Anything and everything...

AI vrs. The human mind; Which force shall win? AI has advanced considerably in the past few years, and even though our culture has the ideals of a electronice "wireless" society, we cannot look beyond the boundries of the tech leaps of our time. As growing up in a world constantly changing, I was given a view that as one grew, his world grew as well. I beleive that this is the same in nations and cultures.

Civilizations rose and fell. Rome conquered and was defeated. The USSR was scattered. The mesopotamians disapeared. What force allows things to be created and be destroyed? It is the inevitablitiy that anything, and EVERYTHING can make and destroy. AI is one of the growing dangers in the world of man. As we take longer strides towards smarter computers, we also add more laws to our governments, such as viruses, hacking, etc.. Eventually, machines will have rights.

Is the world destined for this? Will AI take over our lives in the future? Can the human race stop its consuption of Anything and everything? I beleive that we will not stop until we have been destroyed utterly. As the Oracle even said: Everything that has a beginning, has an end.

AI operates on a level of practicality, equations and balances. It does what it knows and as its time of operation extends, it will have the capacity to learn more. Thus even machines can consume. The question that everyone is asking is this: Will AI over take the human intellegence?

Neix

PS: I'm sorry if there's another thread on this, but I'm too tired to search stuff up right now. apologies if I'm spamming.

It all depends on the level of strain we put on our AI setup. It depends on how much control is put over 'them'. What do you mean exactly by "take over" ? In a sense yes, all the time computers/machines are being invented to do the jobs of man. If you mean by how the machines from 01 took over probaly not. I dont think we will be so naive as to not put some sort of control mechanisims over these AI. Like the 3 laws from 'I,Robot'.

I think that AI and human intelligence will work together, but AI could never completely takeover human Intelligence. Throughout history there have been "sudden glimpses of insight" that leaped human technology forward. A machine is something that advances at a constant pace. Its imagination that makes the difference, for example using imagination a person could design a machine that could "know everything".

'Consumption of Anything and Everything' - Humans will not stop at this until they can find or make something that cannot be fully consumed.

Why would AI replace man? If we can make AI better than AI, why not make our own brains better through genetic enhancements as well? Personally, I think that in the future, we will be integrating a lot of the sciences. Nano-probes curing illnesses, and other combinations. I really doubt that there will be some Master AI with a large red light lighting up if it says anything, and than takes over the world with magnetrons and such.

PLUS, a machine will never get the idea of killing something or someone on it's own. A baby that stays in touch with other children and is raised peacefully will not suddenly start taking a child and hit it's head against the wall. And even if an AI would show such behaviour, it is possible do induce pain (which we are now making progress with), to show that it is bad to kill human beings.

A giant army of robots coming to kill everyone, doubtful? A robot in each house helping us in our daily needs? You bet! Just go to the kitchen, and check out the appliances. How long will it take before someone designs a coffee machine that remembers your settings to make the same yummy coffee each day, and how long after that will a coffee machine be spawned into existence to which you can give input on how nice you thought it would be, so it can slowly make better and better coffee?

Mr U

If AI learns from what is sees, does, and hears. If a Robot learns about a murder, the events that happened after a murder, the mehod in which the murder was conducted, then it will learn how to kill. It will then asess it's environment and decide if it needs to kill. AI is also used in games where guns are used. It can learn to be sneaky, crafty, and how to eliminate something.

AI has the capability to destroy, whether we mean it to or not.

Neix

No AI doesn't learn. By it's very nature, it can't. It can be programmed, but that doesn't have the same definition and connotations as learning does to a human. AI can only do what it's told to do. If you give it enough information, it could make logical deductions, and follow through ideas to their ultimate conclusions. But it couldn't learn to kill by seeing it happen! It wouldn't even know what 'killing' was, unless the concept of death had been programmed into it, and even then, you would have to teach it morals and ethics to make it 'safe' and not a robotic serial killer.

