NeilUnreal

Some people called the first compilers "Automatic Programmers." I do AI programming for a living -- in my opinion we'll have real AI when compilers issue warning messages like: "Warning, the comment on line 470 is no longer valid and is pontentially misleading."

-Neil

Synaesthesia

Corwin,
While, strictly speaking, it's true that computers never do more than typographical manipulation, the sense in which you mean it is importantly misleading. We do not directly control computers by programming them anymore than genes control us.

Our genes provides the requisite structures with which the human machine may perform it's various functions. We can do no more than what our cellular machinery permits but it is only through that machinery can we do anything at all!

Although the computer programs that we make are for the most part nowhere near as flexible as the software made for our mind, human creations such as the internet have quickly grown to a complexity significantly beyond our capcity to understand. This kind of bootstrapping is not confined to the exceedingly complex systems of international networks. As far back as fifty years ago programmers were being beaten by the checkers programs that they evolved out of simpler programs.

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: Synaesthesia ]</p>

excreationist

marduck:
It doesn't make sense for ordinary computers to ever have a mind of their own. The purpose of computers is to reliably do as the user tells them to do. Any kind of will of its own would go against this.
But some people would choose to have machines or software that does have a mind of its own. Proper neural net A.I.'s would only have a couple reflex behaviours, like a baby, and then they'd have to learn everything else, just like a baby. People would probably download pre-educated personalities that would have adult intelligence. This is similar to how in the "Creatures" games you can send the brain state to your friends. (I think - otherwise it is just their genes)
The creator of the Creatures games, Steve Grand, is creating a far more intelligent creature, <a href="http://www.cyberlife-research.com/about/faq.htm" target="_blank">Lucy</a>. Maybe it will eventually learn to be as intelligent as a monkey... what is needed are lots and lots of neurons... the most that will be used in projects in the near future are 40 million (<a href="http://www.genobyte.com/robokoneko.html" target="_blank">Robokoneko</a> <a href="http://www.cs.usu.edu/~degaris/news/KittenMovies.html" target="_blank">& movies</a>), while a human brain has 100 billion. (I think a bumblebee brain has about 500,000 neurons)

These companions could be made to always obey their master (like in the A.I. movie - their strongest desire would be to obey and would always outweigh all other desires [like avoiding injury]) but people might want them to not have a total attachment to their master... so that they are like real animals and people, where loyalty is *earned*.

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: excreationist ]</p>

The Resistance

Won't some scientist inevitably try to create a computer in an attempt to create true intelligence in a computer? Won't some scientist inevitably succeed? If a computer is created for its own sake like a child, what rights will it have? Can it vote? Get a job? Move out on its own?

tronvillain

What do you mean by "true intelligence"? You seem to imply that it is human intelligence. If a scientist created a human intelligence, obviously it should have human rights.

The Resistance

I didn't mean necessarily human intelligence. I meant the ability to learn, analyze, and formulate ideas on at least as many topics as humans can.

Francois Tremblay

I find that in discussions I have with other people on the subject of intelligence, there is a lot of organic bias. Somehow organic intelligence is supposed to be ferior to artificial intelligence, perhaps because we feel more attached to organics. Yet there is no intrinsic reason to consider a computer as inferior to, say, a lobster or whatever animal is close to a computer's processing and analysis capacity.

excreationist

"Ferior" isn't a word. But anyway, I think intelligence is about how well a system can *autonomously* learn and infer things and use new environments to seek their goals.
So basically intelligent things work out new methods for seeking their goals, while computers are told what to do, step by step.
Note that originally AI researchers set out to create human-like intelligence, but then they hit a brick wall when they wanted to give it things like "common sense". Only in the past decade or two have AI researchers begun to seriously concentrate on making AI based on nature (neurons, etc). And BTW, neurons have many interesting properties - they basically "learn" patterns (e.g. how male and female faces look different) - rather than being explicitly programmed how to work it all out.

Christopher Lord

Biology inferior to computers? Definitely. To Wit:

A computer operates via electrons. A Brain uses neurons and chemicals. Neurons work at about 400kph. Electrons travel at 300,000kps. That’s about 6 magnitudes of difference between the two. If a piece of hardware with the same complexity of the brain operated at the speed as a computer, it would be able to think in one second that which an organic one did in 20 days. This might be slightly lower because of sync issues not present at 400 kph, but it’s still a lot of thinking in one second.

