When i watched "I, Robot" which by the way was a very excellent movie just in case you want to know, it made me spawn a few ideas about the future relationship between Robotic Artificial Intelligences and us human beings. In the movie you could say robots 'wreaked havoc' on the human race for a sort of "good" reason which was our own protection. And i came to the conclusion that if/when we will create AI's they will always have some kind of flaw or 'malfunction' maybe have their own consciousness. There has always been flaws in our machines, whether simple or complex. So its inevitable that they will someday have a consciousness. So whether through good or bad, they WILL flaw and most likely do something aggressive towards humans. One example is they could make millions suffer by engineering a biological weapon buy studying our simple protein based bodies. What are your opinions on this?

well, (some here hate me for my claims so: )
i am not going to act as if i have real AI.

But as my AI research proves. Yes, it can happen BUT it is not a AI glitch, that is a human error. What serves some, might harm/kill others.

But as my AI research proves
Submit your proof.

to you?

haha,
I dont even plan to inform everyone in my team about my latest discovery.
And you are not even in my team.

Normally i would send a copy to Jiri but this data is way to sensitive. It explains how to recreate an animal to 90-100%, how to recreate a human to 80% or so.
The tricky part is the social behaviour, still working on that.
You cannot do that even if you give your ALF a 500 GB of pre-programmed memory, ill need less than about 20 kb in pre-programmed data.

Normally i would send a copy to Jiri but this data is way to sensitive. It explains how to recreate an animal to 90-100%, how to recreate a human to 80% or so.

If it is way too sensitive why reveal that you have it in the first place? Hinting on being on the verge of reaching the wholy grail in computer science, without being unable to give any proof of your progress, makes you look untrustworthy from my point of view.

well, that is why i wrote:

well, (some here hate me for my claims so: )
i am not going to act as if i have real AI.

Sure, but you do claim that your AI research proofs that it could do whatever Hypercane suggested in the opening post, and, moreover, you do claim to have data explaining "how to recreate an animal to 90-100%, how to recreate a human to 80% or so".

Such claims do require proof, if you want to gain some credibility.

yes, but i have no reason to prove it to you. You are unimportant for my agenda.

Do you disagree?

Regardless of me, how does it help your agenda to be perceived as a fraud? In the end, people who actually know something about the fields you pretend to have made leap frog discoveries in, will just ignore you.

We live in a world where documents are simply not enough. We live in a world where you need simulations. Advanced enough simulations will take perhaps 1 year. I do not wish to waste one year when anyone with enough "computing power"/intelligence can understand it in 1 day by reading my documents.

"is it me, or is it everybody else?"

So it boils down to this:
1) you have, on document, a model which led you to conclude you have data explaining how you can "recreate an animal to 90-100%" and "a human to 80% or so",
2) you would not like to share those documents because of their sensitive nature,
3) you have no working proof of concept of it, on the grounds that it would take a year to run simulations of it and you really can't be bothered to do it.

I hope you do realise that this all sounds incredibily far fetched, especially when taken into consideration that those who actually do research in AI would be in absolute publishing heaven if they could produce a bunch of robots capable of simulating the simplest of rodents.

the difference between me and them are that they are satisfied when they have a dog that have sensories on its back and then can give a "feeling" if is happy or not.

I did not stop thinking till i could explain why a dog or a cat acts as it does and figured out a way to re-create that in a universal way.

If you believe that or not is up to you.
I am actually thinking about constructing a guarding dog.

Another significant difference is that they can actually explain how they get their results.

Obviously, I do not believe you.

we both can explain our results. But they have nothing real to protect so they share in hope that others can help them.

No, you can not explain your results, because you have no results. Remember, you have no simulation, you have nothing that produces concrete results. You claim to have a theory, but this theory is not tested nor peer reviewed.

i believe that a theory should be perfect before large scale development starts. You seem to believe that large scale developing should bring a theory. Well mankind have tried that for 80 years now without producing what i have done in 1 year.

nah, ill say no more, you will just have to wait till you can read about it.

