Do you think that AI will ever feel emotions?

Not unless you want the same-ol' same ol'. Word salad, non sequitur conclusions, weasel words.

He's on my Iggy too, but for the good of science, it's my duty to root out non-science in the darkest corners.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

basic quantum theory yes ?
i think i have listened to green & kako make similar type statements when leading into more complex comments.
to a similar conceptualization format

this would be based on mass relationships which is expressed through the gravitational fields & all other bonds
the simple fact of the non equality defines a nature of relationship toward a centric property in theory toward moving-away-from-less-order entropic etc
outward expansion of the universe

?

how am i doing ?

assuming
super massive at the centre
total expansion in all places ?
except the super massive ?(has anyone done that yet?)

if everything is expanding, then should the super massive be-becoming less super massive and becoming bigger as it is stretched ?
or is the super massive a closed unit system ? staying the same relative process equation as it travels away from a central point
but its consuming matter ?
consuming matter as it goes into less matter, at an ever increasing speed.

but does basic science laws suggest the black hole must in turn, in theory become less dense as it travels further ?

thread subject
someone said something something about something which i kinda missed except that to say that im not going to say anything about that something because that is a bit sensitive
so i wont

so at what point does a learning process like say google being programmed to collect data & block peoples ips and content.
so its acting as an almost autonomous function
what point does it become considered insular to its own function as self driven ?
is it self driven ?
maybe not

in theory it cant perform functions outside its command profile
so it has no independent ability to choose anything that is already not pre validated.

humans are not really much different in a similar manner of real world cause and effect.
but the difference between generated living intelligent biological life forms and a robot with a range of algorithms, is very stark


is a black hole an intelligent machine ?
if it absorbs all things can you in jest suggest it absorbs information and in so much learns ?

queue
consumer of knowledge versus learner of knowledge
/ learning AI ? subjective inaccuracy of precise functions
'consuming knowledge' or 'learning knowledge'
how many humans can literarily define the difference

note
"consumer culture self actuation defines the self as legitimated by the act of choosing something"
false reality very babyboomer
but that's life in all its weird strange beautiful ugliness
now the species has evolved to be more than just the ability to "i choose there for i am"
and is now

"create there for i can"(development of human rights & equal rights concepts & laws)
to its more cutting edge of "i am there for you must"(human rights & equality being defined as moral culture mandates to form compulsory social order)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, my own words interpreting the logical extension of scientific ideas and theories, backed by links to mainstream scientific articles, explaining the words, which always fail to acknowledge.

No, that YOU fail too see what I am positing is part of my problem.

Yet you constantly fail to address the flaws in these faulty foundations. Show me where I am wrong or try to follow my thought processes without useless attacks on my person and intelligence.

Show me where my use of and links to the science are wrong. You present no positive argument at all, except negative ad hominem. If you know better, you are a terrible teacher in a discussion forum of the sciences and their common denominators. Keep it fragmented until nothing makes any sense at all. You are not an asset to science. You are an obstacle to scientific inquiry.

Once again you have managed to sidetrack the OP into personal name calling. Give it a rest .
You have an obligation to protect Science from me? LMAO.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

makes me think of gravitational lensing
i wonder if some laws can be reverse written from gravitational lensing
we know they effectively were theorized before it was discovered.

https://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/grav_lensing_history/

gravitational lensing

 

To answer my own question I am going to go with NO

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sorry I posted the above before I got to your reply

Cheers

 

But it is already . Alpha-Zero is a completely autonomous AI, which can create its own superior Boardgame playing strategies, given only the rules of the game, including the 2500 year old game of Go which is considered the most difficult board game ever invented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)

https://www.theringer.com/tech/2018...o-go-stockfish-artificial-intelligence-future

When it learns to play it plays against itself and when it learns, it teaches itself as a learning opponent as well and the contest becomes more and more sophisticated in parallel to itself.

 

The power of self learning systems.

 

The answer I think is the Autonomous Function is almost totally here

The question now becomes

• is it happy
• sad
• bored
• ready to kill the next person who turns up to service it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It took some time,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

 

[DUPE]

 

Nobody's name-calling.
You're just wrong, that's all. I'm merely pointing that out for the sake of posterity.

But when you're wrong so often in such a particular way, it must be observed that the wrongness is merely a symptom of a larger lack of understanding.

No, I have an obligation to set the record straight for other readers.