Computers have well-defined interfaces through which other computers can be linked. This permits networks to be formed with high-bandwidth communications. The human brain is limited to its 5 senses to gather data. And although the optic nerve transmits a large mass of information, most of it is disregarded, especially when communicating with other humans. Current estimates put the human-to-human baud rate at about 700 binary bits per second (about a page of text every second), including touch, smell, hearing (language, groans/grunts, and nuances), and vision (body language), and yes, even taste sometimes. Computers exceeded this inter-node rate around the 1960s, and even today support inter-node rates in excess of a billion bits per second. By the time we get to brain-like chips, expect multi-terrabit or petabit communications between chips.

An organic brain operates within only 5 degrees of its normal temperature, and requires exacting control of pH, pressure, and oxygen and other chemical concentrations. In order to achieve these exacting requirements, it has an environmental control suit built around it, including a complicated pumping system, air exchangers, locomotive systems, and even a jointed skeleton. This body is also severely limited to specific environments found mainly on the temperate land surface of the planet Earth. Computers, by comparison, have an almost unlimited environmental range, from the depths of space to the deepest oceans. Temperature, atmosphere, and pH are almost non-issues with the mostly silicon-and-metal chips computers are built with.

Human brains are reproduced only through a complicated organic mating process between the bodies of two other human bodies with functioning brains. This produces an inexact version of a blend between the two parents, excluding software. And once this 9 month process of building the environmental suit is done, the brain is not ready for another 20 or so years in which it is taught very basic skills any decent brain needs. Teaching these skills is a great expense of both time and capital, and must be repeated for every brain produced. Once the technology is ready for brain-level computers, they can be stamped out for a few dollars each with near perfect quality, and loaded with software at the factory. The turnaround time can be under a week.

This brings us to quality. Each brain made via the biological process belongs to a huge gradient of quality. The results of the 20 year education along with the biological lottery are highly variable, often producing psychotic brains capable only of menial labour via the included environment suit. Computers can be produced in mass with exacting specifications, and all loaded with the same standard and proven software in a much smaller time frame. Since they can be built from the ground up, the will to live can be removed and a return policy can be established. This all contributes to a greater level of satisfaction from customers.

Computer technology can be improved far beyond that which biological wetware has achieved. Reaching the level of one-brain-on-a-chip is just the first step. Given enough time, we can produce a terra-brain capable of solving all the world’s problems with extremely deep insights into all aspects of life, all the while writing incredible song and dance in at least 6 different styles. The organic brain can simply not scale to this level.

Lastly, an organic brain is subject to flawed software design, producing psychosis and flawed logic that dwarfs the Pentium FDIV bug. Often due to poor education, these brains are capable of believing in fantastic supernatural things without ever seeing any proof. When faced with its own moronic nature, the organic brain can lie even to itself about ‘personal experience’. This flaw is prevalent in the vast majority of organic brains currently on the market. With brain-on-chip methods, this and other psychotic aspects can be left out completely, leaving only the productive aspects of an intelligent mind behind.

excreationist

Note that computers usually do things sequentially (now there is a trend to do the graphics and sound, etc, in parallel though). The billions of neurons in the brain work in parallel. So brains can search for many patterns simultaneously rather than one type at a time.
And it isn't just about raw processing power - it is about putting it to good use.

It can also sense things internally as well (access memories, etc) - and what about balance - that's not about touch. And feeling "sick"? And it can use hi-tech devices like radio telescopes and x-ray machines.

But CPU's cost about $100 each, and that is expensive if you want billions of them in parallel...

What about those mainframes in climate controlled places?

This system allows the brain to build spacecraft and houses and run around. Computers just sit around demanding electricity.
And we didn't have a need for our brain to be less sensitive to temperature so there was no need for us to evolve that ability.
And CPU's fry from electromagnetic pulses(?), which are harmless to humans.

They also have protection - and we can go to those places too.... (CPU's are actually just wafer thin - but they are sealed up and have a heat-sink and fan, etc)

Well if your fan stops working, some chips can fry themselves in seconds....

But computers can crash quite a lot and the OS has to be reloaded every now and then. People don't crash as often.

Which ones?

I don't get the last bit...

That's because solving all the world's problems seems impossible.

Yes, there are some quirks but this has also led to the pursuit of science - which was originally knowledge for its own sake. The ability to imagine the unseen is very important in things like theoretical physics.