AI is ridiculous concept that many misinterpret.

I have said from the beginning that it's ok to say a Computer Learned as long as we all know what we are talking about. I don't know where I had blown up anything that AI does. I always try to keep it in perspective. It is the AI Marketers that blow it up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yep, we get the Red Experience, the Sound Experience, and the Salty Taste Experience from the Neural Net. But there is still no Explanation for how these Sensory Experiences happen in the Brain. It is a pure Religious Belief to say these Sensory Experiences are the result of Neural Activity, of any kind.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What you should say is no mention of Machines, because we all know they are referring to Human behavior. If the dictionary writers felt that this applied to Machines they would have mentioned that by now.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps you're victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect. What makes you think no one understands your mental contortions....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think I said 20 years ago not 50 years ago. And anyway you are incorrect to believe that the engineers were not thinking about reusable boosters even back then. They knew about Computers and they knew Computers were always getting better. They never would have said it could Never be done as a general principle and belief by everybody.

 

If I thought I had great Mental abilities I would have thought that I had solved the Hard Problem of Consciousness by now. Just average abilities, but lots of years study, and a burning desire to find the answer to the Hard Problem of Consciousness. Basically it is fun to pursue this.

 

But perhaps you didn't know this posit from the chief engineer in reference to the Rover landing:
"We don't have to do it right, we just have to do it right enough".

 

You were a fair bit more restrictive in your claim than that. You were claiming that merely talking about a learning machine was committing the error of anthropomorphism.

If you hadn't had such literal expectations in the first place (that computers would think and learn in the same way as humans) then you would have had nothing to tear down or "keep in perspective", and we wouldn't be at the 226th post.

Ah. The shadowy, anonymous, blank-faced "They".
Is that the same "They" that quashed the Electric Car?
The same "They" that pulled off the Moon Hoax?
The same "They" that sold us Rosie the Maid on the Jetsons?

See, it's a content-free assertion, involving hypothetical shadowy entities who aren't here to defend themselves. It can't be falsified or shown to be true.

I've certainly never felt defrauded by these "AI Marketers". Do you know anyone other than yourself who has?

Isn't it really more just a reflection of your personal perception of what AI was "supposed" to be?

 

You understand the analogy, right?
You know an analogy doesn't have to have actually happened to be a valid analogy.

 

?? It's established science. We have been able to stimulate specific neurons and cause experiences of taste, demonstrating that neural activity causes the experience of taste (for example.) We can identify which neurons, if damaged, remove the ability to taste. We can, in a very limited fashion, restore sight and motor control by bypassing damaged neurons (and nerves, which are long neurons) with a prosthesis.

 

Just as engineers were thinking about "thinking machines" back then. It took them a long time to get there in both cases (of course.)

 

And the quintessential historical example:

"Burnt toast, Dr. Penfield. I can smell burnt toast!"

 

Of course if you describe inanimate objects in Human terms it is Anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism is not necessarily an Error. The very reason the Marketers use Hyped AI is to sell products, or they would not be doing it. So they must be selling lots of products using this Hyped AI strategy.

 

Yes of course, but I was just pointing out the extent of the misdirection of your analogy.

 

You are talking about the Neural Correlates of Conscious Experience, not the actual Experience itself. Science has been probing Brains to stimulate Conscious Experiences for a Hundred years. That's nothing new. The question is How does any Neural Activity, either stimulated by an actual sensory input or stimulated by probing cause a Conscious Sensory Experience. You can rub your Eyes and See Lights. You are stimulating Neural Activity but nobody knows how the Light Experience happens. You are solving the Easy Problem of Conscious Experience by mapping which Neurons correspond to which Experiences. But you are not solving the Hard Problem of Conscious Experience because knowing the Map does not Explain how the Experiences happen in the Mind.

 

Except that learning is not a strictly human ability, so the above claim is inapplicable.

 

?? We know quite accurately how that (perception of phosphenes) happens. You get a similar experience when you expose your eyes to cosmic radiation. (And computers experience something very similar when exposed to cosmic radiation.)

https://dukeeyecenter.duke.edu/news...ning-when-we-see-stars-after-rubbing-our-eyes

You are assuming that "having Experiences" (with a capital E) is some mystical thing, rather than simply an attempt by a complex neural network to generate a sense of self.

 

Is this because Animals learn?

 

No the capital puts Emphasis on the thing I want to talk about. You think it's Mystical because Science really cannot Explain it. When complex Neural Networks generate a sense of Self, what are they doing? You say things like this without a Clue as to how something like that works.

 

That too. You inadvertently shot yourself in the foot. Well done.