<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Sep 16 2004, 06:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Sep 16 2004, 06:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Inability to predict the next action is not a good litmus test for intelligence since it is trivial to construct a program whose output is impossible to predict.
There is a lot of debate going on here in all kinds of different directions. While its probably enjoyable, if you guys are really interested in the subject, there is plenty to read on it. There are a lot of results of theoretical computer science that are very relevant, and a lot of neuroscience also. Since computer science is my specialty, I'm going to try to find articles around the net for people to read if they are interested.
Let me first say this though. Computer scientists have been trying for years to find a system in nature that is more than Turing complete. They have not found a single one yet, and yes, that includes all the stuff our brains our made of. (for those unfamiliar with Turing completeness, a system is Turing complete if it and a Turing machine can emulate eachother. Our computers are one example of a Turing complete system, and so far, it looks like the universe as a whole is another example. If the universe is in fact no more than Turing complete, this implies that a computer can do anything you can do.)
Here are some articles. A lot of the stuff in here is pretty esoteric, so if there is anything you don't understand and would like me to try to explain, let me know. I find this stuff fascinating and would be glad to help people out with it. <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem' target='_blank'>The Halting Problem</a> <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-Turing_thesis' target='_blank'>Church Turing Thesis</a> <a href='http://www.abelard.org/turpap/turpap.htm' target='_blank'>Probably the most famous paper on AI</a> This paper should probably be the starting point of our discussion since it answers pretty much all the objections that have been raised in this thread so far. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Listen to this man! He knows his chicken (he knows his stuff)! This is the heart of the matter right here. There are some things a Turing machine (aka computer) cannot do!
I don't think you guys understand what the halting problem, so I'll explain it to you. The halting problem essentially is the ability for a computer program to input another generic program (any program) and say whether it halts or not. The problem is this. If it halts, fine.. great.. you get no for an answer. And if it doesn't halt? This means yes? Not necessarily. Remember that technically, you could build a program with 5 nested loops that loop 2^32 times each (in simpler terms, a program that would take a long time to run) and the program would end *EVENTUALLY*. If our program waited for x amount of time to see if it halts or not, then we are essentially getting an approximation. Perhaps it works for most, but not all.
So what, right? Here's what. Humans can look at code and determine whether or not it will go into an infinite loop or not. The real kicker? Because of the halting problem, a computer program <b>cannot</b> possibly hope to achieve this.
We can look at: <!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->while(true) { } <!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2--> ...And easily tell that it will never finish. A computer program cannot do this. Sure you could teach it to look for a while loop such as this, but there are more than one ways to skin a cat. To exhaust all possible codings of an infinite loop would be an endless task, so it isn't possible. And coincidentally, this process of determining whether code is capable of ending or not, <b>cannot</b> be expressed in a sequence of computable steps (tying to what I said earlier). If it were possible, we'd have a computer program that could do it by now. (I dare you to try. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
If a computer cannot do what a human can do, how can we expect it to simulate human intelligence with 100% accuracy? Anything made with computers today to simulate AI would only be an approximation.
(I recommend for you readers to read the last link provided)
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited September 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Sep 17 2004, 09:38 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Sep 17 2004, 09:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So what, right? Here's what. Humans can look at code and determine whether or not it will go into an infinite loop or not. The real kicker? Because of the halting problem, a computer program <b>cannot</b> possibly hope to achieve this.
We can look at: <!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->while(true) { } <!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2--> ...And easily tell that it will never finish. A computer program cannot do this. Sure you could teach it to look for a while loop such as this, but there are more than one ways to skin a cat. To exhaust all possible codings of an infinite loop would be an endless task, so it isn't possible. And coincidentally, this process of determining whether code is capable of ending or not, <b>cannot</b> be expressed in a sequence of computable steps (tying to what I said earlier). If it were possible, we'd have a computer program that could do it by now. (I dare you to try. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
If a computer cannot do what a human can do, how can we expect it to simulate human intelligence with 100% accuracy? Anything made with computers today to simulate AI would only be an approximation.
