aidenhera
BANNED
- Nov 30, 2016
- 3,059
- 915
yeah it can work the same.
Are machines and humans really different?
- Thread starter zzARzz
- Start date
yeah it can work the same.
Interesting I've often always thought this. We are merely atoms arranged in a way that we can observe ourself. We are merely the universe observing itself. As you say we're probably bored shitless trying to create the most fanciful illusions so the grasp of eternity doesn't seem real.
abraarukuk
Junior Member
- Mar 13, 2017
- 161
- 47
Who’s smarter — you, or the computer or mobile device on which you’re reading this article? The answer is increasingly complex, and depends on definitions in flux. Computers are certainly more adept at solving quandaries that benefit from their unique skillset, but humans hold the edge on tasks that machines simply can’t perform. Not yet, anyway.
Computers can take in and process certain kinds of information much faster than we can. They can swirl that data around in their “brains,” made of processors, and perform calculations to conjure multiple scenarios at superhuman speeds. For example, the best chess-trained computers can at this point strategize many moves ahead, problem-solving far more deftly than can the best chess-playing humans. Computers learn much more quickly, too, narrowing complex choices to the most optimal ones. Yes, humans also learn from mistakes, but when it comes to tackling the kinds of puzzles computers excel at, we’re far more fallible.
Computers enjoy other advantages over people. They have better memories, so they can be fed a large amount of information, and can tap into all of it almost instantaneously. Computers don’t require sleep the way humans do, so they can calculate, analyze and perform tasks tirelessly and round the clock. Notwithstanding bugs or susceptibility to power blackouts, computers are simply more accurate at pulling off a broadening range of high-value functions than we are. They’re not affected or influenced by emotions, feelings, wants, needs and other factors that often cloud the judgement and intelligence of us mere mortals.
On the other hand, humans are still superior to computers in many ways. We perform tasks, make decisions, and solve problems based not just on our intelligence but on our massively parallel processing wetware — in abstract, what we like to call our instincts, our common sense, and perhaps most importantly, our life experiences. Computers can be programmed with vast libraries of information, but they can’t experience life the way we do. Humans possess traits we sometimes refer to (again, in the abstract) as creativity, imagination and inspiration. A person can write a poem, compose and play music, sing a song, create a painting or dream up a new invention. Computers can be programmed to replicate some of those tasks, but they don’t possess the innate ability to create the way humans do.
What do experts in artificial intelligence make of all this? Let’s start by defining what we mean by “smarter” or “more intelligent.” Intelligence has two components, says Professor Shlomo Maital, Senior Research Fellow for the S. Neaman Institute at Technion – Israel Institute of Technology. One is the ability to learn, the other is the ability to solve problems. And in those areas, computers can be smarter than humans.
“Today, computers can learn faster than humans, e.g., (IBM’s) Watson can read and remember all the research on cancer, no human could,” says Maital. “With deep learning, Watson can also solve a problem, for example, how to treat a rare form of cancer — and it has done so. So in that sense, computers can be smarter than humans.”
Some of that’s rethinking how we approach these questions. Rather than obsessing over who’s smarter or irrationally fearing the technology, we need to remember that computers and machines are designed to improve our lives, just as IBM’s Watson computer is helping us in the fight against deadly diseases. The trick, as computers become better and better at these and any number of other tasks, is ensuring that “helping us” remains their prime directive.
“The important thing to keep in mind is that it is not man versus machine,” says Mallick. “It is not a competition. It is a collaboration.”
Computers can take in and process certain kinds of information much faster than we can. They can swirl that data around in their “brains,” made of processors, and perform calculations to conjure multiple scenarios at superhuman speeds. For example, the best chess-trained computers can at this point strategize many moves ahead, problem-solving far more deftly than can the best chess-playing humans. Computers learn much more quickly, too, narrowing complex choices to the most optimal ones. Yes, humans also learn from mistakes, but when it comes to tackling the kinds of puzzles computers excel at, we’re far more fallible.
