Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

unskilledexplorer t1_ja7el8a wrote

Reply to comment by Gorddammit in AI cannot achieve consciousness without a body. by seethehappymoron

Thanks for the questions you have good points. Please define what do you mean by "intelligence" and "artificial intelligence", and I will try to answer the questions. They are very challenging so it will be pleasure to think about it.

>Why does a designer matter at all?

The piece of code that has been programmed in let's say 1970 still works the same way as back then. Although the world and the technology changed very much, the code did not change its behavior. It does not have an ability to do so.

However, a human born around 1970 has changed their behavior significantly by its continuous adaptation to ever changing environment. Not only it adapt itself to the environment, but equally adapt the environment to their behavior.

That is roughly why the role of designer matters.

===

I understand AI as a scientific discipline. "Artificial intelligence" is not the same as human intelligence but artificial. They are fundamentally different.

2

Gorddammit t1_ja7h4eq wrote

It's a bit falacious to set a stone definition for AI when we're talking potential. My basic question is what characteristic is both necessary for human intelligence and impossible to be incorporated by AI?

​

>the piece of code...

currently yes, but there's no rule that says this must be true. Also I don't think this has much to do with 'designer' so much as adaptability. We can design a virus, but it will still mutate.

​

>I understand AI as a scientific discipline. "Artificial intelligence" is not the same as human intelligence but artificial. They are fundamentally different.

If you're just speaking of AI in it's current form, then sure, but I think the real question isn't whether current AI's are intelligent, but whether they can be made to be intelligent. And more specifically whether the networks in which they operate can function as a 'body'

6

Wolkrast t1_ja7i41r wrote

So you're implying what's important is the ability to adapt, not the means by which the body came into existence?
There are certainly algorithms around today that are able to adapt to a variety of circumstances, and to not influence one's environment sounds conceptually impossible.
Granted, the environments we put AIs into today are mostly simulated, but there is no reason other than caution we shouldn't be able to extrapolate this into the real world.

2

[deleted] t1_jac7m6r wrote

[deleted]

2

unskilledexplorer t1_jacaw57 wrote

>If it turns out the religious folks are right and humanity was a result of some grand cosmic designer

I am afraid you misunderstood. The designer is not some supreme being. In the context of my comment, the designer is a regular human. The term "designer" is not an absolute, it is a role. The designer is a human who devised a machine, algorithm, etc.

>We have adaptive code today

I am very well aware of that because I develop the algorithms. So I also know that while they are adaptive, their adaptability is limited within a closed system. The boundaries are implicitly set by the designer (ie. a programmer).

1