• Advertisement

Why A.I is impossible

Recommended Posts

I like how everybody and their mom is trying to solve the A.I dilemma. You got scientists, mathematicians and all the smarty pants of the world trying to create A.I.

Here is the common sense reason why A.I can't be created.

1. The only difference between a human being and a machine is 'consciousness'. Some people call it a soul or spirit or whatever. Basically, it's energy that's beyond the 5 'human' senses.

2. We are using our 5 senses to create something that is literally 'out of this world'. 

Good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
1 hour ago, Eric LeClair said:

Here is the common sense reason why A.I can't be created.

1. The only difference between a human being and a machine is 'consciousness'. Some people call it a soul or spirit or whatever. Basically, it's energy that's beyond the 5 'human' senses.

2. We are using our 5 senses to create something that is literally 'out of this world'. 

None of this makes any sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 0r0d said:

None of this makes any sense.

It's not suppose to. It's hard to process it when you only have 5 animalistic senses. Only people who meditate regularly understand this. Point proven. There is a whole another world that exist beyond these 5 senses. Studying THAT is where the money, time and resources should be going. Everything is there. EVERYTHING! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are referring too an AI that is human-like, because "AI" has existed for centuries.  "Automated rules" for table top games were a form of "AI".  It is a very broad term.

I don't think a human-like AI is impossible, but I don't think it will happen in our lifetimes either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are right in the case of human-like AI, because there is still a lack of appropriate processors, currently distributed processors are digital, but you would need analogue processors in conjunction with analog nano-memories. Not only are digital processors slowly reaching their performance limits, they are still way too slow and consume too much energy. In addition, true neural networks in my opinion are an interconnection of millions if not billions of such processors.

This is an old article but still right in my opinion:
https://www.wired.com/2012/08/upside/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything that has ever been done was impossible... right up until the first person to do it, did it.

There are a couple of pretty hard physical laws (thermodynamics, speed of light, etc) that we're unlikely to find a way around, but unless you can show that a particular technology violates one of those laws, we'll probably figure it out eventually (assuming we don't run out of energy/humans/brain cells before that).

36 minutes ago, Kavik Kang said:

I don't think a human-like AI is impossible, but I don't think it will happen in our lifetimes either.

Just to be clear on terminology, you're talking about an AGI (artificial General intelligence). That is, a machine that can reason abstractly outside the bounds of its programming. That's a very difficult thing.

I think a "human-like" AGI is borderline impossible, but only because any kind of true AGI almost certainly won't think like a human. 
On the other hand, any decent AGI will be subject to a singularity and outsmart us in no time at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer depends on your definition of consciousness. If consciousness is the mere result of awake brain processing, then all we have to do is simulate brain processing and the AI will be able to become conscious which is more likely than the existence of an external spirit force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 1/8/2018 at 6:43 PM, Hodgman said:

You're doing this:

http://highexistence.com/spiritual-bypassing-how-spirituality-sabotaged-my-growth/
http://highexistence.com/10-spiritual-bypassing-things-people-total-bullshit/

 

Even if our brains are some kind of magical antenna that channels in a magical spirit consciousness from another plane of existence... what's stopping us from building our own mechanical antennae that channel magical spirit consciousness into our AI's?

Just like religion, mediation has been distorted like a mofo too. 

Tthose two links are classic case of running away from your problems - Meditation or spirituality means to achieve clarity to see thing how they are - If you're sitting at the beach, and you observe a bird hopping around for 10 minutes, that's meditation.

To focus on one thing for a while is the true meaning of meditation. 

Also both Alan and Eckart toll talk about an incredible principle that most people can't grasp and that's focusing on the "PRESENT".

In other words, see how things REALLY are. Without a future and a past. 

There is no such thing as time. Just now.

Just a simple focus on that idea can change people's lives.

Anyways, without getting too deep here, AI is ridiculous. It's trying to give life to dead objects. How can you give something you are not aware of yourself (Ends with a Chinese drum sound).

If you don't believe that we're all just molecules vibrating right down to the core (Energy) than this concept is way beyond you. 

Consciousness (Piece of Vibrant energy) has NOTHING to do with your brain. That's the trap . . . This is where people screw up. 

Consciousness has 'access' to the brain. The brain is just a tool. A tool that controls our body. When the body dies, it is our consciousness that connects back to our true form. Vibrant energy. That's it. 