(I recommend for you readers to read the last link provided) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, I don't think there is any evidence that humans can figure out whether a program halts in the general case. Take a look at the code I gave on the last page as an example. If you can figure out whether that code halts, you've got an automatic Phd in math awaiting you. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Well, I meant time and resource permitting, would you be able to do it? To ask the question whether a human being is capable, we can assume he's got 5 degrees in mathematics, 5 degrees in computer science, etc. etc.
You *could* technically figure out whether or not a program has a loop. You could make a program that would wipe out all extraneous code. Even then, things could be complicated to check. It is possible to check though.
At least I think it is. If you have a problem allowing a human infinite time and resources, well do the same for a computer, and they're even. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Sep 17 2004, 12:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Sep 17 2004, 12:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-agentx5+Sep 16 2004, 09:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (agentx5 @ Sep 16 2004, 09:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...Xzianthia... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Quite an elaborate fiction, did you come up with it or is it someone else's brainchild? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Mine. All mine. It's a project that is about 10 years in the making now.
Research the owner of www.xzianthia.net if you don't believe me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I appreciate the use of examples, but I'm just saying maybe you should tell a story before you start quoting it as fact, otherwize you get people who look at it with no real understanding of genre and context <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. This topic is on a discussion of AI and so I quoted documents of mine where I had thought extensively on the subject. However, with out getting into the whole ultra complex cause&effect relationship resulting between parallel universes you should know that everytime you create a work of fiction you are correlating to events happening in some other universe. This may be because you are "recieving" or "transmitting" influence to another universe(s), or because simply since there is an infinite number of parallel universes and thus infinite entropy and thus anything you do or think is going to draw a parallel with something somewhere. So considering that and part of what I like to do is to draw confusion (people are confused if I'm for real) is why I stated it as fact. <!--emo&::tsa::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tsa.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tsa.gif' /><!--endemo-->
confused? Sorry sometimes when I talk about science, existance, or philosophy most people get a headache. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(much the way many christians look at the bible as literal fact when the vast majority of it is poetry and myth).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah yes. It is annoying when they do that, hopefully most do not.
Anyways...
I would love to share my creation with you all in full. It's hard for me because my nature is to blindly trust people, but I must err on the side of caution because so many greedy game or movie comapnies would love to steal my "brainchild" as you call it. Since I have put so much time and detail into my hobby, Xzianthia has grown into such I highly detailed universe that it can put the reigning campions to shame (Star Wars and Star Trek universes). Of course it was always a little goal of mine to out do them all along. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Heh.
If you have any specific questions I should be able to answer. The history/plot where the story takes place is strictly out of questioning because I'm not finished with it and thus have no way to copyright it. At some point I will have to come open as I wish to share it in the format of a game. This means I will either have to show it to a game company or create my own company which means one way or another eventaully it will all be released. I have also come to a dilemma where I need feedback from fellow gammers to make it good but am afraid someone will steal it.
If you wish I may begin to release some of cool details that people enjoy (like the military stuff) in the fan fiction forum if my producer, ZXNet, thinks it would be safe.
I don't know if I can possibly believe that a being is capable of creating another being more intelligent than itself. Assuming it is possible for us to do that, then what automatically has to be true is that this being would be capable of creating another being more intelligent than itself (since it is more intelligent than us, it should be capable of doing at least what we can do).
That's what singularity is all about, from what I understand. I'm not so convinced this is possible though. We could carry on this idea ad absurdum. If the next being we create can create a being smarter than itself, then so must the being that our being creates. Etc. etc.
So to carry this on to infinity, and a god-like sentient being is born. It all spawns from us making a being more intelligent than us. I don't think it is possible. Thus, we cannot possibly create a being smarter than us. The best we can hope for is equal to our intelligence.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Sep 21 2004, 05:19 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Sep 21 2004, 05:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't know if I can possibly believe that a being is capable of creating another being more intelligent than itself. Assuming it is possible for us to do that, then what automatically has to be true is that this being would be capable of creating another being more intelligent than itself (since it is more intelligent than us, it should be capable of doing at least what we can do).
