The primary problem in AI, was faced by Aristotle over 2000 years ago. For AI (digital computer version) the problem isn't using a program to write another program. The problem is coming up with the first seed program to start the process (a bootstrap ... you can pull your boots on by the bootstrap). This was pointed out by Lady Ada, the first programmer. Putting together a set of pseudo-random code lines (for a Turing Machine) won't do (see other post on problem with pseudo-random numbers ... the same problem).
For Aristotle, thinking about generic cause/effect ... he saw this as a Zeno problem of infinite regress. Aristotle solved this by a wave of his Greek hand ... to simply say that there is no such thing as infinity (or infinite regress). He didn't actually defeat the argument of Zeno. By change, Aristotle was thinking of motion. So Aristotle came up with the idea of the Unmoved-Mover. But in fact, other than giving it a name, and declaring its rationality and existence out of nothing ... Aristotle can't define what that is. BTW - this is Aristotle's argument for a monotheistic deity ... though an impersonal one.
I have an AI (https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01DFKBL68/ref=gw_aucc_bisc_justask_black?pf_rd_r=NBSEHWE994DHANVBAN3T&pf_rd_p=2003361c-b2c2-41d8-b5ee-24d6297d7e3f) in my apartment, called Alexa.
Quote from: pr126 on December 31, 2016, 11:47:15 PM
I have an AI (https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01DFKBL68/ref=gw_aucc_bisc_justask_black?pf_rd_r=NBSEHWE994DHANVBAN3T&pf_rd_p=2003361c-b2c2-41d8-b5ee-24d6297d7e3f) in my apartment, called Alexa.
People often project onto their pets and machines ... even give them names ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on January 01, 2017, 03:34:27 AM
People often project onto their pets and machines ... even give them names ;-)
According to Amazon the name came as a reference to Alexandria's library.
Quote from: pr126 on January 01, 2017, 03:40:35 AM
According to Amazon the name came as a reference to Alexandria's library.
That old thing? Went up in flames millennia ago. Doesn't sound like a very lucky product name.
Nothing lasts for ever. Even gods die.
see here (http://www.graveyardofthegods.org/deadgods/listofgods.html)
Quote from: Baruch on January 01, 2017, 03:43:03 AM
That old thing? Went up in flames millennia ago. Doesn't sound like a very lucky product name.
Destroyed by SAINT Cyril, who had the brilliant female librarian, Hypatia, flayed alive. Not "went up in flames", "burned by religious zealots". Who despised learning as they do to this day.
My computer boots up every morning. The bootstrap problem is solved.
When someone talks about Turing machines as if they are actual things and not abstractions used to leverage proofs, then you know you're dealing with someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Turing machines do not exist. Period. They have impossible requirements (like that infinite tape). You can't even build one in the observable universe. Realizations of Turing machines will, at best, be a pale imitation to a true Turing machine.
The simple disproof of Zeno is the statement and observation, "Yet things move." Zeno was either wrong about his assumptions, or he is disproving something that doesn't actually have anything to do with real motion. Either way, he's wrong. Period.
Quote from: Baruch on January 01, 2017, 03:34:27 AM
People often project onto their pets and machines ... even give them names ;-)
I used to name my car. Don't any more.
Quote from: Jason78 on January 01, 2017, 05:03:04 PM
My computer boots up every morning. The bootstrap problem is solved.
Haha ... yes, but someone had to put a boot sector in it, for that to happen. The computer didn't produce its own boot sector.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on January 01, 2017, 05:20:34 PM
When someone talks about Turing machines as if they are actual things and not abstractions used to leverage proofs, then you know you're dealing with someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Turing machines do not exist. Period. They have impossible requirements (like that infinite tape). You can't even build one in the observable universe. Realizations of Turing machines will, at best, be a pale imitation to a true Turing machine.
The simple disproof of Zeno is the statement and observation, "Yet things move." Zeno was either wrong about his assumptions, or he is disproving something that doesn't actually have anything to do with real motion. Either way, he's wrong. Period.
Guess you don't believe in mathematics. And agree with Aristotle, that there are no infinities.
As far as Turing machines go .. the actual requirement is to have a tape big enough for whatever you happen to be doing at the time (it doesn't run out prematurely). You are black/white in your thinking. Any HS student can create a Turing machine simulation ... and can run it on some simple program (that doesn't run out of storage). Now we have gigabytes of RAM, one would never run out of memory, unless you are in an infinite loop (in which case you are done either way).
A simple description:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJQTFhkhwPA
Here is a simple simulator:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ru.ilyayudov.TM
Quote from: Baruch on January 01, 2017, 08:56:12 PM
Haha ... yes, but someone had to put a boot sector in it, for that to happen. The computer didn't produce its own boot sector.
