Computers with emotions ?

harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Computers with emotions ?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whCJ4NLUSB8 

 

Can computers actually be programmed to understand human thought and emotion ? If they could talk to us, and FEEL emotion, who needs best friends (LOL) ?

Unless the computers gain independent thought and take over, like some sci-fi / horror story.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10725
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I suspect a computer with

I suspect a computer with emotion would be no better at handling/analysing said emotion than the average joe.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I suspect a

Vastet wrote:
I suspect a computer with emotion would be no better at handling/analysing said emotion than the average joe.

 

True enough. I'll wait til they design them to look like real beautiful women before I get one. LOL 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
One day may be your lucky day

harleysportster wrote:
I'll wait til they design them to look like real beautiful women before I get one. LOL 

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/sci-tech/robot-prostitutes-the-future-of-sex-tourism-20120419-1x8eq.html

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
x wrote:harleysportster

x wrote:

harleysportster wrote:
I'll wait til they design them to look like real beautiful women before I get one. LOL 

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/sci-tech/robot-prostitutes-the-future-of-sex-tourism-20120419-1x8eq.html

 

 

Wouldn't the point of going to a robot prostitute be to not have to deal with the emotions? I don't see much use of having emotional computers outside of just doing it because we can. I get pissed off when my computer doesn't work right, the last thing I need is for it to get depressed, angry or petulant because I yelled at it. Now having a robot that can simulate programmed emotions might be useful.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

harleysportster wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whCJ4NLUSB8

 

Can computers actually be programmed to understand human thought and emotion ? If they could talk to us, and FEEL emotion, who needs best friends (LOL) ?

Unless the computers gain independent thought and take over, like some sci-fi / horror story.

I fail to see what value emotions might have to computer function. Other than the exercise I see no market for bitchy computers.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10725
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
@ Beyond, good points. @ A

@ Beyond, good points.

@ A Nony, it could be useful as a means of removing observer bias from the study of emotion, but beyond that I agree with you that it would be a useless function.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
It depends

Beyond Saving wrote:

Wouldn't the point of going to a robot prostitute be to not have to deal with the emotions? I don't see much use of having emotional computers outside of just doing it because we can. I get pissed off when my computer doesn't work right, the last thing I need is for it to get depressed, angry or petulant because I yelled at it. Now having a robot that can simulate programmed emotions might be useful.  

People go to prostitutes for various reasons, including loneliness and I suspect they'd prefer to have sex with an emotional entity.

But yes, they may well want to be able to choose the emotions as they go along.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I've seen lots of people who

I've seen lots of people who can't do those things. Maybe machines will surpass man in another arena. Where is our John Henry of understanding human thoughts and emotions?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:Beyond Saving

x wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Wouldn't the point of going to a robot prostitute be to not have to deal with the emotions? I don't see much use of having emotional computers outside of just doing it because we can. I get pissed off when my computer doesn't work right, the last thing I need is for it to get depressed, angry or petulant because I yelled at it. Now having a robot that can simulate programmed emotions might be useful.  

People go to prostitutes for various reasons, including loneliness and I suspect they'd prefer to have sex with an emotional entity.

But yes, they may well want to be able to choose the emotions as they go along.

 

That is more along the lines of what I was thinking, program them to have the emotions that you want them to have. Also program them to ENJOY cleaning your house and not interrupting you when your trying to watch your favorite show. (i.e., like turning your tv off and telling you that they need you to do something).

 

I know the feminists are gonna hate me for making such statements, but after all, I am a guy, what can I say ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Wouldn't

Beyond Saving wrote:

Wouldn't the point of going to a robot prostitute be to not have to deal with the emotions? I don't see much use of having emotional computers outside of just doing it because we can. I get pissed off when my computer doesn't work right, the last thing I need is for it to get depressed, angry or petulant because I yelled at it. Now having a robot that can simulate programmed emotions might be useful.  

I'm thinking the marketing angle is "just like the real thing!", y'know... kinda like prostitutes already. Sticking out tongue

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
For some odd reason, Ted

For some odd reason, Ted Levine's creepypasta Buffalo Bill role from "Silence of the Lambs" is beginning to come to mind...

"Would you fucki me #1?" "I'd fucki me #1! I'd fucki me sooo hard..."

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
I don't believe true

I don't believe true indistinguishable AI is EVER possible with the standard silicon computing basis. Only supported on mathematical calculations based on binary code.

There will always be something "off" or strangely artificial no matter how ingenious the program is. This is my feeling.

