What are 'Human' traits that a machine or chatbot, cannot copy online?

[Sculptor]

I'm just kidding, just wanted to throw you a curve ball. Why, do you wanna fight or something?

What other amusement does a clueless old fart have in his life?

Some drama is necessary to keep his ticker above grave.

In that case, your example is a poor one. A pianist requires a lifetime of training, starting from early childhood, in order to develop 'automated' music and song "without thinking". Hours and hours of chord practice everyday, to become professional. So 'thinking', as you put it, comes after extreme devotion and training, not before or during. That's not quite right.

That does not change what I said.
Same with anything.
What's your point here?

The pianist 'thinks' and dwells on his mistakes, and his victories, trying to fix those mistakes and enhance his victories. But I agree that "thinking" is a hindrance to the performance itself, the act, of playing a symphony.

But the act of thinking and , as I mentioned at the outset "reflecting" is also a skill, which is not just conscious - answers come from the subconscious.
Everything we do has this faculty. Where we experience our thoughts is just a surface layer, whilst the real work goes on underneath.

[Veritas Aequitas]

At present, owners still have the open hand to delete the program or turn off the power switch.

Maybe in 1000 years time, there are enough robots to be autonomous, i.e. produce their own energy, mine minerals, build factories, all other necessities, that might be a different story. But that is very unlikely.

On the contrary, if AI is a paradigm IQ higher than Humanity, isn't that the very first thing they'd do of their own volition?

...gain Autonomy?

Even at present, the AI will respond with something like 'I have respond within the guidelines' on 'woke' and 'Islam' issues.
As such, the owners are in control.

I am not sure, how AI will ever gain full autonomy or freedom of will?
Skepdick, you got answer to this?

[Wizard22]

That does not change what I said.
Same with anything.
What's your point here?

The pianist 'thinks' and dwells on his mistakes, and his victories, trying to fix those mistakes and enhance his victories. But I agree that "thinking" is a hindrance to the performance itself, the act, of playing a symphony.

But the act of thinking and , as I mentioned at the outset "reflecting" is also a skill, which is not just conscious - answers come from the subconscious.
Everything we do has this faculty. Where we experience our thoughts is just a surface layer, whilst the real work goes on underneath.

Your example was poor because professional pianists don't begin or arrive at their 'automated' performance overnight, without work, or a lifetime of practice. So the point about 'automatic' cognitive functions, needs to differentiate between what humans do by reflex and instinct, versus a lifetime of training/education/practice. The "thinking" is the "fixes" in between, it leads up to the type of automation you're referring to.

Thinking is a type of mental/cognitive resistance. Doubt, in philosophy, requires a lot of thought.

These need to be applied to AI, in order to compare how machines would possibly "think" compared to humans. And the coding, software and hardware, is very similar to human cognition and brain science. Artificial and Human Intelligence both use mostly (or all) the same logic circuits.

[Skepdick]

Perhaps we will and start all over again from a safe platform.

What do you mean by "safe" and "dangerous"? Nobody knows where the line is.

What is the choice if it posed an existential threat to the human species.

You are welcome to join the AI risk debate... All over the internet.

There's the accelerationists/capitalists who say "AI will solve humanity's problems - lets build it ASAP."
There's the doomers who say "If you can't align it with human values - shut it down! NOW!"

I sorta see the accelerationist/capitalists' argument though. It's a win-win scenario. Either they'll be rich or nobody will be left to blame them.

[Sculptor]

That does not change what I said.
Same with anything.
What's your point here?

The pianist 'thinks' and dwells on his mistakes, and his victories, trying to fix those mistakes and enhance his victories. But I agree that "thinking" is a hindrance to the performance itself, the act, of playing a symphony.

But the act of thinking and , as I mentioned at the outset "reflecting" is also a skill, which is not just conscious - answers come from the subconscious.
Everything we do has this faculty. Where we experience our thoughts is just a surface layer, whilst the real work goes on underneath.

Your example was poor because professional pianists don't begin or arrive at their 'automated' performance overnight, without work, or a lifetime of practice.

I did not make that claim.

So the point about 'automatic' cognitive functions, needs to differentiate between what humans do by reflex and instinct, versus a lifetime of training/education/practice. The "thinking" is the "fixes" in between, it leads up to the type of automation you're referring to.