Energy IS. It never dies. It changes, it morphs, it never dies. 

That's what I'm saying. We are all part of one conciseness energy. It's like being in a giant play and we're characters wearing the "human" suit.

Characters = the "Human" life form. 

It's like the human body is our 'virtual reality' suit. It's real (The earth is real as f**k) but you and I are "experiencing" it AS 'humans'.

Our true form is energy. Consciousness . . . To be aware . . .  Let me prove it  . . .

Ever had a good night sleep where you had ZERO dreams? That's the REAL YOU in your truest form. In total BLISS!

The problem with most 'spiritual' people is they forget the number one rule of spirituality which is total detachment.

But these fools, also known as 'hippies', detach from everything except 'spirituality'. Another trap . . .

I don't expect anyone to get this (Heck I've been studying this stuff for like 1.5 years now) but this is where our bliss lies.

Studying consciousness, not wasting billions on giving pieces of plastic something we can't even give our selves . . . life. 

As people, we all need to realize who we truly are. That's when all these stupid wars, racism, all this other stuff will cease and we'll naturally 'evolve' to a higher state. I'm talking about our 'awareness' here. That collective higher awareness will lead us to incredible inventions like intergalactic travel, etc Where we can decide and even jump in and out from the human body back to conciseness and travel all over the Universe. Where we can connect and even allow our ancestors to jump back into human form or we can reach them just through conciseness. Hopping around around on command around the universe, travelling light years in an instant and just enjoying expansion like never before.

Finally, we would have evolved. For good . . . 

Funny thing is some people are already achieving this but only through meditation. However, if we all get in on the action, I bet we'll be doing this physically and consciously. Imagine the entire human consciousness thinking as a whole unit! OH MY!

Even if you are reading this stuff for the first time, there is no way I could have thought of this without meditating for a decent time, my 5 senses aren't capable of such incredible thoughts. You know it!

Doesn't it at least feel fantastic? We have to start "feeling" again. 

We don't need to create something new, we need to access what's already there. 

UPDATE: Holy F! I just wrote 1200 words without getting tired or even thinking. Talk about inspired action :) LOVE IT - Hope I didn't offend the admins - Sorry it just all poured out. Thx!

Edited by Eric LeClair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Eric LeClair said:

It's like the human body is our 'virtual reality' suit. It's real (The earth is real as f**k) but you and I are "experiencing" it AS 'humans'.

Yeah, so why can't we build a robot suit that an external consciousness can wear? If humans are all just molecules and robots are just molecules, what's the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Hodgman said:

Even if our brains are some kind of magical antenna that channels in a magical spirit consciousness from another plane of existence... what's stopping us from building our own mechanical antennae that channel magical spirit consciousness into our AI's?

I agree, and I think that perhaps the more relevant question would be why would we want to channel this magical spirit consciousness? What would that actually accomplish? There are two possibilities worth thinking about. Either the magical spirit consciousness does something that can also be fully described by an algorithm running on a computer or some other formal machine (which of course means that there's no need for merely channeling it -- it can be replicated instead), or that it can't be described computationally.

The latter case sounds interesting: magical spirit consciousness generates output in a manner that can't be described by an algorithm. Great! What does that even mean? Superficially it seems like it could be something like "free will," but unfortunately that doesn't really work: it might be "free," but it's pretty hard to think of an action as willful if it doesn't actually follow in any describable way from the initial conditions.

In fact, behavior of this sort isn't even meaningfully distinguishable from randomness (if it was, we'd be able to describe the non-random aspect of it computationally, which by assumption we cannot).

Now, I certainly can't argue that channeling this magical spirit consciousness won't magically result in something desirable (it is magic, after all), but I think it's also safe to say that arguing about something that by definition cannot be described formally probably won't be very productive.

Edited by cowsarenotevil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just asking, are you trolling this forum?

EDIT: You seem to be using a proper name & profile picture, however the profile picture does not belong to anyone of that name, rather it belongs to someone holding a Ph.D. in engineering, who does not seem to have any record of being particularly interested in spiritualistic stuff.

