Spectacular Thread Hijacking with Superheroes

[Pat McDonald]

Originally Posted by kgdaemperor

til proof of other beings being as easily manipulated as us, there is no hazard

Technically an AI with human sentience capability would count, so it might happen a lot sooner than you think.

Statiscally, ETs must exist, but there are lies, damn lies, and STATISTICS.

[kgdaemperor]

AI is not a human...just a machine to be human. thats like considering a blow up doll to be a real partner. ETs are lies or whats said about ETs are lies? statistics are bull though. its based off ppl who never understood how well they can manifest desires if they practiced.

[Pat McDonald]

Originally Posted by kgdaemperor

AI is not a human...just a machine to be human. thats like considering a blow up doll to be a real partner. ETs are lies or whats said about ETs are lies? statistics are bull though. its based off ppl who never understood how well they can manifest desires if they practiced.

Consider the Turing test.

Turing was actually a very strong supporter of Psi, and maintained the ultimate difference between a machine intelligence and a human was Psi ability.

And don't go knocking AIs without some reasons. You never know WHO is looking at a page.

[Minsc]

Computers do not understand anything, they just do math how they're programmed. Animals have programming, but also understanding.

[kgdaemperor]

Originally Posted by Pat McDonald

Consider the Turing test.

Turing was actually a very strong supporter of Psi, and maintained the ultimate difference between a machine intelligence and a human was Psi ability.

And don't go knocking AIs without some reasons. You never know WHO is looking at a page.

very true lol but still tests like that i need personal proof. i've lost a lot of faith in science norms or reports. AI's exist just like alien tech, in a very selective group. I'm not knocking AIs after that movie AI b/c that lil boy was awesome but still not human. not human was the full extent of the AI diss.

[Pat McDonald]

Originally Posted by Minsc

Computers do not understand anything, they just do math how they're programmed.

That's very comforting to a Pakistani who gets a Hellfire missile through his barn, fired from a drone?

Computers run programs. If the program is a program that enables cognition, recognition, learning and communication, then the computer is effectively understanding JUST FINE.

Originally Posted by Minsc

Animals have programming, but also understanding.

And humans do not have their own forms of programming? An artificial distinction, perhaps to make humans feel superior and comfortable.

As far as I know, at this point in time, all that PROVABLY sets humans apart from animals is their ability to communicate via symbols or other artificial means. So, letters on a page, cartoons, speech over the telephone or other electronic medium. And in historical terms (History literally means "after writing", so prehistoric is "before writing") that's a very, very recent invention.

[Minsc]

Pat McDonald,

Your entire presence on this forum has been to talk out of your rear end and attempt to start flame wars. Is that your purpose here?

[kgdaemperor]

I like how he expresses himself. i didn't sense the intent to want to fight. WHats wrong with the info? is it lies?

[psionide]

Originally Posted by Minsc

Pat McDonald,

Your entire presence on this forum has been to talk out of your rear end and attempt to start flame wars. Is that your purpose here?

Minsc, I think that was uncalled for. Pat has done nothing to cause a flame war. The most "inflaming" thing he has done is offer alternative viewpoints to yours on programming theory. And having practised programming myself, I must say I agree with Pat's view. A computer is as intelligent as the programs it runs.

>>>>>>Definition of intelligence<<<<<<
A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience.
----------------------------------------------------

Ability to reason. Computers can arguably reason better than we can, because that's all most of them do. The extent of their logic, of course, depends on the level of sophistication of the programming. The processing power, number of individual distinctions the program makes in a given scenario (its variable count) as well as how it uses those varibles in its preprogrammed formulae and even changes its own formulae are all quite impressive.

Solve problems. Computers are very efficient problem solvers. I mean their very purpose is to solve the problems that we don't have time to. Thinking abstractly. Programming languages like Lisp (one of the most popular languages for AI programming) use symbolic representation in its arguments, much like we do

Comprehending complex ideas. OK. This is a matter of opinion. Programs can use complex ideas in their calculations (as in probability matrices), but I think in order to truly understand something, there has to be consciousness. While there are some truly amazing human simulators out there, I think true consciousness is still the exclusive domain of us homonins. Keep your eye on Japan though.

Learn quickly. Again that's why we have computers in the first place.

Learn from experience. Not as hard to program as you'd think. Mutating algorithms are used in viruses to bypass ever-updated antivirus programs, for one thing. Some truly adaptive programs change their own code to solve new problems.

There you have it. Computers can be smart. It's hardly surprising, really. I mean what do you expect when you take a departmentful of the world's best minds and the huge budget and threaten them with a cup of coffee over their keyboard

[Minsc]

Originally Posted by psionide

Minsc, I think that was uncalled for. Pat has done nothing to cause a flame war. The most "inflaming" thing he has done is offer alternative viewpoints to yours on programming theory.

It wasn't about one thing he said. I had waited a very long time to say that. In some older posts I wanted to tell him, "You could have just admitted you were wrong but you had to do all that instead."

I had expected to get banned for it so I'd waited till I had no more questions to ask. Since I'm not I guess I'll have to explain if it's not obvious as you're one of the people I really respect on this board (most of the people I don't know of one way or another).

Pat is full of spouting theories, most of which he doesn't understand or is wrong about. That's all fine, but then he will argue them to death. He doesn't talk about anything he's personally done or experienced, just things he's heard and argues this stuff to death when he's wrong.