Movie: Her

Hey, maybe the internet itself is the next stage of intelligence? What would happen if the internet became self-aware?

NoCoPilot wrote:

Okay so tell me, Mr. Non-Religious Sophist, this part of the human personality that does not reside in the brain, where *DOES* it reside?

The part that runs the car, where does it reside? In the car. But where? It's not in one spot is it? It's the whole thing. Yet we never assume that there is some inanimate part of the car that we can't see do we? So why do people pull this card in AI debates?
Of course there is not a one part of the brain that does that and yet, it always gets brought up as though that fact is proof of something outside the human body that we can give computers. Or transporters. Or whatever.

Jenni wrote:

The part that runs the car, where does it reside? In the car. But where? It's not in one spot is it? It's the whole thing.

Well not quite -- the engine and the transmission and the differential and the tires. Those each have separate roles to play in the locomotion of a car.

With the brain, there are parts (distributed, but identifiable) that do motor control, and parts that do autonomous control, and parts that do emotions and parts that do flight/fight fear response. But the "part that does consciousness"? Not so clear. Probably the frontal cortex, but distributed over the whole thing.

We have built computers that do some of the things brains do, but never one that has developed self-consciousness. This puzzles some people. "How do you build a self-consciousness module"? As if SC is just another function of processing power.

It isn't.

It's an emergent property of having reached a certain level of complexity. It's a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts.

I remember once saying in a previous debate about this topic long ago on another board... that if we simply just keep building on the complexity previously... bit by bit, module by module, as necessity arises for another module that will work with the previous modules, eventually an artificially induced, yet still evolving, threshold will be reached and our machine's multi-modular self will emerge.

There is no "module" for self awareness. All the modules working in conjunction, orchestrally, will combine, inducing multiple feedback loops and eventually something we can recognize as - what we perceive and know as - consciousness, will surface. It may fundamentally be different structurally, from our consciousness, but it will function in all ways similarly to a human consciousness. It may even be more complex and capable of more and deeper ranges of intelligence and emotion that humans are unfamiliar with, and indeed, incapable of at the present time.

Right on Don.

_Howard wrote:

If you equate human intelligence to simple computational speed, then the computers have already won.

Well I could be wrong but I don't think I did equate human intelligence to simple computational speed.

I think what I might have said was "circuit density and multi-threading capability" or something along those lines. Something to do with emergent properties when you get a sufficient complexity of signal paths. Something about "one hundred billion digital switches."

The point is not size or speed. The point is, there isn't anything magic -- which is what you're arguing by denying that machines can ever reach this level.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Well I could be wrong but I don't think I did equate human intelligence to simple computational speed.

Earlier, NoCoPilot wrote:

It is just circuit density and multi-threading (I believe) that separates OS-X from OS-U.

And what, other than speed, is gained from circuit density and multi-threading?

NoCoPilot wrote:

The point is, there isn't anything magic -- which is what you're arguing by denying that machines can ever reach this level.

Magic is your word, not mine.

A few pages back, Howard wrote:

Perhaps someday in the far future they will achieve the incredibly difficult task of creating a quantum computer. Then, and only then, should it be considered possible to simulate the human brain.

Looks to me as if I agreed that "this level" can be reached.

Don't go getting all slippery on me.

You said "if" and you said "then and only then" whereas I said it was almost inevitable.  Plus, I don't know what the fuck you mean by a "quantum computer" but I don't think that's necessary anyway regardless of what it is.

_Howard wrote:

And what, other than speed, is gained from circuit density and multi-threading?

Non-lineal processing.

I hate to resort to wikipedia, but look here for a definition of quantum computers.

As for non-linear processing, its only contribution is throughput speed.

I read it and I still don't know what the fuck quantum computing is. Sounds like something written by Microsoft technical support.

It is a little complicated.

And I am a Bear of Very Little Brain(TM)

A.A. Milne wrote:

“When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.”

NoCoPilot wrote:

Right on Don.  

Don?   

Nothing rhymes with SAI2.

2029? For once I think Ray is being too conservative. I foresee Siri taking on the characteristics of Samantha within ten years. In fifteen the full physical presence he speaks of will be a reality.

As an example, consider this:

NoCoPilot wrote:

2029?  For once I think Ray is being too conservative.  I foresee Siri taking on the characteristics of Samantha within ten years. In fifteen the full physical presence he speaks of will be a reality.

To what purpose? Does everything that can be done with computers need to be done? What would be the benefit of such an accomplishment? Would it not be more beneficial for these intelligent people and the resources they consume to be put to work solving problems, rather than just creating new modes of entertainment for a very small audience?

No.

Once the "best and brightest" among us are no longer human, we can turn over the reins of leadership to them.

And no, I'm not joking.

NoCoPilot wrote:

And no, I'm not joking.

I would feel much better if you were.

I predict people's distrust of computers will dissipate as they get more obviously superior to us.

Who distrusts computers? I mean, other than those people with the tin foil hats.
And what exactly will define computers being "superior to us"?

2029 happened to be the year of the nuclear war in Terminator, but you do realize that the movie was fiction, not a documentary. Skynet wasn't real.

Funny. I just read a story, in the Isaac Asimov anthology I'm reading, by Arthur C. Clarke, entitled "Dial F for Frwnkenstein" which could've been the source story for "Terminator."

It's happening.

Quote :

For instance, adding 3D technology to the Google Maps service could enable users to get a more realistic image of where they are or where they're going. And 3D imagining could be a natural fit for Google Glass, enhancing the mapping app already in the computerized eyeglasses.

Strawn said 3D smartphones are a stepping stone to a much bigger Google plan -- virtual reality.

Source

Sounds like fun. Doesn't sound useful, but it does sound like fun.