Computers enjoy other advantages over people. They have better memories, so they can be fed a large amount of information, and can tap into all of it almost instantaneously. Computers don’t require sleep the way humans do, so they can calculate, analyze and perform tasks tirelessly and round the clock. Notwithstanding bugs or susceptibility to power blackouts, computers are simply more accurate at pulling off a broadening range of high-value functions than we are. They’re not affected or influenced by emotions, feelings, wants, needs and other factors that often cloud the judgement and intelligence of us mere mortals.
On the other hand, humans are still superior to computers in many ways. We perform tasks, make decisions, and solve problems based not just on our intelligence but on our massively parallel processing wetware — in abstract, what we like to call our instincts, our common sense, and perhaps most importantly, our life experiences. Computers can be programmed with vast libraries of information, but they can’t experience life the way we do. Humans possess traits we sometimes refer to (again, in the abstract) as creativity, imagination and inspiration. A person can write a poem, compose and play music, sing a song, create a painting or dream up a new invention. Computers can be programmed to replicate some of those tasks, but they don’t possess the innate ability to create the way humans do.
What do experts in artificial intelligence make of all this? Let’s start by defining what we mean by “smarter” or “more intelligent.” Intelligence has two components, says Professor Shlomo Maital, Senior Research Fellow for the S. Neaman Institute at Technion – Israel Institute of Technology. One is the ability to learn, the other is the ability to solve problems. And in those areas, computers can be smarter than humans.
“Today, computers can learn faster than humans, e.g., (IBM’s) Watson can read and remember all the research on cancer, no human could,” says Maital. “With deep learning, Watson can also solve a problem, for example, how to treat a rare form of cancer — and it has done so. So in that sense, computers can be smarter than humans.”
Some of that’s rethinking how we approach these questions. Rather than obsessing over who’s smarter or irrationally fearing the technology, we need to remember that computers and machines are designed to improve our lives, just as IBM’s Watson computer is helping us in the fight against deadly diseases. The trick, as computers become better and better at these and any number of other tasks, is ensuring that “helping us” remains their prime directive.
“The important thing to keep in mind is that it is not man versus machine,” says Mallick. “It is not a competition. It is a collaboration.”
Dank_Cena
Newbie
- Jan 19, 2018
- 28
- 30
If you have the time, I would like to suggest two of Roger Penrose's books The Emperor's New Mind and Shadow of the Mind. In these books, Penrose PROVES that within the constraints of modern physics and technology, it is impossible to completely replicate human intelligence, or any form of true consciousness. Some of it has to do with a mathematical theorem by Godel, and the other on Quantum Mechanics. Basically our present physical theories are inconsistent when it comes to even defining consciousness. There is no solution to some of the problems that result from trying to unify our present understanding of the macroscopic and microscopic world. This has a direct effect on computablility of consciousness.
Penrose's reasoning is impeccable and scientifically accurate. However, I do not believe we will NEVER be able to create artificial consciousness. "The standard model" is far from being complete and we are still oblivious to more than 70% of the observable Universe. Maybe in the future, we may finally succeed in formulating a complete physical description of the Universe, which indeed would contain an explanation to consciousness.
So to answer the question, NO. AI and human intelligence are not the same and can never be the same, given the current physical theories. The limiting factor is not the inability to develop an algorithm, but physics itself.
Penrose's reasoning is impeccable and scientifically accurate. However, I do not believe we will NEVER be able to create artificial consciousness. "The standard model" is far from being complete and we are still oblivious to more than 70% of the observable Universe. Maybe in the future, we may finally succeed in formulating a complete physical description of the Universe, which indeed would contain an explanation to consciousness.
So to answer the question, NO. AI and human intelligence are not the same and can never be the same, given the current physical theories. The limiting factor is not the inability to develop an algorithm, but physics itself.
I don't get it.. your second and last paragraph seem contradictory.