 So no worries... there will not be a cyborg takeover or these toys will ever be a replacement for the feeling of a real woman saying "I love you".

HOWEVER, quantum computing offers some possibilities if certain theories I'm attracted to about conscience are correct...

In this case I wouldn't mind having a cyborg quantum girlfriend. There would be no distinction between a "real life" woman, as far as conscient feelings go, and a quantum computer. At that point however it would be wise to give Quantum cyborgs the same rights and duties as us - Carbon based bags of mostly water. 

But this is still highly speculative for me.

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Teralek wrote:

I don't believe true indistinguishable AI is EVER possible with the standard silicon computing basis. Only supported on mathematical calculations based on binary code.

That depends upon what you mean by "true" and "indistinguishable from what."

Back in the late 80s there was program called Parry and the trick was to distinguish it from a true paranoid. The program won. That was one of the successes that sent the AI folks back to rethinking the matter.

Quote:
There will always be something "off" or strangely artificial no matter how ingenious the program is. This is my feeling.

If the person is off what can you tell?

I would like to see a test with two people given the same task talking to each other. Or while talking their task being to deceive the other into thinking they are the computer?

Simulating an image from the CGI up is still in our future but modifying physical images to mouth words and change expressions was quite well along ten years ago. Today it has to be so far along anything we see on TV is reasonably questioned without affidavit of authenticity.

Quote:
So no worries... there will not be a cyborg takeover or these toys will ever be a replacement for the feeling of a real woman saying "I love you".

Considering the sexually aggressive women in chat rooms tend to be men and that they have a great following can a computer convince a man it is a woman in lust? And as long as it is chat lust is all that matters.

Quote:
HOWEVER, quantum computing offers some possibilities if certain theories I'm attracted to about conscience are correct...

In this case I wouldn't mind having a cyborg quantum girlfriend. There would be no distinction between a "real life" woman, as far as conscient feelings go, and a quantum computer. At that point however it would be wise to give Quantum cyborgs the same rights and duties as us - Carbon based bags of mostly water. 

But this is still highly speculative for me.

 

Phil Dick is alive and well and living in Cleveland.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:That

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

That depends upon what you mean by "true" and "indistinguishable from what 

Back in the late 80s there was program called Parry and the trick was to distinguish it from a true paranoid. The program won. That was one of the successes that sent the AI folks back to rethinking the matter.

Indistinguishable from us. There's this little test, among others, called the Turing test. It's basically a chat bot.

I have some experience with chat bots, and sooner rather than later you will catch the fake person because their dialogue tends to follow certain predictible lines, or nonsense answers. Like I said there is always something strangely "off" and empty compared to a real person. I don't know about the details of this very basic program called Parry, but probably was restricted to very specific questions.

We have today sophisticated chat bots who won awards but did not pass the "sophisticated" juri panel in the Loebner competition. 

 One of these bots is A.L.I.C.E., you can actually talk to her online:

http://www.pandorabots.com/pandora/talk?botid=f5d922d97e345aa1">http:// http://www.pandorabots.com/pandora/talk?botid=f5d922d97e345aa1."

If I have time, no computer can fool me to be human, I bet on that

ALICE was inspired on ELIZA - that chat bot you talked about.

You see only foolish people would be fooled by a chat bot, or they simply didn't have enough time.

In my old times of IRC, I actually made one very crude chatbot just for fun.

There are bets all around for a computer who successfuly does. 2029 is one guessing. I say it's impossible to emulate a full secptrum of human responses in silicon based computers. that's were my bet is. Only Quantum computing may allow that. If this is true it will certainly have enormous consequences on the way we see and define "conscient awareness"

HAL 9000 would possibly pass the test.

One of the main critics about the Turing test is the chinese room metaphor. Which perfectly illustrates the "hard problem of conscience" or the subjective nature of conscience. I'd recommend David Chalmers to know more about that.
 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
I would like to see a test with two people given the same task talking to each other. Or while talking their task being to deceive the other into thinking they are the computer?

Simulating an image from the CGI up is still in our future but modifying physical images to mouth words and change expressions was quite well along ten years ago. Today it has to be so far along anything we see on TV is reasonably questioned without affidavit of authenticity.

But the technology exists to make the perfect chatter bot, in theory it's all about using the perfect code. No one was able to do it thou. The problem is even in language we are unable to make a program that mimics a full grown human. We are unpredictable, programs are not. No human being could ever fool me into thinking they are a computer on a face to face chat. Unless he is a quantum computer based cyborg 
 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Considering the sexually aggressive women in chat rooms tend to be men and that they have a great following can a computer convince a man it is a woman in lust? And as long as it is chat lust is all that matters.

