches.

That is supported by "just how it is".

Thanks for the ad hominem attack on my spelling and grammar. I speak many languages including coding.

Feel free to show me what errors I make in grammar and spelling so I can correct them in future when using English.

You can dish ad hominem and cry about them simultaneously. Great skill-set.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes. I said earlier if people compare brains to the same process then I suppose comparing 2 values over and over again could be considered thought.

So.. That was already agreed upon, and I am aware algorithms help steer lower level computer chessboard "guesswork" and only a few moves ahead are calculated on lower levels. That is not the topic.

Let's just say skynet is not a possibility in any foreseeable future.

 

Quite a few. And they've been pointed out.

You don't actually read posts from other people do you?
You simply carry on in your delusion.

1) Go learn what an ad hom is.
2) Since it was you who first brought "command of English" I wonder why you're so sensitive about it.

 

I wish you would do that. Show us what a brain can do that a computer can't do.

 

You have gone "ad hom" in every single comment. If your feelings get hurt when I return it, go cry to your mommy.

You are the one pushing the WOO conspiracy theory that computers can have intelligence.

If you wish to make that claim then feel free. It just makes you a nutter.

I grasp why you think the bad guys in your PlayStation are alive and out to get you. That is just not how it is.

Link your proof that computers have intelligence. Doesn't even have to be from nature. I will read any scientific publication you can dig up on this topic.

Otherwise anyone who thinks a computer can do anything but compare is misled (a fool).

Please stop with all the woo nonsense that computers have intelligence.

 

glia

 

Not. Even. Close. Like I said, go learn what ad hom means. We 're calling you a nutcase because your claims have demonstrated that you are, we're not dismissing your claims on the grounds that you're a nutcase.

Not what has been claimed by anyone here.

You made the initial claim, therefore it's up to you to support your position.

Also not what has been claimed by anyone here.

Same with this.
Do you have ANY response at all to Billvon's earlier post?
I'll quote it for you:

 

This. Exactly.

Your arguments are fair game. If they're nutty, that's a criticism, not an ad hom.

 

Dave, If you buy into the woo that computers have "intelligence" I grasp it. Not everyone realizes computers can only compare two values repetitively..

I understand your "belief". Those PlayStation enemies seem clever. That is more due to the ingenuity of programmers.

However; if you have any facts to back up that ridiculous conspiracy theory. Then maybe I will reconsider and prepare a bomb shelter for when skynet hits. Ooooh! How do you sleep at night with such fear.

Your woo does not have any evidence.

 

And that's all the neurons in your brain can do, too - fire or not fire, repetitively, the same way, over and over.

Just as your neurons can only fire or not fire. That's it.

Are you afraid that the neurons are coming to get you?

 

Look. I grasp why you think computers are intelligent. I do. Playstation bad guys scare you.

Lots of movies pushing your conspiracy theory. They just are not possible.

I would look at scientific evidence if you will provide links to a journal.

Until then. Fear all you like. All a computer can do is compare two values at a time. If that is consciousness to you then I would like a link to that journal article also.

Your word is not what makes science. You need evidence to back up your ridiculous claims.

 

Which ridiculous claims? I do not recall making any.

You have stated that it is impossible for a computer to develop intelligence because it can only compare two things; make on-off decisions. Human neurons, which comprise your intelligence, can only do one of two things - fire or not fire. You don't seem to understand that there is little difference there, at a very basic level. Nor do you seem to understand the difference between your BASIC programs and a modern NPU running an inference engine.

 

First. Why would you assume I only know BASIC? That sciforum member that suggested that simply could not recognize I had also used a line of code "PHP?" in an earlier comment. It is not my fault if the intelligence of the members here are lacking. You can re-read the opening comments if you doubt.

I am fairly sure (positive) that PHP was not pre-internet.

WHAT COMPUTER LANGUAGE WOULD YOU USE TO DEMONSTRATE AN IF/THEN STATEMENT to a non-programmer? (and they are in every computer language. Look it up)

This entire thread was aimed at demonstrating to non programmers that computers can only compare two values. That is not "thinking" despite your wild and extraordinary claims that computers are capable of the same thought as us.

Again. I grasp why you think computers are intelligent. I do. Playstation bad guys scare you.

Lots of movies pushing that exact same conspiracy theory. They just are not possible.

Ask anyone who programs.

I would look at scientific evidence if you will provide links to a journal.

Until then. Fear all you like. All a computer can do is compare two values at a time. If that is consciousness to you then I would like a link to that journal article also.

Your word is not what makes science. You need evidence to back up your ridiculous claims.

 

I did not. You seem to be assuming things not in evidence.

I did not claim that. Are you perhaps reading what someone else has posted?

I don't need to; I do. You don't. If you would, you would not be saying such silly things.

Once again - you have stated that it is impossible for a computer to develop intelligence because it can only compare two things; make on-off decisions. Human neurons, which comprise your intelligence, can only do one of two things - fire or not fire. You don't seem to understand that there is little difference there, at a very basic level.

 

So what exactly is your argument?
Is it purely that human-level intelligence is not in the foreseeable future for computers, but that you do not rule out the possibility?
Or do you claim it is impossible?
Are you claiming that if something is not organic then there is zero chance of it being intelligent at any level?
Or that it is not possible (even theoretically) for anything non-organic to display human-level intelligence?

And, before you begin answering these questions, please define "thought", and "intelligence", because at the moment you are avoiding all possible discussion by simply rejecting what others claim as not being possible, without substantiation or even clarification of these terms?
Stump up some notions of what it means "to think", or "to be intelligent", for discussion purposes at least, and then perhaps we can move this discussion onto something more befitting the subject matter.

As for chessboard "guesswork" - if such "guesswork" can beat the best human chess players as it does, it must be doing something right, and perhaps the only difference between what it does and what you are referring to as "thinking" would seem to be its conscious awareness of what it is doing?
But consciousness is not required for intelligence, and what you may be arguing for is a conscious AI, not an intelligent one.


As for whether AI can ever display human-level intelligence, well, that would rather depend upon the human, wouldn't it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

All axons in the brain do is transmit an action potential or not. They can't think! Oh wait...

 

I guess, too, that Bob has not been keeping abreast of quantum computing, where individual logic switches can make a vast number of choices simultaneously.