That's what singularity is all about, from what I understand. I'm not so convinced this is possible though. We could carry on this idea ad absurdum. If the next being we create can create a being smarter than itself, then so must the being that our being creates. Etc. etc.
So to carry this on to infinity, and a god-like sentient being is born. It all spawns from us making a being more intelligent than us. I don't think it is possible. Thus, we cannot possibly create a being smarter than us. The best we can hope for is equal to our intelligence. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I beg to differ on this point.
If you mix oil and sand you wont get a computer.
First you must make a tool, and you then use that tool to make a better tool, and that better tool to make a finer tool.
The first AI's will probably be stupid, nigh on idiodic. But they will be logical. You use those AI's, under human guidance, to create a better AI, and that better AI to construct a finer AI. Once you cross the point at which the AI can manage itself and create a finer AI still is when you will have machine intelligence and in actual fact the only thing that would limit such a progressive AI would be limited only by the power of the computers on which it runs.
Issac Asimov wrote a story just like this, entitled "The Last Question" it covered the story very well.
An AI can be smarter then a man but like man is hindered by physical limitations, or processing limitations.
So what, right? Here's what. Humans can look at code and determine whether or not it will go into an infinite loop or not. The real kicker? Because of the halting problem, a computer program <b>cannot</b> possibly hope to achieve this.
We can look at: <!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->while(true) { } <!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2--> ...And easily tell that it will never finish. A computer program cannot do this. Sure you could teach it to look for a while loop such as this, but there are more than one ways to skin a cat. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You could train the computer to look for exit conditions and the triggers that would cause them.
That is the same manner in which a human would look at such a loop.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited September 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Sep 21 2004, 03:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Sep 21 2004, 03:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You could train the computer to look for exit conditions and the triggers that would cause them.
That is the same manner in which a human would look at such a loop. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem' target='_blank'>The Halting Problem</a> Read up.
I don't think there is anything that a human can do in this regard that a computer can't, but it is in fact an undecidable problem,
So what, right? Here's what. Humans can look at code and determine whether or not it will go into an infinite loop or not. The real kicker? Because of the halting problem, a computer program <b>cannot</b> possibly hope to achieve this.
We can look at: <!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->while(true) { } <!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2--> ...And easily tell that it will never finish. A computer program cannot do this. Sure you could teach it to look for a while loop such as this, but there are more than one ways to skin a cat. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You could train the computer to look for exit conditions and the triggers that would cause them.
That is the same manner in which a human would look at such a loop. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> True you could, but then you'd have to test to see whether or not the exit condition would ever be true. Okay, it is easy if it is "true" or "false" but more than likely it will be much more complicated.
We're talking about the general case too, so it'd have to be able to figure this out for any such truth statement.
Connecting your brain to a computer, and thinking and telling the computer what to do is very possible. The other day on tech tv i think, these two doctors had these things that measured for siesures that they put in your brain, and outside of your skull, there was a plug. The patients got very bored after a while, so they created a game for the people. The people have to think up up up, so a little ball goes up while moving to the right, and they try to hit the target.
That being said, if machines can interfere with your brain, the matrix is very possible. Think about it as a future for criminals. Except you wouldnt feel pain.
Strange, the other day i was thinking about (and im serious about this) before i die, have my brain put in a heavily armored jar, and put a few wires in it to make a control panel, and have myself be self sustaining. also, i could connect myself to robotic bodies, have camera eyes, and communicated through text to voice.
Transfering ones conciousness "flame" from a biological brain to a computer system is far off but not inconceivable. If you want to cheat death then this an excellent option.
<!--QuoteBegin-agentx5+Sep 22 2004, 06:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (agentx5 @ Sep 22 2004, 06:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Transfering ones conciousness "flame" from a biological brain to a computer system is far off but not inconceivable. If you want to cheat death then this an excellent option. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I wouldn't call living in a metal body subjected to living your life through limitations "excellent."
Compare it to death, though, and it looks a little better.