Every single part of it was assembled by a person, including every bit in the ROM that looks for a bootable device and boots it.
Writing the first "seed program" is no different to writing any other program.
Quote from: Jason78 on January 02, 2017, 06:45:47 AM
Every single part of it was assembled by a person, including every bit in the ROM that looks for a bootable device and boots it.
Writing the first "seed program" is no different to writing any other program.
So it is possible to do that, but have no human involved at all?
No. Because computers aren't found in nature.
Quote from: Jason78 on January 02, 2017, 09:23:26 AM
No. Because computers aren't found in nature.
And that is a problematic reality/rhetoric. Computers are created by humans. So to what extent are humans part of nature? One can naively answer this .. that humans are the way that nature creates computers, so in fact, computers are found in nature ;-))
Quote from: Baruch on January 02, 2017, 10:46:20 AM
And that is a problematic reality/rhetoric. Computers are created by humans. So to what extent are humans part of nature? One can naively answer this .. that humans are the way that nature creates computers, so in fact, computer are found in nature ;-))
Actually, all the parts needed to construct a computer can be found in nature; just not in the form needed. A bow and arrow are not found in that form in nature, either; it has to be fashioned from nature by some other product of nature. All we experience in this world/life is natural.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 02, 2017, 11:15:06 AM
Actually, all the parts needed to construct a computer can be found in nature; just not in the form needed. A bow and arrow are not found in that form in nature, either; it has to be fashioned from nature by some other product of nature. All we experience in this world/life is natural.
Yes, but to what extent is that a meaningless copout? We could answer to gambling ... in any bet, someone wins and someone loses. But if you are the one who bet against the house (which on average wins) and you loose all your money, that doesn't mean the same as you hitting the jackpot.
Of course I contend that humanity is both a part of, and not a part of nature ... because metaphysically I don't accept black/white thinking ... I only accept gray thinking. But per the OP, in black/white thinking, it is hard to imagine a computer or boot sector spontaneously assembling. This is a general problem impacting not only AI, but abiogenesis and intelligent design. Taking your POV, then the question of AI is, does nature have more than one way to spontaneously assemble sentient systems, more than just the biological we are already familiar with. And if the answer is yes, then such an AI would be an alien species, even if we had a part in creating it.
Quote from: Baruch on January 02, 2017, 01:03:52 PM
Yes, but to what extent is that a meaningless copout? We could answer to gambling ... in any bet, someone wins and someone loses. But if you are the one who bet against the house (which on average wins) and you loose all your money, that doesn't mean the same as you hitting the jackpot.
Of course I contend that humanity is both a part of, and not a part of nature ... because metaphysically I don't accept black/white thinking ... I only accept gray thinking. But per the OP, in black/white thinking, it is hard to imagine a computer or boot sector spontaneously assembling. This is a general problem impacting not only AI, but abiogenesis and intelligent design. Taking your POV, then the question of AI is, does nature have more than one way to spontaneously assemble sentient systems, more than just the biological we are already familiar with. And if the answer is yes, then such an AI would be an alien species, even if we had a part in creating it.
I think your drivel about metaphysical stuff is a copout. either something is of nature, or it isn't. Period. That is not black or white thinking. I, too, see mostly in shades of grey. But to say that seeing all as natural is a copout or black and white thinking is silly. Everything we will have from the nature of the universe is here; nothing will be added or subtracted. The combinations are infinite (or might as well be). As for being spontaneous, life isn't that. I thought you were into grey thinking? There never was (I'm guessing) an instant where life wasn't, then was. Is a virus alive or dead? That is the question and not as easy to answer as most think. So, when an arrangement of atoms, molecules or whatever, changed from a state of nonlife to life most likely was very gradual and not spontaneous at all. Life is not so easily defined. And we are a carbon based life; a silicon based life (for example) would be alien to us, but not unnatural or supernatural.
There is nothing that is not natural; nothing is unnatural that is real. That is not black/white thinking--it is just a fact. And I have no idea what gambling has to do with it. If you think there is anything supernatural then you are engaging in wishful thinking.
"either something is of nature, or it isn't. Period. That is not black or white thinking" ... prima facie black/white statement. But do you mean ... natural = exists and unnatural = doesn't exist? If so, then natural is maybe gray (or any other range of color). Also you misunderstood my statement. Exist/non-Exist is black/white thinking. But simply defining everything as natural ... isn't black/white thinking, it isn't dualist, it is monist. I should have broken my prior statement into blocks.
Trying to rephrase your point. But per sentence 3 ... you are stating that "nothing added" is the dynamic version. Everything that exists, exists (in some time some where). Anything that doesn't exist, doesn't exist (in any time anywhere). But not much exists, that exists, is everywhere and every time. Somethings may be universal (everywhere and every time) but not everything. Thus even in monism, it isn't necessary that if there is some life or some consciousness, that everything is alive and everything is conscious ... those could be shades of a spectrum.
