Cyprus-Forum.com

[GreekIslandGirl]

However, we keep coming back to the main point about being given so much choice: as they learn more moves/options, they (AI) will become inert as they would be unable to choose what to do - because, apparently, when we know all the options, in the end, it is our emotions that pick the one path/choice to make.
.

It doesn't need emotions to decide. All it needs is a one liner code to bypass impasses: "Make a random choice".

In that case, we would always have the advantage. Have you ever read "Blink" by Gladwell?


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541302/

[Get Real!]

You are all wasting your time with nonsense.

Nothing electromechanical can ever come anywhere near the power of the human brain… not even the smallest fraction of 1%.

Maybe way into the future… if something fleshy; packed with neurons and controlled by electrical impulses can be invented… we’ll just have to wait and see if we’re still around… but I very much doubt it happening because I know human limitations.

The living human brain is the PROTOTYPE that would need to be copied instead of dead materials like metal, wood, glass and plastics.

All the world’s dead materials cannot help us duplicate the human brain so anyone working with dead materials today cannot be taken seriously as an attempt to challenge the human brain.

So don’t let corporations and fantasists deceive you for they are nothing but a scam to keep you interested and focused on *them* for their commercial gain.

The day I learned analog and digital electronics is the day I realized how primitive we are and it was a game over for all my technological fantasies. Prior to acquiring this knowledge I was allowed to fantasize but once I learned the “secrets” it was all over.

It’s like a magician who bedazzles you on stage with his clever inexplicable tricks and he then takes you backstage and shows you all the cheap trickery he was using and you can’t help but be overwhelmed with disappointment.

To close this off I will inform that electromechanical devices have never learned, do not learn, and never will learn... but when are WE going to learn that?

[Sotos]

.... Something doesn't need to have emotions to be intelligent......

On the contrary:

When emotional intelligence first appeared to the masses in 1995, it served as the missing link in a peculiar finding: people with average IQs outperform those with the highest IQs 70% of the time. This anomaly threw a massive wrench into what many people had always assumed was the sole source of success—IQ. Decades of research now point to emotional intelligence as the critical factor that sets star performers apart from the rest of the pack.

http://www.talentsmart.com/about/emotio ... igence.php

We have senses and instincts like most animals: hormone/chemical based responses to the physical world. They can cause feelings (fight or flight) when we try and interpret the world. Perhaps AI can more readily acquire feelings than emotions.

From your link:

There is no known connection between IQ and emotional intelligence; you simply can’t predict emotional intelligence based on how smart someone is.

So I don't see how that contradicts what I said: "Something doesn't need to have emotions to be intelligent". And I am not saying that AI can't eventually have emotions. What I am saying is that we are better of if it doesn't. Think of it this way: You employ a manager to your business who is very smart so it helps your business grow. Do you prefer that manager to ALSO have a big ego, to want to become as rich as possible? No! You want him to help YOU become as rich as possible. We need AI that will help us be successful, not AI that will define and pursue its own success independently of ours. We need AI to help us, not replace us!

[Sotos]

The living human brain is the PROTOTYPE that would need to be copied instead of dead materials like metal, wood, glass and plastics.

There is nothing magical about the materials our brains and bodies are made of: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine magnesium etc. Intelligence doesn't exist in the oxygen or the carbon, and these materials aren't any more "alive" than any other materials. In fact the materials we are made of is probably a disadvantage. The neural impulse of our "meaty" neurons is WAY slower than what is possible with different materials.

[Get Real!]

The living human brain is the PROTOTYPE that would need to be copied instead of dead materials like metal, wood, glass and plastics.

There is nothing magical about the materials our brains and bodies are made of: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine magnesium etc. Intelligence doesn't exist in the oxygen or the carbon, and these materials aren't any more "alive" than any other materials. In fact the materials we are made of is probably a disadvantage. The neural impulse of our "meaty" neurons is WAY slower than what is possible with different materials.

You forget the flesh/tissue that the brain is made of. Haven’t you noticed the special magical properties of living flesh yet? For example:

It has the ability to (1) heal itself, (2) expand/contract as required, (3) replace/grow and rejuvenate itself, all its (4) complex sensory abilities, (5) reproduce even, (6) communicate with other areas of itself etc.

Which of our man-made materials boasts anywhere near the properties of living flesh/tissue? Nothing…

Everything we create is DEAD, has a preconfigured shape/size, cannot morph into anything else, cannot repair itself, cannot adapt to changing conditions, has no sensors, can’t communicate with other areas of itself, cannot reproduce, etc.

Huge difference… whatever designed and created living flesh/tissue is genius while everything we design/create is rubbish by comparison.

Like I said earlier… we are PRIMITIVE.

[Sotos]

First of all what you describe has nothing to do with the material. The carbon, oxygen etc atoms that make up our bodies do not change. What you describe are properties of cells and organs. Even stupid animals share those properties. Secondly, what you describe is actually the easy part. We have already created sensors which can sense a LOT more things than we can, and in many cases better than we can. And sensors keep improving, while our sensory organs do not (it takes millions of years) AI doesn't get sick and doesn't die, but can multiply WAY faster than we can and can expand to a far greater degree since it is not restricted to a few cubic centimeters within the head of an animal. It is quite obvious that your beliefs are not based to any knowledge or any valid reasoning, but merely on blind religious faith.

