artificial intelligence

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote:itn, You argue about everything with these half baked arguments and slogans.

It would seem that you are dismissive of every rebuttal that shoots down your claims ... which is easy to do since all of your claims are wrong.

Instead of dismissing rebuttals, perhaps you should consider improving your claims. Otherwise, you have no credibility. You cite unnamed "experts" as you proceed to think exactly as you are ordered.

You still have never answered my question which debunks everything you've ever whined about on this topic: How does software acquire a will?

Can a painting or a statue acquire a will? Can a wire with electrical current become self aware?

Answer the question(s).

keepit wrote: And by the way, i've seen demonstrations of [clumsy, cheap] robots' dexterity and they don't look very dextrous to me.

Are you claiming that you have seen demonstrations of all robors? If not, your statement above is really stupid. Are you really stupid, keepit? Explain your comment, keepit.

keepit wrote: They can be very precise in their movements yes, but they don't seem to have as complete a range of movement as humans...yet!

Do humans have a complete range of movement? Why do we even need cherry-pickers? Why do we even have tools? Why do we even have public transportation? Why do we have cranes? Why do we have parachutes? why do we manufacture swimming fins ... and what's with that scuba equipment?

Is a humans range of motion as complete as a chimp's? How about of a dolphin's?

keepit wrote:
As usual, just a bunch of argumentative crap ibd.

I'll just pick out one of the many things you said. For example you changed the wording of my statement from "as complete a range of motion as humans" to something about humans having a complete range of motion. I didn't say humans have a complete range of motion.
This is just a single example of a large range of bs that you produce. It ruins your credibility when you do that stuff.

Here's a laughable claim you just made -"all of your claims are wrong".
You have no credibility.

Go ahead, tell me some claims that i've made that are wrong! I try to be very careful in my claims and my wording.

HarveyH55 wrote:

keepit wrote:
As usual, just a bunch of argumentative crap ibd.

I'll just pick out one of the many things you said. For example you changed the wording of my statement from "as complete a range of motion as humans" to something about humans having a complete range of motion. I didn't say humans have a complete range of motion.
This is just a single example of a large range of bs that you produce. It ruins your credibility when you do that stuff.

Here's a laughable claim you just made -"all of your claims are wrong".
You have no credibility.

Go ahead, tell me some claims that i've made that are wrong! I try to be very careful in my claims and my wording.

Dexterity, is range of motion. Think about when you arthritis kicks up, and you have trouble performing tasks. On real bad days, even a cheap China made robot could do a better job opening your pill bottle... Humans only have a set number of joints, which can only bend/twist a limited number of degrees. Robots can be built with any number of joints, that can move through a much larger range. The problem is that each actuator adds weight to the arm. You add weight, you need bigger, stronger actuators, which adds more weight, and require more power. Humans only need to hit the gym, eat their tomatoes, to get stronger.

keepit wrote:
Swan,
Actually robots building and maintaining other robots isn't a stretch right now or in the near future.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote:itn, You argue about everything with these half baked arguments and slogans.

It would seem that you are dismissive of every rebuttal that shoots down your claims ... which is easy to do since all of your claims are wrong.

Instead of dismissing rebuttals, perhaps you should consider improving your claims. Otherwise, you have no credibility. You cite unnamed "experts" as you proceed to think exactly as you are ordered.

You still have never answered my question which debunks everything you've ever whined about on this topic: How does software acquire a will?

Can a painting or a statue acquire a will? Can a wire with electrical current become self aware?

Answer the question(s).

keepit wrote: And by the way, i've seen demonstrations of [clumsy, cheap] robots' dexterity and they don't look very dextrous to me.

Are you claiming that you have seen demonstrations of all robors? If not, your statement above is really stupid. Are you really stupid, keepit? Explain your comment, keepit.

keepit wrote: They can be very precise in their movements yes, but they don't seem to have as complete a range of movement as humans...yet!

Do humans have a complete range of movement? Why do we even need cherry-pickers? Why do we even have tools? Why do we even have public transportation? Why do we have cranes? Why do we have parachutes? why do we manufacture swimming fins ... and what's with that scuba equipment?

Is a humans range of motion as complete as a chimp's? How about of a dolphin's?

Statues...

keepit wrote:
Swan,
Actually robots building and maintaining other robots isn't a stretch right now or in the near future.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote:itn, You argue about everything with these half baked arguments and slogans.

It would seem that you are dismissive of every rebuttal that shoots down your claims ... which is easy to do since all of your claims are wrong.

Instead of dismissing rebuttals, perhaps you should consider improving your claims. Otherwise, you have no credibility. You cite unnamed "experts" as you proceed to think exactly as you are ordered.

You still have never answered my question which debunks everything you've ever whined about on this topic: How does software acquire a will?

Can a painting or a statue acquire a will? Can a wire with electrical current become self aware?

Answer the question(s).

keepit wrote: And by the way, i've seen demonstrations of [clumsy, cheap] robots' dexterity and they don't look very dextrous to me.

Are you claiming that you have seen demonstrations of all robors? If not, your statement above is really stupid. Are you really stupid, keepit? Explain your comment, keepit.

keepit wrote: They can be very precise in their movements yes, but they don't seem to have as complete a range of movement as humans...yet!

Do humans have a complete range of movement? Why do we even need cherry-pickers? Why do we even have tools? Why do we even have public transportation? Why do we have cranes? Why do we have parachutes? why do we manufacture swimming fins ... and what's with that scuba equipment?

Is a humans range of motion as complete as a chimp's? How about of a dolphin's?

Statues...

Mantra 40a.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Statues...

Mantra 40a.