That plus the fact that it's such a fresh account here makes me wonder, given the 'trollishness' of your posts (claiming stuff without any actual proof, even when you claim to prove stuff).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it's only an assumption of me that other people than me have consciousnesses (it the soul sense). Yes, consciousness feels like magic, I can't explain why. But why should I assume other people have it too? Just because they are "similar"? Animals or machines (what's the difference, really?) can't have consciousness just because they are "different"? Or because I can't perceive their consciousness directly (or indirectly, because I can't communicate with animals). I can't perceive consciousness in people directly either, I can't even communicate with most of them either...

Sci-fi: Maybe one day we will learn that so many entities can be associated with a soul (trees, planets, whatever), even if we may never communicate with these entities because the so alien nature of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaos, there is nothing within the laws of physics that prevents a mass from getting from its origin too its destination at a speed that appears too an outside observer to be faster than light.  Physics only prevents a mass from accelerating to the speed of light by conventional means.  The most obvious example is that if something like wormholes exist, that would allow you to "cheat Einstein".  The ability to fold space would be another example.

Eric.  I can't create actual intelligence through AI, but I could fool you into believing that an intelligence is at work and do it in ways that would shock you with their simplicity once you understood what is actually taking place.  Creating the illusion of an intelligence at work is actually not very difficult.  It would even be "self programming" and even I could not predict what might happen in the future of the simulation.  This is not actual intelligence, of course, it isn't really "thinking".  But if I can already do this right now, it isn't crazy to think that in 200 years or so AI will have advanced to a point that it actually can and does "think".  Imitating the actual thought process of a human being is another thing yet again, but 1,000,000 years from now... our own technology of that time would be indistinguishable from magic to us 21st century apes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Hodgman said:

Yeah, so why can't we build a robot suit that an external consciousness can wear? If humans are all just molecules and robots are just molecules, what's the problem?

Because the "link" can be only be established by God. He was the one that breathed life into Adam after all. He (presumably) does the same for every fetus that is formed. Humans can't do it (well, unless they build the robot suit and then they pray for God to infuse it with a soul, and He actually listens). Otherwise, they can't wield God's breath, or the Flame Imperishable, or however else you wanna call it.

I'm not sure why this thread is going on - a dude claims "AI is impossible because AI is impossible". Last I checked, you don't really have to do much to dismiss circular reasoning. :)

Edited by mikeman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, szecs said:

Actually, it's only an assumption of me that other people than me have consciousnesses (it the soul sense). Yes, consciousness feels like magic, I can't explain why. But why should I assume other people have it too? Just because they are "similar"?

Why not because they can talk about it? As you point out, your own consciousness (insofar as that's a thing that exists at all) is self-evident to you, but when you talk about it, are you actually referring to it?

If so, then it would, at least, be pretty implausible that other people would appear to talk about their own consciousness if it weren't something that they themselves also actually have.

If not, then there's some even weirder coincidence afoot: you experience consciousness, but when you talk about your own consciousness, you're actually talking about something different than the consciousness you actually experience.

Basically, either consciousness manifests itself physically to the extent that people are at least able to refer to it in speech and writing, or it doesn't, meaning we can't actually refer to it at all despite the fact that we appear to be discussing it. In the former case, the fact that people outside of your own perception of consciousness claim to refer to consciousness would suggest that they too actually can refer to it, and thus experience it in some way.

In the latter case, either it's pure coincidence that we merely appear to be discussing a phenomenon that actually exists (but cannot actually be discussed), or consciousness doesn't exist at all.

Edited by cowsarenotevil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, where is it written that an AI needs a consciousness? And that makes this point of discussion partly obsolete. The question should have been called: Can AI have a consciousness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, zer0force said:

On the other hand, where is it written that an AI needs a consciousness? And that makes this point of discussion partly obsolete. The question should have been called: Can AI have a consciousness?

 

Maybe Eric was meaning deepest level of AI. Mundane senses based one should be enough. Why? Because sensing means affecting isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, cowsarenotevil said:

Why not because they can talk about it? As you point out, your own consciousness (insofar as that's a thing that exists at all) is self-evident to you, but when you talk about it, are you actually referring to it?

If so, then it would, at least, be pretty implausible that other people would appear to talk about their own consciousness if it weren't something that they themselves also actually have.

If not, then there's some even weirder coincidence afoot: you experience consciousness, but when you talk about your own consciousness, you're actually talking about something different than the consciousness you actually experience.

