Artificial Intelligence matching a human being possible?

Post Reply New Topic

Is it possible to create a robot which becomes a human being using Artificial Intelligence?

My preliminary view is no.

Pinocchio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pinocchio is a fictional character that first appeared in 1883, in The Adventures of Pinocchio by Carlo Collodi, and has since appeared in many adaptations ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinocchio - Cached - Similar (Google)

Tend to feel that it is possible to create a robot which mimics being a human being but not a robot which is a human being.

Turing's machine again?

I think it is possible. There is nothing magical about a human.

---

Turing's machine?

Personally I do not view a human being as magical anymore than a giraffe or a rose but at the moment (year 2011) I just can't quite see how Artificial Intelligence could create a real Pinocchio.

For some reason I do not view a human being as being identical to a machine - even a very advanced one.

At the same time, I am aware than giraffes and roses do not write poetry or stories or build rockets to travel to and from the moon.

Yes. I mean a machine that passes the Turing test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test
Basically it is a machine programmed with all human interaction that no human (or machine) can distinguish it from a real person.

A physical sample would take a revolution in computer science because the human brain is non-linear and constantly evolving.

I hope not.

I also don't think so. Biology drives brains, including human brains, in ways that can't be replicated by machines. I think eventually a machine could be programmed to give a simulation of human intelligence good enough to pass the Turing Test. But it wouldn't actually be thinking like a human brain. Brains are driven by the needs of being alive. For humans, this drives the big philosophical questions and fuels art. Humans wonder "what happens after I die?", "what is my place in the world?" and other Big Questions which come from being alive. Art also addresses these and other being-alive-related issues. Since computers aren't alive, they will never approach thought in a way that human brains- or any brains- do. They simply don't have the biological imperatives that drive living brains.

One of the things that humans and all animals do which is biologically based thought is to prioritize. Prioritization comes from emotion. We (all animals) use emotions as the hook to hang thoughts on. We prioritize based on emotion. Was an experience scary, painful or otherwise emotionally important? The data picked up from that experience gets prioritized and we use it to make later decisions. Computers prioritize based only on sets of rules given by humans. Computers run according to whatever priorities their programmers give them. But they have no way of generating their own priorities. Priorities come from biological imperatives such as staying alive. Science fiction deals with this thought firewall by giving fictional computers a fear of death (being disconnected from power source) which allows the computers to prioritize and therefore think like living (and dying) beings. An example is HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey. That works in fiction and gives HAL an authentic human-ish intelligence. But I don't think that could happen in reality.

Without the ability to prioritize, you get computation, not actual thought.

would you elaborate on why a survival impetus+emotios could not be designed into a heuristic machine?

When we have a better understanding of the nature of Human consciousness from a quantum theory standpoint then perhaps we can replicate these processes with quantum computing

I think would not could be defended.

I think it is possible to do yes.

i think its only a matter of time

neuron based computing

this was the first i could find on google, took 20 secs.
there are loads of examples of how scientists are experimenting with aproximations of the biological brain, MIT aare even researching how to upload an existing brain.

**edit** funny site; minduploading.org

Well, if the processes of a human brain follow physical laws, and physical laws have logical/mathematical properties, and any software system can reflect a set of logical/mathematical properties, then it seems obvious to me that AI is possible.

The real issue is that any AI will not likely be built in exactly the same manner as a human mind. Human minds are not the pinnacle of construction. And the way they are put together does not match very easily what we know how to do with computer programming. We're likely to create an AI to work more with less modules, and more brute strength calculations, probably also more/stronger hardwired instincts.

Sorry to revive an old thread but I think this is a really interesting topic that provides insights into human nature. All we'd need to do is to recreate the brain. Problem is however that we seem to keep discovering deeper levels of organisation. Also human beings have already been surpassed in many domains by computers (Watson Deep Blue D.Wave) I think that the issue is can a computer be self aware. We'd need to simulate a brain at deep enough resolution and with all the quantum weirdness (Microtubules:Hameroff). That's not easy.

It is possible however. More than possible. Probable.

IMHO we still have much to learn.

Anything with sufficent processing power could become an AI...programmed to mimic human thought processes or otherwise.

The key points are if....(1) it sees itself as an entity, (2) it can alter its own programming in the task of learning or adapting to new situations, and (3) it is capable of making a choice that defies any "programming" put in by its creator.

Without "self awareness" a machine is just a fancy computing device. It has no "consciousness" more so than your PC or calculator.

Without the ability to alter itself to learn and adapt, it is nothing more than a machine with programming it is required to follow.

And, while circular to some point, the inability to defy "programming" put in by its creator shows there is no "free will." A thing that can't make its own choices isn't a living creature...organic or synthetic.

I know some could argue that humans are just as locked into "programming" as any machine, but we know that if you show a human how they are being manipulated by "programming," that person can make a choice to defy it. So far, no machine has developed synthetic thought to the point that it can choose to alter its programming as entered by its creator(s).

[duplicate post]