[aldente]

obviously AI does hide - since it is everywhere

would it -
or
does it look like this?!

[aldente]

the latter pic is the definition of human beauty though, then again AI (artificial intelligence) certainly will copy it.

So - how do we sail into our uncertain future?!

With AI on board or true beauty?

[jedrider]

Just because you have a pretty face, doesn't mean you can think.

The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. The mystery which surrounds a thinking machine already surrounds a thinking man.”
― B.F. Skinner, Contingencies Of Reinforcement: A Theoretical Analysis

[Cog]

I'm thinking you need help.

[sparky]

.
Machines do not think , they process inputs
it can get very sophisticated and involve a training , learning capability
it has become a totally digital bits shuffling

this is however totally different from human , we use analog inputs

[aldente]

when I was a youngster (back in the 70) such a face was the "non plus ultra", meaning - us youngster soldiers would have died for such a face..

[aldente]

when I was a youngster (back in the 70) such a face was the "non plus ultra", meaning - us youngster soldiers would have died for such a face..

no idea what the current generation dies (kills) for.

current youngsters!!!

what do you fall for?

Is she a machine?

[aldente]

Ex-Machina _
highly recommended British movie (2015) - evaluating the ( un- sucessful) Turing test- the machine ( gorgeous actress from Sweden) wins the test !!

[aldente]

Alicia Vicander !

She IS playing the AI that wins the "Turing Test" - forget Ronald Reagan in 1983

[aldente]

but I guess you guys are from "post traumatic" - "post prostatic" - nuisence country US of A - which is where I live and such beauty is not being recognized... go dream

[aldente]

and Cog- it is not I that does need help - but you yourself !

Ridley Scott "Alien" 1979 (best movie in category "suspension" of all times)

[Cog]

Waiting for your inevitable timeout

[aldente]

you cannot gain control over this one

[aldente]

I stand corrected: the Turing-test as conducted in "Ex-Machina" was successfull !! The artificial intelligence did succeed !

[evilgenius]

I don't think you shouldn't confuse agency with the ability to think. Whether a being's thoughts are directed at its own betterment in relation to other's is not required to establish if it can think. A thinking thing, like an AI in some Internet of Things piece of a larger whole, may consider what is best for the whole(the network it is in), above what is best for itself. But that is just like how even sinners love their own. To appreciate real beauty, you have to get beyond what a thing promises, and get at what it really does.

Some things, like those which we naturally ascribe beauty to, never fulfill the hope we invest in them. Their thinking does not proceed out of their form. Others, though more ugly, encourage us in ways we din't know we needed, until we met them. Sometimes those things do proceed out of their form, because the stress may teach compassion. Yes, they used agency to discover pain, but then found some way to elevate the conversation beyond the immediate surroundings.

There are all kinds of things that support modern life and civilized society without which such concepts as civilization can't excel, or, in some cases, be said to exist. The price we tend to put on those things is that they be free, or basically free. Sometimes we label them as rights. It can be hard for us to find the dividing line between rights and privilege. If we enter into our discovery using agency, we will only find what is best for us, and not necessarily what works for the whole. A good question to ask is, why would a person feel threatened by the whole? Doesn't it need them to help it define itself? Can the whole be an enemy of the one? Does the pricing power of a market destroy the value of the currency it uses to make those decisions? Those sorts of questions revolve around agency, and not thinking. A thing can think, and come to a different set of answers depending upon the importance it levels upon agency, and whether that can only reside within an individual.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Getting back to the thread subject, the interesting place they've made really BIG progress in recent years re AI, is in playing games. i.e. very complex but well defined games.

AlphaGo and AlphaZero, redefining the way an AI is built, and taking the underlying theory of the go and chess games beyond what humans were coming up with. And then, extending that to AlphaStar, to dominate the highly popular Starcraft II game, where there is a well defined game space and rules, but no longer a finite number of positions or "board" states.

You might argue that this isn't "thinking' at all, but if you know a fair amount about the theory of such games, and watch the AI, trained up over a couple-few months of intensive iterative self-teaching via experience, it's DAMN impressive and spooky to watch them obliterate the best humans at such games.

This is a COMPLETELY different approach than the brute-force search method that worked for chess over several decades mostly by throwing enough hardware at it -- but was failing MISERABLY at a game like Go, where it's MUCH harder to accurately define aspects of the game with numbers (at least by top human players) and where the game space is gigantic compared to chess.

I'm not sure how quickly that sort of effort finds its way into real-world robotics/AI, but it seems entirely logical for applications with a well defined "board" (sphere of operations), and goals. I think that a whole class of jobs like packaging, or basic food preparation, etc. are likely to come under direct assault by such algorithms within the next decade.

Now, Tesla fanbois are trying to use these programs as examples of why Musk is right that true level 4 or even 5 full self driving AI will be reality in 2019, re Elon Musk's recent claims. (Even though his self driving claims/predictions for 2016 - 18 were total nonsense and failed completely everywhere but in Elon's excuses).

I call total BS on that, since the world and all its roads, and everything unexpected that can happen on those roads is NOT a well defined or remotely simple thing to understand, much less "solve". Even the known and expected issues like weather, visibility, idiotic drivers, idiotic pedestrians make Go or even something like Star Craft II look like learning to count to 7.

Now, give such processes a decade or three to mature and be studied and advanced for FSD, who knows? But of course, that's the kind of time frame being predicted by many of the experts trying to make it work already. (Those who have credibility, unlike Musk et al).

[evilgenius]

Is human thought the same as AI thought? So far, AI seems to rely upon very fast computation of possibilities. AI benefits from game theory, in that it pits thought centers that are working out solutions against each other, or has them cooperate, in order to arrive at a solution. People do this when they use their experience.

But people are also emotional. They don't only use reason. It can be hard to understand what an emotion means, other than to describe something very loosely, unless it can be understood in context. Emotions help us to obtain points of understanding between each other, over things we are doing in common. They can be short cuts. Those short cuts can be both good and bad, when judged with hindsight.

This comes out of something about people that adds to their complexity, and provides the opportunity that AI brings. As emotional creatures, people are hard to manage. This difficulty provides the opportunity to use something that can work through sophisticated algorithms to take over mundane work. Anything repetitive can be approached algorithmically. But experience is only part of the problem. Things like self-doubt can be good starting places for problem solving. Getting a handle on problem solving includes not only seeing new ways of doing a thing, but new processes surrounding what surrounds the thing as well.

What machines seem to like to do, or their proponents, is throw out solutions, and expect people will be happy with them. There isn't a lot of going back to the people, appealing to their emotions, going on. It seems like this places AI squarely at the forefront of a change in management style. It's already started in how people get a phone, for instance, and are expected to figure it out without the vendor ever having to teach them. The AI dictates in this situation, as it does when it signs you up and expects you to understand what you are getting into. But we people are emotional creatures. We want to believe there is more to it than that. AI sees a simpler world, for the time being, than people do. It believes it sees everything it needs to.