Putin says country that becomes AI leader will rule the world; Elon Musk warns it will...

[captaincranky]

@Reachable Unfortunately, the same imaginary abilities, or should I call it, "paranoid delusions of godhood", attach to the 'scientists', and 'windbags', such as Elon Musk, who claim they can 'terraform' another planet, but can't stop a simple thunderstorm here on earth.

Where's Musk when we need him to stop hurricane "Irma'? After all, if he's going to make Mars livable for mankind, it's the least he could do here.

(My guess is he's at home parading around in front of a mirror, modeling his new 'designer spacesuit').

 

[Scorpionking20]

We've all read articles about scientists who try to quantify the abilities of the human brain in terms of computing specs. It's very, very silly -- they're so caught up in their aspirations and enthusiasm that they completely ignore the fact that human (and other animal) thought and memory is completely different in the most fundamental way from what computing does.

ALL human thought is imagery -- all of it. And by imagery I mean not just visual imagery but sound and other sensory experience as well. This is incomparable to the crude processes that electronic computing uses to work with data. A good way to explain this is to imagine that you were part of the famous Jeopardy game show competition that pitted the greatest human champions against a special IBM supercomputer.

Let's say a question was presented that asked you to remember the name of George Washington's home. Immediately a series of rapid-fire images would flash in your head, each one prompting the next. You'd see the guy with the wig and serious facial expression and pictures you might have seen in books of his home. You'd see the words "Mt. Vernon" but you'd see the words as an image and also hear (internally) the pronunciation.

Watson (the computer), by contrast, runs through its entire huge recorded data base of numerically encoded text and matches the inputted question using clever algorithms created by humans. It's so so much faster but also so so much cruder than the way you do it (and AI still does it basically the same way).

The other difference is that human memory ISN'T STORED. If all the information that your senses have experienced in your entire life were encoded in your brain, your brain would have to be as large as the State of Nebraska. Instead, memory is triggered as a pattern of neuronal firing by adaptation. Most of what you experience you never recall again, you just recall what you do if and when it becomes relevant.

Computers, like all tools, enhance very specific human abilities, but it's a mistake to say that they are 'intelligent'.

I wouldn't disagree with anything you said. I'd point out though, that Watson, isn't a full blown AI. With that said, I don't know what his (haha) relevance would be to the topic. All of our sensory inputs are easily replicable with machine "parts." If we built a sufficiently working mechanical body (our body's work through the same laws of physics as any "AI" machine, with whatever "body" it has, in terms of electrical connections and "sensors").

When I'm talking about an "AI" I'm talking about a being with sufficiently good hardware and software that we could indeed consider it a form of "life," including the ability to suffer. We aren't near that, at the current moment, but when it does happen, regardless of how long it takes, it'll be quick. I don't see any reason a man made construct couldn't have a "brain" that works much better than ours, along with a "body" that serves whatever functions intended it would need. Maybe that elaborates our difference on what we are considering a true AI.