The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Maybe we can't simulate the human brain. Maybe we can. We don't know. But if we could replicate our brain's ability to sort and process and give meaning to input and information, understand the structures of meta-information, and understand the nature of problems at least as well as humans, then I see no reason why such an AI would not quickly become far more than human. The AI would have at its disposal the distinctly inhuman ability to precisely calculate mathematically at truly insane speeds, combined with an ability to absolutely remember everything, and an ability to copy itself infinitely and perfectly to new hardware, so as to run multiple simultaneous copies and truly mult-task. Further, the AI would have the ability to directly and absolutely understand its own makeup, and to change and adjust this as necessary, on both the software and hardware level. Just as an example, the AI could not only maintain copies of everything ever written by anyone ever simultaneously in conscious memory, but then build itself a million different brains to simultaneously think through and understand these things at once, and then instantly and perfectly recombine those multiple understandings together and keep them on hand, with perfect recall. It would be like being able to recall perfectly the exact mental state of every epiphany or moment of understanding you have ever had, all at once. Not only that, but be able to simultaneously consider all of them, juggle them around, and compare them at leisure.
But all this is a big if. We don't know how human cognition works, on a logical or practical level. We don't know how the brain works. We don't know if our models of reason and logic will ever scale to consciousness, or if something else entirely alien would be required. It's all a huge mystery.
I am agnostic towards the possibility of creating a human-level intelligence artificially. But were it created, it would certainly be far more than human, and far more vast and powerful than we can truly comprehend, simply because it would be able to combine what we do well with what computers do well at a natural level.
I once read a suggestion that, if a sentient computer were ever created, its low-level number-crunching power would be as far removed from the conscious layer as human consciousness is removed from neural activity and so, for instance, the intelligent computer would still have to "open a calculator app" in order to do mathematical operations consciously, and it wouldn't be much faster than a human using a computer.
Economics is politics by other means
Though it is of course possible that the technology required to build a hardware AI would also enable us to build Ghost in the Shell style cyberbrains to enhance our wetware processors.
Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
The problem this poses is amplified by the active disrespect so many give to the role of emotions in our lives. Even the suggestion that a truly human AI would have to have the equivalent of human emotions would/will likely be received with disdain by many of those best able to conceive of the necessary programming. I would like to see special purpose AI utilized much more extensively in known critical areas of human endeavor, such as medical diagnostics, which is so often a disaster when performed by humans.
"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
This realization made me understand attempting to build a "truly" human intelligence isn't worth the effort. A "truly" human intelligence would be subject to developing psychological, neurological, emotional, and cognitive dysfunctions human express and if it doesn't it's not a "truly" human intelligence.
Which makes TBG's contention, which I share, we should drop the "AI" thing, as such, in order to be working on building a "General Modeling Machine."
She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
The Serious People will then pretend that the GMM is making the executive decisions, because this gives the decisions an air of inevitability and truthiness.
as far removed from the conscious layer as human consciousness is removed from neural activity
how far is that? in mm? or is 'far' metaphorical? who or what presupposes any distance between our consciousness and neural activity, can they not be coterminous, even fused?
i guess if one has morphine in the system, that affects the way consciousness perceives nerve signals, though i'm told that it doesn't remove the pain per se, it rather causes the pain not to be worth caring about... presumably by flooding the brain with enough pleasure chemicals that the pain signals come in a distant second.
wouldn't it vary between individuals, just like pain thresholds do?
i guess 'anhedonia', an inability to feel pleasure in life could be seen as seen as a metaphorical distance between consciousness and the neural circuits, though how well the signals travel and are received within those circuits might vary a lot between different folks, or even between different times! for example when firewalkers walk barefoot over coals after psyching themselves up with group exercises, then they go home, can they stick their fingers in even a candle flame and still feel no pain or burning, without all the hoo-rah of the group pumping them into an altered state? i never heard of that happening, although to my mind that would actually be more interesting than firewalking, though that is interesting enough.
what's happening between consciousness and neural circuits when a hypnotist has a subject believe he's being burned, and his skin blisters and he feels the heat? is that heat 'real'?
perhaps mystical experience is when consciousness briefly syncs perfectly, though fleetingly, with one's neural circuits...
this neuroscience is cutting edge stuff, and yet has been around since recorded time, and makes our fascination with computers seem a novelty.
ancient animists ascribed mind to matter, even a rock has a spirit/vibration, just a very slow moving one compared to flowing water or a flower blooming. perhaps in our search to duplicate and mechanise consciousness we are actually missing what's right under our own noses, namely this supposed grail is a bagatelle, and computers will never have common sense.* they're data bankers, not delphic oracles!
