Turing is laughing in his grave

[Impenitent]

humans may be confused with the speech patterns recycled by machines

several modern attempts at artificial "intelligence" are nothing more than programmed responses

it could be argued that biological intelligence is the same - programmed and expected responses

taking the products of automated dictionaries as gospel is a different problem

-Imp

[Skepdick]

humans may be confused with the speech patterns recycled by machines

several modern attempts at artificial "intelligence" are nothing more than programmed responses

it could be argued that biological intelligence is the same - programmed and expected responses

taking the products of automated dictionaries as gospel is a different problem

-Imp

What else do you expect from matter arranged human-wise?

[Iwannaplato]

humans may be confused with the speech patterns recycled by machines

several modern attempts at artificial "intelligence" are nothing more than programmed responses

it could be argued that biological intelligence is the same - programmed and expected responses

taking the products of automated dictionaries as gospel is a different problem

-Imp

Actually this is simply false. AIs, for example, are being given tools and access to data and are learning things that no one asked them to learn. They're not programmed like some computer in the 80s do this if this happens, style. And they are not learning just batches of facts, but often skills areas or rules behind things.

What is it Turing would be laughing about?

[Impenitent]

humans may be confused with the speech patterns recycled by machines

several modern attempts at artificial "intelligence" are nothing more than programmed responses

it could be argued that biological intelligence is the same - programmed and expected responses

taking the products of automated dictionaries as gospel is a different problem

-Imp

Actually this is simply false. AIs, for example, are being given tools and access to data and are learning things that no one asked them to learn. They're not programmed like some computer in the 80s do this if this happens, style. And they are not learning just batches of facts, but often skills areas or rules behind things.

which is false?

What is it Turing would be laughing about?

the only differentiation some would strive to have is that "speech from a machine" is "Truth"...

-Imp

[Iwannaplato]

humans may be confused with the speech patterns recycled by machines

several modern attempts at artificial "intelligence" are nothing more than programmed responses

it could be argued that biological intelligence is the same - programmed and expected responses

taking the products of automated dictionaries as gospel is a different problem

-Imp

Actually this is simply false. AIs, for example, are being given tools and access to data and are learning things that no one asked them to learn. They're not programmed like some computer in the 80s do this if this happens, style. And they are not learning just batches of facts, but often skills areas or rules behind things.

which is false?

What is it Turing would be laughing about?

the only differentiation some would strive to have is that "speech from a machine" is "Truth"...

-Imp

Differentiation from ____________ ?
You mean as opposed to consciousness or real intelligence or.......?
This is what Turing would be laughing about?

[iambiguous]

Let's face it, most of us here react to AI without a firm grasp on how "for all practical purposes" it matters given our own individual lives. Instead, we read various accounts of it from those who do claim to have that knowledge. But, as with respect to other "conflicting goods", there are reasonable arguments from both sides:

https://www.simplilearn.com/advantages- ... ce-article
https://www.procon.org/headlines/artifi ... -and-cons/

So far, to the best of my knowledge, AI has had exactly zero impact on my own life. Could that change? Sure, and if I ever come to grasp how, I'll let you know.

Has it already impacted your own life for better or worse? Tell us about it.

Also, given my own main interest in philosophy -- "I" at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy -- I would certainly be interested in exploring how AI might answer this question: "What ought one to do -- morally, ethically -- in a world teeming with both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change?"

AI can choose the context.

What's crucial here, it seems, is the part where AI "somehow" manages to go beyond the information programmed into it by human beings and acquires its own...autonomy?

Well, presuming that AI is no more than another inherent manifestation of determinism...of the "only possible reality".

Perhaps AI is to us what we are to nature itself: dominoes all the way down.

[Iwannaplato]

So, why is Turing laughing?