Edit: as long as you're not senile, anyway. Having someone transfer their mental essence into a matel shell is pointless if they're just going to mumble about Dave and dribble.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Sep 22 2004, 06:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Sep 22 2004, 06:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-agentx5+Sep 22 2004, 06:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (agentx5 @ Sep 22 2004, 06:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Transfering ones conciousness "flame" from a biological brain to a computer system is far off but not inconceivable. If you want to cheat death then this an excellent option. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I wouldn't call living in a metal body subjected to living your life through limitations "excellent." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I meant in the body of an humanoid android, where the human body is in fact the limitation.
i'm not sure if any1 else mentioned it, but you've seen films like terminator etc, and the fact that the chances are a "superhuman" can turn against its creators in some violent rage and break whatever restrictions it had making some sort of war... altho i find topics like this interesting and the fact that one day human-like and androids etc, will one day exist is a great breakthrough for technology but on the off chance something should or might go wrong creating a huge battle between humans and "superhumans" or andriods or whichever one is here then the damage would be significant and the human race would not survive, as a "greater-then-human intellect" would leave us vunrable and as we could not clearly asend to there level of thinking we would have to come up with some sort of "ingenius" way to beat them, as some things go, beings with great intellect have trouble thinking up ideas of which are so plain and simple that a child could think of.. all in all, i think this kind of technology is great but i wouldn't risk it untill we can be sure these things can be tamed
I don't think we will ever see 'superhuman' machines to any degree portrayed in the movies.
Electronics and mechanics are severly limited by environmental conditions. High end processing requires vast amounts of power and generates enormous amounts of heat.
New ICs while fast are terribly delicate and will break if too great an acceleration is applied to them. Temperature affects their performance, moisture, radiation and countless other conditions plague electronics. Probably one of the most damaging things you could do to one of these 'superhuman' robots would be to shoot it with a saltwater filled supersoaker.
Think about how often cars break down or have problems. Now imagine how complex a 'superhuman' robot would have to be compared to that vehicle.
thats a good point, but if people think of ideas such as in films, then basically they have INVENTED it and it just takes awhile before it is put up for practical construction.. i mean watching a behing the scence T3 program the robots used ..they actually made them.. all it takes is to tweak certain bits add bullets and u got a mini tank... i mean obviously at this point in time they wont be able to but in the future humans will think up some incredable powersoucre which is small compact and contains more energy then a nuc (for example) and its not to unbelivable that something along the lines of human-like robots wont exist and the temprature worries i'm sure by that time we'll have created some kind of polymer that can protect these robots against heat, and rain etc
Believing that an intelligent AI is going to destroy all of mankind is the equivalent of genetically modifying a monkey to have human intelligence and claiming that monkey will kill us all.
It is a little absurd isn't it? Too many people that have seen the terminator movies to allow something like that to happen.
It would be extremely difficult for machines to take over like in the termanator movies. They would have to find a way to manufacture themselves from recycled materials, or from ore, and the manufacturing process would have to include ultra-smart computers. All current manufacturing processes use people in many stages of its production.
In Termanators 1, 2 and 3, there would be no rise of the machines, because no fully automated manufacturing process exists that would be capable of producing themselves, or anything, period.
In order for there to be an Android species, there must be a factory that is asexual, and also has the flexability to also produce these intellegent robots as a secondary function.
There must also be a means to deliver energy, and materials to these factories.
And there must be sensors, and some kind of an intelligent computer to make sense of the physical world. Nothing even comes close to what people can do when it comes to that.
ok u have to understand that i was using terminator as an example of 1 possibility, but even if they have seen if malfunctions and problems occur all the time so they wont nessecarily be able to take evry porecaution to stop it from happening, if it does it does if it dont.. it probably will a couple years later.. slightly off-topic "i belive that the world is prone to bad luck, but every couple of years something big will happen. iraq and bagdad for instance have been a major occurence, but i'm sure bad luck lingers around and does a large bit of work sometime during the space of 5 years
To move the topic on to something else but related, what do you guys think about brain enhancing drugs and the attempts they are making recently with magnetic technologies and whatnot. For me, I feel sort of cheated knowing that perhaps someday people will become smarter without putting in the effort, if you know what I mean.
