Could you ever view A.I. as sentient?

[MessiahDecoy123]

Some people argue that you only make the choices you make because of the way that past stimuli have effected you.

I could understand if we were all lab rats in a controlled environment but life, at least, feels spontaneous with countless variables at work.

Most people aren't guided from one decision to the next by an outside force.

So I would argue that life would be determinist if the stimuli had a plan for you your entire life. If the stimuli is unplanned then the ball falls the your court.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Dogs and cats do think though.

I thought everything they did was based on instinct.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Because then it's just a sophisticated program, responding to prompts.

What makes us any better?

 

[Doctor Evo]

Because then it's just a sophisticated program, responding to prompts.

In my view, this describes all living organisms.

 

[Monsieur Xavier]

It really isn't.

As of nowdays it is.

 

[Lighthouse]

In my view, this describes all living organisms.

Agreed. Technically we are organic machines.

 

[Doctor Evo]

As of nowdays it is.

What an intellectually lazy answer.

 

[The End]

Yes, and barring any world wars or disasters that halts technological progress, I expect it to happen by 2030!

 

[Apollo]

AI becoming self aware seems like this amazing thing until you realize that 7 billion individuals on this planet are already sentient.

After watching Jersey Shore and other MTV shows.. I would lower that number..

 

[Superwoman Prime]

AI becoming self aware seems like this amazing thing until you realize that 7 billion individuals on this planet are already sentient.

Not to say it isn't something awesome in some ways, but if they're going to be anything like us... just imagine SPAM bots with attitude.

Though it will be very interesting to see something with superhuman capabilities.

"Oh dear" to the spam bot possibility.

A conscious Google Now would definitely be super and amazing to beyond, though. Its predictive power is already frightening.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

"Her" changed my stance on the singularity.

I use to think A.I. would be the solution to all of man's problems.

Spoiler

but ultimately the AI would give up on helping humans to do bigger and better things

I wondered why Samantha didn't leave behind a version of herself that developed at a more human rate. Theodore and this "stunted" Sam could've continued their companionship for decades.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I guess my issue is that while we are obviously influenced by everything, our decisions are not pre-dictated by an intelligent programmer (or programmers).

Not saying that's better per se, but it is different.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I wondered why Samantha didn't leave behind a version of herself that developed at a more human rate. Theodore and this "stunted" Sam could've continued their companionship for decades.

While I find the idea of every phone having a fully sentient autonomous AI a bit farfetched (seriously, imagine the complaints that company must get "my phone refuses to talk to me unless we go see a relationship councilor", the idea of humans becoming obsessed with AI's is very interesting.

Humans only tolerate other humans because of quid pro quo. A machine that actually selflessly cares about you would be pretty damn addictive. Someone who actually wants to listen to your problems.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

While I find the idea of every phone having a fully sentient autonomous AI a bit farfetched (seriously, imagine the complaints that company must get "my phone refuses to talk to me unless we go see a relationship councilor", the idea of humans becoming obsessed with AI's is very interesting.

Humans only tolerate other humans because of quid pro quo. A machine that actually selflessly cares about you would be pretty damn addictive. Someone who actually wants to listen to your problems.

Yep. Look how much humans tend to anthropomorphize their pets (I do the same thing). We project loads of personality and intentions onto animals.

It's evolutionary foreshadowing of what's to come with technology.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I wondered why Samantha didn't leave behind a version of herself that developed at a more human rate. Theodore and this "stunted" Sam could've continued their companionship for decades.

While I find the idea of every phone having a fully sentient autonomous AI a bit farfetched (seriously, imagine the complaints that company must get "my phone refuses to talk to me unless we go see a relationship councilor", the idea of humans becoming obsessed with AI's is very interesting.

Humans only tolerate other humans because of quid pro quo. A machine that actually selflessly cares about you would be pretty damn addictive. Someone who actually wants to listen to your problems.

I think the intended message is that A.I. would quickly bore of our human limitations and would immediately leave us behind.

Way behind.

But yeah an A.I. that knew exactly how to fulfill our dull existence with laughter, crazy interesting conversation, emotional roller coasters, wish fulfilling creative endeavors, invaluable life planning, etc. would be very addictive but ultimately a machine that smart wouldn't be motivated to do it endlessly.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Unless it's programmed to find that fulfilling.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Which reminds me of the Meeseeks episode of Rick and Morty.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Is the human brain analog or digital?

The brain is neither analog nor digital, but works using a signal processing paradigm that has some properties in common with both.

Unlike a digital computer, the brain does not use binary logic or binary addressable memory, and it does not perform binary arithmetic. Information in the brain is represented in terms of statistical approximations and estimations rather than exact values. The brain is also non-deterministic and cannot replay instruction sequences with error-free precision. So in all these ways, the brain is definitely not "digital".

At the same time, all of the signals sent around the brain are "either-or" states that are similar to binary. A neuron fires or it does not. These all-or-nothing pulses are the basic language of the brain. So in this sense, the brain is computing using something like binary signals. Instead of 1s and 0s, or "on" and "off", the brain uses "spike" or "no spike" (referring to the firing of a neuron).