Print

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

[miauw62]

My opinion on the matter is as follows: stereotypical "true" AI is unlikely to occur at best. At the end of the day, people generally don't NEED an AI that thinks and acts like a human, after all for all the research costs and whatnot involved, you could just train and hire someone for far less money. What people need is an AI that performs it's purpose. Even if the purpose involves maintaining a verisimilitude of humanity, it does not necessarily need human-like thoughts or cognitive processes.

AI psychiatrists and friends seems like a very useful thing for AIs to act like humans for. Oil rig divers, submariners, astronauts; being isolated can drive humans crazy, having a humanlike aboard could keep them more or less sane enough.

[scrdest]

My opinion on the matter is as follows: stereotypical "true" AI is unlikely to occur at best. At the end of the day, people generally don't NEED an AI that thinks and acts like a human, after all for all the research costs and whatnot involved, you could just train and hire someone for far less money. What people need is an AI that performs it's purpose. Even if the purpose involves maintaining a verisimilitude of humanity, it does not necessarily need human-like thoughts or cognitive processes.

AI psychiatrists and friends seems like a very useful thing for AIs to act like humans for. Oil rig divers, submariners, astronauts; being isolated can drive humans crazy, having a humanlike aboard could keep them more or less sane enough.

But what about AIs going insane themselves? If they can act like humans, then they can go insane, too.

Also I think that AIs on current hardware (digital values/central processing unit) are impossible, or at least would compute very, very slow.
A switch to (analogue values/decentralized computing) would help.

The thing is, that insanity-from-isolation thing is a very... evolutionary quirk of brain setup. Essentially, the brain is unable to go to idle mode, so if there's nothing for it to process it starts making shit up just to avoid idling. This is not an issue for a computer.

[BlitzDungeoneer]

o ___ o

Welp, that's some creepy shit.
As expected of the SCP Foundation.

[MaximumZero]

I...didn't find it creepy at all.

[BlitzDungeoneer]

I...didn't find it creepy at all.

Of course not. They never do.
*sobs in the corner*

[hops]

Beatnicks in spaaaaaaaaace

[palsch]

Given I'm reading Stross's Neptune's Brood right now, which takes place in a post-humanity universe inhabited by the AIs we left behind, worth posting some of his perspective.

If you can construct a human-equivalent intelligence in software and switch it on, it's probably going to start by spending a few months emitting white noise and trying to eat its left foot.

Saturn's Children, the first book in this series, stared a sex-bot commissioned shortly before the extinction of humanity in such a method. They basically grew a mind in a rough analogue to human childhood, only grooming (deliberate term that) her to have the traits desired for her role in society. Once they have the fully grown mind they can copy it into as many bodies as they desire. The newer book features an accountant grown in the same way (only with far less sexual abuse of a childlike sentient intelligence) who has then forked off new instances who take decades of specialist training in similar roles.


There are people who have argued we could potentially grow sentient AIs using genetic algorithms, essentially letting them evolve over millions of rapid generations of thousands of prototype procedurally generated intelligences. This seems like it could work. It also raises the terrifying question of when an AI deserves or demands rights. At which points can you wipe the intermediate generations as redundant data and at which point does doing so become genocide?

[Iceblaster]

Beatnicks in spaaaaaaaaace

[Yoink]

Frying eggs at/after midnight.

[penguinofhonor]

That's one of my favorite SCPs. Not for creepy reasons, though. It's just really cool and an engrossing read.

[Spehss _]

o ___ o

That was a good read. Far out, man.

[KingofstarrySkies]

Read the proposals for SCP-001. It is surprisingly cool. One of them is fucking hilarious at the end.

[BlitzDungeoneer]

Read the proposals for SCP-001. It is surprisingly cool. One of them is fucking hilarious at the end.

Which one?

[Putnam]

Yeah, but we don't really know what causes human consciousness to be so flexible as that. Maybe we just have a *really* big database of scripts. *

Hell, on an anecdotal note, I can think of a few people who aren't so flexible and act pretty much like a computer program that way, grinding to a halt if they meet new, unexpected information or circumstance. >_>

* Could be wrong. But I haven't heard anything about us knowing why.

Your mind is the integral of experience over time slapped on top of genetics. Your experience is far larger. Learning is a gigantic part of intelligence, especially learning past simple pavlovian responses. The common public idea of AI--chatbots--completely fail at learning in any meaningful way. That bullshit about Eugene Goostman passing the Turing Test was pretty clearly fake because Goostman is one of the least convincing chatbots around due exactly to the fact that it has absolutely no memory of the current conversation; you say the same thing twice, it'll say the same thing twice. This basically means that the people doing the test didn't even try to determine whether they were talking to a bot, just told to check some box or something (the guy who made the claim is a known crank peddler). Some chatbots are way better than that.

[BlitzDungeoneer]

When you mention chatbots, cleverbot comes to mind...