You are over-reading my prior post. Abiogenesis is similar to but not the same as the computer example, since the computer at no time is alive, gradual or otherwise. Also I haven't brought supernatural as a concept into this string. Non-natural doesn't necessarily equal supernatural. I gave an example, a sophistry, where in the computer example, humans are the way that nature makes boot strap code (and how nature builds computers). But my example doesn't show that computers or boot strap code can develop any other way (which is what real AI implies, and living androids).
Again to summarize, for you, natural = existence = real. There is nothing unreal, nothing non-existent and nothing unnatural. And by implication, nothing supernatural. My point remains, redefining terms so that checkmate is a win, for both players ... is a cop out. It would be like defining anything and everything to be legal. Some things may be binary, or pluralistic .. monism as a "only have a hammer so everything is a nail" system. It is a fact that humans and computers both exist. If it isn't true that computers spontaneously assemble themselves, then why assume that humans came about that way either? That goes back to the "spontaneous generation" controversy in early modern times (at that time, microscopic life forms weren't apparent, not even a human fertilized egg).
One can test this empirically ... by putting some random silicon etc in a pile, and wait for 13 billion years, to see if anything interesting happens spontaneously ... or similarly put some random code (not hard to do) into a computer, and wait 13 billion years and see if Exchange email spontaneous emerges. However, per abiogenesis, if you put some random carbon compounds together in a suitable environment (maybe only on early planets) interesting things have been proven to occur. Carbon doesn't equal silicon, is why those are different. But then explain why that is ;-) The answer, in practical terms, since 13 billion year long controlled experiments aren't viable, is to hand wave like St Augustine, and say that only damn heretics ask damn questions. Use your professorial ex cathedra power to shut down the questions.
Seems we are going in circles here. All I'm saying is that there is nothing that exists or is real or whatever way one wants to put it, that is not natural. And all that mankind (or any other life form) crafts from the material at hand is natural and not supernatural. Anything else is imaginary or fictional. That's all.
Theists don't believe that and see the supernatural all the time--or so they claim. But there is not one whiff of proof to show that what they believe to be real isn't imaginary or fictional.
Quote from: Baruch on January 02, 2017, 01:03:52 PM
But per the OP, in black/white thinking, it is hard to imagine a computer or boot sector spontaneously assembling. This is a general problem impacting not only AI, but abiogenesis and intelligent design.
Those are three completely different problems. Humans are quite capable of building machines that bootstrap themselves. Research into AI is proceeding at quite a pace, with no bootstrapping problem in sight. And abiogenesis research has a number of different research avenues to pursue.
QuoteIf it isn't true that computers spontaneously assemble themselves, then why assume that humans came about that way either?
Humans don't spontaneously assemble themselves. They grow.
Quote from: Baruch on January 02, 2017, 03:27:39 PM
... or similarly put some random code (not hard to do) into a computer, and wait 13 billion years and see if Exchange email spontaneous emerges.
You wont get anything with random code. It doesn't work that way. But put a replicator into something like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tierra_(computer_simulation)">Tierra</a> and you might get something interesting out of the other end.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 02, 2017, 06:29:47 PM
Seems we are going in circles here. All I'm saying is that there is nothing that exists or is real or whatever way one wants to put it, that is not natural. And all that mankind (or any other life form) crafts from the material at hand is natural and not supernatural. Anything else is imaginary or fictional. That's all.
Theists don't believe that and see the supernatural all the time--or so they claim. But there is not one whiff of proof to show that what they believe to be real isn't imaginary or fictional.
I understand you better now, thanks. Natural = physicalism = monism for you, natural as narrowly defined by physics. Yes, humans do not create ex nihilo ... but then neither did G-d in Genesis. G-d's spirit hovered over the face of the Deep. In Christianity G-d isn't totally transcendent as G-d is in Judaism and Islam, otherwise there is no Jesus. As far as "making" goes, you agree with Aristotle, except physics is your unmoved mover, your Platonic form, existing outside the universe of change and geographic limitation ... it is everywhere and unchanging. So what is imaginary or fictional doesn't exist as such, except as an idea in people's heads ... but then are you saying what exists in people's heads is only an idea, and ideas aren't physical (or they would exist in nature). That implies that thoughts are non-material.
Most theists never believe that G-d is immanent, except at most during an "age of faith", but definitely not in the present. Mystics see the supernatural all the time, and I am a mystic. But most theists are not, they must rely in faith in what is not seen. I can see, so I need no faith.
Quote from: Jason78 on January 02, 2017, 06:38:09 PM
Those are three completely different problems. Humans are quite capable of building machines that bootstrap themselves. Research into AI is proceeding at quite a pace, with no bootstrapping problem in sight. And abiogenesis research has a number of different research avenues to pursue.
