Discussion in 'Intelligence & Machines' started by Cris, Mar 9, 2002.
Please check out this link.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I think they have been reading too much bad science-fiction. Whether an AI could ever be as smart or creative as a human is one thing; maybe they can, maybe not. But will such a thing really change us all so much? I doubt it.
Try this -
Humans are smarter than chimpanzees, presently the smartest creatures on Earth. Does humanity represent the theoretical limit? Certainly, the human brain's hardware is far slower than the theoretical limit. Human neurons fire approximately 200 times per second, using signals that travel at a maximum of 100 meters per second. By comparison, my computer's CPU operates at 667 million clock cycles per second, and the speed of light is 300 million meters per second; the reason a human brain has around a hundred million times as much raw computing power as my computer is that a human brain has 40 billion neurons and 100 trillion synapses. If your neurons could be upgraded to fire 200 million times per second and send signals at 100 million meters per second, the result would be a millionfold "subjective speedup"; you could think a million times faster. In the time it now takes for your watch to count off 31 seconds, you could do a year's worth of thinking; more than a millennium of subjective time would pass between sunrise and sunset.
You might not be any "smarter" - you would simply think much, much faster - but the effect, to an external observer, would be beyond description. A community of ultraspeed humans could - mentally, at least - recreate the entire path from Socrates to World Wide Web in less than a day. A day after that, if the ultraspeed humans have physical technology that runs at the same speed as their minds, the ultraspeed community would have the same technology and culture we would reach in 4700 AD... and just 1900 AD to 2000 AD was enough to take us from steam engines to the Internet.
And that to my mind sounds like a change beyond imagination.
Yes, it would indeed be quite groovy. But it is not the speed of movement of electrical charge which makes us superior to computers. It is that we think rather than simply add 1+0 and such. There is more to us than our ability to add. Can that thought be produced synthetically? Maybe. Would a synthetic mind capable of something other than simple binary switching be able to match our current (by your numbers above) 8,000,000,000,000 processes/switches per second? If so, that would still need to be more than simple binary switching to be anything other than a calculator.
IF a synthetic intelligence is made (and I expect it will happen), it may be simply very different to us. We have billions of years of evolution guiding our thoughts in addition to our reason and imagination. Will an AI have imagination at all? Will it be a logical device, or will it be able to make leaps of intuition such as we humans can? Will it have imagination? Do we in fact have "souls" or spirits, and if so, does that mean there is more to our thoughts than simple physical processes? Do we have something no machine could ever possess? I don't know. But I do know that computers now simply run data generated by we humans through a series of cascading switches.
Why,why do you think an artificially intelligent being will be different from us?do you suppose that the basis of artificial intelligence wil be other than survival of the fittest?...in that why the evolution trend of theirs will be similiar to ours,the only difference is time taken will be less.dont you think so?.
i"ll check out link later...thanks anyway Cris...
I think it might be a very interesting way to develop AIs. Create te initial AIs with the ability to grow and change, then let a bunch of them live together in one enormous system. See if we end up with only one. Of course, that one might be one of the most cunning and dangerous creatures EVER on our planet. I'm not sure we should create such a cunning AI just yet.
Actually, I was planning a programme that would pit various entities against each other, and see which one survived. More like a game the computer plays by itself.
Effective Gene Algorithm based program?is that what plan is?
let me know.
See my post to Jan in the thread below - my post is 3/9/2 11:33 am.
Deep Blue bought frustation in Kasporav,but i think many of the mistakes made by Kasp himself werent singled out by deep blue itself,that a human oponent might have.
it all depends upon the oponent in such case of competeion.like for example if deeply study deep blue and then single out things that werent fed then we single those moves out.thus by playing Odd move i am actually confusing an AI,which is what brings us to an eminent question:is AI programmer dependent,well as far as i am concerned i think with my previous reply i made it clear that survival may the key to AI,but whats the whole point Cris?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Separate names with a comma.