[GreekIslandGirl]

.... Something doesn't need to have emotions to be intelligent......

On the contrary:

When emotional intelligence first appeared to the masses in 1995, it served as the missing link in a peculiar finding: people with average IQs outperform those with the highest IQs 70% of the time. This anomaly threw a massive wrench into what many people had always assumed was the sole source of success—IQ. Decades of research now point to emotional intelligence as the critical factor that sets star performers apart from the rest of the pack.

http://www.talentsmart.com/about/emotio ... igence.php

We have senses and instincts like most animals: hormone/chemical based responses to the physical world. They can cause feelings (fight or flight) when we try and interpret the world. Perhaps AI can more readily acquire feelings than emotions.

From your link:

There is no known connection between IQ and emotional intelligence; you simply can’t predict emotional intelligence based on how smart someone is.

So I don't see how that contradicts what I said: "Something doesn't need to have emotions to be intelligent". And I am not saying that AI can't eventually have emotions. What I am saying is that we are better of if it doesn't. Think of it this way: You employ a manager to your business who is very smart so it helps your business grow. Do you prefer that manager to ALSO have a big ego, to want to become as rich as possible? No! You want him to help YOU become as rich as possible. We need AI that will help us be successful, not AI that will define and pursue its own success independently of ours. We need AI to help us, not replace us!

What it is claiming about emotional intelligence is that it is like an unknown factor that can not be measured in the way you can measure 'intelligence' using the IQ tests. Emotional intelligence is that unknown factor, that immeasurable factor, that if you possessed it, then you outperform the classically 'intelligent' people. Basically, it's a way of distinguishing between the mechanical intelligence that some humans have (maybe linked to autism?) which makes them good at storing facts (a bit like computers) or calculating mathematical problems but these high IQ people are often very poor at navigating the human world. Yet someone not so good at reasoning/mathematics/logic can outperform someone with a high IQ by using instinct/feelings and emotional ability (Emotional Quotient, EQ). It's through this purely (so far) human ability that the AI technicians would need to tap into in order to reproduce what humans can do.

Clearly, I'm the least qualified to discuss AI and computers: but for decades now I've seen such hyperbolic excitement every time the Physicists/Engineers/mathematicians of our world 'create' something they think will mimic/outdo nature. However, so far, nature outshines the lot. Physics, it seems, will soon have nowhere to go except look into the 'human condition' (the conscious and the subconscious) as the physical world is probably limited but the endless self-creations of biological systems are infinite.

[Pyrpolizer]

What it is claiming about emotional intelligence is that it is like an unknown factor that can not be measured in the way you can measure 'intelligence' using the IQ tests. Emotional intelligence is that unknown factor, that immeasurable factor, that if you possessed it, then you outperform the classically 'intelligent' people.

That's a hypothesis. The writer has provided absolutely no statistical data to prove his/her hypothesis.
S/he simply jumped into conclusions.

[Paphitis]

I haven't watched the videos yet, Sotos - will try to find time over the next week.

Meanwhile, I remember reading about how they let robots bump their way around a room so that they can get the co-ordinates (or whatever they are called) to work out their own extremities / size / physical / spatial limits. This suggests, then, that they acquire a sense of 'self' and their place in the world.

However, we keep coming back to the main point about being given so much choice: as they learn more moves/options, they (AI) will become inert as they would be unable to choose what to do - because, apparently, when we know all the options, in the end, it is our emotions that pick the one path/choice to make.

So until programmers can figure out how to introduce an element of emotion into the choice parameters AI will just remain a fancy calculator.

That's all old hat by now. We have robotic cleaners which move around the house automatically cleaning the floors and doing the vacuuming.

Yes, initially they roam around bumping into the furniture, and the skirting boards until they map out the house and just cover the entire area.

[Paphitis]

You are all wasting your time with nonsense.

Nothing electromechanical can ever come anywhere near the power of the human brain… not even the smallest fraction of 1%.

Maybe way into the future… if something fleshy; packed with neurons and controlled by electrical impulses can be invented… we’ll just have to wait and see if we’re still around… but I very much doubt it happening because I know human limitations.

The living human brain is the PROTOTYPE that would need to be copied instead of dead materials like metal, wood, glass and plastics.

All the world’s dead materials cannot help us duplicate the human brain so anyone working with dead materials today cannot be taken seriously as an attempt to challenge the human brain.

So don’t let corporations and fantasists deceive you for they are nothing but a scam to keep you interested and focused on *them* for their commercial gain.

The day I learned analog and digital electronics is the day I realized how primitive we are and it was a game over for all my technological fantasies. Prior to acquiring this knowledge I was allowed to fantasize but once I learned the “secrets” it was all over.

It’s like a magician who bedazzles you on stage with his clever inexplicable tricks and he then takes you backstage and shows you all the cheap trickery he was using and you can’t help but be overwhelmed with disappointment.

To close this off I will inform that electromechanical devices have never learned, do not learn, and never will learn... but when are WE going to learn that?

It certain situations, it is better to take the human mind out of the equation completely. It will come to this one day in the future.

Human factors will be eliminated completely - driver-less cars, trucks, ships and planes.

Any emotional factors here, or human decision making are vulnerabilities which cause crashes and kill people.

As much as I hate to say it.