Humans don't spontaneously assemble themselves. They grow.
Yes, abiogenesis has several interesting experiments that are real. A spontaneously generated cyan-bacteria, not so much. May take too long, or in too extreme an environment.
Humans don't bootstrap, they require a man and a woman, and sometimes technical assistance (fertility assistance). There are no humans who have no parents (but no problem, with evolution).
Sorry, you are incorrect about bootstrapping software. I can produce a universal functional module (Turing Machine) with some finite memory, part of which is populated with random data. Then I can run the program. Random data has yet to produce more than random results, Exchange email hasn't been spontaneously generated. If I just want random results from random data, I can use a Dungeons & Dragons many-sided die.
Quote from: Jason78 on January 02, 2017, 06:44:25 PM
You wont get anything with random code. It doesn't work that way. But put a replicator into something like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tierra_(computer_simulation)">Tierra</a> and you might get something interesting out of the other end.
Yes, IT doesn't work that way. But if you create a prior code structure, or organized data for a Turing Machine to work on, then you have indirectly coded the result. Any program that takes external data (initial internal data is the bootstrap), implicitly produces either a result, or an infinite do loop (halting problem). Such a set up isn't AI ... that is my point about fraud. . If I take a monkey, and transplant bat ears onto him, then can I claim that is the famous Bat Boy?
The computer game of Life, or cellular automata ... matches the program of Wolfram:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CellularAutomaton.html
But his claims that these explain all of math and physics ... and thus chemistry and biology ... don't hold up. Otherwise he would have already created the Kurzweil Singularity.
Jason, please don't ever change your avatar. Reading your posts with that face makes your responses twice hillarious. (I know you miss the doggie, so I'm hoping you won't. You might even be logging more often to see it, considering...)
Quote from: Baruch on January 01, 2017, 08:59:11 PM
As far as Turing machines go .. the actual requirement is to have a tape big enough for whatever you happen to be doing at the time (it doesn't run out prematurely). You are black/white in your thinking. Any HS student can create a Turing machine simulation ... and can run it on some simple program (that doesn't run out of storage). Now we have gigabytes of RAM, one would never run out of memory, unless you are in an infinite loop (in which case you are done either way).
The halting problem says that you're wrong. You cannot create a Turing machine that will be able to tell you if any arbitrary Turing machine/input pair will halt, because for any you can propose I can create a Turing machine that will defeat it. Linear bound automata (like real computers) will eventually reach a state where they halt or some state that is a perfect recapitulation of some past state and therefore will loop forever, but a Turing machine is not a LBA. A "tape big enough for whatever you happen to be doing at the time" is just a sneaky way of saying "infinite tape." The length of the tape is not bounded to a definite maximum value. A computer with gigabytes of RAM will run out of memory long before you get to a relatively mild 25-state busy beaver game.
Hakurei ... splitting computer hairs isn't a practical argument. Yes, in any practical sense, memory is finite, but will execute most programs (most programmers design for the hardware). And there is a halt, or a loop. Of course sometimes the goal is some output, but sometimes more indirect, the side-effects of execution are what are sought. Are you simply doing a "must have last comment"? That doesn't address the OP. Marketing defines AI, that and the credulity of DARPA or venture capitalists or the completely ignorant computer user. If moving ones and zeros are AI, then we have had AI for many decades now. My programmable calculator in the 1970s was worthy of civil rights ;-)) Number 5 Is Alive! Similarly if random atomic configurations are a life form, then the kitchen garbage I throw out is a life form (not just the mold on the overly old cottage cheese).
Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 03, 2017, 04:20:59 PM
Jason, please don't ever change your avatar. Reading your posts with that face makes your responses twice hillarious. (I know you miss the doggie, so I'm hoping you won't. You might even be logging more often to see it, considering...)
Do you imagine the little dog speaking with my deep voice or just the little fella yipping?
Quote from: Baruch on January 03, 2017, 08:04:32 PM
Hakurei ... splitting computer hairs isn't a practical argument.
That's not splitting hairs. That's a genuine concern within the field of computer science. It's almost on the level of the P vs NP problem.
Quote from: Jason78 on January 04, 2017, 02:06:29 AM
Do you imagine the little dog speaking with my deep voice or just the little fella yipping?
Deep male voice? Bastard. :lol: Well, now I am not imaginning a little doggie...
Quote from: Jason78 on January 04, 2017, 02:11:29 AM
That's not splitting hairs. That's a genuine concern within the field of computer science. It's almost on the level of the P vs NP problem.
I know what that is too, and you have a solution? Or just a back of the napkin prediction of a solution some time in the future?
Practical computer science doesn't care. Only the NSA needs unlimited memory, to store all your damn emails and cell phone calls.