Dank_Cena
Newbie
- Jan 19, 2018
- 28
- 30
It's not contradictory. I'm saying we may be able to create consciousness at some point in the far future, If and only if we make a major breakthrough in our current understanding of the universe. Physics, as it stands right now, does not allow simulation of consciousness.
While you can easily retort by saying that's the same as saying we will create consciousness in the distant future, it is not the same. Simulation of consciousness is independent of computability, that is to say not matter how complex your algorithm is, it will not work to the same degree as a human brain. It is often argued that the brain is just executing a very complex algorithm. Penrose debunks that by proving brain functions non algorithmically, provided that what we mean by algorithm is not tantamount to change.
I'm sorry for being too nerdy, I was very curious about the direction AI is taking some years back so I have done a lot of reading on it.
John Escalona
Regular Member
- Nov 22, 2016
- 318
- 39
Machines can't mate...yet
Too much Netflix...
Too much Netflix...
wedosystems
Junior Member
- Dec 2, 2013
- 100
- 5
From a physical standpoint we have already achieved more than any brain or group of brains can accomplish with computing power today. The one thing that will always be different, they won't be struggling with faith or a pursuit of god. they will know their god intimately. who's to say after that, I think it's where we will see the similarities end.
Builder Dave
Power Member
- Nov 4, 2017
- 653
- 654
I think the answer to the question would lie in the architecture. If an artificial intelligence has the computing power and suitable features to experience its own existence in a similar way to the way we do, then it would be similar to us. Most of the time, AI doesn't work that way and it's usually purpose build to solve a particular set of problems efficiently and/or automatically. It could be similar to humans, but it usually isn't.
But in a much broader (but I would say impractical sense), yes, we are similar in that we are both computational machines, but still, a human is no more similar to a robot than a car is to a super-computer - they both have computational elements, but their architecture and function is so vastly different, a real comparison doesn't even make sense.
But in a much broader (but I would say impractical sense), yes, we are similar in that we are both computational machines, but still, a human is no more similar to a robot than a car is to a super-computer - they both have computational elements, but their architecture and function is so vastly different, a real comparison doesn't even make sense.
Sudarshan Kar
Power Member
- Apr 27, 2017
- 674
- 350
As of now, and for a few decades into the future, machines and humans will remain different. Any news you hear, are just for the sake of promoting business.
Sudarshan Kar
Power Member
- Apr 27, 2017
- 674
- 350
On a side note, if anyone wants to watch an interesting show on AI, do check out Westworld.
PrecisionLikes
Registered Member
- Feb 9, 2018
- 67
- 13
Of courfse they are differen't humands are just completed coded with DNA while machines are not
AnastasiaAff
Registered Member
- Jun 22, 2017
- 98
- 15
A robot is a machine. It is often, or almost always, automatic, which means that it is able to perform activities on its own without the aid of external variables, like humans. It moves in the way that it was originally programmed, or designed to act. These actions are described as ‘intents’ of its own. For example, a robot that is designed to play ping pong will really move like a ping pong player, compared to a robot that is just used for plain surgical operations.
jazzc
Elite Member
- Jan 27, 2009
- 2,964
- 14,717
Nah. If you look at the history, every time the leading scientific paradigm changes, we assume that humans are like that. For millenia, humans where said to be hydraulic machines (and doctors treated them as such). Then, humans were said to be electrical machines. Now, it's "humans are computers". Yeah, right, till the next change of paradigm.
That's just your assertion. Which you made because you're conscious.
And you know this because... ? But let's assume it really is, I still don't see your point. If it's an emergent property, it's surpassing the mere sum of the parts.
Solution to which problem exactly?
Nope. There's a concept called "NP hardness" in computational theory.
Well, that's a really tricky one. I've seen reasonable arguments calling stones as living entities. The reason they were reasonable was that if you're not super hard on the requirements of what constitutes life, you can end up classifying everything as such.