Time ...

keepit wrote:
ibd,
Sorry i haven't had much to say about a will. To me, a decision could be considered a will. Robots make decisions, in a sense, and so they have a will. It's a semantic issue that doesn't have much meaning i would say. What's important is what they do or would do. Some of the thoughts they profess are very strange and don't seem in the interest of humankind. And of equal importance, some of their thoughts don't seem to be the result of human programming.

keepit wrote:
Well, i think robots can make decisions aside from their programming. Some are programmed to make choices. Some aren't, i admit.
Most of my discussion here is about the robots that are being built as we speak. It is somewhat speculative.

keepit wrote:
ibd,
Sorry i haven't had much to say about a will. To me, a decision could be considered a will. Robots make decisions, in a sense, and so they have a will. It's a semantic issue that doesn't have much meaning i would say. What's important is what they do or would do. Some of the thoughts they profess are very strange and don't seem in the interest of humankind. And of equal importance, some of their thoughts don't seem to be the result of human programming.

keepit wrote:
Swan,
Look at some of the demonstrations and tell me what you think.
Consider the situation where a robot is programmed with conflicting programming and is faced with choosing which programming to follow. That would be an example of free will.

keepit wrote:
Swan,
There is the possibility that your understanding of robots is antiquated.
Your understanding of me and commies is definitely haywire. Almost as bad as Harvey's understanding of me and my lifestyle.

keepit wrote:Well, i think robots can make decisions aside from their programming.

keepit wrote: Some are programmed to make choices. Some aren't, i admit.

keepit wrote:Most of my discussion here is about the robots that are being built as we speak. It is somewhat speculative.

keepit wrote:ibd,Maybe you just don't get it.

keepit wrote:
Changing the subject here for a moment. Autonomous vehicles, for example drones and autos, seem to be making choices. Also, what is sentience? A professor Marcus, was testifying before the senate as an expert on ai, and they asked him,"What does sentience mean?" He said he didn't really know.
Things like sentience, consciousness, free will, autonomy are difficult to know. We all know what consciousness feels like, and we feel we have free will but there have been experiments that indicate we don't really have free will but rather free won't. For example ibd, you have the ability to not be such a butthead.

keepit wrote:
Swan,
You still have this backward looking viewpoint. Get with the future.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Very few robot, drones, or even automated machines are fully AI controlled. A human operator is still required to make decisions/directions.

keepit wrote:
ibd,
Maybe you just don't get it.

keepit wrote:Changing the subject here for a moment. Autonomous vehicles, for example drones and autos, seem to be making choices. Also, what is sentience? A professor Marcus, was testifying before the senate as an expert on ai, and they asked him,"What does sentience mean?" He said he didn't really know.
Things like sentience, consciousness, free will, autonomy are difficult to know. We all know what consciousness feels like, and we feel we have free will but there have been experiments that indicate we don't really have free will but rather free won't. For example ibd, you have the ability to not be such a butthead.

James_ wrote:

keepit wrote:
ibd,
Maybe you just don't get it.

The problem is when a person can have a lengthy discussion with an AI and not know it. While computers are programmed people also give the usual response to the same things as they always do. Maybe people can program computers because people are programmed as well?
It's like when Trump said Make America Great Again. When a country is the richest, most powerful country in the world how do you do that again? Wouldn't China, America's #1 trading partner need to surpass the U.S. first? Notice how
Americans leave quality of life out of what makes America the greatest country in the world? Yep, The Donald is a good programmer.

Swan wrote:56% of Americans cannot cover a $1000.00 emergency with their savings, so America is in no way the richest country in the World. Luxembourg is the richest country in the World, and by far.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:56% of Americans cannot cover a $1000.00 emergency with their savings, so America is in no way the richest country in the World. Luxembourg is the richest country in the World, and by far.

Swan, have you considered simply subtracting the Luxembourg wealth from the US wealth to arrive at the correct answer, as opposed to focusing on the irrelevant value resulting from comparing what two undefined groups of people don't have?

As a warm-up, you could compare Luxembourg's $85.51 Billion GDP with the US' GDP of $23.32 Trillion and sort of home in on the scope. Keep in mind that impoverished individuals do not somehow subtract from the wealth of others.

If you haven't previously considered a direct comparison of national wealth, I recommend you give it a look-see.

Swan wrote: The average American worker brings home an estimated $54,132 a year.

Swan wrote: In Luxembourg the average salary is $88,190 a year.

Swan wrote:Do you really believe that the millions of people living under American bridges benefit from the US GDP?

Swan wrote: Because they do not, just as shits like you do not care or ever will

keepit wrote: Consider the concentration of wealth per person.

keepit wrote: Also, just watched an interview of Hinton where he was asked what sentience is and he said he didn't have an answer. Actually he said that different people have different answers to that.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: The average American worker brings home an estimated $54,132 a year.

I'd like to meet this average American worker. Do you know him personally?

By the way, he is not the nation, I don't know if you are aware of that.

Swan wrote: In Luxembourg the average salary is $88,190 a year.

Are you aware that the Luxembourg population is less that 670,000 whereas the US has about 333,000,000? Have you done the math?

Are you aware that the US has three times the number of billionaires that Luxembourg has? Also the US has enough millionaires to just about equal nine times Luxembourg's population. Have you done the math?

Swan wrote:Do you really believe that the millions of people living under American bridges benefit from the US GDP?

Do you really believe that the 5,300,000 US millionaires are living under bridges?

Swan wrote: Because they do not, just as shits like you do not care or ever will

I care enough to do my research, to see that their poverty is a result of having purchased Apple stock, and I can be very thenthitive to the wide gamut of tomato trellis tragedies.