Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Criptfeind]

Okay then see point two.

Why make a "lol sifi computer" seems like a bad idea.

I'd like to remind you of Freud's still debated "Death Instinct", also known as Thanatos. It suggests that we are not desensitized to death, but rather that deep in our subconcious everyone has a desire to die. He used it to explain things such as drug use and why some people who are afraid of hights aren't afraid that they'll fall. They're afraid that they'll jump.

Oh god really?

[Grakelin]

When you get excited, your blood pressure speeds up. You can feel excitement throughout your body. Your breathing changes. Your reactions to new events changes from if you were upset.

When the AI gets excited, it gets a code that says "Excited=True", and carries on with its day. It's not really excited. It's just told that it is because of events happening around it.

You might as well question if it would be cruel to shoot at Kazuo Kuriyama or Hannibal Lecter.

If you think it's as easy as 'coding some emotion', you haven't really stopped and looked at what makes YOU human. Why shouldn't I just kill YOU? Consider that, and then apply it to the AI. You'll be hard pressed to actually do it properly.

Also, Freud is not the answer to much of anything anymore.

[nbonaparte]

I'd like to remind you of Freud's still debated "Death Instinct", also known as Thanatos. It suggests that we are not desensitized to death, but rather that deep in our subconcious everyone has a desire to die. He used it to explain things such as drug use and why some people who are afraid of hights aren't afraid that they'll fall. They're afraid that they'll jump.

yeah....no. Nothing Freud said has merit.

[nbonaparte]

emotion stuff

Did you read what I said? Its not as simple as excited=true. It would have the same sort of complexity as a human intelligence.
EDIT: and sorry for the double posts. this thread is moving really fast.

[Grakelin]

Your solution was 'by simulating the human brain', which is impossible without a body to go along with it.

[nbonaparte]

Your solution was 'by simulating the human brain', which is impossible without a body to go along with it.

Heard of a lucid dream? With the support systems working, its fully possible to be conscious without using your body, and with simulated inputs.
EDIT: and by 'what I said', I meant what I said about learning. It's a complex system, not a line of code and a flipped bit.

[Grakelin]

It has nothing to do with using your body. Even when you're lucid dreaming, your emotions are still affecting your body, and you can feel that.

[alway]

When the AI gets excited, it gets a code that says "Excited=True", and carries on with its day. It's not really excited. It's just told that it is because of events happening around it.

Strong AI programming: ure doin it wrong.

The whole idea is for it to be based on systems similar to those in humans. Artificial neural networks for example. The properties of such systems are similar to those of humans; or in other words, emergent. The structures of these neural networks could themselves be modeled after the structures found in the human brain. Structures whose composition and detailed structure is currently being studied in various neuroscience projects.

Just for argument, we could even say this is some sort of Kardashev 3 civilization doing it. They could not only simulate the mind, but also the body, and if they really wanted, the entire solar system down to the subatomic level.

[Criptfeind]

Theoretically it is possible to have as complex because when you go right down to the bottom of the chain we just have "Excited=True" but why make a computer that needlessly complex.

[nbonaparte]

It has nothing to do with using your body. Even when you're lucid dreaming, your emotions are still affecting your body, and you can feel that.

In a dream, your body is paralyzed. Your senses are cut off and replaced by artificially generated versions (its not perfect, that's why you can, for instance, hear an alarm clock in a dream). How is that not using the brain on its own?

Theoretically it is possible to have as complex because when you go right down to the bottom of the chain we just have "Excited=True" but why make a computer that needlessly complex.

Because that's not intelligence.

[metime00]

Okay then see point two.

Why make a "lol sifi computer" seems like a bad idea.

But whether or not one gets made is not up to us. We are discussing when we need to look at the morality of what we do to AIs

When you get excited, your blood pressure speeds up. You can feel excitement throughout your body. Your breathing changes. Your reactions to new events changes from if you were upset.

When the AI gets excited, it gets a code that says "Excited=True", and carries on with its day. It's not really excited. It's just told that it is because of events happening around it.

You might as well question if it would be cruel to shoot at Kazuo Kuriyama or Hannibal Lecter.

If you think it's as easy as 'coding some emotion', you haven't really stopped and looked at what makes YOU human. Why shouldn't I just kill YOU? Consider that, and then apply it to the AI. You'll be hard pressed to actually do it properly.

Also, Freud is not the answer to much of anything anymore.

"Excited=True" will be factored into every decision it makes. Humanity's "excited=true" hormone is what causes blood pressure to rise. The effects are what you're outlining, whereas they are all caused by one decision in our "code" that tells everything else that we are excited.

And every single one of us here could be a sociopath, we don't know. Would you kill everyone you suspect to be a sociopath? We, effectively only emulate what's in our DNA and our memory of how we should react to something. Your view of morality is no doubt heavily influenced by others' views. Are you not simply emulating the morality taught to you? By your logic that would make you a sociopath, and apparently deserving of no rights.

Your solution was 'by simulating the human brain', which is impossible without a body to go along with it.

Are you actually saying that intelligence comes even partially from your leg or heart or mouth or any other body part? They are simply sources of input and output, the thinking (and thus the intelligence) comes entirely from the brain.

[Criptfeind]

In a dream, your body is paralyzed. Your senses are cut off

Needs citation.

Because that's not intelligence.

Huh?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Nothing Freud said has merit.

Nothing the father of modern psychology said has merit? Freud wasn't right about everything(perhaps not even most things), and psychology is still a softer science than most even today, but you're crazy if you dismiss him entirely. It's like saying nothing Lamarck said has merit because he was wrong about the inheritance of acquired traits. We build upwards and discard things found to be false, and thus become closer to the truth. Even if Freud was somehow a total quack, he still put psychology into the public eye.

[nbonaparte]

In a dream, your body is paralyzed. Your senses are cut off

Needs citation.

It's wikipedia, but its cited if you really want.

Because that's not intelligence.

Huh?
[/quote]
complexity and adaptability are part of intelligence. a rigid excited=true doesn't work with that.

Nothing Freud said has merit.

Nothing the father of modern psychology said has merit? Freud wasn't right about everything(perhaps not even most things), and psychology is still a softer science than most even today, but you're crazy if you dismiss him entirely. It's like saying nothing Lamarck said has merit because he was wrong about the inheritance of acquired traits. We build upwards and discard things found to be false, and thus become closer to the truth. Even if Freud was somehow a total quack, he still put psychology into the public eye.

Alright, perhaps that was harsh. I still wouldn't call him the father of psychology. the controversial popularizer, perhaps.

[metime00]

And a simple "excited=true" wouldn't allow for the flexibility or degree of excitement that would give the emotion any real function or purpose.