Artificial Intelligence is primarily implemented by a class of computer programs that can accomplish tasks that mimic Human Intelligence. Examples are things like Speech Recognition, Facial Recognition, and Self Driving Cars. — SteveKlinko

speech recognition — Bitter Crank

Without access to the inner world of circuits we simply can't tell a person from a good AI. — TheMadFool

I think the question that concludes the post operates on a faulty premise. To "deprive" the "machines" presupposes that the machines have the dignity that human persons have. But this is untrue.

Also the post assumes a sort of dualism: that there is a difference between the CM and the PM. But my understanding is that most scientists reject that view and think that the so-called CM is itself the functioning of the PM. Therefore since dualism is not accepted among scientists, the question whether we ought to pursue the fusion of CM and and machines does not even arise. Rather the question becomes whether scientific technology will reach the point where the brain can be artificially replicated in machines. But this is doubtful since the brain is unique and very complex — Brian A

Artificial Intelligence is primarily implemented by a class of computer programs that can accomplish tasks that mimic Human Intelligence. Examples are things like Speech Recognition, Facial Recognition, and Self Driving Cars. — SteveKlinko
This is not what computers do. The algorithms do not mimic and what's more, ultimately a human must adjust the algorithms. All the computers do is brute force data scanning with short cut filtering. — Rich

Using some clues, one can sound as though one understands the physical mind better than one actually can. While we have made some real progress in developing some understandings about how the brain works, we ]don't know far more than we do know.

It's possible that we may not be able to transcend the limits of our brains to understand how the brain works.

Given that we do not understand how our own intelligence is achieved, it seems very unlikely we will design an actual artificial intelligence. We may have to be content with computers that seem like they are intelligent, but are not. That doesn't strike me as a problem. Isn't it enough that we can build programs to perform very useful functions like speech recognition, or autonomous automobiles? — Bitter Crank

Speech recognition is pretty much a joke as anyone who has to deal with such shoddy customer service software Will immediately recognize. As soon as I hear those silly questions on the phone, I start banging on 0 hoping that I might be lucky enough to get a human.

Computers are good at very simple data filtering tasks which is why well run companies such as Amazon and Google avoid the so-called AI stuff. — Rich

The computer and AI makes an appearance along the way from infanthood to adulthood. The mind of a single human evolves, in simplest of terms, from the concrete to the abstract. Isn't that why a 5 year old, barring the born genius, can't understand advanced math like calculus. A 5 year old is taught through repetition, taught some rules of grammar or arithmetic and then given exercises to hone their skills. They don't understand the rules. They just mechanically apply them. Isn't that like a...computer? So, modern technology can replicate the mind of a 5 year old.

The challenge is how do we replicate the adult mind that, unlike the 5 year old, can also understand above and beyond the mere application of rules.

What's the difference between
1. Mechanical application of rules
And
2. Comprehension of the logic behind these rules?

An adult mind can do both while the computer can do only 1.

Point to note is these two different mental faculties (see above 1 and 2) can only be perceived upon access to the inner workings of a person or a computer. If all we have is access to the output (human behavior, printouts, audiovisual displays) we simply can't make the distinction between a person and a computer.

That brings us to an important conclusion. An AI needn't actually be a person. All it has to do is perfectly mimic a person to pass of as one. Without access to the inner world of circuits we simply can't tell a person from a good AI. — TheMadFool

↪SteveKlinko Actually not. The propose it's very simple: to create computer algorithm that can scan and find quickly. In know way does it mimic. — Rich

It will be a very peculiar day when humans cannot tell the difference between some dumb tool that they created and their own creative minds that created that dumb tool. Whatever sci fi writers might say, computers are basically fast filters of data. They have zero intuition and power to create something new. They follow simple instructions that we give them — Rich

It's still not as good as people thought it would become but it is a lot better. — SteveKlinko

so why do we want to deprive our Machines from using this kind of Data? — SteveKlinko

so why do we want to deprive our Machines from using this kind of Data? — SteveKlinko
Can you really deprive a machine of data? — John Days

If you are referring to the anthropomorphic character of the statement — SteveKlinko

The human mind, Gelernter asserts, is not just a creation of thoughts and data; it is also a product of feelings. The mind emerges from a particular person's experience of sensations, images and ideas. The memories of these sensations are worked and reworked over a lifetime--through conscious thinking and also in dreams. "The mind," he says, "is in a particular body, and consciousness is the work of the whole body."

Engineers may build sophisticated robots, but they can't build human bodies. And because the body--not just the brain--is part of consciousness, the mind alters with the body's changes. A baby's mind is different from a teenager's, which is not the same as an elderly person's. Feelings are involved: a lifetime of pain and elation go into the formation of a human mind. Loves, losses and longings. Visions. Scent--which was, to Proust, "the last vestige of the past, the best of it, the part which, after all our tears seem to have dried, can make us weep again." Music, "heard so deeply/That it is not heard at all, but you are the music/While the music lasts," as T.S. Eliot wrote. These are all physical experiences, felt by the body.

Moreover, Gelernter observes, the mind operates in different ways through the course of each given day. It works one way if the body is on high alert, another on the edge of sleep. Then, as the body slumbers, the mind slips entirely free to wander dreamscapes that are barely remembered, much less understood.

All of these physical conditions go into the formation and operation of a human mind, Gelernter says, adding, "Until you understand this, you don't have a chance of building a fake mind."

Just curious. What aspect of the Computer do you think will prevent it from doing 1 as well as 2? I think the missing aspect is Consciousness. — SteveKlinko

If you are referring to the anthropomorphic character of the statement — SteveKlinko
Yes, I was. I think it's amazing the way our desire for meaning slips out. A computer that could feel deprived if it did not get the information it wanted. That's a statement full of desire for something more than just data. Something more than DNA or atomic particles; consciousness as a result of human excellence in engineering.

It's interesting how so many people find themselves feeling outraged over the idea of a God creating them on the understanding that they will be subject to various behavioral expectations, and yet the idea of an AI which decides that it does not want to be subject to its creators behavioral expectations is the basis for many sci-fi horror plots.

Maybe, when God wants a good jump scare, he tunes in to the humanity channel. — John Days

There's an insightful Time magazine story about David Gelertner, who is a professor of Computer Science at Yale, on the question of the possibilities (and impossibilities) of AI here. — Wayfarer

Just curious. What aspect of the Computer do you think will prevent it from doing 1 as well as 2? I think the missing aspect is Consciousness. — SteveKlinko
It lacks a name that satisfies me. Anyway, what is ''comprehension''? We seem to think that comprehension is an entirely different ball game compared to rule application. Bottom line is comprehension requires logic and that we know is a agreed upon set of rules. Why can't a computer do that too? — TheMadFool

Science understands the Neural Correlates of Consciousness but nothing about Consciousness itself. — SteveKlinko

All of these physical conditions go into the formation and operation of a human mind, Gelernter says, adding, "Until you understand this, you don't have a chance of building a fake mind."

Science understands the Neural Correlates of Consciousness but nothing about Consciousness itself. — SteveKlinko
I wouldn't say "nothing". I think it's possible to understand a good deal of consciousness — John Days

All of these physical conditions go into the formation and operation of a human mind, Gelernter says, adding, "Until you understand this, you don't have a chance of building a fake mind."
Doesn't he mean "you don't have a chance of building a real mind"? We build fake minds all the time. This is the crux of the argument that most people have against computers - that they aren't real minds. That seems to be the problem we have - that we can build fake minds, but not real ones.

But then doesn't it say something that we can even build fake minds? We must be getting something right, but not everything, to even say that it is a fake mind. If not, then why even call it a fake mind? What is it that fake minds have in common with real minds to designate them both as minds? — Harry Hindu

What is the difference between my ability to recognize faces and a computer's ability to recognize faces? When a computer uses a digital image of a face to measure the features, is not our minds doing the same thing? To recognize a face means that you compare a face to some preset parameters and if those parameters match then recognition occurs. What is missing? — Harry Hindu