Quote from: Baruch on January 03, 2017, 08:04:32 PM
Hakurei ... splitting computer hairs isn't a practical argument. Yes, in any practical sense, memory is finite, but will execute most programs (most programmers design for the hardware).
Yes, but Turing machines are not called upon to do such tasks. Turing machines are used to explore the computable functions. There is no problem that a computer with finite memory can do that a Turing machine can't. Turing machines cannot compute whether or not a Turing machine will halt on any arbitrary input. Therefore, neither can practical computers with finite memory. You can compute it in special cases, but not in the general case. It is a computational equivalent to a Gödel statement.
Quote
And there is a halt, or a loop.
No. The unlimited tape destroys that assumption. There are about 40 Busy Beaver machines of
five-states that are unknown whether they halt or continue forever. Only five fucking states. Why do you think that is? The tape, man. It's not a precise, one-to-one loop where a single, discrete configuration of machine and tape is recapitulated. "There is a halt, or a loop" is a gross oversimplification of the issue.
There's also the fact that just because a Turing machine can compute some function, doesn't mean it will be quick about it. Believe it or not, the time taken to compute a solution is a practical concern. Any practical AI will have to not just be correct enough, but also fast enough.
Quote
Of course sometimes the goal is some output, but sometimes more indirect, the side-effects of execution are what are sought.
Bullshit. "Halting" means practically that a procedure will exit having performed some task, including "side-effects" of execution. The tape of a Turing machine is exactly this sort of "side-effect". How do you guarantee that a computer really has finished your "side-effect" unless it successfully exits the procedure you bundled up for that task?
Quote
Are you simply doing a "must have last comment"? That doesn't address the OP.
I admit that we got off track, but your stupidity and google-scholarship annoys me.
Quote
Marketing defines AI, that and the credulity of DARPA or venture capitalists or the completely ignorant computer user.
And yet we get useful applications of AI like Siri and expert systems. Just because the usual vision of a butler robot (a conventional, popular notion of AI) has not materialized doesn't make the investigation of AI something that "marketing" defines. We've had to tackle smaller, more foundational problems of AI (like navigating an unpredictable environment) before moving on to general intelligence. That's just what you have to do when a problem turns out to be harder to crack than you first thought.
Quote
If moving ones and zeros are AI, then we have had AI for many decades now. My programmable calculator in the 1970s was worthy of civil rights ;-)) Number 5 Is Alive! Similarly if random atomic configurations are a life form, then the kitchen garbage I throw out is a life form (not just the mold on the overly old cottage cheese).
And now you just devolve into rhetoric. A life form is not a
random atomic configuration. It's been through non-random selection. There's no purposeful top-down design involved, but it's not random. We are a general intelligence that evolved because as life forms we needed to solve problems dealing with an arbitrary and often hostile environment. Today's AI products are still very sheltered things, so it's not very surprising that when released into the wild they often fail spectacularly.
Intelligence wasn't something we crafted, but emerged naturally, so of course the definition of intelligence is kind of fuzzy when trying to characterize it after the fact, and artificial intelligence even more so.
"Intelligence wasn't something we crafted, but emerged naturally, so of course the definition of intelligence is kind of fuzzy when trying to characterize it after the fact, and artificial intelligence even more so." ... yes, a perfect sales opportunity for science grifters and their followers. Like polywater and cold fusion. Actual fusion research is also still ... 20 years away, for over 60 years now.
All human words are just vocalizations of apes ... they don't mean anything (I am often told here that life has no meaning, or that it is purely subjective). The thoughts behind the words are equally meaningless ... random sounds produced by random neural firings.
"Bullshit. "Halting" means practically that a procedure will exit having performed some task, including "side-effects" of execution. The tape of a Turing machine is exactly this sort of "side-effect". How do you guarantee that a computer really has finished your "side-effect" unless it successfully exits the procedure you bundled up for that task?"
Programming not for doing accounting or physics, usually involves loops these days (to check for new input in a dynamic way from some human acting asynchronously). That is the basic difference between old world programming and modern graphical windows programming (vs the days of punched cards). And no, in that case, with say a web site ... it isn't supposed to exit, it is supposed to be up and available 99.99% of the time. Halting is a fault, not a success (though maybe necessary for periodic maintenance). In an interconnected system (how much more complex than a single cpu Turing machine) ... the side effects don't stop there (see first computer worm).
Quote from: Baruch on January 04, 2017, 07:07:56 PM
All human words are just vocalizations of apes ... they don't mean anything (I am often told here that life has no meaning, or that it is purely subjective). The thoughts behind the words are equally meaningless ... random sounds produced by random neural firings.