[Age]

humans may be confused with the speech patterns recycled by machines

several modern attempts at artificial "intelligence" are nothing more than programmed responses

it could be argued that biological intelligence is the same - programmed and expected responses

The actual 'Intelligence' within human bodies is not programmed nor expected responses. However, the 'intellect' within human bodies certainly is.

See, the human brain works exactly like a computer does, and it is here, where it is perceived/presumed where intellect/thought gathered, stored, resides, and/or arises.

taking the products of automated dictionaries as gospel is a different problem

-Imp

Well 'meaning', or 'definitions', have to be kept and stored somewhere, and obviously 'these' cannot be recorded, kept, and recalled absolutely Accurately, or 'the same', within one nor many heads/brains. So, some form of agreed upon and accept form of 'record keeping', and 'referencing' ability is, and was, needed. So, the idea of 'a dictionary' was imagined, and how to devise, create, and keep one was invented.

However, because all language and all words is a continually evolving thing, just like absolutely everything else is, (except of course, 'beliefs', themselves, when they are being 'kept' and are being 'very well maintained', or just 'held onto very rigidly' in other words), 'dictionaries' also evolve, and thus change.

But, if some of you want to keep any one dictionary, and use it 'always' in their own very short lived life, as some sort of 'gospel', then so be it. Other people use other books as 'gospels', too.

[Age]

humans may be confused with the speech patterns recycled by machines

several modern attempts at artificial "intelligence" are nothing more than programmed responses

it could be argued that biological intelligence is the same - programmed and expected responses

taking the products of automated dictionaries as gospel is a different problem

-Imp

Actually this is simply false. AIs, for example, are being given tools and access to data and are learning things that no one asked them to learn.

Will you provide any examples of this?

And, will you provide the papers, or the knowledge, of where this is actually claimed, and already proved true?

If no, then why not?

They're not programmed like some computer in the 80s do this if this happens, style. And they are not learning just batches of facts, but often skills areas or rules behind things.

Like 'what', for example?

What is it Turing would be laughing about?

[Age]

Let's face it, most of us here react to AI without a firm grasp on how "for all practical purposes" it matters given our own individual lives. Instead, we read various accounts of it from those who do claim to have that knowledge. But, as with respect to other "conflicting goods", there are reasonable arguments from both sides:

https://www.simplilearn.com/advantages- ... ce-article
https://www.procon.org/headlines/artifi ... -and-cons/

So far, to the best of my knowledge, AI has had exactly zero impact on my own life. Could that change? Sure, and if I ever come to grasp how, I'll let you know.

'artificial intelligence' is 'feeding' you information.

Information you receive/d, has an impact on "your own life", correct?

If no, then why not?

But, if yes, then 'artificial intelligence' has an impact on 'your own life'.

Now, to how much or to what degree could be in 'real terms' so insignificant that it does not really matter all here.

Has it already impacted your own life for better or worse? Tell us about it.

Also, given my own main interest in philosophy -- "I" at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy

Do you mean, and are just referring to, the individual personal 'i' here, which also goes by the name and label here "iambiguous", only?

-- I would certainly be interested in exploring how AI might answer this question: "What ought one to do -- morally, ethically -- in a world teeming with both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change?"

The exact same as absolutely everyone would be 'better off' doing in absolutely any and every so-called 'world', that is;
Just doing 'that' what everyone could agree with and accept.

This would, and does, lead to not abusing anything, which, in turn, is creating and making 'life', itself, always better for everyone, as well.

Now, if you need absolutely any examples at all or absolutely anything elaborated on or explained better, then, like always, just ask the questions, for clarity. And, remember the more specific the questioning is, exactly like you did here perfectly, then the more specific the answers will be in return.

AI can choose the context.

What's crucial here, it seems, is the part where AI "somehow" manages to go beyond the information programmed into it by human beings and acquires its own...autonomy?

But, 'artificial intelligence' cannot do this, and could never do this. Only, 'actual Intelligence' can do this. And, this is why 'it' is called 'artificial intelligence'. If 'it', 'artificial intelligence' could acquire 'its own autonomy', then 'it' would be just like you human beings. which contains 'actual REAL Intelligence', Itself.