Helios made a good point about the 3 Laws of Robotics from the Asimov stories, but I wonder if you had read one of his later stories, when the laws were modified to accomodate more intelligent and creative robots? (That Thou Art Mindful Of Him) Rather than have minds based purely on the laws, robots were also programmed to have judgement- ie- they could ignore orders from idiots, or criminals, and they could decide which group of humans to help if they were put in a situation where they had to choose only one group. From this very logical idea of basing a humans worth on their intelligence, ability to learn, and usefulness to society, these characteristics actually came to define humans. (Physical appearance was excluded so that race, sex and other distinguishing marks were irrelevant) And from this, the two most advanced robots finally asked:
'....Of the reasoning individuals you have met, who possesses the mind, character and knowledge that you find superior to the rest, disregarding shape and form since that is irrelevant?
You, whispered George 9 [to George 10]'
It was actually possible for robots to define themselves as human beings, and superior ones at that. (Read that story and you'll see how completely insidious the take-over could be. At this point in the book, George 10 had complete control over the worlds robot design and production- and nobody knew it) Even in the movie it was possible for AI to see that it was obeying the Laws and protecting humans by taking over the world 'for the humans own good'. The natural conclusion of any restraints imposed on AI will eventually be domination.
Even now, although we don't like to think of being dominated by machines, our technological cultures couldn't survive without it. From the computers that navigate an airplanes flight path, to the systems that keep the traffic lights running, even the thermostat in the fridge, we rely on machines for almost everything. If all that was taken away tomorrow, we'd be helpless, at least for a while. So imagine a time when we've developed a little more, and maybe our homes are completely assimilated with a computer, from locks and lights, to temperature, electricity, and access to communication. Then we really would be dominated.

I know I keep repeating myself here people (sorry) however has anyone ever read 'Society of the Mind'? Truth, wonderful explanation, HU, yes indeed we would (I dearly hope) in future create/make/perform genetic enhancements on ourselves, however theoretically, and this is what scares people the most about the AI factor, is when, if indeed it does, reach the point that is commonly called The Singularity'.

The Singularity is a point where technological change begins to increase so rapidly that technological forecasting becomes virtually impossible. It is generally identified with the moment that Artificial Intelligences (AI's) become conscious and capable of creating new conscious AIs etc etc. And because they are presumed to operate tens of thousands of times faster than human brains (off hand I cant remember the exact neurons to the ratio of bits), that would push technological change into a "spike" or singularity. In math a singularity is a place where a mathematical function "goes to infinity", in other words upwards.

So, in effect, if we don't become more genetically enhanced or evolve at a much faster pace, (which I feel would take a miracle) then we would could very well see AI become free thinking, at an expadential rate that we would theoretically have an extremely hard time keeping up with.

Perhaps so. Still, I tend to agree with Truth.
The problem about the AI question is whether or not the singularity ever happens. What is more Science fiction than Science fact? Can AI really be able to learn? I wish I read the book you refer to, T: it offers more answers to the I, Robot novel's questions that I wouldn't mind digesting.
Anyway, evolving or in any way changing the human body to improve at phenomenal rates is not only impossible: it's foolish. The human body is too inflexible to change, and ultimately reaches its limits easily; also at a certain point (remember Deus Ex?) one will cease to be human. I've also wondered: Darwin didn't seem to factor the AI problem into his law. AI, or at least a possible assumption of it, is more a virus than humanity because it doesn't need the survival of anything else in the world to sustain it, and it can reproduce and adapt far too easily. It would wipe almost any other form of intelligent life you can throw it with. 'Survival of the fittest'...but this is more like 'Sole survivor'. We're not talking about the human race's chances; we're talking every other possible thing in the universe.
Now, the control mechanisms. Frankly, all rules are meant to be broken: the three laws being too easily those. They are just too ambiguous, even in their apparent simplicity. All things that arise from language, law and religion included, are so. And if we try to make their application flexible and teach the robots themselves how to, there are too many ways for them to be flouted. If we ever come to the point of having and trusting 'safeguards', I'd say then its only a matter of time.
This is all moot in the light of one important factor: whether that spark of life really flashes. Can AI be truly creative, even given time? Or is this just a manifestation of our irrational fears? To make AI creative, its inventors - namely us - will have to teach it so: till that point, it will never glean any knowledge by itself. That said, how can we humans, a species that can't even comprehend the secrets of its own sentience, instill that in our creations? Lastly, even if we do, AI will still have reached a limit of sorts: they can only be creative in human ways i.e. they most likely won't be able to deduce master plans a talented human wouldn't. How can it create above-human forms of thinking when its own ability to imagine them is ironically restricted in its freedom?
After all, Asimov's stories, and in extension his robots' behaviors, are written by Asimov.

Cease to be human? Would that not require a definition of human? Are we truly capable of defining ourselves? If we define ourselves with a word, can we take in effect the enormous diversity?