yes you would feel like that, you spend all your time spending days and days at school learning about stuff and ending up getting a less then decent job, and then you get "cheaters" who use these brain enhancing drugs and so on to become ridulously intelligent with no effort at all, and then they get straight A's and end up getting 100k a year or invent something and it is quite unfair, we learn from are mistakes and improve apon then, with this they probably wont have mistakes and will be very snobbish and big headed
Comments
There is a lot of debate going on here in all kinds of different directions. While its probably enjoyable, if you guys are really interested in the subject, there is plenty to read on it. There are a lot of results of theoretical computer science that are very relevant, and a lot of neuroscience also. Since computer science is my specialty, I'm going to try to find articles around the net for people to read if they are interested.
Let me first say this though. Computer scientists have been trying for years to find a system in nature that is more than Turing complete. They have not found a single one yet, and yes, that includes all the stuff our brains our made of.
(for those unfamiliar with Turing completeness, a system is Turing complete if it and a Turing machine can emulate eachother. Our computers are one example of a Turing complete system, and so far, it looks like the universe as a whole is another example. If the universe is in fact no more than Turing complete, this implies that a computer can do anything you can do.)
Here are some articles. A lot of the stuff in here is pretty esoteric, so if there is anything you don't understand and would like me to try to explain, let me know. I find this stuff fascinating and would be glad to help people out with it.
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem' target='_blank'>The Halting Problem</a>
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-Turing_thesis' target='_blank'>Church Turing Thesis</a>
<a href='http://www.abelard.org/turpap/turpap.htm' target='_blank'>Probably the most famous paper on AI</a> This paper should probably be the starting point of our discussion since it answers pretty much all the objections that have been raised in this thread so far. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Listen to this man! He knows his chicken (he knows his stuff)! This is the heart of the matter right here. There are some things a Turing machine (aka computer) cannot do!
I don't think you guys understand what the halting problem, so I'll explain it to you. The halting problem essentially is the ability for a computer program to input another generic program (any program) and say whether it halts or not. The problem is this. If it halts, fine.. great.. you get no for an answer. And if it doesn't halt? This means yes? Not necessarily. Remember that technically, you could build a program with 5 nested loops that loop 2^32 times each (in simpler terms, a program that would take a long time to run) and the program would end *EVENTUALLY*. If our program waited for x amount of time to see if it halts or not, then we are essentially getting an approximation. Perhaps it works for most, but not all.
So what, right? Here's what. Humans can look at code and determine whether or not it will go into an infinite loop or not. The real kicker? Because of the halting problem, a computer program <b>cannot</b> possibly hope to achieve this.
We can look at:
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->while(true)
{
}
<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
...And easily tell that it will never finish. A computer program cannot do this. Sure you could teach it to look for a while loop such as this, but there are more than one ways to skin a cat. To exhaust all possible codings of an infinite loop would be an endless task, so it isn't possible. And coincidentally, this process of determining whether code is capable of ending or not, <b>cannot</b> be expressed in a sequence of computable steps (tying to what I said earlier). If it were possible, we'd have a computer program that could do it by now. (I dare you to try. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
If a computer cannot do what a human can do, how can we expect it to simulate human intelligence with 100% accuracy? Anything made with computers today to simulate AI would only be an approximation.
(I recommend for you readers to read the last link provided)
We can look at:
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->while(true)
{
}
<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
...And easily tell that it will never finish. A computer program cannot do this. Sure you could teach it to look for a while loop such as this, but there are more than one ways to skin a cat. To exhaust all possible codings of an infinite loop would be an endless task, so it isn't possible. And coincidentally, this process of determining whether code is capable of ending or not, <b>cannot</b> be expressed in a sequence of computable steps (tying to what I said earlier). If it were possible, we'd have a computer program that could do it by now. (I dare you to try. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
If a computer cannot do what a human can do, how can we expect it to simulate human intelligence with 100% accuracy? Anything made with computers today to simulate AI would only be an approximation.