But, looking at the way you adult human beings can and do 'mistreat' 'the world', and each other, which is, literally, "yourselves", in the days when this is being written, one could Truly wonder if you adult 'beings' really did have absolutely any 'intelligence', itself, left within 'you' at all.

Well, presuming that AI is no more than another inherent manifestation of determinism...of the "only possible reality".

Of course absolutely every thing was pre-'determined' by pre-existing conditions, which obviously could never be refuted, so this means 'determinism' exists, but just as obviously no one can ever refute that you human beings do not have 'free will', itself.

Unless, of course, one provides a definition of and for the word, 'free will', which itself could never possibly exist anyway.

Perhaps AI is to us what we are to nature itself: dominoes all the way down.

And, what is being created, and evolving, is a 'being', which is continually in 'the process' of coming-to-know thy 'Self'.

Which, by the way, has already happened.

[Iwannaplato]

Will you provide any examples of this?

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1266067557623565
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yd18z6iSyk
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... e-told-it/
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/0 ... tself-agi/
https://theconversation.com/ai-systems- ... ure-212197
https://www.newscientist.com/article/24 ... pposed-to/

Also the person I was responding to is confused about fundamental properties in AIs. That their responses are programmed. When in fact AI are being designed to learn. Whether this will lead to dangerous AIs or consciousness, I and seemingly they, don't know. Perhaps AIs have already peaked. Perhaps the work on general intelligence will fail. But researchers are already being surprised by what is being accomplished and a number of well respected AI researchers have been concerned enough to leave the field of AI. Many others are calling for more control and more legislation that controls AI research and use.

To get information about this I would suggest people look into Generative AI which is actually being marketed already to companies, Machine Learning, Neural Networks, Natural Language Processing, Deep Learning, and Computer Vision.

Programming is closed. Inputs give predictable outputs. The design in AI is generative, exploratory and open-ended. It is fundamentally different in approach.

Further these are things AIs have learned that companies and governments are willing to talk about. There is a huge race on between governments and between companies. There are trade secrets and secrecy in general. Motivations can be to keep competitors in the dark. Motivations to keep regulators and the perception that regulation is needed in the dark.

And if your urge is simply to throw more questions at me, I hope despite this urge, you'll actually spend time yourself and be exploratory. That's a lot of directions you can initiate your own search for answers and take responsibility for that. That's actually much more efficient...and rewarding.

[Age]

Will you provide any examples of this?

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1266067557623565
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yd18z6iSyk
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... e-told-it/
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/0 ... tself-agi/
https://theconversation.com/ai-systems- ... ure-212197
https://www.newscientist.com/article/24 ... pposed-to/

If you would like to discuss each every one of these examples, in great detail, then I am more than willing to, with you.

Also the person I was responding to is confused about fundamental properties in AIs. That their responses are programmed.

But you are not, right 'iwannaplato"?

When in fact AI are being designed to learn.

To learn 'what', exactly, and how they are 'programmed' 'to learn', exactly, I am also more than willing to look at and discuss, with you.

Also, the so-called 'artificially intelligent machines/programs' although are being 'designed' in certain ways, 'to operate' they also need to 'be programmed', 'to do' what they do, and as was mentioned, the 'responses' of those 'machine programs' are just what they were 'programmed' 'to do'.

As can be clearly seen in some of those examples, which you provided here for 'us' to look at, and discuss.

Whether this will lead to dangerous AIs or consciousness, I and seemingly they, don't know.

Wow, 'we' seemed to have jumped a 'few steps', in the middle here, and just arrived at 'the conclusion'; They might be dangerous but we just do not, (yet), know'.

1. Absolutely every thing you human beings 'design' and 'create' might be 'dangerous', and, at particular times, you just do not, (yet), know.

