AI is ridiculous concept that many misinterpret.

Write4U said:
What makes you think that emotional experiences are purely of the mind? Have you ever considered physical harmony and disharmony may be experienced as a physical object.

Perhaps it depends on the material the AI body is constructed of. Perhaps it requires an physical body made from artificial biochemical material that is responsive to wave function and can experience a sense of harmony or disharmony when amplified by sheer quantity of sensory points.

This is already expressed in the single celled biological organisms that can "learn" to navigate in the course of avoiding obstacles, a survival skill ultimately evolving into an ability to experience a sense of "well-being" or "distress" in humans as a result of the combined sensory functions of trillions of sensory neurons and amplification of synchronicity or disharmony.

Consider Pythagoras
pythagoras.jpg


PYTHAGORAS ABOUT MUSIC Thus music has a dual value because like mathematics, it enables men and women to see into the structures of nature.

https://www.delamora.life/pythagoras/#

Consider that AI are especially able to process mathematical ratios and that "does not compute" is an AI expression of frustration!
Click to expand...
I appreciate Music. It is a hobby and at one point it was even a business for me. Music can calm you down or it can lift you up. But for me the true enjoyment and obsession with Music has nothing to do with anything so crude as Mathematics. It is a Pure Conscious Mind Experience. The Enjoyment is unexplainable using Mathematics.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Steve, your views seem quite subjective, over-simplistic and based on an antiquated impression of what AI and learning AI are capable of.

OTOH, the preponderance of public research and literature strongly supports our statements.

A little bit of reading will help bring you up to speed on the latest developments. Wiki is not an authoritative source itself but it provides a foundation that yields quality third-party reading material:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence


On the other other hand, if you have some published, credible material that supports your position, I think we'll entertain it.
Click to expand...
Looks like the failure of AI to live up to the the Hype of the last 10 years has finally caught up with it, if you are saying that is the New definition for AI. Forget Face Recognition, Speech Recognition, Self Driving Cars, and etc.. It's now only about Adaptation. Ok, sorry to hear that. I worked on Adaptive Control system 20 years ago. Adaptation in Machines is nothing new.
 
Steve Klinko said:
I appreciate Music. It is a hobby and at one point it was even a business for me. Music can calm you down or it can lift you up. But for me the true enjoyment and obsession with Music has nothing to do with anything so crude as Mathematics. It is a Pure Conscious Mind Experience. The Enjoyment is unexplainable using Mathematics.
Click to expand...
Really, harmonics are only experienced by a conscious mind and have nothing to do with mathematics? Yes, why don't we just trash Pythagoras in the process of this discussion. Expand your horizons, man!
 
Steve Klinko said:
Looks like the failure of AI to live up to the the Hype of the last 10 years has finally caught up with it, if you are saying that is the New definition for AI. Forget Face Recognition, Speech Recognition, Self Driving Cars, and etc.. It's now only about Adaptation. Ok, sorry to hear that. I worked on Adaptive Control system 20 years ago. Adaptation in Machines is nothing new.
Click to expand...
And therefore it is a disqualifying property....:?
 
Write4U said:
Really, harmonics are only experienced by a conscious mind and have nothing to do with mathematics? Yes, why don't we just trash Pythagoras in the process of this discussion. Expand your horizons, man!
Click to expand...
Yes, my Experience of Music has nothing to do with Math. It is pure Conscious Experience. The Math exists in the Physical World of Vibrations and Pressure Waves. There is no Math in the Conscious World.
 
Steve Klinko said:
If that was all the Brain was then you would be right. I think, I Experience Redness, I feel Pain, I feel Pleasure, I can be Happy, I can be Angry etc. ...
Click to expand...
No one denies that. It's just that none of that has to do with the topic, which is learning.


Steve Klinko said:
Looks like the failure of AI to live up to the the Hype of the last 10 years has finally caught up with it,
Click to expand...
None of this has anything to do with the topic, which is learning.
 
Last edited:
Steve Klinko said:
Ok, I'll put a lump of coal on the table and say it is Thinking. You can't prove it is not Thinking. So I win. That is the essence of your argument.
Click to expand...

We have a definition for learning. We observe an AI device meeting the criteria for learning.

We have a definition for thinking. We do not observe your lump of coal meeting the criteria for thinking.

(Note that we don't have to know the mechanism for how it's doing it to know that it's doing it or not. Again: opaquity)


Steve, that was a really inept attempt at forming a logical argument. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to do better than that.
 
