Its very qualification, inherent in the first term of the name, is anthropocentric. On that basis, I agree.

We've already replicated that in computers. — TheMadFool

No.

To then think of creating actual humans (artificial intelligence AI) would be to try and mimick the reptilian parts of our brain — TheMadFool

No.

To make it even more obvious that we've already achieved the ultimate goal of AI we need only realize that we can already construct robots that mimick the reptilian brain that, to me, is a very basic input-output device with every possible combination of behavior being hardwired and, well, subconscious. — TheMadFool

No.

So, humans are not AI researchers need to create. What they actually need to do is create the perfect logical machine which appears to be already accomplished. — TheMadFool

No.
Humans are the only example of large general intelligence there is, so Ai researchers work from there.

The trouble with dividing the brain up into brain stem, reptile brain, limbic system, neocortex, and so on is that brains developed as integrated structures, and are integrated structures in our skulls, too. For instance, there is a small group of cells in the brain stem which is responsible for us falling asleep and waking up--engaging the world. The 'reptile brain' may not deal in rocket science, but it performs useful tasks like helping us find our way from one place to another and back again.

Animals have had limbic systems for a very long time. Birds whose lineage is quite ancient, have emotions--maybe not as complicated as ours, but emotions none the less. Our limbic system is tied into structures like the pre-frontal cortex. It's a critical connection: It's what enables us to learn right from wrong, feel guilt, and avoid behavior that makes us feel terrible. If those connections aren't working, we behave psychopathically.

Our neocortex is nicely complicated, but animals have had the capacity to do a little thinking for quite a long time. Animals that coordinate hunting, for instance, have to 'think' about what is going on as they stalk and chase down prey -- where they, as an individual, fit into the hunt. Coordination, in other words. It may not be Aristotle, but it's thinking.

Dogs manipulate us. They have just enough intelligence to figure out how to get us to do what they want us to do. Quite often we adjust our behavior to satisfy the dog's wishes. We like observing their naked thinking at work. It's amusing.

For us, intelligence is a combination of flesh, emotion, memory, perception, and thinking all rolled up together. The best IBM computer both has and lacks some aspects of what we define in ourselves as intelligence. It has some limited perception (input devices), it has a memory, and it has logical processors (which in themselves do not constitute a capacity to think). It lacks a body (flesh, blood), emotion, and the wide scope of our perceptions and thinking. These are differences in kind, not just in quantity. The IBM had no desire to learn anything. It had no desire to engage in a debate. It didn't know it was engaging in a debate. What it was doing was executing commands in a very complex human-authored program and using brute force to assemble and organize information.

I'm not knocking the IBM and engineer's achievement. It's pretty impressive. However, the computer didn't really achieve anything.

IF one day a computer voluntarily experienced a desire to learn human language and culture, learn about the world, learn how to move about and manipulate the world, and find it's own place in the world, expressed likes and dislikes and acted accordingly, and did all this on its own, I'd call that REAL artificial intelligence.

What we have so far are machines that run human authored programs that imitate certain aspects of behavior.

Humans are the only example of large general intelligence there is, so Ai researchers work from there. — answermebot

Well, if the neuroscience I've read is true then we (humans) are at the tip of the spear of brain evolution.

What does that mean?

Neocortex (logical thinking) and not the primitive reptilian brain that forms the "rest" of our psyche (emotional and less rational).

So, if AI is supposed to be human-like it would mean that we have to somehow code for the reptilian part of the human brain. I'm not saying it can't be done. I think it is easier for higher intelligence to mimic lower intelligence than the other way round. However, this would not be a step forward as assumed by AI researchers. It would actually count as regression.

regression — TheMadFool

Did you mean logistic regression?
Your speech shows that you really don't know what you're on about.

https://machinelearningmastery.com/logistic-regression-for-machine-learning/

The thought of a xenomorphic mind is utterly overwhelming. Anthropomorphism is necessitated for the comfort of the explorer or man of science, and the obstacle lies in creating acceptance of that other. The Weird is so inveigling because it allows an awful glimpse into a nemesarial demesne of everything which is inhuman, and so too does it allow a malign glee of hygge at our own safety beyond the pages. In the unabiding nuance of each furtive glance, of each brief collapse not merely kept by a word, a weight, a relicing pull into the distress of the infernal, we are recalled to our own machinations. We must view ourselves as being elevated and separated from the other organisms; our societies view our consciousness as being sacrosanct and inviolate. To create another intelligent being would be to weaken that holy designation. We see our fears of intelligent computers in countless media; there, they seek to usurp our throne. In that actual contourfeit, are we ourselves not guilty for being machines?

However, computers are not currently infallible in their algorithms. Without a consciousness, they are unable to develop solutions beyond the bounds of preprogrammed instructions. Certain mathematical inputs will return an error; calculators are unable to innovate by using the correct branch of abstract mathematics. It is inevitable that any program which is currently created will contain fault; even the most prodigious human solvers are not infallible.

To create a mind without instinct and affect might have consequences unforeseen. While I know relatively little of neurobiology or of psychology, I am aware that the human mind is a layered construct. Our childhood memories, our keen wounds and triumphs, and our fixations culminate into the adult mind. Our affect and instincts inform our logical conclusions. Therefore, it is necessary to perform careful studies of multiple fields to construct our superior intelligence.