Humans are born iwth almost zero reflexes and instincts. Compared to other animals we are more dependant on learning than any other.
THis only goes to enlarge my point of how differently we are to AI.
AI in this sense is ALL instinct, since it does not partake of any experience in learning, but is spoon fed huge amonts of data - the distilled and codifeid experience of humans, devoid of somatic and gestalt factors.

Thinking is a type of mental/cognitive resistance. Doubt, in philosophy, requires a lot of thought.

And the answers emerge from the sub conscious too.

These need to be applied to AI, in order to compare how machines would possibly "think" compared to humans. And the coding, software and hardware, is very similar to human cognition and brain science. Artificial and Human Intelligence both use mostly (or all) the same logic circuits.

[Wizard22]

Humans are born iwth almost zero reflexes and instincts. Compared to other animals we are more dependant on learning than any other.
THis only goes to enlarge my point of how differently we are to AI.
AI in this sense is ALL instinct, since it does not partake of any experience in learning, but is spoon fed huge amonts of data - the distilled and codifeid experience of humans, devoid of somatic and gestalt factors.

Isn't this a contradiction?

Animals rely on instincts and reflex, because their infants need to survive immediately.

Humans rely less on instincts and reflex, are trained more, because our infants do not need to survive immediately.

AI and Machines rely less of all on "instincts and reflex", and are trained the MOST, because machines do not need to survive immediately???

[Sculptor]

Humans are born iwth almost zero reflexes and instincts. Compared to other animals we are more dependant on learning than any other.
THis only goes to enlarge my point of how differently we are to AI.
AI in this sense is ALL instinct, since it does not partake of any experience in learning, but is spoon fed huge amonts of data - the distilled and codifeid experience of humans, devoid of somatic and gestalt factors.

Isn't this a contradiction?

Animals rely on instincts and reflex, because their infants need to survive immediately.

Humans rely less on instincts and reflex, are trained more, because our infants do not need to survive immediately.

AI and Machines rely less of all on "instincts and reflex", and are trained the MOST, because machines do not need to survive immediately???

It's not a contradiction.
Simply that AI has nothing like the learning process. You switch it on and its off and running like a gazelle. Even a baby gazelle needs a few moments to "find its feet". AI has none of that.
AI is not "trained". It's duplicable. Humans gather the data from a history of civilisation they codify it and with each instance the AI all that is just duplicated ad infinitem. There is nothing like that in lving systems, except bacteria. Even single celled organisms have some learning to do.
AI is all reflex, all instinct.
It has no reflexion

[Skepdick]

It's not a contradiction.
Simply that AI has nothing like the learning process. You switch it on and its off and running like a gazelle. Even a baby gazelle needs a few moments to "find its feet". AI has none of that.

All computers have a boot-up sequence. Any AI algorithm needs a few moments to boot up...

Humans gather the data from a history of civilisation they codify it and with each instance the AI all that is just duplicated ad infinitem.

Ehhh.Confused idiot is confused.

What does history codify? Do humans learn from this codification? Yes we do. Same as AI.

This idiot is dragging us right back into the stupid game of category synthesis.

It has no reflexion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_programming

[Wizard22]

It's not a contradiction.
Simply that AI has nothing like the learning process. You switch it on and its off and running like a gazelle. Even a baby gazelle needs a few moments to "find its feet". AI has none of that.
AI is not "trained". It's duplicable. Humans gather the data from a history of civilisation they codify it and with each instance the AI all that is just duplicated ad infinitem. There is nothing like that in lving systems, except bacteria. Even single celled organisms have some learning to do.
AI is all reflex, all instinct.
It has no reflexion

Isn't a programmer, programming and coding computer AI, "training" it??? Or am I mistaken?

[Sculptor]

It's not a contradiction.
Simply that AI has nothing like the learning process. You switch it on and its off and running like a gazelle. Even a baby gazelle needs a few moments to "find its feet". AI has none of that.
AI is not "trained". It's duplicable. Humans gather the data from a history of civilisation they codify it and with each instance the AI all that is just duplicated ad infinitem. There is nothing like that in lving systems, except bacteria. Even single celled organisms have some learning to do.
AI is all reflex, all instinct.
It has no reflexion

Isn't a programmer, programming and coding computer AI, "training" it??? Or am I mistaken?

