Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 17:19:44 UTC No. 16197906

>>16197809
No, Turing himself said you likely can't pass his test with out true randomness in the AI system. This is impossible for a computer to do. We humans have conciseness and that's the key to true intelligence. People like Sir Roger Penrose, and myself, believe conciseness is a quantum system tied to the uncertainty principle. Which is just to say our brains/conciseness contain embedded quantum random number generators that are indeed perfectly random. With out this random number generator you will never reach intelligence on the level that AGI is supposed to be, it can never surpass humans.

Please note the original script of The Matrix knew this and had the humans used as a distributed computer network via their meshed brains. The machines could not generate randomness so had to harvest the randomness from humans. This also has huge implications for nearly every other aspect of life and science. But a tale for another day.

No random numbers, no AGI, simple as.....hey I wonder if brain chips spliced into people's skulls are so Elon Musk can use humans as random # generators for AI.....KEK.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 18:39:43 UTC No. 16198020

>>16197906
The claim that an intelligent ai system wouldn't be able to have access to random numbers doesn't disprove the fact it can't reach intelligence. A system that is good enough to be able to make any random fluctuation allotted with a pseudo random algorithm. Especially in a gradient will enable it to eventually... after self improvement and planning tasks are acquired. Develop a new system that takes that same randomness and embellishes it within itself. possibly by leveraging quantum chips or other types of comping not commonly seen. such as neuromorphic, or photonic computing. But that element of true randomness may not be required.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 01:26:31 UTC No. 16198488

>>16197906
>We humans have conciseness and that's the key to true intelligence.
give me a definition of consciousness so that we can define if we have it and hopw that corelates to intelligence. Im not disagreeing with you because you have said nothing worth disagreeing to.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 01:52:01 UTC No. 16198517

>>16198020
It literally does. Intelligence, on par with humans, is not just flipping switches. It's a rich robust symphony of instruments. We are creativity, imagination, literal random ass thoughts for random reasons, and so many other aspects to our "intelligence" that allows us to do things intelligence should do. Create art, music, novels, politics, philosophy, and yes new ideas. That's how we invent new things. That's why when an apple falls on your head you invent gravity. Go throw an apple at a server rack and see if it discovers gravity. I'll wait.

With out randomness you can have no creativity. Without creativity and imagination you can not be intelligent. You will always be a computer program just running code. You will be AI and not AGI. To rise to AGI you must mimic all the abilities of a human. A computer that can beat a man at chess doesn't make it more intelligent than the man. The man can invent a new game tomorrow and then defeat the AI who now must spend years learning the new game only to have the man make a third game once the AI finally learns game 2. The AI however can't make games and is just reacting. AI reacts, intelligence creates. Currently AI only out competes humans in a small section of tasks and only when set up just right so the AI has a chance to win. If humans were allowed to be devious and creative they would never lose. The AI would be sabotaged or out witted via a novel method it never expected.

Alan Turing is who you are calling wrong BTW, good luck with that.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 01:53:02 UTC No. 16198519

>>16198488
>>16198488
That's a stawman argument and impossible constraints you wouldn't hold any other part of science too. Consciousness is the ability to question the world around you via philosophy and introspective thought. A dog never stays awake at night pondering the nature of the Universe. Descartes said "I think therefore I am" I would say "I have existential dread therefore I am conscious".

You can't define it like you'd like it to be, with 1's and 0's on a spreadsheet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Mind

AI doesn't stay awake at night pondering the nature of The Universe, reality, and itself. It does what it's told and only how it's told to do it. No independent thought(randomness) AI can't have a philosophical crisis. AI will never be able to mimic these part of human intelligence. If you all want to cop out and claim AGI isn't that then OK. But that just means it's a fancy algorithm. Nothing more than math cascading, no intelligence.

I won't even get stared on the issue of a human creating a device the human claims is smarter than them, think Data from TNG. It's like getting a free lunch in physics. In that case the AGI can program AGI 2.0 which is smarter than AGI 1.0 and so on in a positive feedback loop until the AGI 69.420 is more intelligent than God. Not going to happen, there are no free lunches in physics.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 01:56:31 UTC No. 16198525

>>16197809
If you want AI to be good at something, it has to be trained at thing. AI can only be able to teach itself if it is trained to do so. It won’t magically become God overnight. Intelligence comes from huge amounts of data, even in biological life. We are the result of billions of years of evolution. Our intelligence is closer to artificial intelligence than people think. We also are just a bunch of algorithms. That’s why people are still really stupid and make logical errors constantly. We “hallucinate” too. We’re not perfect.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 02:02:26 UTC No. 16198536

>>16198519
In retrospect I'd like to make a slight correction. Dr. Soong was smarter than Data will ever be so in that case the creation did not out preform the creator so I'll allow it.

>>16198525
Yet another low IQ take. I hope you tardeds see the irony that you are using your consciousness to deny consciousness exists. A blue whale can't deny consciousness is real because it's not conscious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYn8W_wsHVs

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 02:04:02 UTC No. 16198539

>>16197809
No, the symmetry of computation is not correct.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 03:17:58 UTC No. 16198598

>>16198536
I said absolutely nothing about consciousness you bumbling buffoon.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 03:25:07 UTC No. 16198605

>>16197906
Didn't we already had Turing test passed?

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 03:27:29 UTC No. 16198607

We will make things that will seem intelligent and self-aware but aren't at a fundamental level.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 03:39:31 UTC No. 16198618

>>16197906
>with out true randomness in the AI system.
There are many external source of entropy available that are functionally random enough for all use cases. Think atmospheric noise or, what, lava lamp bubble rotations?
Whatever the application requires, there's always a way.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 03:45:58 UTC No. 16198622

>>16198607
Like humans?

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 04:01:26 UTC No. 16198629

>>16198607
What's the difference between SEEMING self-aware and BEING self-aware?

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 04:11:28 UTC No. 16198641

>>16197809
No. Not even close.