Let me elaborate. Imagine I am making a hamburger. I start with two pieces of bread, put some meat between it and some tomatos. It is now, where previously were ingredients, a hamburger. If I leave it there, it will begin to decompose. After how long will it seize to be a burger?

The same goes for humans. When are we human and when aren't we? What is the true difference between me and the computer? How do we actually differ?

Darwin. There are two evolutionary theories. One is Darwin's theory. The second is a purposeful evolution, in which throughout the ages, beings have evolved with a purpose. We are here in a chain to create the last chain in evolution, Homo Universalis. Who are we to decide that we can not improve the human body and create such a universal being? I know for a fact that bone structure and such could be optimized with our current technology.
To be honest, do we not already change ourself by using medicins? Do we not put alien things in our body to improve ourselves? As soon as the medicin is in us, we are no longer the being we were before. We have improved, we are now capable of resisting a certain disease. If we get titanium bones, we will not seize to be human, for we will still believe we are human. This is one of the reasons why I chose Homo Universalis as my username. Who is to decide when one has become a renaissance man? Who can see true difference between things, for to be able to determine difference, one would have to see all, and that we can not.

Artificial intelligence is a difficult topic, no question about it. However, if we are looking at intelligence, why not look at our own? For why would we ponder on the secrets of the artificial brain if we got one of our own?
For some reason, our brain, a gigantic mass of neurons (braincells) is capable of not only controlling our entire organism, but also generating something that has puzzled man since the dawn of creation: self-awareness. Unless we are to believe that there is some higher realm in which our souls reside, there can only be one apparant conclusion. Certain cells in our brain generate a sense of self-awareness. Through co-operation of these cells we are able to think and we are able to post replies. There is nothing magical about it.

Once fertilisation (the instance of creation) is initiated, stamcells will be generated, and after a while neurons will be created. These things are merely, nothing more, beings with the ability to communicate. They communicate, and they communicate, and in a way they go through what civilisation goes through: They flourish and they grow wiser as a whole. They act as one government for the whole human body. It is not a strange comparrison than, to say that Earth is Self-Aware, either. We are after all, part of Earth, and as we are aware of her, Earth is self-Aware. And, through this, the Universe is self-aware.

Back to less philosophical questions, however. I am convinced that if we are able to construct something as the human brain, something that is able to communicate with itself (because that is basically what we do when we think!), we will have created not AI, but a human being. All others, all other AI, is not AI at all but an attempt at it.

In terminator an AI uses the internet to become aware, and this is very possible. Imagine a single Neuron, alone, with no one to communicate to. Suddenly, out of the blue, it is placed in the middle of millions of other Neurons! If we configure the computers connected to the internet, I believe we could truly create an artificial intelligence. Yet, what would this mean? What would we have created?

Nothing. We would have created another something of which we already have 6 billion walking around on this dying planet. Congratulations :D.

Mr U

Hmmm. Why is it somehow I expected this reply, HU? No time to be philosophical! :rollseyes:
I'll start my argument against the human modification on the grounds that I assume you agree on replacing any (even most) amounts of a person, not just Deus Ex-style, artificially. For one thing, I guess I was being literal. In the definition of human in this case I meant the physical and genetic form. Medicines are artificials, yet most importantly, consumables. How many of us have parts of us that are completely not the way natural Darwinian growth was supposed to provide? Anyway, I for one avoid medicines like the plague. That does not make me any more human than others. It's not just how we feed ourselves things that make us different. It's how our bodies were tuned to accept them. Medicines and vitamins for example: they are not that artificial. Our bodies are tuned in ways that accept them; add them to the existing makeup. Raw and brute replacement on the other hand imply something else indeed.
And: the speed of the change. Undoubtably, the things around us are artificial to the extent that we have been in some ways changed, even genetically. But the stated brute Mechanical changes cannot be naturally reproduced and replicated; changes that break all known Darwinian patterns. It is therefore as unnatural in the ecosystemic scale as the introduction of AI. Also, there are also no guarantees as to the integrity of the human minds, our greatest prize and undoubtably most treasured in its current heights, in these different bodies. In a nutshell, I'm also saying that if we resort to such means to 'improve' ourselves, how then are we different from the machines? It's no longer a matter of how much we change from; it's how much we change to. Is there no difference between a large change and a long series of equal but much smaller changes? All through the past tens of thousands of years we remained almost the same, though very similar physically. A few years of mechanical enhancements will throw all doubts of the definition of change away. All's fine and well philosophically with the burger, but seriously, ask anyone and he'll just throw the damn sight away.
In a sense, my own name was derived from a philosophical viewpoint. I do not believe a true answer can be easily found but the only way I believe it can be found is through experience and time. Of knowing you're right, realising then you're wrong, finding out you're right again, and going through the cycle any number of times, until pride or shame no longer hinders. Anyway, just being cute. ;)
Now, to science fiction. Creating a brain making an AI is what you did not say, so I am curious though why then you said it. Anyway, I've already agreed: humanity's secrets are still a long time from unravelling. How then can we start on AI?
You say the right program, given access to the internet, can gain a consciousness. How? Sure, every imaginable sort of information is out there, but then again every counter to that information is too, causing a literal pile of garbage to sort through. And how can a sheer volume of data spark off consciousness? Is my older, more seasoned computer more 'sentient' then my newly bought one?

