logic vs feeling

1…1213151718…23

Comments

  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    soulsinging wrote:
    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:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actroid
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    I would be careful about saying never.

    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
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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

    They can have sex too http://realdoll.com
    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
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Ahnimus wrote:
    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.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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

    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.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    soulsinging wrote:
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    soulsinging wrote:
    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.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Ahnimus wrote:
    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.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    soulsinging wrote:
    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
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Ahnimus wrote:
    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.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    soulsinging wrote:
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    soulsinging wrote:
    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.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Ahnimus wrote:
    There is no telling what the future will bring.

    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?
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    soulsinging wrote:
    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
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.

    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.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Ahnimus wrote:
    What what thing? The realdoll? Sure why not, if I had $10,000 USD

    just curious.

    would you have sex with an animal?
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    soulsinging wrote:
    just curious.

    would you have sex with an animal?

    I wouldn't think so.
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    soulsinging wrote:
    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    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.

Categories