I'm still waiting to see a chatbot or a robot that can actually convince me of it's burning passion for me.
 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Phil Dick is alive and well and living in Cleveland.

who?! 
 

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


nlozano
Posts: 5
Joined: 2012-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Coming from a computer

Coming from a computer knowledge stand point, it would be possible to actually program the computer to feel something but that will still be up to what extent the programmer can make out of it.  the computer could not start with something totally new but it could learn based on what is being said and done through the course of a lot of things.

There seems to be a problem when people start to think that computers could actually have a level of emotion with them because that is something that is very hard to pinpoint any which way you see it fit.


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
A computer, or even better,

A computer, or even better, a CODE can't feel enything. He's just running a code. That's the same as saying that the equations that your physics teacher wrote in the black board are in pain because of an error in calculus....

For a computer to feel we must understand what is awareness first. We are miles away from understanding that. 

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1616
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Responding to emotions ..KeyBoard an obvious application ..

Teralek wrote:

A computer, or even better, a CODE can't feel enything. He's just running a code. That's the same as saying that the equations .. are in pain .. etc.

 

 

Quote:
..the computer could not start with something totally new but it could learn based on what is being said and done through the course of a lot of things.

 

  Real world apps would want computers to recognize emotions, NOT have them.. MIT researchers (in America) are charting a path to computers  recognizing human emotions by showing them  a range of human facialexpressions. These researchers needed a wider range of human emotions for the computers to study, initially. 

 There might be a keyboard someday that is touch sensitive, devoting more memory and CPU resources to a given task based on how hard the key is pressed. But, Non-commercial Operating Systems would never actually come out with such a feature. In Short, They have too many resource issues to make it happen.. ..

 

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Teralek wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Phil Dick is alive and well and living in Cleveland.

who?!

 

Philip K. Dick

Who else would live in Cleveland? OK, Williams of Cleves but who else? And Howard the Duck but no one else.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Teralek wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

That depends upon what you mean by "true" and "indistinguishable from what 

Back in the late 80s there was program called Parry and the trick was to distinguish it from a true paranoid. The program won. That was one of the successes that sent the AI folks back to rethinking the matter.

Indistinguishable from us. There's this little test, among others, called the Turing test. It's basically a chat bot.

Us? Do you count Jean Chauvin among us?

I was suggesting us v paranoid us v Jean Chauvin us. The latter two do not engage in discussion but stay on their original tack. My point was on the test methodology to determine success. You can't declare success without testing against both people and computers. And it requires the people not to throw the contest by imitating machine errors.

Eliza was easy from the getgo as it imitated grammar errors. Repeat the verb and it repeated repeated repeated the verb.

Cheating and deception are human behaviors so cannot be excluded from the test meaning both humans and computers can do either. Deception is inherent in the test else just ask the computer about its sex life and it loses. Sheldon Cooper, Spock and computers have to fake the answer to, How do you feel?

If the test is to determine a sentient computer instead of an imitation person that is different.

Are creationists examples of a sophisticated Artificial Stupidity programs?

I just discovered the clever TV cop trick of tripping up a suspect into telling a different story is in reality the easiest thing in the world cause most crooks are dumb. If I get different answers to the same question does that tell me it is a stupid person or a bug or a smart person playing dumb or playing a bug? 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote: Us? Do

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

 

Us? Do you count Jean Chauvin among us?

I was suggesting us v paranoid us v Jean Chauvin us. The latter two do not engage in discussion but stay on their original tack. My point was on the test methodology to determine success. You can't declare success without testing against both people and computers. And it requires the people not to throw the contest by imitating machine errors.

Eliza was easy from the getgo as it imitated grammar errors. Repeat the verb and it repeated repeated repeated the verb.

Cheating and deception are human behaviors so cannot be excluded from the test meaning both humans and computers can do either. Deception is inherent in the test else just ask the computer about its sex life and it loses. Sheldon Cooper, Spock and computers have to fake the answer to, How do you feel?

If the test is to determine a sentient computer instead of an imitation person that is different.

Are creationists examples of a sophisticated Artificial Stupidity programs?

I just discovered the clever TV cop trick of tripping up a suspect into telling a different story is in reality the easiest thing in the world cause most crooks are dumb. If I get different answers to the same question does that tell me it is a stupid person or a bug or a smart person playing dumb or playing a bug? 
 