2. I do not see nor hear much at all about the actual 'pollution', which, through, human being 'design', and which ,was and is, still, being 'created', being 'dangerous', although every one of you adult human beings already know, absolutely, especially in the particular time when this is being written, that 'all pollution' 'is dangerous'.

3. Intelligence, like Consciousness, is already HERE. It does not need to come-into-Existence, again.

4. 'artificial intelligence' can only do what 'it' has been 'programmed' to do. The word 'artificial', by definition, makes this very clear here.

5. If something is able to become Truly OPEN, in order to be able to learn somethings, by itself, then that is just 'Intelligence', itself, which, by the way, is already existing, within you human beings.

6. The only real danger, and really dangerous thing, existing, is you human beings.

Perhaps AIs have already peaked. Perhaps the work on general intelligence will fail.

What work is there on 'general intelligence' and what do the word 'general intelligence' mean and/or referring to, exactly?

But researchers are already being surprised by what is being accomplished and a number of well respected AI researchers have been concerned enough to leave the field of AI.

If the so-called "researchers" are finding out things, which they do not like, then why do they not just talk to the so-called "programmers" and ask them to stop 'programming' the machines/programs to do what is not wanted?

Also, why would a species 'design' and 'create' things, which they then employ "researchers" to research, and/or to do what is not even wanted by 'the species' anyway?

Those human beings, back in those 'olden days, when this was being written, really were a funny lot and a True 'bewilder to wonder'.

Many others are calling for more control and more legislation that controls AI research and use.

Would not putting controls on or over the ones who are 'designing' and/or 'creating' these things, which are 'now' not wanted, be a much better idea than putting controls on the ones who are 'watching over' and 'researching' what those things are actually doing?

But, I would suggest first putting controls on and over the ones who are actually causing and creating the actual 'pollution' of 'the planet', which is what you Truly 'need', and 'want', in order for the human being species to keep living, and keep surviving.

To get information about this I would suggest people look into Generative AI which is actually being marketed already to companies, Machine Learning, Neural Networks, Natural Language Processing, Deep Learning, and Computer Vision.

Programming is closed. Inputs give predictable outputs. The design in AI is generative, exploratory and open-ended. It is fundamentally different in approach.

And if your urge is simply to throw more questions at me, I hope despite this urge, you'll actually spend time yourself and be exploratory.

But you telling, or urging, me or others to go 'look at' 'the literature' or 'the evidence', then you will learn and see what I have already concluded is true, is the like the "christian" or the "scientist" who tells, or urges, other to go 'look at' 'the literature' or 'the evidence', then you will learn and see what I have already concluded is true. Which is; the Universe came from God, or, the Universe came from a big bang.

And, once again, if you cannot handle being questioned and/or challenged over your statements and claims here, then I will once again suggest that a philosophy forum might not be the best place for you.

That's a lot of directions you can initiate your own search for answers and take responsibility for that. That's actually much more efficient...and rewarding.

But I have already found, during 'my research', where and why those things are only appearing to be learning 'new and/or unexpected things'.

Also, and again, if you would like to discuss absolutely anything here, in great detail, then I am more than willing to, with you.

[Iwannaplato]

But you telling, or urging, me or others to go 'look at' 'the literature' or 'the evidence', then you will learn and see what I have already concluded is true, is the like the "christian" or the "scientist" who tells, or urges, other to go 'look at' 'the literature' or 'the evidence', then you will learn and see what I have already concluded is true. Which is; the Universe came from God, or, the Universe came from a big bang.

Sigh. I didn't say anything about your going and looking under those search terms would lead to any particular outcome, now did I, Age? Not that it would lead to agreement with me. So, it was not like those other situations, Age. Ken, notice how Age assumes things. Notice how often his assumptions, Ken, are not particularly charitable.

And, once again, if you cannot handle being questioned and/or challenged over your statements and claims here, then I will once again suggest that a philosophy forum might not be the best place for you.