Basically, either consciousness manifests itself physically to the extent that people are at least able to refer to it in speech and writing, or it doesn't, meaning we can't actually refer to it at all despite the fact that we appear to be discussing it. In the former case, the fact that people outside of your own perception of consciousness claim to refer to consciousness would suggest that they too actually can refer to it, and thus experience it in some way.

In the latter case, either it's pure coincidence that we merely appear to be discussing a phenomenon that actually exists (but cannot actually be discussed), or consciousness doesn't exist at all.

Maybe I misunderstood your reply but:

If I write a program that prints "I have consciousness" if you press enter (or make some other simple claims), does it make it have consciousness? Also if I can't discuss about consciousness with somebody because that person can't effectively reason about anything (like me) or simply that person is blind and deaf, does it mean no consciousness?

What I'm trying to say that it's pretty arrogant for anyone to tell that some other entity doesn't have consciousness (especially just because one "feels" ones consciousness, or whatever.) I'm not saying it's not magic. I'm only saying that (I think) manking is not special.

Plus, just because something doesn't exist, we can talk about it. Hell, I'm not even sure we are talking about the same thing... So much for "can refer to it, therefore it exists"

 

Edit: I think I "sense" what most of you try to imply by the "knowledge of consciousness affects the physical world, since we are talking about it, therefore somehow consciousness must be out of this world" thing, but the "therefore somehow consciousness must be out of this world" part is something beyond my linguistic abilities to reason about. I "feel" that this part is the mistake in our thinking (and leeds to the classic dilemma/contradiction of predestination).

Edited by szecs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lonewolff said:

Aw man, I stumbled in to that part of the internet again.

That's like saying "Aw man, I stumbled in to the outdoors again."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Eric LeClair said:

2. We are using our 5 senses to create something that is literally 'out of this world'. 

Well this is just wrong on so many levels.

We have already proven humans either have hundreds of senses or only one depending on what you define as a sense. The five senses is just the old "traditional" way of thinking.

Then there is the fact that as humans we have long ago found ways to extend our senses. I mean no one has ever seen the inside of a blood cell before or even seen an atom but we know they are there and we can perceive them.

13 hours ago, Eric LeClair said:

1. The only difference between a human being and a machine is 'consciousness'. Some people call it a soul or spirit or whatever. Basically, it's energy that's beyond the 5 'human' senses.

Artificial Intelligence is implying that it doesn't have a soul or what ever. If a Artificial Intelligence did have a soul it would need an Artificial Soul in order to remain a A.I or else it would be a machine possessed by a soul.

There always is the chance that we will get possessed machines, after all the brain and body is just matter and with enough skill we can copy it perfectly. Cloning is already a thing and it does look like clones have souls.

So maybe if we clone every bit of a human, using machine parts, it will have a soul.

 

But A.I is suppose to be only a mimicry of a soul at best. After all we want to use A.I without the worry of slave laws and a uprising.

Edited by Scouting Ninja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lactose said:

Just asking, are you trolling this forum?

EDIT: You seem to be using a proper name & profile picture, however the profile picture does not belong to anyone of that name, rather it belongs to someone holding a Ph.D. in engineering, who does not seem to have any record of being particularly interested in spiritualistic stuff.

That plus the fact that it's such a fresh account here makes me wonder, given the 'trollishness' of your posts (claiming stuff without any actual proof, even when you claim to prove stuff).

I'm gonna say that this looks really trolly, given the excessive use of circular logic...

But the discussion is interesting enough in itself: is it possible to achieve a true human like AGI (as @ChaosEngine elucidated for us). I'm also gonna agree with ChaosEngine: it's not impossible to create a true AGI, but it will probably be borderline impossible for a true human like AGI, primarily because our first true AGIs are almost certainly going to think in a manner completely alien to us, for a lot of reasons, starting from hardware, going all the way to things like what will AGI emerge from (one could argue that a search engine does 'think' for example, just not in a manner that we recognize. An argument could be made that a 'thought' is the response to the queries. It's a weak argument, but it's more for an example rather than anything else)

And as @Oberon_Command fairly concisely pointed out, we still don't really know what consciousness is. No one truly understands what exactly it is, although there's some great theories. So to flat out say that true human like AI is impossible without that knowledge is pretty presumptuous at best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Advertisement