DaveC426913 said:
We have a definition for learning. We observe an AI device meeting the criteria for learning.

We have a definition for thinking. We do not observe your lump of coal meeting the criteria for thinking.

(Note that we don't have to know the mechanism for how it's doing it to know that it's doing it or not. Again: opaquity)


Steve, that was a really inept attempt at forming a logical argument. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to do better than that.
Click to expand...
It was actually so good that you had to resort to Insults. Computers do not Think any more than the lump of Coal can Think. Neural Nets or anything else in a Computer can not Think.

In the case of Learning I would say that there is no Learning without Knowing that there is Learning. The Machine never is Aware of Learning. The Machine is merely Calibrating or Configuring, but it is not really Learning in the Human Brain sense of the word.

Like I have said before it is Ok to say that a Machine has Learned as long as you know what it is that the Machine is actually doing. It is very misleading Marketing for the average consumer reading about Machines Learning and Thinking in AI products. It leads to all kinds of Superstitions about Computers.
 
Steve Klinko said:
It was actually so good that you had to resort to Insults.
Click to expand...
I have not insulted you.
I have commented on the quality of the words you posted. That's what a discussion is. Not all arguments are valid.

Steve Klinko said:
In the case of Learning I would say that there is no Learning without Knowing that there is Learning. The Machine never is Aware of Learning. The Machine is merely Calibrating or Configuring, but it is not really Learning in the Human Brain sense of the word.
Click to expand...
Ah. You've moved the goalposts.

You've moved from "computers don't think" to "computers don't think in the same way humans think".

Which no one disagrees with.
 
Last edited:
For clarity:

Learning
Learning is the process of acquiring new understanding, knowledge, behaviors, skills, values, attitudes, and preferences.[1] The ability to learn is possessed by humans, animals, and some machines; there is also evidence for some kind of learning in certain plants.[2] Some learning is immediate, induced by a single event (e.g. being burned by a hotstove), but much skill and knowledge accumulate from repeated experiences. The changes induced by learning often last a lifetime, and it is hard to distinguish learned material that seems to be "lost" from that which cannot be retrieved.[3]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning
 
Write4U said:
It is the agreed upon definition. Do you see something different?
Click to expand...
I see that all real Dictionaries define Learning as a Human act. People apply the term to Machines as a shorthand. I'm just trying to show that there is a distinct difference between Human Learning and Machine Learning. A Machine does not ever desire to Learn and does not Know that it Learned even after the Neural Net is configured. There's nobody home. But this is not what AI Marketers want you to believe.
 
Steve Klinko said:
I'm just trying to show that there is a distinct difference between Human Learning and Machine Learning
Click to expand...
OK, you have changed your stance to agree with what the rest of us have been saying all along.


Steve Klinko said:
But this is not what AI Marketers want you to believe.
Click to expand...
"AI Marketers hate this one weird trick discovered by a 40-year-old single mother! Get yours before this is banned!"

Oh come on.


What you really mean is: you read about AI and blew it up into this huge utopian expectation of robot servants, and now you're older and wiser and see that it was naive, but feel resentful that you were taken in as a child.

No one else (except TV show writers) believes robot nurse maids are just around the corner.
 
Steve Klinko said:
I see that all real Dictionaries define Learning as a Human act.
Click to expand...
Merriam-Webster:
Learning
1: the act or experience of one that learns
2: knowledge or skill acquired by instruction or study
3: modification of a behavioral tendency by experience

Dictionary.com:
Learning
-the act or process of acquiring knowledge or skill.
-knowledge acquired by systematic study in any field of scholarly application.
-the modification of behavior through practice, training, or experience.
-something that is learned through education or experience.

Oxford Dictionary (via Lexico)

Learning
1. The acquisition of knowledge or skills through study, experience, or being taught.
1.1 Knowledge acquired through study, experience, or being taught.
1.2 A thing learned by experience; a lesson.

No mention of humans.
I'm just trying to show that there is a distinct difference between Human Learning and Machine Learning.
Click to expand...
In methodology - yes. Different techniques for training.
A Machine does not ever desire to Learn
Click to expand...
Many people do not ever desire to learn.
 
Steve Klinko said:
I worked on Adaptive Control system 20 years ago.
Click to expand...
I think I see the problem here.

Imagine an Apollo engineer claiming "rocket boosters can NEVER LAND THEMSELVES! It's out of the question! Why, the very definition of 'staging' is that you DISCARD the stage. You don't use it again!"

And he would be right - in his era. He is incorrect today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top