*whatever that may be agreed to be... we can make simulacra till the cows come home, but ultimately a world ruled by computer logic seems like it would more likely be dystopian than otherwise.
to a geologist, rocks have 'memories', as the code embedded in the structure is readable to their trained minds.
Data Storage Rock Ready to Roll - EnterpriseStorageForum.com
Millenniata has unveiled its new storage technology that lets users etch data on an optical disc made from a stone-like substance that never degrades, reports Small Business Computing.
New tech uses silicon glass for data storageRecently we heard about the M-DISC, which can reportedly store data in a rock-like medium for up to 1,000 years. Now, scientists from the University of Southampton have announced the development of a new type of nanostructured glass technology. Not only might it have applications in fields such as microscopy, but it apparently also has the ability to optically store data forever.
Recently we heard about the M-DISC, which can reportedly store data in a rock-like medium for up to 1,000 years. Now, scientists from the University of Southampton have announced the development of a new type of nanostructured glass technology. Not only might it have applications in fields such as microscopy, but it apparently also has the ability to optically store data forever.
mind into matter, not matter over mind!
going back to the why we are so desirous of breathing life into a golem anyway... could it be that some are so spooked by the strong streaks of irrationality in the human psyche, and so tired of psycho tyrants bending others' wills, that to succeed in imbuing our better instincts into somewhere fixed, concrete and external (dryware?), we will finally, unarguably create that font of wisdom that we can fully trust as objective, ex cyber-cathedra, to tell us when probability decreed our choices/actions would lead to perdition, infallibility incarnate, but with no carne, none of that messy human cell breakdown to worry about, we will supposedly glory in our role bearing pure knowledge and infusing it into permanence.
'cept it won't be a font, it'd always be a reservoir, big difference...
uh huh.... isn't this about taking the long way round to get home where we always were, via a cul de sac to boot?
we are real, computers are fiction. and yes in a good story the plot does run away with the characters occasionally, deus IN machina.
this is what happens when linear thinking runs amok IOW, methinks, and will go into history as an endearing odd footnote, like man's quixotic quest for Cities of Gold in the jungle, or Springs that offer the Water of Life, a fantasy Elixir of Summum Bonum.
we want off this wheel of change, basically... (instead of trying to figure out/embrace how to make it roll better). the search for absolute AI has a thanatic, death-worshipping aspect or streak to it. as do all linear projections that are fear based, 'we're not enough, we're not whole, we need a HAL to guide us to find our own asses!'
the cracks in our consciousness are where the light shines in, in this ultimately pointless exercise we are trying to seal them closed. it reminds me of those billionaire bunkers where the guy has his bugout system in place, sealing himself and his money into an impregnable vault only openable from the inside.
bliss of safety! there's no refuge from change. we can always keep upgrading the computer till it learns to do it itself, heck till it even extrudes a robot to go mine the earths it needs to self replicate, but there will always be something that we are made with which will not totally compute, and i don't think most of us would want it any other way.
mental rubber doll porn...
'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
Migeru:as far removed from the conscious layer as human consciousness is removed from neural activityhow far is that? in mm? or is 'far' metaphorical? who or what presupposes any distance between our consciousness and neural activity, can they not be coterminous, even fused?
philosophers have made certain fundamental assumptions--that we can know our own minds by introspection, that most of our thinking about the world is literal, and that reason is disembodied and universal--that are now called into question by well-established results of cognitive science. It has been shown empirically that:Most thought is unconscious. We have no direct conscious access to the mechanisms of thought and language. Our ideas go by too quickly and at too deep a level for us to observe them in any simple way.Abstract concepts are mostly metaphorical.
by Luis de Sousa - Sep 13 30 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 18 8 comments
by ARGeezer - Sep 7 41 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 8 70 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 4 18 comments
by Bernard - Aug 27 5 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 30 14 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 188 comments
by Luis de Sousa - Sep 1330 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 870 comments
by ARGeezer - Sep 741 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 418 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 3014 comments
by Bernard - Aug 275 comments
by gmoke - Aug 27