Perhaps if you spend a moment you can think of other reasons, more charitable ones, for why I made the request I made. Notice Ken that while presented in a conditional sentence, Age tends to jump to less flattering interpretations of other people's motives when they do not do what he wants them to. Ken, Age may not be aware of his narcissism. Are you sure you want him to continue to occupy you?

Perhaps Age will want to say that my interpretations are not flattering, here. I could give a longer more complex response to that, but the most important is: Age presents himself as having a special role in saving the world and further as being transcendent. But he's just another entity with biases and grudges and needs and emotional reactions.

But I have already found, during 'my research', where and why those things are only appearing to be learning 'new and/or unexpected things'.

Well, now I know another one of your beliefs.

And Age, that was just one tiny part of your post. I know you are happy or seemingly are happy to produce enormous posts. But for me to do something like that, I would need the person to not do things like deny the obvious - in this case one example is your denial that you have more than one belief. For humans at this time, this is toxic behavior. There are many names for it, but a popular one these days is gaslighting.

[Age]

But you telling, or urging, me or others to go 'look at' 'the literature' or 'the evidence', then you will learn and see what I have already concluded is true, is the like the "christian" or the "scientist" who tells, or urges, other to go 'look at' 'the literature' or 'the evidence', then you will learn and see what I have already concluded is true. Which is; the Universe came from God, or, the Universe came from a big bang.

Sigh. I didn't say anything about your going and looking under those search terms would lead to any particular outcome, now did I, Age?

If you did not, then why did you write the words, 'The design in AI is generative, exploratory and open-ended. It is fundamentally different in approach', for, exactly?

Not that it would lead to agreement with me. So, it was not like those other situations, Age. Ken, notice how Age assumes things. Notice how often his assumptions, Ken, are not particularly charitable.

What are you on about here?

And, once again, if you cannot handle being questioned and/or challenged over your statements and claims here, then I will once again suggest that a philosophy forum might not be the best place for you.

Perhaps if you spend a moment you can think of other reasons, more charitable ones, for why I made the request I made.

But 'the request' was never 'the issue' here.

Notice Ken that while presented in a conditional sentence, Age tends to jump to less flattering interpretations of other people's motives when they do not do what he wants them to. Ken, Age may not be aware of his narcissism. Are you sure you want him to continue to occupy you?

Why do you speak like this "iwannaplato"?

Are you hearing more than one voice within that head?

Perhaps Age will want to say that my interpretations are not flattering, here.

I would never be so egotistical to ever relate to a word like that.

I could give a longer more complex response to that, but the most important is: Age presents himself as having a special role in saving the world and further as being transcendent. But he's just another entity with biases and grudges and needs and emotional reactions.

Really?

If your judgments, prejudices, assumptions, and beliefs are telling you this, "iwannaplato", then this must be absolutely true, to you, right

But I have already found, during 'my research', where and why those things are only appearing to be learning 'new and/or unexpected things'.

Well, now I know another one of your beliefs.

And, once again, even when you are told the actual thoughts occurring, you still believe that 'you' are far more superior to others here that you even believe that you can know the thinking within other heads. And, if you are informed otherwise, then you still believe that you are far more superior and worse still actually believe that you know what the actual truth is.

Which is absolutely hilarious considering what you are trying to claim to know here.

[Impenitent]

Actually this is simply false. AIs, for example, are being given tools and access to data and are learning things that no one asked them to learn. They're not programmed like some computer in the 80s do this if this happens, style. And they are not learning just batches of facts, but often skills areas or rules behind things.

which is false?

What is it Turing would be laughing about?

the only differentiation some would strive to have is that "speech from a machine" is "Truth"...

-Imp

Differentiation from ____________ ?
You mean as opposed to consciousness or real intelligence or.......?
This is what Turing would be laughing about?

you missed the point of the Turing test

-Imp