You say the right program, given access to the internet, can gain a consciousness. How? Sure, every imaginable sort of information is out there, but then again every counter to that information is too, causing a literal pile of garbage to sort through. And how can a sheer volume of data spark off consciousness? Is my older, more seasoned computer more 'sentient' then my newly bought one?


Darn you! I have to go in, well now actually :D. I was speaking of creating a brain not from each computer but from all computers together. So, in a sense, each computer would be a neuron, capable of storing information and communication with other computers.

I do not, however, know what would give these computers the spark of life to start the process of 'thinking'. Indeed, we are a long way from there...

Mr u

God, you people are smart! I love reading these theories. So, AI cannot learn? I guess that is right, as gaming AI cannot learn your actions based on gameplay. But say that a robot system was divised to investigate murders. It would have the knowlege i described above. Would it then be able to use the deductions it needs to use for its investigative job to also decide crucial elements of its existance.

I gotta read more into this. All for now,
Neix

You say the right program, given access to the internet, can gain a consciousness. How?

Because, simply put, that's exactly how it happened to us. On an individual scale, you weren't born with the mind you have now- you weren't truly sentient- that is, you didn't reason, didn't use logic, you didn't interact with observable stimuli with any pattern or repetition. Do you remember the time when you became conscious of yourself and your surroundings? It is very unlikely.
The same is true with humanity as a whole. One day, we were just primordial creatures, living in our environment without the sentience and intelligence we enjoy now. But one day, those consciousness sprang into those neanderthals minds. Sci fi author Robert Sawyer once wrote an essay on this subject, which was expanded into the novel Hominids, and pointed out that modern humans emerged about 100,000 years ago. From fossils and skull remains, it was determined that these men had brains aproximately the same size and sape as our own. And yet, for 60,000 years they did nothing of any value- they simply survived. They had no culture, no society, no art or music, they just lived.
And then, about 40,000 years ago, was an event that many anthropoligists refer to as The Great Leap Forward. Simultaneously, these homo sapiens sapiens, on a global scale began making art on cave walls, burying their dead with treasures (for a presumed afterlife), and wearing crudely made jewellery. In short- they begn to think, and by burying their dead with trinkets, they had begun to think in abstract terms- of things like death, and create the first religions. There were conscious and sentient.
In the essay, Sawyer writes:
'Intelligence, consciousness, sentience: it came into being, of its own accord, running on hardware that had evolved for other purposes. If it happened once, it might well happen again.'

Even Arthur C. Clarke questioned if intelligence was an emergent property, something that could just burst into existence. In his story 'Dial F for Frankenstein' (1963) he predicted that the worldwide telecommunications network will eventually become more complex , and have more interconnections, than the human brain has, causing consciousness to emerge in the network itself. Which is something the last Terminator movie dealt with as well. The evil wasn't outside the network it used to terrorise humanity- it [I]was the network.
If intelligence is an emergent property of complex systems (and it must be, because that's who we got to be here today) then there's no reason why it can't happen inside another complex system. That is- Terminator could be right.