You mangle terms and definitions; I point out where they're wrong.
You try to draw faulty conclusions from things you don't understand; I point out that those conclusions are faulty.

If a new poster came along and said 2+2=red and was corrected, and then went on to say 3+3=clouds, it would be our duty to stop them from spreading such nonsense. And, were they to keep making faulty assertions, we would be bound to question the member's grasp of basic math.

If you want to stop being criticized, stop quoting stuff you don't understand and stop mangling stuff you pretend to be quoting.**
It's really that simple.
This is, after all, a science forum. You really need to review the posting rules.

**See post 453 as just the latest example.

 

I am neither a new poster, nor do I say that 2+2 = red, or that 3+3 = clouds. Nor do I keep spreading nonsense. It is you who is spreading this nonsense!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have yet to demonstrate exactly how I mangle stuff I don't understand. Calling me ignorant is not a persuasive argument, but IS ad hominem!!!!!!!

You may want to avail yourself of a refresher.

Where exactly does that post contradict the following;

Differential Equations Applications - In Maths and In Real Life

byjus.com › Maths › Math Article

Oh and in mathematics they apply to the exponential function.

Applications of Differential Equations

https://byjus.com/maths/differential-equations-applications/#

Now, exactly where did my condensed posit contradict the basic definition of Differential Equation?

Perhaps you may want to do a little more reading on the subject, in order to expand your horizons.

 

You're not new; you should know better. Yet you still post crap like this:

• A differential equation is the rate of difference between two values. (false)
• Electrical current is produced by the differential equation between a positive and a negative pole. (false)
• An AI depends on electrical differential equations which it can detect, monitor and measure (false)

Stick to the facts.

Well, notice the huge difference between post 453 and post 472.

When called out for your nonsense, you have to recant and try again.
Just don't make stuff up.

No it isn't. You are demonstrably ignorant of the things you post.
Criticism of your ignorance about the subject is not ad hominem - it is ad rem - "relevant to what is being done or discussed at the time".

In post 253, you tried to paraphrase, but didn't know how.

And it's not my job to teach you science from the ground up.

For God's sake, stop - before you get banned for spreading lies.

 

Really? Lets see

and the science from the link I provided:
Differential Equations Applications - In Maths and In Real Life

Oh and in mathematics they apply to the exponential function:
Applications of Differential Equations

Perhaps you have forgotten the basic definition of differential equation.

So you just persist in slinging mud, without argument proving me wrong. You are not a moderator and your threats don't mean a thing to me.
OTOH, your manners in your role as just another poster are atrocious. You lack the the most basic civility for productive exchange.

Learn to discuss issues, instead of constantly going off topic with personal insults on every thread you post in. Your body of work is not very productive in content, in fact your attitude is quite distracting from almost every subject under discussion.

 

Correct. I'm not a moderator, which is why they're not threats. You have received plenty of warnings from the mods though.

My posts aren't for you; they're for the benefit of posterity - for others who might otherwise be led astray by the stuff you make up.

 

The only warnings I have had from mods were about perceived off-topic subject matter, not about scientific accuracy. The reason is that I am never the inventor of a new scientific revelation, but offer acknowledgement of new and interesting areas of serious scientific inquiry into fundamental areas of natural phenomema to which no one has any authoritative knowledge yet. For you to dismiss these subjects as woo is premature and prejudicial on your part.

And this not a science only forum, in case you need reminding.

When you fail to understand the thrust of my posits, you just invent reasons to criticize on some very narrow issue, without first asking what is meant by a certain terminology or conceptual posit.

You have a very limited imagination and often fail to understand the concept of scientific "common denominators" in nature and physics. Your perspective is fractured and disconnected. And you compound it by trying to stifle robust discussion of the most interesting topics, many of which are still very much open to review and refinement.

You espouse the open ended nature of scientific inquiry, but slam the door in the face of anybody who dares probe beyond the mainstream. Boring!!!!!

 

That is a contradictory statement!
And are you now claiming deep psychological knowledge of the dark corners of the mind? Interesting, wanna discuss that? Open a new thread!

 

Hello , artificial intelligent humanoids will never be able to develop a consciousness and ''care'' without a specific program coding to achieve such a possibility . An artificial intelligent humanoid can have physical feelings (being touched) , by piezoelectric technology !

 

No it isn't.

No I am not. You can tell, because I never used the terms 'psychological' or 'of the mind'. That was you.

This is another example of you not understanding the words you read, and going off on a tangent.

 

Can or can’t?