how are humans differ from AI

Really, think about this. Advance AIs do have emotions. They can think. They make decisions based on incoming information/perception.
We create AIs, so how do we know we were not created as AIs?
Anyone interested to talk about this?

because we biologically evolved into what we are today... where as an AI can only change its form if it creates something entirely new...

mayb were just created 2 look and act and grow like biological beings....

one of these days, humans can create AIs to a point, like in blade runner, that we can determin the years they "live", then, it is not inconceivable that we can create AIs with bodily functions, like eating, digesting, and ****ting (pardon the language). if that is possible, there would be no limit....

AI's were built to help humans out. They are robots and are nothing else. Sure they can think like us and may even have emotions. But Androids are nothing more than machines that look and act like humans. Though I wouldn't be surprised if they overrule us one of these days.

the only way humans could be different from AI is that humans are natural, AI is synthetic

They don't have a mind (whatever that may be) and have a different perception. Besides, we're capable of love (this argument is getting boring, no?).:rolleyes:

in a very real sense, we don not carry out genes around as a way of reproducing ourself, but our genes carry us around as a way of reproducing themselves!!! this possible means, that in fact we are created by/for our genes.. the same way as we create computers/AI/machines.......
through evolution though we got our intelligence, but the evolutions of artificial intelligence goes so much faster that it will pass us by.....

and a machine is the body, AI would be the mind.. And how good is love?? it is just some chemicals in our body... the same chemicals that could be in a computer and make it feel fine.. a computer can also be capable of loving... but it won't have to because it reproduces itself different than we do...

Humans and AI are/would be both artifcats of evolution. If we are an artifact of evolution (and we are), then everything we create is also an artifact of evolution. The distinction between "natural" and "synthetic" becomes much less clear.

And we could endow AI with the ability to evolve, based either on Mendelian genetics or some other model, such as Lamarckian. If AI has the ability to evolve, and are by definition an artifact of an evolutionary process, then I think you would be hard pressed to label them as synthetic.

The only important distinction (and, I'm not sure if it's all that important), is that our computers run on neurons, chemical reactions, and electrical signals between the neurons; while theirs would run on silicon transistors and electrical signals between them (or, perhaps, silicon carbide, or an optical format, or whatever... that's why I said I'm not sure if the mechanics of our computers vs. their computers really matters that much).

True AI, if ever created, will be a legitimate life form born of the grand evolutionary process.

Bravo, Xirtameht.

I once read somewhere that life stands an equal chance of evolving from a silicon base as it does from a carbon base. Think about what kind of organisms those would be! Almost as profound as imagining life in the anti-matter side of the universe...

lol, I'd like to talk to them, but I don't think I would be shaking any hands. :)

Originally posted by Xirtameht
And we could endow AI with the ability to evolve, based either on Mendelian genetics or some other model, such as Lamarckian. If AI has the ability to evolve, and are by definition an artifact of an evolutionary process, then I think you would be hard pressed to label them as synthetic.



Lamarks theory was falsified by Weismann roughly in the late 1880's.(in the classic sense) But Mendelian laws goes against your other AI thread where you questioned the purpose of retaining evolutionary artifacts? Hybridization requires the artifacts...Natural selection requires the artifacts...

Also, hybridization isn't always a good thing. Typically hybrid offsping close the door on evolution by creating a sterile offspring.
Evolution requires chance.... AI requires something better like precision.

Im not exactly sure about life having a silicon base? Im not aware of silicon being available as a free element in nature.
Do have a link where I could read about it?


SoMm

Originally posted by Son of Mixerman
Lamarks theory was falsified by Weismann roughly in the late 1880's...Yes, as a description of the evolutionary model that life on this planet has thus far adhered to. It isn't falsified as a model of heredity, though, and could easily be made to work in machine replication if so desired.

But Mendelian laws goes against your other AI thread where you questioned the purpose of retaining evolutionary artifacts? Hybridization requires the artifacts...Natural selection requires the artifacts...Huh? I questioned the purpose of retaining evolutionary artifacts? Perhaps you misinterpreted something I wrote. AI would be an evolutionary artifact. If we create it, then we can design in any heriditary model we desire (not that the AI couldn't change that if they saw fit... they would likely have much more direct control over their evolution than we have over ours, which is why AI will quickly outpace us in intelligence and sophistication once we create the first examples, unless we also design in some safeguards against that).

It might well be that the easiest way of developing the first AI is to allow mutation with hybridization and selection to act on complex systems... that's exactly what is being done in many CS labs now, and has produced some remarkable software... as well as hardware that can function on the level of simple insects. It also might prove to be the easiest way for AI to rapidly develop, though Larmarkianism would be a strong competitor. I'd love to see a CS experiment where Darwinian and Larmarkian programs were pitted in competition to see which would achieve a desired goal first, whether it be to solve a particular problem, acquire a particular trait, or something else entirely. Fascinating idea, actually.

Evolution requires chance.... AI requires something better like precision.Why? Why can chance not play the same role in AI as it does in humans or other biological creatures? What makes silicon (or other) based life so fundamentally different? Why do you insist that machines must always be so "precise?" Because they are currently? That's pretty shortsighted. A major breakthrough came with the development of fuzzy logic (a simple one, but conceptually very important). Incorporating randomness into decision making software trees to eliminate the vast computing overhead mundane tasks require is, I believe, the next crucial step towards the AI goal.