Now you are sounding downright christian. I don't think many said that life had no meaning--I believe they said quite clearly that life has no universal meaning, or meaning given to us from 'above'. All meaning comes from within. If you feel you have no meaning then you are probably correct. Why does it follow that thoughts are meaningless? I would also suggest that it is possible for some to have thoughts be random sounds produced by random neural firings--but most would call that mental illness. Or being christian. But I think mostly those comments are simply you being Baruch. :)
I am rhetorical at all times, but with complete honesty and sincerity ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on January 04, 2017, 07:07:56 PM
"Intelligence wasn't something we crafted, but emerged naturally, so of course the definition of intelligence is kind of fuzzy when trying to characterize it after the fact, and artificial intelligence even more so." ... yes, a perfect sales opportunity for science grifters and their followers. Like polywater and cold fusion. Actual fusion research is also still ... 20 years away, for over 60 years now.
Heh, joke's on you. Fusion used to be 50 years away. That number has improved over my life time. (Polywater and cold fusion were never established. You get no points for them.)
Quote from: Baruch on January 04, 2017, 07:07:56 PM
All human words are just vocalizations of apes ... they don't mean anything (I am often told here that life has no meaning, or that it is purely subjective). The thoughts behind the words are equally meaningless ... random sounds produced by random neural firings.
More rhetorical bullshit. The neural firings of your brain and your words are not random. You are an intelligent being with goals and desires, thus you have purpose for assembling words together and having the thoughts that you do. It just that "meaning" does not extend outside beings we would call intelligent.
Quote from: Baruch on January 04, 2017, 07:07:56 PM
Programming not for doing accounting or physics, usually involves loops these days (to check for new input in a dynamic way from some human acting asynchronously). That is the basic difference between old world programming and modern graphical windows programming (vs the days of punched cards). And no, in that case, with say a web site ... it isn't supposed to exit, it is supposed to be up and available 99.99% of the time. Halting is a fault, not a success (though maybe necessary for periodic maintenance). In an interconnected system (how much more complex than a single cpu Turing machine) ... the side effects don't stop there (see first computer worm).
More bullshit. What you say is only true for the fact that you don't know really know what input set you are going to be working with ahead of time, being that you are reacting to what the computer is doing. However, if you were to record your reactions on tape and play them back to the computer under identical conditions, the computer wouldn't be able to tell the difference, and behave exactly the same way. (This is a concept that is used to great effect in UNIX with its piping and redirection mechanisms, as well as its descendants.) So, yeah, everything said about the relationship between a Turing machine and a regular computer still applies. Interactivity makes the scenario more difficult to analyze, but it does not dismiss the original point.
The universe is a Turing machine, therefore any machine of any complexity (including networking and human input) is necessarily within the bounds of a Turing machine? That is circular logic. A mass of size X is stable gravitationally ... but a mass of many times greater is not stable gravitationally, but falls into its own black hole. Tell me again that scale doesn't matter, and I will sail a sailing ship, that I have in a bottle.
Quote from: Baruch on January 04, 2017, 10:05:26 PM
The universe is a Turing machine, therefore any machine of any complexity (including networking and human input) is necessarily within the bounds of a Turing machine? That is circular logic.
No, you simply too far out of your depth. Nobody but simulation loons have ever said that the universe is a Turing machine, and I don't know how you got the above from what I said. An interactive session can be simulated by one where one side is prerecorded. This completely specifies your side of the interaction and makes analysis possible on the problem, and subject to all the theorems of Turing machines.
Or you can break down the program into discreete components such that, while the program as a whole loops infinitely, the individual calculations you need to do your assigned task all should halt, and are subject to all the theorems of computer science. A main event loop of an interactive program is not where the interesting stuff is happening anyway, and is so simple in construction that is behavior is easily characterized.
The universe cannot be a Turing Machine. A Turing Machine involves self awareness or the simulation of such. I have yet to see an argument supporting the idea that the "universe" has self-awareness.
^ Sorry, Cavebear, you're wrong. Turing machines are state machines. Nothing about the definition requires or implies self-awareness or simulation of the same. (Though this may actually be the case for some Turing machines.) No, the universe isn't a Turing machine because the number of states is bounded.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on January 04, 2017, 11:27:07 PM
^ Sorry, Cavebear, you're wrong. Turing machines are state machines. Nothing about the definition requires or implies self-awareness or simulation of the same. (Though this may actually be the case for some Turing machines.) No, the universe isn't a Turing machine because the number of states is bounded.
Not sure what you mean by "state machines".
Quote from: Cavebear on January 04, 2017, 11:18:45 PM
The universe cannot be a Turing Machine. A Turing Machine involves self awareness or the simulation of such. I have yet to see an argument supporting the idea that the "universe" has self-awareness.
It was a rhetorical question, and it worked to elicit response from who it was directed at. I agree, even my target calls proponents of this "simulation loons". The first simulation loon was Pythagoras.
