You might want to remember these words and see how you feel about them in a generation or so.
im hoping to be dead by the time the matrix kicks in. bottom line is, computers cannot interact with other beings. even a cat has a computer beat in terms of empathy.
im hoping to be dead by the time the matrix kicks in. bottom line is, computers cannot interact with other beings. even a cat has a computer beat in terms of empathy.
If ((Input == "Crying") & (Subject == "Friendly")) Then
Action = "Pat " + "Say: It's ok, I understand." + "Emote: Empathy"
DoAction()
End
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
If ((Input == "Crying") & (Subject == "Friendly")) Then
Action = "Pat " + "Say: It's ok, I understand." + "Emote: Empathy"
DoAction()
End
ppl and their emotions vary by person, it's not as simple and black and white as a binary code.
tell ya what, next time you see a friend crying act all stiff, pat them and say in a monotone, emotionless voice 'it's ok, i understand' and see if they think it's normal. also, what if the person says 'how do you know what it feels like' a person could say a whole range of things that have happened to them that made them feel similar...a computer can just say it's what they were programmed
i'm not doubting you could program computers to have emotion-like qualities but it can't be the same as a real persons b/c they aren't as predictable
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
ppl and their emotions vary by person, it's not as simple and black and white as a binary code.
tell ya what, next time you see a friend crying act all stiff, pat them and say in a monotone, emotionless voice 'it's ok, i understand' and see if they think it's normal. also, what if the person says 'how do you know what it feels like' a person could say a whole range of things that have happened to them that made them feel similar...a computer can just say it's what they were programmed
i'm not doubting you could program computers to have emotion-like qualities but it can't be the same as a real persons b/c they aren't as predictable
If we could simulate every system in the human body. Why should it be any different?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
If we could simulate every system in the human body. Why should it be any different?
would the computer go to work each day? make love to other computers and give birth to baby computers? date around? play baseball with other little baby computers?
would the computer go to work each day? make love to other computers and give birth to baby computers? date around? play baseball with other little baby computers?
I guess if you call emotion "giving birth to baby computers" I'm sure we'll find a way with nanotechnology.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I guess if you call emotion "giving birth to baby computers" I'm sure we'll find a way with nanotechnology.
no. but it's part of the experiences computers can never have and thus never fully understand the emotions associated with such simple activities as sex, playing baseball, a friendly game of cards, a beer at the bar, or raising a child. they might be able to mimic human responses to various stimuli, but that does not mean they feel the emotion associated with it. no more than a kid pretending to be joe montana in his backyard actually is joe montana.
and you didnt answer my other question. what if the person were crying out of joy? the computer's response would be totally inappropriate.
no. but it's part of the experiences computers can never have and thus never fully understand the emotions associated with such simple activities as sex, playing baseball, a friendly game of cards, a beer at the bar, or raising a child.
and you didnt answer my other question. what if the person were crying out of joy? the computer's response would be totally inappropriate.
With that simple little code, yea it would be inappropriate.
Obviously I'm not working on it at MIT.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
im hoping to be dead by the time the matrix kicks in. bottom line is, computers cannot interact with other beings. even a cat has a computer beat in terms of empathy.
Actually, this is completely incorrect. Computers can certainly interact with other beings, often times on an intellectual scale far greater than a cat. Just one of many examples:
Remember what Bill Gates said about never needing more than 640K of memory?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Actually, this is completely incorrect. Computers can certainly interact with other beings, often times on an intellectual scale far greater than a cat. Just one of many examples:
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
With that simple little code, yea it would be inappropriate.
Obviously I'm not working on it at MIT.
how do you propose computers learn to read such things? even the staunchest proponents of ai acknowledge that the human brain processes information at a rate and in magnitudes far exceeding our wildest dreams of technological advancement. the dumbest human's brain is more powerful by many degrees than the best computer out there.
Actually, this is completely incorrect. Computers can certainly interact with other beings, often times on an intellectual scale far greater than a cat. Just one of many examples:
ill believe it when i see them roaming the streets, going to work, paying bills, raising children, and comforting me through bereavement. as of now, you've got a robot with nicer exterior.
how do you propose computers learn to read such things? even the staunchest proponents of ai acknowledge that the human brain processes information at a rate and in magnitudes far exceeding our wildest dreams of technological advancement. the dumbest human's brain is more powerful by many degrees than the best computer out there.