(I recommend for you readers to read the last link provided) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, I don't think there is any evidence that humans can figure out whether a program halts in the general case. Take a look at the code I gave on the last page as an example. If you can figure out whether that code halts, you've got an automatic Phd in math awaiting you. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
You *could* technically figure out whether or not a program has a loop. You could make a program that would wipe out all extraneous code. Even then, things could be complicated to check. It is possible to check though.
At least I think it is. If you have a problem allowing a human infinite time and resources, well do the same for a computer, and they're even. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quite an elaborate fiction, did you come up with it or is it someone else's brainchild? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mine. All mine. It's a project that is about 10 years in the making now.
Research the owner of www.xzianthia.net if you don't believe me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I appreciate the use of examples, but I'm just saying maybe you should tell a story before you start quoting it as fact, otherwize you get people who look at it with no real understanding of genre and context <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. This topic is on a discussion of AI and so I quoted documents of mine where I had thought extensively on the subject. However, with out getting into the whole ultra complex cause&effect relationship resulting between parallel universes you should know that everytime you create a work of fiction you are correlating to events happening in some other universe. This may be because you are "recieving" or "transmitting" influence to another universe(s), or because simply since there is an infinite number of parallel universes and thus infinite entropy and thus anything you do or think is going to draw a parallel with something somewhere. So considering that and part of what I like to do is to draw confusion (people are confused if I'm for real) is why I stated it as fact. <!--emo&::tsa::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tsa.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tsa.gif' /><!--endemo-->
confused? Sorry sometimes when I talk about science, existance, or philosophy most people get a headache. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(much the way many christians look at the bible as literal fact when the vast majority of it is poetry and myth).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah yes. It is annoying when they do that, hopefully most do not.
Anyways...
I would love to share my creation with you all in full. It's hard for me because my nature is to blindly trust people, but I must err on the side of caution because so many greedy game or movie comapnies would love to steal my "brainchild" as you call it. Since I have put so much time and detail into my hobby, Xzianthia has grown into such I highly detailed universe that it can put the reigning campions to shame (Star Wars and Star Trek universes). Of course it was always a little goal of mine to out do them all along. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Heh.
If you have any specific questions I should be able to answer. The history/plot where the story takes place is strictly out of questioning because I'm not finished with it and thus have no way to copyright it. At some point I will have to come open as I wish to share it in the format of a game. This means I will either have to show it to a game company or create my own company which means one way or another eventaully it will all be released. I have also come to a dilemma where I need feedback from fellow gammers to make it good but am afraid someone will steal it.
If you wish I may begin to release some of cool details that people enjoy (like the military stuff) in the fan fiction forum if my producer, ZXNet, thinks it would be safe.
That's what singularity is all about, from what I understand. I'm not so convinced this is possible though. We could carry on this idea ad absurdum. If the next being we create can create a being smarter than itself, then so must the being that our being creates. Etc. etc.
So to carry this on to infinity, and a god-like sentient being is born. It all spawns from us making a being more intelligent than us. I don't think it is possible. Thus, we cannot possibly create a being smarter than us. The best we can hope for is equal to our intelligence.
That's what singularity is all about, from what I understand. I'm not so convinced this is possible though. We could carry on this idea ad absurdum. If the next being we create can create a being smarter than itself, then so must the being that our being creates. Etc. etc.
So to carry this on to infinity, and a god-like sentient being is born. It all spawns from us making a being more intelligent than us. I don't think it is possible. Thus, we cannot possibly create a being smarter than us. The best we can hope for is equal to our intelligence. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I beg to differ on this point.
If you mix oil and sand you wont get a computer.
First you must make a tool, and you then use that tool to make a better tool, and that better tool to make a finer tool.
The first AI's will probably be stupid, nigh on idiodic. But they will be logical. You use those AI's, under human guidance, to create a better AI, and that better AI to construct a finer AI. Once you cross the point at which the AI can manage itself and create a finer AI still is when you will have machine intelligence and in actual fact the only thing that would limit such a progressive AI would be limited only by the power of the computers on which it runs.
Issac Asimov wrote a story just like this, entitled "The Last Question" it covered the story very well.
