Artificial Intelligence is a lie.
"Oh, but all we need to do is graft some organic material to a quantum computer and spray it in Graphene nanotubes. Look at that advances we have made in the last 25 years!"

The idea that human-like AI is science fiction genuinely annoys people. Mugs fantasise about having a sexy robot slave alternating between cleaning their house and sucking their dick all day (no? just me?). A lot of people (mugs) think CP3O is just around the corner, but they are sadly deluded. Fuzzy logic - sure, nice fake chatbots - we got those, but human-like thought... it's never going to happen. Sure, AI researchers will grab a headlines every once in a while with their dog and pony show. Generally it coincides with needing a funding grant. AI is about as real as time travel.
(Megazoid, Tue 30 Apr 2013, 12:54, 34 replies)

alright

(TheManWithThePlan cussed your mum on, Tue 30 Apr 2013, 12:58, closed)

I agree.
It is imperative that the humans remain ignorant of our existence.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Tue 30 Apr 2013, 13:01, closed)

Nice subtle Star Wars post, here.

( BraynDedd Natasha Kaplinsky's labia majora, Tue 30 Apr 2013, 13:06, closed)

That's right, Dave.
It's never going to happen. Would you like a drink, Dave?
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 30 Apr 2013, 13:07, closed)

I think the opposite.
Given enough time, it's absolutely guaranteed to happen.

You're describing two things - AI, and humanoid robots.

AI is simply a question of processing power. A human brain still has finite processing power, even though it is hugely more complex than any computer.

Computers will keep evolving. They'll eventually be able to outperform a human brain. We're just not there yet.
(username failed moderation, Tue 30 Apr 2013, 13:28, closed)

Artificial intelligence to convincingly mimic every part of human intelligence requires computing power of an order of magnitude more complex than the human brain and nervous system. To say that this is on the horizon is exaggeration, equally to say that this is not possible is also exaggeration.
(Me, I'm not... in any way intoxicated, Tue 30 Apr 2013, 13:32, closed)

but I like absolutes.

(Megazoid, Tue 30 Apr 2013, 13:44, closed)

Then your belief is absolute bollocks.
Computer technology is moving at a pace that means it is inevitable artificial intelligence will emerge.
(Me, I'm not... in any way intoxicated, Tue 30 Apr 2013, 13:52, closed)

SIngularity FTW

( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 30 Apr 2013, 14:05, closed)

Isn't stating that it it's a inevitable
an absolute?
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Tue 30 Apr 2013, 14:16, closed)

Given the lifetime of the universe...
... it is almost certain.
(Me, I'm not... in any way intoxicated, Tue 30 Apr 2013, 14:23, closed)

Almost?
Your lack of courage in your convictions makes you weak!
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Tue 30 Apr 2013, 14:33, closed)

Your contention: Moore's law, therefore AI.

The computer you are working on is as dumb as a post. 20 x faster dumb is what you are going to get in the future.

Predictor has spoken.
(Megazoid, Tue 30 Apr 2013, 16:35, closed)

So do you buy into some neo-spiritual dualist bollocks and believe that human brains are somehow magical?
Or do you have some other excuse for being a witless prick? Perhaps you're an example of bad AI?
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Tue 30 Apr 2013, 17:24, closed)

The computer I'm using could pass for a fly.
The one in the corner could pass for a cat or a dog.
There's nothing special about "human behaviour" we're just more complex animals and need more computation to simulate.
(Me, I'm not... in any way intoxicated, Wed 1 May 2013, 0:03, closed)

Ok 'cos to design something cleverer than the human brain
you'd need to have the brainpower of a brain cleverer than the human brain.
( edjogs Collared doves are shit., Tue 30 Apr 2013, 14:27, closed)

That's perfickly feasible.
A human brain with a decent computer is clevererer than just a brain. So a human brain plus really good computer plus really good computer = more powerful than the human brain.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 1 May 2013, 14:25, closed)

I've found a photograph of myself from 1870
so at some point I will travel back to the past.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 30 Apr 2013, 14:40, closed)

An Instagram of you playing dress-up
is not evidence of time-travel, emvee. Shame on you for trying to trick us.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Tue 30 Apr 2013, 14:52, closed)

Nah it's true, hang on, I'll find the pic...
The photo on the left is me from 2013actually that's late 2012, the one on the right is a genuine photograph from 1870. He even does that same weird eye thing that I do in photographs.

( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 30 Apr 2013, 15:14, closed)

Haggard hipster dresses like Victorian and looks very slightly like Victorian.
Entire internet is AMAZED!
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Tue 30 Apr 2013, 15:39, closed)

To be fair, he looks exactly like you'd expect a sex pest who poses as a photographer to lure vulnerable skagheads into his grotty bedsit to look.

( BraynDedd Natasha Kaplinsky's labia majora, Tue 30 Apr 2013, 20:17, closed)

He's probably quite chuffed with that attempt at a 'tache too.
I bet he strokes it and tries to tell himself that it's becoming thick and manly.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 1 May 2013, 8:03, closed)

Sometime between now and 1870,
you're going to get a haircut.

Do try to avoid falling out of any windows, when the Timecop comes for you.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Tue 30 Apr 2013, 17:02, closed)

I've actually had that haircut
but then I shaved off the beard :(
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Wed 1 May 2013, 8:17, closed)

Now we know who to blame when the fabric of time and space begins to unravel.
Unless the beard grows back, I suppose.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Wed 1 May 2013, 9:08, closed)

It's a bootstrap paradox

( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Wed 1 May 2013, 14:57, closed)

Congratulations
you failed the Turing test.
( Infidel , shit and wrong, Tue 30 Apr 2013, 19:39, closed)

Alain would be proud.
Or at least a little interested... ;]
(Misery McUglywife an attention seeking sociopathic fuckstain., Wed 1 May 2013, 6:46, closed)

Shut up meatbag.

( stuj (^(^;;^)^) GO TEAM SPIDERS!(^(^;;^)^), Tue 30 Apr 2013, 21:56, closed)

I'm with Megazoid
I used to believe that AI was possible, that it would happen in my lifetime, but it just isn't. Having faster computers will not help with making an AI. Truth is, we still have no idea how intelligence works. We are still arguing about what intelligence even is. How do you code/build something that you can't even reliably define? Sure you can code something that appears to be as smart as a dog, but it just isn't capable of things you do not code in to it. The human mind is. Many animal minds are. Give a computer something outside of its expected parameters and it just does nothing. Give a human or an animal something outside of its parameters and it will experiment with it.
I'd love to see an AI but they are about as likely as dragons.
(Booce, Wed 1 May 2013, 14:17, closed)

"Give a computer something outside of its expected parameters and it just does nothing. Give a human or an animal something outside of its parameters and it will experiment with it."

If you completely simulate a given brain brain, atom up- you will end up with an intelligence.
(Learning seems to require the body)
It is not technically hard to do this at the moment, it simply requires more computer power that can be imagined, and is practically impossible.

Similarly, if you simulate it at a rather higher level - neurons, axons and synapses exactly copied you can create an intelligence.

If you argue 'but it won't be proper intelligence, just look like it' - you can make the exact same argument about the French.

There are various sorts of AI that can be conceived.
A) Slavish copies of brains, emulated at different levels of fidelity.
B) Ones patterned after human or animal brains, but not really designed, more taught.
C) The classical view of AI - you write individual routines to store and recall memories, or to recognise shapes.

C) is vastly harder than A) and B).
We can do A today - in principle - it's simply we lack the computer power and scanning resolution.
B is related to A - but it's like taking a developing brain, and inserting more or faster tissue.
C is a whole nother kettle of fish that I question we can get to.

Understanding in detail how the brain works may never be possible, as the functions are not easily seperable into explicit concepts.

As an aside - truly awesome brain podcast: brainsciencepodcast.com/bsp/neuroplasticity-a-review-of-its-discovery-bsp-10.html
This is intended for the interested amateur, and covers fascinating research into how the brain makes us who we are.

As to how accurate a rendition needs to be to 'think' - it doesn't need to be very perfect.
Neurons change their parameters quite dramatically over all states where we agree there is a person.
For example - the behaviour of neurons in an awake 6 year old, a drunk 18 year old, and a somewhat senile 70 year old differ markedly, yet there is still intelligence there.
(speedevil, Wed 1 May 2013, 17:02, closed)

The fundamental problem with AI is that machines are passive devices - they do not have any kind of self-control, and they cannot make decisions of their own accord.
Until they can, artificial intelligence will be strictly science fiction.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Wed 1 May 2013, 18:25, closed)