AI is ridiculous concept that many misinterpret.

Discussion in 'Intelligence & Machines' started by Bob-a-builder, Jun 15, 2019.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    I suppose. Can there be AI without learning?

    It seems to me any computer program can take input and maximize its goals.

    I guess the key is that "the environment" is a collection of inputs many orders of magnitude more complex than anything not taken in by external sensors.

    So yeah OK., I'll accept that.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    This may be of interest;
    So you think you know what is Artificial Intelligence?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    https://hackernoon.com/so-you-think-you-know-what-is-artificial-intelligence-6928db640c42
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    The Book obviously has information, not just potential information. Accessing or not accessing the information is irrelevant.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    This is a stupid argument and has nothing to do with AI.
     
  8. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    Wrong, I merely point out that we don't know how Brains do what they do. You insert the word Magical. You must be a Physicalist. Ironically you seem to give the Neurons the property of Consciousness without explaining how this property works. But I know you cannot Explain how this works because nobody has figured this out yet. As I said it is ok to Anthropomorphize what computers do, as long as we keep it in perspective. And if you want to fully generalize Learning like this you must acknowledge that: When a Book is added to a Library, the Library has gained more knowledge and has effectively learned.
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Fair enough! And you don't know what neural networks do. Thus for the purposes of this discussion, both are opaque.
     
  10. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    Learning to adapt to an environment is a specific type of learning, better described with the very word you used, namely Adaptation. Learning is also the accumulation of Information with no application to Adapting to anything.
     
  11. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    I know what Neural Nets do as well as anyone. I worked with a Scientist on a project using Neural Nets and Fuzzy Logic a whole bunch of years ago now. We were eventually awarded a patent for the technique we developed.
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Adapting to the environment is part of evolution of learning species.
    ? Give me an example.
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2020
  13. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    I read and learn about various subjects all the time just for the pure enjoyment of the knowledge. No Adaptive applicability to my environment.
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Ah! Good, then you know how similar they are to biological neural networks.

    As you mentioned, no one has figured out precisely why our own neural networks let us think. Therefore, it's not valid to say that artificial neural networks do not have that property.
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    And that is beyond the ability of AI?
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2020
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Not knowing how the brain does what is does works in my favour and against yours.

    You can't claim that 'a computer can't do X', while at the same time saying 'a brain can do X - even though we don't really know what or how'. (x=learning)

    (That's the same as billvon just said

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Learning has a distinct meaning. Both a computer and a brain could be black boxes (opaque, as Billvon says) about their internal mechanisms, yet - as long as they demonstrate that they manage to accomplish goals using methods they have not been taught - then they are learning.

    You are coupling 'organic brain' and 'learning' too closely.


    That is a logical fallacy. You are assuming your conclusion in your premise.

    You start by assuming that 'learning can only be done by organic brains', then use that to conclude that 'saying a computer can learn is anthropomorphizing'.

    Invalid.
     
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Steve, your views seem quite subjective, over-simplistic and based on an antiquated impression of what AI and learning AI are capable of.

    OTOH, the preponderance of public research and literature strongly supports our statements.

    A little bit of reading will help bring you up to speed on the latest developments. Wiki is not an authoritative source itself but it provides a foundation that yields quality third-party reading material:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence


    On the other other hand, if you have some published, credible material that supports your position, I think we'll entertain it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2020
  18. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    Neural Nets are for pattern matching not thinking.
     
  19. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    You believe Computers can Enjoy learning?
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Ah! Then all you do is pattern match, since your brain is a big neural net.
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    What makes you think that emotional experiences are purely of the mind? Have you ever considered physical harmony and disharmony may be experienced as a physical object.

    Perhaps it depends on the material the AI body is constructed of. Perhaps it requires an physical body made from artificial biochemical material that is responsive to wave function and can experience a sense of harmony or disharmony when amplified by sheer quantity of sensory points.

    This is already expressed in the single celled biological organisms that can "learn" to navigate in the course of avoiding obstacles, a survival skill ultimately evolving into an ability to experience a sense of "well-being" or "distress" in humans as a result of the combined sensory functions of trillions of sensory neurons and amplification of synchronicity or disharmony.

    Consider Pythagoras

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    PYTHAGORAS ABOUT MUSIC
    Thus music has a dual value because like mathematics, it enables men and women to see into the structures of nature.
    https://www.delamora.life/pythagoras/#

    Consider that AI are especially able to process mathematical ratios and that "does not compute" is an AI expression of frustration!
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2020
  22. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    Ok, I'll put a lump of coal on the table and say it is Thinking. You can't prove it is not Thinking. So I win. That is the essence of your argument.

    You are coupling Learning with Adapting too closely. But this is all a bunch of semantic irrelevancy.

    I don't assume learning can only be done by Organic Brains. In fact I think that maybe someday we will have fully Conscious, Aware, and Sentient machines. I only argue that it is not going to be done by ADDing numbers, or XORing numbers, or MOVing a byte from one location to another, or by JUMPing execution to another section of the code, etc.. You seem to think Magic things happen when these obviously primitive and totally Mechanical Machine Operations are executing in the Machine.
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    They do!
    If we light it we can say it's "Burning", a physical experience that turns the coal into ashes. That's mathematical magic and I can prove it!
    Why are you restricting this to "only adding numbers"? Expand you horizons.

    Many animals can physically and sensory outperform humans in every respect. The only human mental advantage is "versatility", but why should that be only a human property?

    We are constructing the AI. We should be able to construct a versatile AI, which is more than a mathematical machine. I'm sure you are familiar with the Turing test
    (Ex Machina)?
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2020

Share This Page