An AI can be smarter then a man but like man is hindered by physical limitations, or processing limitations.
So what, right? Here's what. Humans can look at code and determine whether or not it will go into an infinite loop or not. The real kicker? Because of the halting problem, a computer program <b>cannot</b> possibly hope to achieve this.
We can look at:
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->while(true)
{
}
<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
...And easily tell that it will never finish. A computer program cannot do this. Sure you could teach it to look for a while loop such as this, but there are more than one ways to skin a cat. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You could train the computer to look for exit conditions and the triggers that would cause them.
That is the same manner in which a human would look at such a loop.
You could train the computer to look for exit conditions and the triggers that would cause them.
That is the same manner in which a human would look at such a loop. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem' target='_blank'>The Halting Problem</a>
Read up.
I don't think there is anything that a human can do in this regard that a computer can't, but it is in fact an undecidable problem,
So what, right? Here's what. Humans can look at code and determine whether or not it will go into an infinite loop or not. The real kicker? Because of the halting problem, a computer program <b>cannot</b> possibly hope to achieve this.
We can look at:
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->while(true)
{
}
<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
...And easily tell that it will never finish. A computer program cannot do this. Sure you could teach it to look for a while loop such as this, but there are more than one ways to skin a cat. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You could train the computer to look for exit conditions and the triggers that would cause them.
That is the same manner in which a human would look at such a loop. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
True you could, but then you'd have to test to see whether or not the exit condition would ever be true. Okay, it is easy if it is "true" or "false" but more than likely it will be much more complicated.
We're talking about the general case too, so it'd have to be able to figure this out for any such truth statement.
So give me the algorithm for this.
That being said, if machines can interfere with your brain, the matrix is very possible. Think about it as a future for criminals. Except you wouldnt feel pain.
Strange, the other day i was thinking about (and im serious about this) before i die, have my brain put in a heavily armored jar, and put a few wires in it to make a control panel, and have myself be self sustaining. also, i could connect myself to robotic bodies, have camera eyes, and communicated through text to voice.
very interesting concepts.
I wouldn't call living in a metal body subjected to living your life through limitations "excellent."
Edit: as long as you're not senile, anyway. Having someone transfer their mental essence into a matel shell is pointless if they're just going to mumble about Dave and dribble.
I wouldn't call living in a metal body subjected to living your life through limitations "excellent." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I meant in the body of an humanoid android, where the human body is in fact the limitation.
all in all, i think this kind of technology is great but i wouldn't risk it untill we can be sure these things can be tamed
Electronics and mechanics are severly limited by environmental conditions. High end processing requires vast amounts of power and generates enormous amounts of heat.
New ICs while fast are terribly delicate and will break if too great an acceleration is applied to them. Temperature affects their performance, moisture, radiation and countless other conditions plague electronics. Probably one of the most damaging things you could do to one of these 'superhuman' robots would be to shoot it with a saltwater filled supersoaker.
Think about how often cars break down or have problems. Now imagine how complex a 'superhuman' robot would have to be compared to that vehicle.
It is a little absurd isn't it? Too many people that have seen the terminator movies to allow something like that to happen.
In Termanators 1, 2 and 3, there would be no rise of the machines, because no fully automated manufacturing process exists that would be capable of producing themselves, or anything, period.
In order for there to be an Android species, there must be a factory that is asexual, and also has the flexability to also produce these intellegent robots as a secondary function.
There must also be a means to deliver energy, and materials to these factories.
And there must be sensors, and some kind of an intelligent computer to make sense of the physical world. Nothing even comes close to what people can do when it comes to that.
but even if they have seen if malfunctions and problems occur all the time so they wont nessecarily be able to take evry porecaution to stop it from happening, if it does it does if it dont.. it probably will a couple years later..
slightly off-topic "i belive that the world is prone to bad luck, but every couple of years something big will happen. iraq and bagdad for instance have been a major occurence, but i'm sure bad luck lingers around and does a large bit of work sometime during the space of 5 years
well thats what i think
EDIT: in other words... No one likes a smart Ar*e