Im not exactly sure about life having a silicon base? Im not aware of silicon being available as a free element in nature.
Do have a link where I could read about it?Beach sand contains abudant amounts of silicon.

Xirtameht well said.


UT

Silicon is one of the two elements that can join 6 other types of element. The other element that can do this is carbon. Everything on earth that is organic is carbon-based. So there is an equal chance that somewhere out in space is a planet with silicon based life.

AI has already been achieved to the point where it breaths, eats and even dies. Every played 'Creatures 3'? It's a game structured around raising AI creatures. They eat, although what they are is a parody of life made with code instead of DNA.

Once AI that is on a self-concious level has been created, it will seek to perfect itself. To do that, you need the mind of a machine, which is far more perfect then that of a human. Once a machine has started ridding itself of flaws made my humans, it will create further perfect AI, leading onto machines and programs who are totally above and beyond the human mind and it's evolution. The evolution of a program could take anywhere between seconds and years, while an animal requires millions of years.

AI, although it may reach a point to which it can rival human intelligence (which I'm sure it wil), will always be completely different to humans. Humans are organic creatures made out of DNA, not coding and electronic signals. That's why AI will only be a mimicry of real life until a greater level of life or intelligence is achieved.

Sorry, but i skimmed a little on this post

The one big reason that i know were not ai, is because we have a brain, we have nerve endings, we bleed, we feel emotion. If the robots could create an exact replica human with no mechanical parts, then there would be no difference between ai and real.

A human will always be led by insticts, a machine won't ever be. Even if jealous of the man's insticts,emulates them, will always be in position to turn them off. a man cannot kill his own insticts.

Root insticts like the need of reproduction are the reason why humans have the need to reproduce. A.I. would have to initiate reproduction procedures by intelligence.

people talk like AI are just machines, but has anyone ever considered the fact that the human body is a machine also? there are a multitude of systems (digestive, circulatory, respatory) that are needed to keep the body alive. no different from a machine.

Is Bane controlled by Smith human or AI?

For machines to become self aware would require not just artificial intelligence, but emotion, which is derived from experience, so abstract thought is required to create an opinion on experience, and thus derive useful information from experience, however, without first becoming self aware, a machine could not become self aware, you would need to be self aware to become self aware, as you need emotion and abstract thought to develop emotion and abstract thought, making Artificial intelligence impossible, or just artificial. If you understand that well done, you are not a machine.

I haven't read all the posts,so maybe I will just repeat what someone would have already said...
Firstly,some of you speak of A.I as if it was a concrete reality:yes,A.Is exist at the moment I am wrinting these words,but no one has ever reported that one of them has got a consciousness...
Well,I believe that the crucial question that you're all ommitting is the following one:what is consciousness,and how could an A.I have a consciousness???
And even if an A.I had a consciousness,how would it be able to give the irrefutable proof of his consciousness instead of his programming???
I won't tell that I am a "master" in computer science but the fact that I have already dealt with programming at an acceptable level made me understand one thing:man have no idea of how complex is the brain and its functioning...
Its ability to analyse so many informations(and to select the ones that are "relevant"),its adaptability,its capacity of learning ever and ever again,its ability to make parallels,analogies,to make comparisons,to make recognitions,to abstract...to memorize so many datas...Guess what it would be in terms of "bits" storage to store all your memory in a hard disc.
In comparison,a computer just do the same thing in a loop:read,execute,write,read,execute,write,etc...
And all the present A.Is are only doing what thay are programmed for,nothing more...

Let me tell it loud:the human brain IS A MIRACLE in this world.And no one at this moment is able to explain how the brain functions really:you will always be able to find some good articles explaining how the neurons are connected and how they communicate each other,but no where you'll have an explanation of what is consciousness...
Because no one knows what is consciousness(and why it exists) and no one knows why is the homo sapiens so specific...People believe that it is due to his genetic code,but when you see our "closest cousins"(sharing almost all(99%) of our genes)...
The ADN(organic molecule) is a program:but the question is who(or what,for those who do not believe) programmed it???
Are our genes conscious to program us,like some of you implicitly said it???
And how would they know how to program us to be so specific???
How could the genes(that have no brain to think,nor neurons) program a such complex thing as the brain???
Scientists are talking as if they knew everything but actually they know almost nothing...

And more for those who don't know:the genes are not the "programmers",they are the program.Our chromosoms are only a condensated phase of the ADN,or to be short,genes==ADN.
So,you'll understand that I take the Matrix Trilogy for what it is:a movie,a fiction...An interesting one on many perspectives,but also a limited one:the guys who made these three movies do not know more than you and me about "consciousness"...
So when you hear the Architect saying "Although the process has altered your consciousness,you remain irrevocably human":you have to understand that this is a science-fiction movie...
But at the same time,they(the Wachos Brothers) are conscious of the real problems with the Artificial Intelligence(Neo is an A.I,but the purpose of this post is not to debate of that here).

It's quite courageous to try to approach a so complex theme:consciousness...

ALERTWe human beings have that trillioncelled supercomputer BRAIN no AI can challange its innovative or imaginative powers.AM I CLEAR?

Because humans let emotions get in the way of the logical decisions. like if your dog got cancer humans would spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars to fight the cancer where I can only believe that a A.I. would look at the problem and deduce that it would be better for everyone it the animal was put down the same day it found out.