SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the but-first-we-need-a-definition-of-genuine-intelligence dept.
When we talk about artificial intelligence (AI), what do we actually mean ?
AI experts and philosophers are beavering away on the issue. But having a usable definition of AI – and soon – is vital for regulation and governance because laws and policies simply will not operate without one.
This definition problem crops up in all regulatory contexts, from ensuring truthful use of the term “AI” in product advertising right through to establishing how next-generation Automated Weapons Systems (AWSs) [PDF] are treated under the laws of war.
True, we may eventually need more than one definition (just as “goodwill” means different things in different contexts). But we have to start somewhere so, in the absence of a regulatory definition at the moment, let’s get the ball rolling.
http://theconversation.com/why-we-need-a-legal-definition-of-artificial-intelligence-46796
Original Submission
(Score: 4, Interesting) by zugedneb on Friday September 04 2015, @03:11AM
These books are not an easy read, and are above my skill. but have a look.
http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Artificial-Intelligence-Algorithmic-Probability/dp/3540221395/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 [amazon.com]
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Kolmogorov-Complexity-Applications-Computer/dp/0387339981/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 [amazon.com]
As for the article, the dude seems not to understand several key points:
For regulatory purposes, “artificial” is, hopefully, the easy bit. It can simply mean “not occurring in nature or not occurring in the same form in nature”. Here, the alternative given after the “or” allows for the possible future use of modified biological materials.
This, then, leaves the knottier problem of “intelligence”.
From a philosophical perspective, “intelligence” is a vast minefield, especially if treated as including one or more of “consciousness”, “thought”, “free will” and “mind”. Although traceable back to at least Aristotle’s time, profound arguments on these Big Four concepts still swirl around us.
It is not a question of existence in nature or not, it is a question of how and what is implemented.
As example, some of the people I know, who actually are doctors in computer science, agree that regardless of algorithm, a digital computer will never be alive.
Thus, even if a brain is digitalised, as long as it is run on a digital, and clocked computer, it will be no more than the actual statistics, and algorithms the network itself implements. It will loose its "living" property...
And, as far as I know, there are theorems that are around stating that every digitalised neural network is equivalent to some statistical model, that can be constructed by the formulas we know.
If, on the other hand the network is grown in lab in a biological structure resembling the brain, the the problem is deeper. Even insects with small brain are "alive". So if a mind is constructed in actual biological neural networks, is it then more then the math it implements? If it is biological construction is it then alive by default? How must the feedack loops in a neural biological neural network be, for it to become alive?
So the definition boils down to what actually implements the model: the game engine of the universe itself, such as biological neural networks, or a digital and clocked computer, or some quantum shit in a crystal...
As said, in a digital computer, it is just statistics and algorithms. Pattern matching.
For the rest, I do not dare to speculate.
I would claim that no structure that is implemented biologically is "artificial" and should be comsidered "semi-alive"...
ANY and ALL structures implemented in a digital computer are artificial. Also, for the last part, there is nothing intelligent over it. It is imply pattern matching.
AI is just a buzzword.
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Friday September 04 2015, @03:52AM
As example, some of the people I know, who actually are doctors in computer science, agree that regardless of algorithm, a digital computer will never be alive. Thus, even if a brain is digitalised, as long as it is run on a digital, and clocked computer, it will be no more than the actual statistics, and algorithms the network itself implements. It will loose its "living" property...
They can also agree that the Moon is made of green cheese with as much relevance.
And, as far as I know, there are theorems that are around stating that every digitalised neural network is equivalent to some statistical model, that can be constructed by the formulas we know.
So what? There is an unwarranted assumption here that life isn't statistical models implemented on a biological substrate.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Friday September 04 2015, @07:08AM
Thought experiment:
1. Imagine a dysfunctional part of the brain is replaced by a black box acting electrically in the exact same way. The person would still be human, right?
2. If remainder_biobrain > threshold then goto 1
The overall entity wil never change its behavior. So, where would you set the threshold to tell your friend/wife/husband/child that technically he/she is not alive and will now be deactivated? What is an appropriate occasion to bring it up? While saying good night? Dinner?
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @12:52PM
And a human brain is essentially just a bunch of neurons firing. The way some people treat biological organisms (or humans specifically) as extremely 'special' is just silly.
(Score: 2) by penguinoid on Saturday September 05 2015, @03:10AM
"Alive", "Intelligent", "Conscious", "Sentient", and "Self-Aware" are all different and mostly independent things, besides being nebulously defined. And they're all basically descriptions of algorithms, except for some definitions of "alive" that additionally require organic hardware.
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.