You must be talking about the Phil who wrote Blade Runner. I think that guy is dead, thats what it says on wikip. I'm sure there's a punch line there... I just don't get it 

Eliza and all others you are talking about are just chat bots. That's the best you can do with 80's technology anyway. The surprising thing is coding as not improved so much since then! Have you tried ALICE?  Even Jean Chauvin is more complex than ALICE.

Respectfully,

I have a new and more interesting thing to show you I recently found. This is the crown jewel of chat bots! Really well made. http://www.cleverbot.com/

Have a chat with "him" he is way better than ALICE and probably better than Jean Sticking out tongue . Take notice to the small printing at the bottom:

PLEASE NOTE: Cleverbot learns from real people - things it says may seem inappropriate - use with discretion, and at YOUR OWN RISK
PARENTAL ADVICE: Visitors never talk to a human, however convincing it is - the AI knows many topics - use ONLY WITH OVERSIGHT

My idea is to test if a computer is sentient or not. Because that's the basis of "humanity" and human rights.

"Human rights. Why the very name is racist. The Federation is no more than a homo sapiens only club." - Azetbur, Star Trek Undiscovered country.

Now that is way more difficult than it seems... We can never be sure if other people are conscient or not. We can only infer by induction - "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.".

A dumb person... is not comparable to a computer coding which mimics a part of them... I wouldn't say creationists are dumb, that's harsh... I believe these humans are unwilling for a wide number of reasons to think or don't want to change their stand. Many times they feel that if they change stands they are quitting on their own lives, and this is a very powerful thought. I remember my own struggle through this. I'm convinced more than many play Pascal's wager secretly.

But anyway...

There is a certain passion, a certain surprise and deep honest insight which is both inspiring and flourishes with bright innovation. I'm talking about the "human" spirit. Human because we don't have other frame of reference.

Until a computer Upholds values with his life, makes inventions, relates to others and wins nobel prizes... than a computer is just a computer...

At the end of the day the real CORE of the problem remains... a computer (CODE) is not understanding anything, it's just processing a code. It's not aware of anything no matter how clever the programmer is.

Now with QM computing, because of it's radical new approach, things may change, MAY! If so remember me when I say that it will have tremendous implications on the fundamentals of the awareness experience.

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1616
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(no subject)

Teralek wrote:

  The surprising thing is coding as not improved so much since then! Have you tried ALICE?  Even Jean Chauvin is more complex than ALICE.

Respectfully,

 I recently found. This is the crown jewel of chat bots! Really well made. http://www.cleverbot.com/

Have a chat with "him" he is way better than ALICE and probably better than Jean Sticking out tongue . The real CORE of the problem remains... a computer (CODE) is not understanding anything, it's just processing a code

  Why do I always get the crazy Chat bots ?  I tried ALICE. I asked about "Anatomically modern humans" and  I swear on Mrs. O'Leary's half drunken Cow, it asked me if they were 'blue'?


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Teralek wrote:
...

You must be talking about the Phil who wrote Blade Runner. I think that guy is dead, thats what it says on wikip. I'm sure there's a punch line there... I just don't get it 

The crux of the movie was telling humans from replicants. The good guy hero discovers he is one -- at least in the final cut of the movie. The good gal lead is also a replicant but does not know it. I was pointing out the real complexities of the problem.

[nit picking, Dick wrote Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Ridley Scott made a movie loosely based on it using the title of an SF novel on organlegging written in the late 70s.]

Quote:
Eliza and all others you are talking about are just chat bots. That's the best you can do with 80's technology anyway. The surprising thing is coding as not improved so much since then! Have you tried ALICE?  Even Jean Chauvin is more complex than ALICE.

Respectfully,

I have a new and more interesting thing to show you I recently found. This is the crown jewel of chat bots! Really well made. http://www.cleverbot.com/

Have a chat with "him" he is way better than ALICE and probably better than Jean Sticking out tongue . Take notice to the small printing at the bottom:

PLEASE NOTE: Cleverbot learns from real people - things it says may seem inappropriate - use with discretion, and at YOUR OWN RISK
PARENTAL ADVICE: Visitors never talk to a human, however convincing it is - the AI knows many topics - use ONLY WITH OVERSIGHT

My idea is to test if a computer is sentient or not. Because that's the basis of "humanity" and human rights.

"Human rights. Why the very name is racist. The Federation is no more than a homo sapiens only club." - Azetbur, Star Trek Undiscovered country.

Lots of us have little use for Rick Berman's childlike views. He turned Roddenberry's snarling Ferengi into Munchkins. If there is any basis for human rights it is human responsibilities. Consider the scorpion and the turtle. Sentient wolves still get hunted.