And thus you continue to build your own illusionary ivory tower, not obstructed one bit by a painstakingly complex reality.

i began programming when i was 7, all i see is code. Yes, i do live in an imaginary world. That is why i can look at the world and its inhabitants, cause i do not live in it myself.

Complex Reality? I think it is rather simple, i can explain multiple functions for many featres that the human body and mind has. No one else have thought of this before me.

Have you ever seen a movie where a dog chase a mailman?
Tell me when you have a universal theory that covers that behaviour.
I do not even think that you know the answer to the simple question "WHY".

i can explain multiple functions for many featres that the human body and mind has. No one else have thought of this before me.

Many before you have thought about the features of the human body and mind, and came up with very workable and testable theories which led to improve medical sciences.

Tell me when you have a universal theory that covers that behaviour.
I do not even think that you know the answer to the simple question "WHY".

What I can or can not answer is not the issue here. You claim you have done some extra-ordinary work. You are stating that you have a universal theory. I'm just one of those calling your bluff.

Many before you have thought about the features of the human body and mind, and came up with very workable and testable theories which led to improve medical sciences.

see, you think to commonly.

What I can or can not answer is not the issue here. You claim you have done some extra-ordinary work. You are stating that you have a universal theory. I'm just one of those calling your bluff.

you cannot even answer a simple question as "Why does the dog chase the mailman?"
and you call me a fake?

you cannot even answer a simple question as "Why does the dog chase the mailman?"
and you call me a fake?
Again, what has this to do with me? We are scrutinizing your claims to have developed a theory which would be way ahead of its time, not whether I can answer your questions about a dog's behaviour.

Yet, to answer your question, indeed: i do not know why or even if a dog chases the mailman. I can speculate that the dog perceives the mailman, entering what the dog thinks of as its territory, as a potential threat and it responds with an attempt to scare the threat off.

Whether this hypothesis is actually true, I can not tell. It only reaches a certain point of credibility, if I arrange a set of experiments of which the results would hopefully eliminate other prevalent theories on the subject and support my own.

so, are you telling me that you would spend 1 year or 6 months or something like that just for proving something that simple?

then a dear friend of mine was right when he said that i over-estimated the lesser mortals.

so, are you telling me that you would spend 1 year or 6 months or something like that just for proving something that simple?
No, I am telling you that there is a method of trying to piece together the world around us by devising a hypothesis explaining and predicting something, collecting evidence (an often dreary business, but still a necessary one), and re-evaluating that theory based on found evidence. It is not the fastest way to fame and fortune, but it does have its merrits when it comes to building a model that actually has some descriptive and predictive value.

You just take the shortcut, proclaiming you have found an universal theory but are not prepared to put it to the test.

well, if you cannot see something that simple then i do not think you should be too critical on me.
i see something i solve it, i see something more and i relate that to the previous hypothesis and see that it works. If you cannot simulate the brain of a dog in your head then that is your problem and you might think about working on that.

Until you have given some form of proof that on the basis of your universal theory an AI can be built, I think I have perfectly valid reasons to be critical.

of cource, you have every right to be critical.

baal appears to be emotionally still stuck at seven years of age. whats up with that?

i see why people do not invent real AI, they can simply not analyse a situation.
emotionally still stuck at seven years of age
yeah, i guess that is true. i don't have many feelings. i simply do not care about lesser mortals.

mouse, the thesis is.
the dog relies on his master to get him food.
and since his survival instincts drive him he is interested in a treat he swiftly learns that the mailman is someone that never enters the lawn (or in great britain, someone that never enters the house.)
The dog will think "for some reason my master(s) does not want the mailman in the house/on the lawn" so it will chase him away in hope for a treat. If the dog gets a punishment then it will learn that what it did is against its master(s) will and will therefore not do it again. Will it require more than one punishment if it has gotten no treats? no. if it has gotten many treats in the past, will it require more than two in a row? no.

i do not know if that is the correct hypothesis, but it does not really matter cause combined with the rest of the concept it does the trick for me. Now you can say that i got that hypothesis from my imaginary world if you wish. Everyone is allowed to their opinion unfortunatly. and that is why we hate the current form of democracy