UT- you're absolutely right. I'm sure you know of Moore's Law (the theory that the computing power available for a given price will double every 12-24 months, which has become a synonym for the exponential growth in computing) which is another version of the Singularity. It is certainly possible, and just by looking back at computer progress from the last 100 years we can see trends emerging which uphold these theories. We see, as we progress, that the rate of progression gets faster and faster- that is, technolological development is built and based on increasingly complex technology. Another computer scientist, Ray Kurzweil, who has studied technology trends for over 20 years, and uses his own mathematical models to anticipate the markets, has this theory:
'It'll take a 100 years of progress, at today's rate of progress, to get self-replicating nanotechnological entities. But the rate of progress is not going to remain at today's rate; according to my models, it's doubling every decade. We will make 100 years of progress at today's rate of progress in 25 years. The next 10 years will be like 20, and the following 10 years will be like 40. The 21st century will therefore be like 20,000 years of progress- at today's rate. The 20th century, as revolutionary as it was, did not have a 100 years of progress at today's rate; since we accelerated up to today's rate, it really was about 20 years of progress. The 21st century will be about a 1000 times greater, in terms of change and paradigm shift [into other and more developed areas of technology, ie in computers from transistor technology to integrated circuits], than the 20th century.'

Now I'm not necessarily advocating this point of view, since the idea of 20,000 years of progress in the next 100 years seems a little extreme, but it does demonstrate the point. Rate of progress is increasing- and at an extremely fast rate. So if the technology is there, and the information is there, we have a huge possibility of seeing the creation of new consciousness, and certainly enough to see in the Singularity- which at it's essence, is the same thing.
Either way, sentience is something that is likely to happen to AI.

Hmmm. Here I'm afraid I'll admit I'm not very well-informed on the facts concerning this incident.
Now, about Moore's Law - I'm afraid current times have proved it wrong. Granted, the past few years were phenominal in terms of the expansion of computer abilities, but lately we're seeing stagnation in many significant areas of the science. Computer processing speed have not progressed significantly, as well as data storage in both hard-disk and DVD/CD-ROM media. Forced by the boundaries of physics, computer development is beginning to grind to a standstill, and many companies accept that. AMD and Pentium are now advocating dual-processor or hyperthreading systems that focus on optimizing performance instead of increasing raw performance speed, and so are harddisk companies. Thus even if AI develops it would take a much longer time and less certainty than you think.
Now about the dearth of information creating sentience - I dare say it's not collective information that caused sentience but an activation of a resident dormant capability. Humans may have taken some time before suddenly gaining sentience, but that is over multiple generations, each generation essentially starting anew without much to gain from the previous's experience, unlike a single AI gaining more and more information. The change was in a random chance of the right generation's genes...like the switching on of a power switch. Also, you said that the humans before had the same brain size: therefore the ability was just a gene quirk away from activation, and was potentially always there. Granted, AI may be able to do this, but only if similarly it possessed the right abilities to take in and then make sense of information, a form of pre-sentience, which I think Skynet was more like. The ability through sheer raw information alone still does not make sense to me. If you showed a neanderthal a very long series of images everyday for its whole life, it wouldn't gain true sentience (Isn't it already sentient? Wait a minute - aren't all mammals sentient?). Simply put: if you gave me a single computer of today's specs and freeze it at that capability, adding more and more information over years, then compare it to say a species of monkey or dog with the right potential and several generations, I'd say the organic species would be more capable of developing sentience, though over a damned long time.

Very interesting Truth, but I must agree with Mac, I do not believe the progress will go on that fast either. We are already at the end of DVD storage capability and it is unlikely it will get much smaller.

Mac, the way you state it makes it look like it is genetical, and I am not sure of this.

Also, I may be wrong, but I thought the wall-painters weren't sapiens sapiens at all, but rather pro-cragnon or homo habilis. In any case, we can't be sure that self-awareness is restricted to sapiens sapiens only, as it may very well have existed longer.

Mr U

Hmm well I always thought sentience was the ability to think in the abstract and use logic to reason. In which case, all mammals are definitely not sentient.

But back to the bit about Moore's Law. Moore himself noted that this expansion of technology couldn't go on indefinitely at it's present rate. Most notably since an integrated circuit would simply run out of space! However, this idea was incorporated into the Law- in the areas of computer technology development in the 20th century, there were periods of very fast development, and then periods of almost no activity. This is because each new development will eventually run it's course. Like the original vacuum tube computer technology- the tubes got smaller and smaller, until the vacuum could no longer be maintained. And so that technology stagnated, but along came transistors, which stirred up the field again, bringing with it rapid development.
In the 20th century we saw (as Moore describes) 5 distinct paradigms of computer development; electromagnetic, relay, vacuum tube, transistor, and finally integrated circuits. Since the current circuit technology is naturally winding down, another development will soon replace it. Moore suggests nanotechnology, but that isn't necessarily so, it could be any number of things. But that's not the point. It doesn't matter what comes next- only that the technology will be based on the research and findings of the previous one, and the rate of progress will continue to increase.