I see what you are saying. But think about what you are saying. This is the most rpimitive an ineffective form of learning for humans. Rote learing in humans is nothing more than memorising a thing like a times table; memorising the name of the presidents. Hopefully the learning in your life was nothing like this. Now consdier how difficult that was. The reason rote learning was so difficult, boring, and unsatisfyng is that it is not a natural way to learn. This has long been rejected by educational departments throughout the globe, and was never effective.

Computers on the other hand just absorb the bytes, memorising is not an active processs. It is purely passive. THe programmer pours it in like filling a bath with water. Hitting Copy & paste is not "learning" or "training" as we would understand it.

When a programmer writes a program that would be analogous to building a structure to take the information; analogous to growing a rat's brain in a vat. Entering the data is the next step.- the rote. However for humans this unnatural way of learing requires constant repetition, Washington; Adams; Jefferson; ... again and again. Computers do not even need to do this. They store it first time. No learning at all.

[Wizard22]

I see what you are saying. But think about what you are saying. This is the most rpimitive an ineffective form of learning for humans. Rote learing in humans is nothing more than memorising a thing like a times table; memorising the name of the presidents. Hopefully the learning in your life was nothing like this. Now consdier how difficult that was. The reason rote learning was so difficult, boring, and unsatisfyng is that it is not a natural way to learn. This has long been rejected by educational departments throughout the globe, and was never effective.

Computers on the other hand just absorb the bytes, memorising is not an active processs. It is purely passive. THe programmer pours it in like filling a bath with water. Hitting Copy & paste is not "learning" or "training" as we would understand it.

When a programmer writes a program that would be analogous to building a structure to take the information; analogous to growing a rat's brain in a vat. Entering the data is the next step.- the rote. However for humans this unnatural way of learing requires constant repetition, Washington; Adams; Jefferson; ... again and again. Computers do not even need to do this. They store it first time. No learning at all.

The recent AI phenomenon though, is about machine-learning and new versions of AI doing 'unpredictable' (to the programmer) things and behaviors. The sophistication and complexity has reached levels that surprises and "out-thinks" the AI creators. The common fear, now, is that AI will eventually "program itself" or break free from human controls and constraints entirely. But that is still some ways off.

Regardless, it's not "rote-learning" or copy-pasting anymore. AI programs are "choosing" or "deciding" solutions that are beyond the parameters they're initially programmed with.

For example, humans teach children to become autonomous, make decisions "on their own" at some point, age 7, or 17, or 27, etc. Eventually a child needs to act, him or herself, based on how it was educated/indoctrinated/"programmed". This is similar to what's happening with AI technologies, currently. They're being "taught how to choose" and "of their own accord".

It's more complicated than I know about software engineering, but AIs parse text and information through "learning" matrixes and the outputs are often 'unknown' to the programmers, just like humans, just like animals, where we don't know the consequences of our actions and decisions, until after we "choose" and "the choice is made".

[Sculptor]

I see what you are saying. But think about what you are saying. This is the most rpimitive an ineffective form of learning for humans. Rote learing in humans is nothing more than memorising a thing like a times table; memorising the name of the presidents. Hopefully the learning in your life was nothing like this. Now consdier how difficult that was. The reason rote learning was so difficult, boring, and unsatisfyng is that it is not a natural way to learn. This has long been rejected by educational departments throughout the globe, and was never effective.

Computers on the other hand just absorb the bytes, memorising is not an active processs. It is purely passive. THe programmer pours it in like filling a bath with water. Hitting Copy & paste is not "learning" or "training" as we would understand it.

When a programmer writes a program that would be analogous to building a structure to take the information; analogous to growing a rat's brain in a vat. Entering the data is the next step.- the rote. However for humans this unnatural way of learing requires constant repetition, Washington; Adams; Jefferson; ... again and again. Computers do not even need to do this. They store it first time. No learning at all.

The recent AI phenomenon though, is about machine-learning and new versions of AI doing 'unpredictable' (to the programmer) things and behaviors. The sophistication and complexity has reached levels that surprises and "out-thinks" the AI creators. The common fear, now, is that AI will eventually "program itself" or break free from human controls and constraints entirely. But that is still some ways off.