Computer technology doubles every six months. Your computer is osbolete when you open the box.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
ill believe it when i see them roaming the streets, going to work, paying bills, raising children, and comforting me through bereavement. as of now, you've got a robot with nicer exterior.
When's the last time you saw a cat going to work and paying bills?
Anyway, I think you'll see that sooner than you think.
Computer technology doubles every six months. Your computer is osbolete when you open the box.
we'll see how long it maintains. in the initial development of the car, the same thing happened. but there hasn't been much dramatic innovation with respect to the car in 40-50 years. at a certain point, that boom subsides. as evidenced by the dotcom bust at the end of the 90s.
how do you propose computers learn to read such things? even the staunchest proponents of ai acknowledge that the human brain processes information at a rate and in magnitudes far exceeding our wildest dreams of technological advancement. the dumbest human's brain is more powerful by many degrees than the best computer out there.
It was 1996 when Deep Blue beat Gary Kasparov at chess.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
When's the last time you saw a cat going to work and paying bills?
Anyway, I think you'll see that sooner than you think.
never. but i have seen a cat notice it's owner is upset and initiate contact to soothe it. i have also seen a cat initiate play with its owner or act out for attention.
this is the key difference: initiative. computers cannot initiate contact or act proactively. they can only respond to external stimuli or act according to preordained patterns. there is no unique or creative driving intelligence to a computer. it is inherently limited.
It was 1996 when Deep Blue beat Gary Kasparov at chess.
deep blue was specifically programmed to know every chess move and strategy comprehensible. despite being a chess dork, kasparov could still beat deep blue at any number of other activities. and as i recall, didnt he win a rematch? the computer, again, was limited to one particular function. it cannot adapt to different circumstances.
deep blue was specifically programmed to know every chess move and strategy comprehensible. despite being a chess dork, kasparov could still beat deep blue at any number of other activities. and as i recall, didnt he win a rematch? the computer, again, was limited to one particular function. it cannot adapt to different circumstances.
There is no telling what the future will bring.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
never. but i have seen a cat notice it's owner is upset and initiate contact to soothe it. i have also seen a cat initiate play with its owner or act out for attention.
this is the key difference: initiative. computers cannot initiate contact or act proactively. they can only respond to external stimuli or act according to preordained patterns. there is no unique or creative driving intelligence to a computer. it is inherently limited.
Everything is inherently limited, soulsinging.
I cannot tell you that computers can do everything you described, today. They cannot. The only thing I can tell you is that the "limitations" you speak of are not unique to computers, nor are the "abilities" you speak of unique to animals. Beware drawing objective lines where they do not exist.
no, there isnt. which is why you cannot claim to know that computers are and will be the same as humans in the future. i dont see it happening. you do. but i dont claim to be able to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. you do.
one more question... would YOU have sex with that thing?
no, there isnt. which is why you cannot claim to know that computers are and will be the same as humans in the future. i dont see it happening. you do. but i dont claim to be able to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. you do.
one more question... would YOU have sex with that thing?
What what thing? The realdoll? Sure why not, if I had $10,000 USD
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I cannot tell you that computers can do everything you described, today. They cannot. The only thing I can tell you is that the "limitations" you speak of are not unique to computers, nor are the "abilities" you speak of unique to animals. Beware drawing objective lines where they do not exist.
i have seen no evidence that anyhting other than animals has the ability to initiate action of its own volition. nor have i seen any evidence that the limits i describe are imposed upon animals, though they do apply to other things on this planet. thus, there IS a line as i see it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i have seen no evidence that anyhting other than animals has the ability to initiate action of its own volition. nor have i seen any evidence that the limits i describe are imposed upon animals, though they do apply to other things on this planet. thus, there IS a line as i see it.
Fair enough. I think you're giving too much credit to animals and too little credit to computers. But time will certainly tell.
Minor thread related trivia: I used to be the webmaster for realdoll.com a long time ago when I worked for the ISP that hosted their site. FYI: that shit is creepy. I used to see the "fan mail" from their site. Your wildest imagination could not come up with some of the very bizarre stuff people do with those dolls.
Comments
Indeed.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
im hoping to be dead by the time the matrix kicks in. bottom line is, computers cannot interact with other beings. even a cat has a computer beat in terms of empathy.