The universe may not have sentience as a whole, but it does express sentience locally, thru sentient creatures. But that is the crux of the issue ... the metaphysical debate over whole vs part, analysis/reductionism vs synthesis/assemblage.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 05, 2017, 12:27:20 AM
Not sure what you mean by "state machines".
He needs to define terms (he likes to teach anyway) and give us a full course in theory of computation ;-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_computation
I agree with him, that Turing machines aren't sentient ... in which case AI is a fraud. If he claims that some Turing machines are sentient, he needs to produce one, and test it with something better than the naive Turing Test. Most people won't pass the Turing Test. They actually have this test from time to time, and it is a joke, an exercise in human projection or anthropomorphism ... which dates back to the Eliza program (an online psychologist).
Quote from: Baruch on January 05, 2017, 07:20:04 AM
He needs to define terms (he likes to teach anyway) and give us a full course in theory of computation ;-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_computation
I have to assume some form of knowledge on the part of the student unless I learn otherwise.
Quote from: Baruch on January 05, 2017, 07:20:04 AM
I agree with him, that Turing machines aren't sentient ... in which case AI is a fraud. If he claims that some Turing machines are sentient, he needs to produce one, and test it with something better than the naive Turing Test. Most people won't pass the Turing Test. They actually have this test from time to time, and it is a joke, an exercise in human projection or anthropomorphism ... which dates back to the Eliza program (an online psychologist).
Baruch, I said that Turing machines
in general aren't sentient. There are plenty of examples where a Turing machine cannot really be ascribed sentience. (Like the busy beaver family.) However, I don't go as far as to say that it's impossible. You, on the other hand, speak in confidence about the sentience of Turing machines, when it's clear you don't really know much about either sentience or Turing machines â€" the former because nobody really knows enough about it to say, the latter because... well, you have spectacularly failed to demonstrate any knowledge at all about them.
Turing never intended that the Turing test be
the test for sentience. It was a thought experiment to decide whether or not a computer could imitate a human well enough for a human to be fooled, and carried out in a way such that to succeed, the computer would have to develop some form of a theory of mind about how humans think and respond to questions. That's a much more stringent test than the Turing tests that humans have failed and computers have passed in practice â€" those have been much more restricted in scope of conversation. In these restricted scopes, computers can do well to fool humans, and a knowledgeable human can display encyclopaedic enough knowledge that humans erroneously believe no human can be that knowledgeable.
Now, if you want to call a computer "sentient" because it can play that imitation game, that's your business. However, to point to improperly carried out Turing tests as evidence that AI is a fraud is really disingenuous on your part. You haven't demonstrated that there's anything mystical about thinking and sentience that would forbid a sophisticated enough computer from having it, yet you make grand pronouncements that an entire field that has produced useful results is a fraud. Yeah, that's not going to wash.
Quote from: Jason78 on January 04, 2017, 02:11:29 AM
That's not splitting hairs. That's a genuine concern within the field of computer science. It's almost on the level of the P vs NP problem.
(https://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP/pudlak.png)
Quote from: Cavebear on January 04, 2017, 11:18:45 PM
The universe cannot be a Turing Machine. A Turing Machine involves self awareness or the simulation of such. I have yet to see an argument supporting the idea that the "universe" has self-awareness.
I would submit that
through us the universe does, indeed, have self-awareness. The universe generated us, we're a part of the universe, and we're aware of the universe, thus we are the universe being aware of itself.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 05, 2017, 04:25:40 PM
I would submit that through us the universe does, indeed, have self-awareness. The universe generated us, we're a part of the universe, and we're aware of the universe, thus we are the universe being aware of itself.
But that is not the same thing, as the universe can use sentient biological beings to build sentient non-biological beings, or that sentient biological beings can be used by the universe to build non-biological beings (living, not sentient). Not only is the universe self aware thru us, but that it has a very bad case of multiple personality ;-))
W
Quote from: Baruch on January 05, 2017, 07:28:34 PM
Not only is the universe self aware thru us, but that it has a very bad case of multiple personality ;-))
Not really, since I'm the sole existent...
(http://lowres.jantoo.com/health-beauty-all_in_the_mind-couch-paranoid-problem-psychiatry-12233606_low.jpg)
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 06, 2017, 02:01:51 PM
W
Not really, since I'm the sole existent...
(http://lowres.jantoo.com/health-beauty-all_in_the_mind-couch-paranoid-problem-psychiatry-12233606_low.jpg)
That is what Brahman explained to all us Atmans out here ;-) Reality is just Brahman having a wet dream while sleeping.
Is that why we have rain - Brahman's wet dreams?