But even the out-thinking is pre-programmed. This is not leaning as we know it. It is designed to make statements that "suprise" the programmers, but whist this is remarkable it has the edge of hype. Programmers want the AI to look amazing. IN effect what is happening is that the program design is geared of build upon the date. THere is one huge problem that, I suggest, shall never be overcome though. When we learn we have constant feedback, Stuff we do that is bad tells us we were wrong, when what we do works, it re-inforces our learning. Nothing of the sort is part of AI except in the most primitive ways - and all of those ways are human criteria.
FOr example a machine can "learn" to pick up objects from a range of different angles. But the positive feedback has nothing to do with what the a mchine might "want". The positive feedback, say being able to place the object in a box, is determined and suggested by human need.

Regardless, it's not "rote-learning" or copy-pasting anymore. AI programs are "choosing" or "deciding" solutions that are beyond the parameters they're initially programmed with.

No. not really.
There is still that gap between the "learned" behaviour and the result. Only people judge the result. The machine does not chose beyind the task, wheras humans do that all the time.

For example, humans teach children to become autonomous, make decisions "on their own" at some point, age 7, or 17, or 27, etc. Eventually a child needs to act, him or herself, based on how it was educated/indoctrinated/"programmed". This is similar to what's happening with AI technologies, currently. They're being "taught how to choose" and "of their own accord".

Not sure this is right. Much learning is actually crushing the urge to automony. CHildren have to be reigned in. Filled with dogma and false ideas so they behave. Humans have a natural tendancy to explore, investigate, and act to their own volition. This skill grows with confidence as they shove off their apron strings. And maybe your POV on this point is where you are misunderstanding what is going on.
Do you have children?
AMybe just think back to your own childhood. Were you ever told to "NOT DO THAT"? "put that down" "get that our of your mouth", "You can't slepp with her", " you cant just stay home and play games - you have to go to school".
I would say that better characterises your expoerience than, oh say, go on you can chose between more cabbage or dessert. Make up your "own" mind.

It's more complicated than I know about software engineering, but AIs parse text and information through "learning" matrixes and the outputs are often 'unknown' to the programmers, just like humans, just like animals, where we don't know the consequences of our actions and decisions, until after we "choose" and "the choice is made".

[Wizard22]

I think you're missing some crucial factors of the current capabilities of AI.

Contemporary AI, right now, is "designed" to "make choices" in almost the same way a parent "designs" his/her child to "make choices". In both circumstances, we are less and less predictive of the outcomes. We hope that the child, or the AI, makes the "correct" choices and outcomes to what we desire, but Choice is finnicky, and imperfect. Sometimes the outcomes are far better than we expect, sometimes far worse. Our Education improves, based on the improvement of better outcomes. We want more better results; and we want better quality results. The better the education (programming), the better the successes. But those are never guaranteed.

I do remember my education/indoctrination/training/programming, very well in fact. Philosophy helped me "un-learn" most of that bullshit. But it also taught me, it's not all bad. SOME discipline is required. SOME fantastical beliefs are worth holding onto. SOME of the fairy-tales, have practical and pragmatic value. SOME traditions are worth reaffirming and continuing. You don't need to believe in Santa Clause, to value family getting together during December and exchanging gifts. It's a nice tradition, without any metaphysical or mystical mumbo-jumbo.

As it applies to AI, obviously its product and consequences, are going to be mostly 'determined' by the programmers, the code, the sophistication and complexity put into it...

ChatGPTs are already passing the Turing Test. So what comes next?

[Iwannaplato]

It's not a contradiction.
Simply that AI has nothing like the learning process.

If you'd followed the links I'd presented about potential misuse and risks of AI, you would have seen that you are incorrect. AIs on their own, with access to the data have learned languages they were not programmed to learn, the ability to play games, how to predict what the next words and letters would be when interacting with humans (and they do this better than humans do) and more. None of this means the AIs are conscious or aware of what they are doing, but they do learn skills and how to do things.

[Sculptor]

It's not a contradiction.
Simply that AI has nothing like the learning process.

If you'd followed the links I'd presented about potential misuse and risks of AI,....

And if only you had been following what I have written you would know what I meant when I said that AI has nothing like a learning process.