If ((Input == "Crying") & (Subject == "Friendly")) Then
Action = "Pat " + "Say: It's ok, I understand." + "Emote: Empathy"
DoAction()
End
ppl and their emotions vary by person, it's not as simple and black and white as a binary code.
tell ya what, next time you see a friend crying act all stiff, pat them and say in a monotone, emotionless voice 'it's ok, i understand' and see if they think it's normal. also, what if the person says 'how do you know what it feels like' a person could say a whole range of things that have happened to them that made them feel similar...a computer can just say it's what they were programmed
i'm not doubting you could program computers to have emotion-like qualities but it can't be the same as a real persons b/c they aren't as predictable
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
what if they are crying out of joy?
and what is emote empathy? is that an emoticon? wow, im comforted.
If we could simulate every system in the human body. Why should it be any different?
would the computer go to work each day? make love to other computers and give birth to baby computers? date around? play baseball with other little baby computers?
I guess if you call emotion "giving birth to baby computers" I'm sure we'll find a way with nanotechnology.
no. but it's part of the experiences computers can never have and thus never fully understand the emotions associated with such simple activities as sex, playing baseball, a friendly game of cards, a beer at the bar, or raising a child. they might be able to mimic human responses to various stimuli, but that does not mean they feel the emotion associated with it. no more than a kid pretending to be joe montana in his backyard actually is joe montana.
and you didnt answer my other question. what if the person were crying out of joy? the computer's response would be totally inappropriate.
With that simple little code, yea it would be inappropriate.
Obviously I'm not working on it at MIT.
Actually, this is completely incorrect. Computers can certainly interact with other beings, often times on an intellectual scale far greater than a cat. Just one of many examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actroid
Remember what Bill Gates said about never needing more than 640K of memory?
They can have sex too http://realdoll.com
how do you propose computers learn to read such things? even the staunchest proponents of ai acknowledge that the human brain processes information at a rate and in magnitudes far exceeding our wildest dreams of technological advancement. the dumbest human's brain is more powerful by many degrees than the best computer out there.
ill believe it when i see them roaming the streets, going to work, paying bills, raising children, and comforting me through bereavement. as of now, you've got a robot with nicer exterior.
Computer technology doubles every six months. Your computer is osbolete when you open the box.
When's the last time you saw a cat going to work and paying bills?
Anyway, I think you'll see that sooner than you think.
we'll see how long it maintains. in the initial development of the car, the same thing happened. but there hasn't been much dramatic innovation with respect to the car in 40-50 years. at a certain point, that boom subsides. as evidenced by the dotcom bust at the end of the 90s.
It was 1996 when Deep Blue beat Gary Kasparov at chess.
never. but i have seen a cat notice it's owner is upset and initiate contact to soothe it. i have also seen a cat initiate play with its owner or act out for attention.
this is the key difference: initiative. computers cannot initiate contact or act proactively. they can only respond to external stimuli or act according to preordained patterns. there is no unique or creative driving intelligence to a computer. it is inherently limited.
deep blue was specifically programmed to know every chess move and strategy comprehensible. despite being a chess dork, kasparov could still beat deep blue at any number of other activities. and as i recall, didnt he win a rematch? the computer, again, was limited to one particular function. it cannot adapt to different circumstances.
There is no telling what the future will bring.
Everything is inherently limited, soulsinging.
I cannot tell you that computers can do everything you described, today. They cannot. The only thing I can tell you is that the "limitations" you speak of are not unique to computers, nor are the "abilities" you speak of unique to animals. Beware drawing objective lines where they do not exist.
no, there isnt. which is why you cannot claim to know that computers are and will be the same as humans in the future. i dont see it happening. you do. but i dont claim to be able to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. you do.
one more question... would YOU have sex with that thing?
What what thing? The realdoll? Sure why not, if I had $10,000 USD
i have seen no evidence that anyhting other than animals has the ability to initiate action of its own volition. nor have i seen any evidence that the limits i describe are imposed upon animals, though they do apply to other things on this planet. thus, there IS a line as i see it.
just curious.
would you have sex with an animal?
I wouldn't think so.
Fair enough. I think you're giving too much credit to animals and too little credit to computers. But time will certainly tell.