:rrotflmao:
The problem with creating a true AI is that it has to be totally separate from what we have now. Machines like Google's Deep Mind do have somewhat of a programmed network to allow to perform complicated decision making, but that's all Deep Mind is, a computer programmed to perform a task that we set up for it. Going from Deep Mind to true AI would mean that the AI could change its own function without the need of human involvement, and I do think that we will reach that point sometime in the near future.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 11, 2017, 04:06:02 PM
Is that why we have rain - Brahman's wet dreams?
:rrotflmao:
The European version ... Zeus/Jupiter taking a piss. Which brings more joy ... relief of a full bladder, or masturbation?
What's so special about human brains that makes us impossible to improve upon them?
Granted, it isn't exactly making a mouse trap, but I don't see anything particularly special about human brains, or any brain for that matter, that can't be engineered into existence.
Quote from: Jason78 on January 01, 2017, 05:03:04 PM
My computer boots up every morning. The bootstrap problem is solved.
My computer shuts down if I leave it for an hour. But what I need is a computer that turns itself on like the coffee maker. It should also link to this forum automatically.
Quote from: Sal1981 on January 13, 2017, 08:24:46 AM
What's so special about human brains that makes us impossible to improve upon them?
Granted, it isn't exactly making a mouse trap, but I don't see anything particularly special about human brains, or any brain for that matter, that can't be engineered into existence.
Brains aren't engineered .. unless you are a theist ;-) They happen spontaneously, at random, after 14 billion years of twiddling natures thumbs.
Yes, human brains aren't special, even other chordates have them ;-) But plants don't have nerves, so it is speculative if they have brains or not.
What I mean is that there is nothing special about brains, they're entirely material, as-in they're not made of exotic stuff.
Given this tautology, what's to stop us from gaining the knowledge to engineer brains into existence? None, right?
Quote from: Sal1981 on January 13, 2017, 02:36:43 PM
What I mean is that there is nothing special about brains, they're entirely material, as-in they're not made of exotic stuff.
Given this tautology, what's to stop us from gaining the knowledge to engineer brains into existence? None, right?
What's to stop us is: not surviving long enough to learn how.
Other than that, I see no reason such a thing won't eventually come about.
Maybe after a very long time .. most people couldn't reset their clock on their VHS .. back in the day.
Good article from last year ... but what is a neural network (electronically or in software) vs a biological system?
https://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2016/10/google-ai-neural-network-cryptography/
A cryptography, that neither sender nor receiver understand ... what could go wrong? ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on January 05, 2017, 07:20:04 AM
He needs to define terms (he likes to teach anyway) and give us a full course in theory of computation ;-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_computation
I agree with him, that Turing machines aren't sentient ... in which case AI is a fraud. If he claims that some Turing machines are sentient, he needs to produce one, and test it with something better than the naive Turing Test. Most people won't pass the Turing Test. They actually have this test from time to time, and it is a joke, an exercise in human projection or anthropomorphism ... which dates back to the Eliza program (an online psychologist).
Cute and pedantic. But you haven't answered the question about "state machines". And probably won't.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 19, 2017, 04:52:27 AM
Cute and pedantic. But you haven't answered the question about "state machines". And probably won't.
A state machine is a very limited example of a Turing machine, a subset of the universal Turing machine. So what state are you talking about, Montana?
Quote from: Baruch on January 13, 2017, 10:01:39 AM
plants don't have nerves, so it is speculative if they have brains or not
but science says that plants communicate with each other in a way that suggests they do have a brain.
Isn't a
state machine a type of analog computer?
Is polywater a neccessary component of cold fusion?
Quote from: fencerider on February 28, 2017, 01:34:45 AM
but science says that plants communicate with each other in a way that suggests they do have a brain.
Isn't a state machine a type of analog computer?
Is polywater a neccessary component of cold fusion?
Yes there is chemical messaging of various types, between various living systems ... though sometimes it is because they share root systems ... so they aren't really separate individuals. In human society, you can't survive on your own ... are you still an individual?
Sorry, a state machine is a simple digital device, like a digital door lock. Analog and digital are completely different.
Polywater? Didn't that make the crew of the Enterprise go batty for awhile? A Russian hoax actually. Cold fusion is another hoax, from Utah. Mormon science ;-)
Oh right let me rephrase the question:
Is polywater a neccessary component of cold-fusion? ;-)
Quote from: fencerider on February 28, 2017, 10:41:51 AM
Oh right let me rephrase the question:
Is polywater a neccessary component of cold-fusion? ;-)
It is fraud all the way down, right back to Archimedes. Would you trust a guy running from a public bath, naked? Eureka my ass ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on February 28, 2017, 07:33:06 PM
It is fraud all the way down, right back to Archimedes. Would you trust a guy running from a public bath, naked? Eureka my ass ;-)
"Eureka" means "I'm running down the road wet and naked", right? Sure, I'd trust him. Better than some wet naked theist...