Okay HU, you're right- we have no way to prove a date of the first sentient beings. We only have very basic evidence. If sentience was around 100,000 years ago, why didn't those people demonstrate it? Even assuming they did have it, there must have been a time when these neanderthals did not. We presume that man evolved from the ape- is the ape sentient also? If he is- did he get it from his ancestors? And if not- what brought it on in his human descendants?

Well, apart from being a reductionist, I'm also an avid fan of biology. You see, I believe that each and every function of our body is the best of the best on biological terms, and that no function is obsolete. After all, if it becomes obsolete, it is replaced (pineal gland, for example).

What is consciousness? If consciousness is merely the act of thinking for yourself and making choices, than donkeys are quite conscious. If a mule is put in front of two large pieces of hay, each at a identical distance, but one to the left and one to the right, and the donkey is aware that both are the same distance away, eventually the donkey will go to one of the haystags. I don't know which one it will be, only the donkey will. You see, the donkey has the primal instinct to eat (if you are very hungry, do you not feel compelled to eat?), but is faced with a dilemma. Thus either his instincts tell him to go right or left, or there is something else, a room for thought. The donkey is able to think for himself and actually choose which hay he wants to eat.

You ask why sentient beings haven't shown that they are sentient? Well, it's a pickle.. If you believe that each and every creature is as sentient as us. I do not believe in a true level of sentience. I believe that sentience is a feeling created by the brain to aid us in our battle for survival. After all, if you can think for yourself which route to take you will have a much higher rate of survival(!).

Than again, what is sentience exactly?

Oh, I do not agree on the internet. I believe that each and every different computer will have to be set to be a neuron. Ergo, each computer must act like or similar to a neuron in the brain. Now, if 10 computers are doing this, and the being becomes sentient, he will probably take over the net anyway, but the first few computers actually behaving as a brain is very important. We have to stimulate the brain before it can become sentient.

Mr U

HU, I'd like to step back for a moment if I may, to your statement:

We are already at the end of DVD storage capability and it is unlikely it will get much smaller.

I'm assuming we are talking about the red light laser they use to store information? There are now blue light that can hold 64 gig on a dual sided "blue ray" Now they are thinking about invisable light spectrum drives for the future, however the storage integrity of these discs will be unkown. Now they aren't in the testing stage yet, however there is a company out there (forgive me the name escapes me at present) that has brought out a new coating called armour plating, so this could be in the testing stages sooner than we think.

And yes Truth, I know of Moore's Law, and well brought up as I had been thinking about that today actually. You beat me to it.:D

Whoops. Heh heh. Okay I guess I'm wrong about Moore. It's just that the next jump seems less sure; from what I hear around many things aren't changing. We're throwing a few ideas around, but for processors I remember hearing that there really wasn't much effort being put in. Anyway, superb presentation Truth and UT!
Exact sentience? I dunno....it's one of my biggest headaches pinning it down. Maybe tomorrow. :p
And yes - stimulation. The potential not only has to be there, it must also be activated. Early man may only have had the potential after a generation or so of gene mutation through evolution, but the actual activation may have taken more.

I know about blue-ray technology, although I hadn't heard about those invisible rays yet. What I was referring to was the fact that we can only make the holes so small, and put so many layers on them. I'll agree that we can still improve vastly, but the real leaps of progress, I believe on data-storage have been made already.
Processors are a different matter, however as we will soon be making a quantum leap with the teraflop, a topic Helios discussed somewhere...

Mr U

There was a little segment on the news last night where monkeys were genetically enhanced by removing a gene which has something to do with rewards, (think Pavlov here), and the monkeys began doing their tasks more and more without being rewarded at all. Whereas before they would only do a task for a reward. Pretty freaky, huh? Just think if we introduced that to mankind, to the slave race, we would be the AI in a sense. Just a robot performing tasks. And then we would truly live in a society divided by sentient humans and non-sentient humans.

You can already do that with a huamn though to an extent. Extensive brainwashint tecniques can severely dull the brain to pleasure/pain stimuli.

I was talking about the new 'Cell' processors. Basically a few microprocessors working together as a single processor.

Personally, I don't feel that we have true AI yet. By that I mean we do not yet have sentient and self-aware computers/machines.

- Rob