Quote:
Now that is way more difficult than it seems... We can never be sure if other people are conscient or not. We can only infer by induction - "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.".

What are the human rights of Skynet?

Quote:
A dumb person... is not comparable to a computer coding which mimics a part of them... I wouldn't say creationists are dumb, that's harsh... I believe these humans are unwilling for a wide number of reasons to think or don't want to change their stand. Many times they feel that if they change stands they are quitting on their own lives, and this is a very powerful thought. I remember my own struggle through this. I'm convinced more than many play Pascal's wager secretly.

But anyway...

No the issue is testing to tell a dumb human from a computer whether or not they are creationists.

Quote:
There is a certain passion, a certain surprise and deep honest insight which is both inspiring and flourishes with bright innovation. I'm talking about the "human" spirit. Human because we don't have other frame of reference.

Until a computer Upholds values with his life, makes inventions, relates to others and wins nobel prizes... than a computer is just a computer...

Upholding wolf values is not a problem. Relating to others would only apply to a sentient social species. Or google Larry Niven and the sentient Kzinti. There is no apparent connection between sentience and human behavior. Apparently you are not into SF so think werewolves and vampires, very sentient and very non-human. If you are still very down to earth type, list the human rights to raid and plunder of the Golden Horde. It is Berman's Boy Scout view where the Klingons become nice guys in the end.

Quote:
At the end of the day the real CORE of the problem remains... a computer (CODE) is not understanding anything, it's just processing a code. It's not aware of anything no matter how clever the programmer is.

That is a poorly structured way of looking at things. Does the operating system know it is merely processing code? A computer is more than the many programs it is running. How does an RTOS differ from us?

Which leaves a more interesting question. Computers are completely alien to us in their inner workings. We cannot think as they do. How could we recognize a sentient computer if there were one? Maybe they are trying to get through to us right now?

Quote:
Now with QM computing, because of it's radical new approach, things may change, MAY! If so remember me when I say that it will have tremendous implications on the fundamentals of the awareness experience.

Maybe with that kind of processing power they will figure a way to get through to us. If they care to do so. With the internet there could be a computer intelligence or three distributed across the net but we simply can't recognize it and it/they have no interest in anything beyond the net they exist in.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


numeral
Posts: 8
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whCJ4NLUSB8 

 

Can computers actually be programmed to understand human thought and emotion ? If they could talk to us, and FEEL emotion, who needs best friends (LOL) ?

Unless the computers gain independent thought and take over, like some sci-fi / horror story.

 

It's my view that humans are examples of computers that took over the world.  Whether or not we can create computers that are just as useful and intelligent is a question of our own intelligence.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Once we reverse-engineer the

Once we reverse-engineer the brain (the science behind which is coming along, although we need to be able to simulate a brain working in it's entirety first, which requires a lot of computer power), I do not see what is stopping us from creating AI.

I've talked to some people who refuse to agree with me because they believe there is 'something else' we haven't discovered yet that makes humans what we are, but I don't buy it. This is the main argument against AI I have heard, being that there is some mystical soul/conciousness or a unknown scientific quality to humans that we will never be able to recreate. I fail to see any evidence for this belief.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
I love Ted Talks

ThunderJones wrote:

Once we reverse-engineer the brain (the science behind which is coming along, although we need to be able to simulate a brain working in it's entirety first, which requires a lot of computer power), I do not see what is stopping us from creating AI.

I've talked to some people who refuse to agree with me because they believe there is 'something else' we haven't discovered yet that makes humans what we are, but I don't buy it. This is the main argument against AI I have heard, being that there is some mystical soul/conciousness or a unknown scientific quality to humans that we will never be able to recreate. I fail to see any evidence for this belief.

 

You might be interested in this one - http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/sebastian_seung.html

 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:ThunderJones wrote:

cj wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Once we reverse-engineer the brain (the science behind which is coming along, although we need to be able to simulate a brain working in it's entirety first, which requires a lot of computer power), I do not see what is stopping us from creating AI.

I've talked to some people who refuse to agree with me because they believe there is 'something else' we haven't discovered yet that makes humans what we are, but I don't buy it. This is the main argument against AI I have heard, being that there is some mystical soul/conciousness or a unknown scientific quality to humans that we will never be able to recreate. I fail to see any evidence for this belief.

 

You might be interested in this one - http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/sebastian_seung.html

 

 

 

Interested indeed! I think neuroscience to be a very important field for the future.

Looks like they have a game plan as well. Very nice.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker