Philosophy Discussion Forums

Djacob7 wrote: ↑February 7th, 2019, 1:30 am

Burning ghost wrote: ↑February 7th, 2019, 12:55 am Humanity is wonderful. If you are antihuman then ... well, er ...

We’re intelligent because we’re capable of more and able to fix things (including ourselves). Inevitably all species wil be gone one day, but we’re certainly quite different to other species (the confused ape as Sa-olsky puts it; neither one thing or the other).

The day isn't too far when machines will be more intelligent than humans. Not in all areas, but certainly in making and fixing things, including themselves.

AI is way, way ,way off actually. Unless you can provide evidence of anyone of any decent reputation in the field who believes otherwise? Professional opinion has more weight than your obviously uninformed conjecture so present please.

You do at least understand that a calculator is not intelligent right? Computers compute, they don’t think. The first computers were humans, but we’re not very good as logic and number crunching so faster machines were created to do the leg work for us.

Robots are not intelligent. Lots of labour is/will be replaced by automated units for sure. There isn’t anyone in the field of AI to my knowledge that believes AI is likely to happen anytime soon - if you meant within the next 100 years then maybe? Within 5, no chance. Within 20, highly improbable but even so we’re likely to see AI develop incrementally not overnight so we’ll have time to discuss these issues as and when they develop.

But you seem to think we’re all robots anyway so I guess it doesn’t matter what I say?

Burning ghost wrote: ↑February 7th, 2019, 2:00 am

Djacob7 wrote: ↑February 7th, 2019, 1:30 am

The day isn't too far when machines will be more intelligent than humans. Not in all areas, but certainly in making and fixing things, including themselves.

AI is way, way ,way off actually. Unless you can provide evidence of anyone of any decent reputation in the field who believes otherwise? Professional opinion has more weight than your obviously uninformed conjecture so present please.

You do at least understand that a calculator is not intelligent right? Computers compute, they don’t think. The first computers were humans, but we’re not very good as logic and number crunching so faster machines were created to do the leg work for us.

Robots are not intelligent. Lots of labour is/will be replaced by automated units for sure. There isn’t anyone in the field of AI to my knowledge that believes AI is likely to happen anytime soon - if you meant within the next 100 years then maybe? Within 5, no chance. Within 20, highly improbable but even so we’re likely to see AI develop incrementally not overnight so we’ll have time to discuss these issues as and when they develop.

But you seem to think we’re all robots anyway so I guess it doesn’t matter what I say?

"...provide evidence of anyone of any decent reputation in the field who believes otherwise?"
How about Elon Musk, Sam Harris, Yuval Harari, just off the top of my head.

"The first computers were humans,..."
Really?

I said people in the field of artificial intelligence. Elon Musk is an engineer, Sam Harris’s main concern is religiosity and consciousness, and Harari is an historian (does he say that we’ll have AI anytime soon?).

I hate to break it to you but the consensus among experts in the field is that we’re nowhere near creating intelligence. You won’t get another response from me until you do some actual research because it appears your understanding is facile at best, and plain ignorant at worst.

Anyway, do any them actually say AI will be here within a decade or two? I believe Musk says cyborgs are already here and I agree. I’d say a century is perhaps a reasonable guess; 10-20 yrs is not.

Look at the actual scientific research before agreeing with populat social figures.

Burning ghost wrote: ↑February 7th, 2019, 3:32 am I said people in the field of artificial intelligence. Elon Musk is an engineer, Sam Harris’s main concern is religiosity and consciousness, and Harari is an historian (does he say that we’ll have AI anytime soon?).

I hate to break it to you but the consensus among experts in the field is that we’re nowhere near creating intelligence. You won’t get another response from me until you do some actual research because it appears your understanding is facile at best, and plain ignorant at worst.

Anyway, do any them actually say AI will be here within a decade or two? I believe Musk says cyborgs are already here and I agree. I’d say a century is perhaps a reasonable guess; 10-20 yrs is not.

Look at the actual scientific research before agreeing with populat social figures.

"You won’t get another response from me until you do some actual research because it appears your understanding is facile at best"
Thank goodness!

Burning ghost wrote: ↑February 7th, 2019, 3:32 am I said people in the field of artificial intelligence. Elon Musk is an engineer, Sam Harris’s main concern is religiosity and consciousness, and Harari is an historian (does he say that we’ll have AI anytime soon?).

I hate to break it to you but the consensus among experts in the field is that we’re nowhere near creating intelligence. You won’t get another response from me until you do some actual research because it appears your understanding is facile at best, and plain ignorant at worst.

Anyway, do any them actually say AI will be here within a decade or two? I believe Musk says cyborgs are already here and I agree. I’d say a century is perhaps a reasonable guess; 10-20 yrs is not.

Look at the actual scientific research before agreeing with populat social figures.

I don't think there is a discrete set of functions that means now we have AI and before this date we did not. We already have functionally intelligent software/hardware moving into a variety of fields. It may not, yet, replace an specific, human resources person, but it is reducing the need for hiring many, by replacing portions of many HR people jobs. That's one example from one field.

Now someone will say, that is not artificial intelligence. They might add that it cannot pass a Turning Test. But it is performing tasks that would have been considered signs of intelligence. This will likely move ahead in small steps in many fields.

Of course there may be a discrete point if these entities go off reservation, become at least from the outside entities that go for what they want and not what we want. That might be trackable to a particular day. And there are healthy concerns about that happening.

There are also concerns about the second 'industrial' revolution, where the mental tasks of workers are taken over by machines. This is happening. And it's not just crunching numbers, it is a wide range of skills and tasks that are already being replaced.

This of course is complicated as a set of causes. We weathered the first industrial revolution (including the machine take over of agriculture) so most people assume it'll all just work out. Humans will just find new stuff to do for money.

It's just no clear to me what that will be in the long run.

Though personally I am much more concerned about the off the reservation stuff.

A deterministic system as I mentioned halts in a situation when options are liked equally.

Earthellism agrees that the concept of free will died during WWII. The Diary of Ann Frank was based on the concept of free will and Ann Frank lamented how her free will was cancelled by Hitler. The last century proved that the concept of free will does not solve the problem of evil. This century the solution to the problem of evil comes down to atheism or earthellism. Atheism fails to solve the problem of evil because if it did Hitler would have won WWII. Atheism fails to explain how Love defeats Evil when on a level playing field. When we see Evil defeat Love it is because Evil has cheated to unlevel the playing field. Atheism also fails because in WWII those who killed out of love WON and those who killed out of hate LOST.

I just answer the title without reading the comment.

This question can be posed with four different wordage

1- Freedom doesn't exist.

2- Absolute freedom doesn't exist.

3- Free will doesn't exist.

4- Absolute free will doesn't exist.


The only question that its answer is no is the No.4

What would have a free will? Thinker of thoughts? Is it the thinker of thought that would or would not have freewill?