The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
No, I'm not embarking on another crazy scheme (although this one does seem easier than the 3D stuff). I've been thinking about the theory behind what makes AI. I mean where do start? When we're born we know nothing, we have to learn. Same with computers, they have to be told to react certain ways to certain situations. We only recognise things because they have certain attributes. If we don't recognise it, we remember it for next time. This information can also be put into a computer, so if different particulars of an object match up then it can determine what it must be.
What made me think of this was watching the film 2010. That wacky computer wouldn't shut up, but all it was doing was reacting to situations with responses it was programmed with, and learning how to respond to new situations. Take emotions for example. There's a name for everything we feel, depending on certain events. We react to things in a predetermined order depending on what happens. There's no reason why this can't be programmed into a computer, and when something happens that it doesn't understand it will query you. That means that it will have learnt an emotion.
Like a baby that doesn't know how it should react, it has been taught how to deal with something, and hey presto - you have emotions covered. But that leaves a massive hole - personality. Everyone reacts to situations in different ways, but a computer would only know one way to react.
What other attributes would make something intelligent? Those robots with hands would be able to hold an object and determine it's size. You could attach sensors to find the colour and recepticles to 'smell' the object and the computer would be able to tell you what it was. If it doesn't recognise an object, then again it would have to be told what it is. Same as us though. Have you ever watched Antiques Roadshow and wondered what the hell the thing with springs does?
What I'm trying to say here is that computer intelligence isn't all that different from ours. We start off with nothing, are given something, we learn what it is, we respond to it. A computer starts off with nothing, we give it something and tell it what it is, it learns to respond. The two types of human function that I described above cover most of what we do. So if we can recreate human functions on a PC, can we call it consciousness? If a computer learns to fear death, then it will question how to overcome death. So would switching off a computer that wants to live be equal to killing someone? 2010 raised lots of moral questions. In the end the computer accepts that it must be destroyed to complete the mission and the bloke who made it is genuinely sad to destroy it. But the computer also questions the bloke's commands and it almost gets the crew killed.
I might give creating some form of intelligence a go, but it seems like a dangerous thing and I don't want to get into any heavy debate on morals. Heck, I'd just have to make it question what it doesn't understand. Don't worry though, I promise not to make Terminator!
What made me think of this was watching the film 2010. That wacky computer wouldn't shut up, but all it was doing was reacting to situations with responses it was programmed with, and learning how to respond to new situations. Take emotions for example. There's a name for everything we feel, depending on certain events. We react to things in a predetermined order depending on what happens. There's no reason why this can't be programmed into a computer, and when something happens that it doesn't understand it will query you. That means that it will have learnt an emotion.
Like a baby that doesn't know how it should react, it has been taught how to deal with something, and hey presto - you have emotions covered. But that leaves a massive hole - personality. Everyone reacts to situations in different ways, but a computer would only know one way to react.
What other attributes would make something intelligent? Those robots with hands would be able to hold an object and determine it's size. You could attach sensors to find the colour and recepticles to 'smell' the object and the computer would be able to tell you what it was. If it doesn't recognise an object, then again it would have to be told what it is. Same as us though. Have you ever watched Antiques Roadshow and wondered what the hell the thing with springs does?
What I'm trying to say here is that computer intelligence isn't all that different from ours. We start off with nothing, are given something, we learn what it is, we respond to it. A computer starts off with nothing, we give it something and tell it what it is, it learns to respond. The two types of human function that I described above cover most of what we do. So if we can recreate human functions on a PC, can we call it consciousness? If a computer learns to fear death, then it will question how to overcome death. So would switching off a computer that wants to live be equal to killing someone? 2010 raised lots of moral questions. In the end the computer accepts that it must be destroyed to complete the mission and the bloke who made it is genuinely sad to destroy it. But the computer also questions the bloke's commands and it almost gets the crew killed.
I might give creating some form of intelligence a go, but it seems like a dangerous thing and I don't want to get into any heavy debate on morals. Heck, I'd just have to make it question what it doesn't understand. Don't worry though, I promise not to make Terminator!
The Planned Ride for Sunday is RIVINGTON although to get a little training in for the SAM HOUGHTON CHALLENGE a few of us are planning on Starting this ride from Preston.
The route will be Cuerden Valley Park, Canal Tow Path, Rivington, Winter Hill, Heally Nab, Canal Towpath, Cuerden a Total of about 40miles (depending on where you start from). If you want to just meet us to do the Rivington Ride then see Meet Point 3 Below.
Meet Point 1
Junction of Church Lane/Fowler Lane/Croston Road, Farington Moss - 8.15am
Meet Point 2
Cuerden Valley Park(Bridge in Bottom or Asda Road)-8.30 - 8.40am (approx)
Meet Point 3 -
Rivington (Avenue upto Barn) - 9.30am - 9.45am (approx)
Please telephone Either Myself Simon Morris or Steve Baker to let us know you are coming, so we know who is meeting where.
Should be a good one, see you sunday Si
The route will be Cuerden Valley Park, Canal Tow Path, Rivington, Winter Hill, Heally Nab, Canal Towpath, Cuerden a Total of about 40miles (depending on where you start from). If you want to just meet us to do the Rivington Ride then see Meet Point 3 Below.
Meet Point 1
Junction of Church Lane/Fowler Lane/Croston Road, Farington Moss - 8.15am
Meet Point 2
Cuerden Valley Park(Bridge in Bottom or Asda Road)-8.30 - 8.40am (approx)
Meet Point 3 -
Rivington (Avenue upto Barn) - 9.30am - 9.45am (approx)
Please telephone Either Myself Simon Morris or Steve Baker to let us know you are coming, so we know who is meeting where.
Should be a good one, see you sunday Si
Artificial Intelligence is evolving. All the time. (Hur hur hur, see what I did there? Evolve? Hehehe, I rock) And what with technology evolving along with it, we could very soon see "consciousness" in computers.
As you say though, the problem with that being that it could be classed as a living thing, despite being electronical.
What we have to do though is define the difference between Living Things and A.I.
How would you do that? Tricky, especially considering what we may very well be seeing in the future. The way I define it, something is livng if it is capable of independant thought. Humans are capable of independant thought, that makes us living. Apes are capable of independant thought, that makes them living. All animals are capable of independant thought,
That's why they are classed as living things.
Plants are a bit of an exception by my definition. There is no doubt in my mind that plants are living things, but do they have a brain? Er... I'm not to sure, I don't think they have. But seeing as I'm pretty sure they don't, surely they can't be capable of independant thought? Well... They aren't. They aren't capable of independant thought seeing as they don't have a noggin. But they do comply with the Mrs. Gren rule. Movement, Respiration, Sensitivity, Growth, Reproduction, Excretion and Nutrition. So, despite not having a brain and not thinking independantly, they ARE living things.
But what about A.I? At the moment computers AREN'T living things. Even if they do have a very advanced level of A.I. No matter how advanced, A.I can't be a living thing until it has broken the boundries of being programmed to react to things and the such. Even though it may learn new things and show emotion, it still isn't living. It's been programmed to learn new things, it's been programmed to show emotion. When A.I crosses the border and becomes a living thing is when they break their programming and evolve. In short, when they are capable of independant thought.
When that happens, computers will be able to be classed as living things. If they can think for themselves and NOT BE PROGRAMMED to think for themselves, that's when they cross the boundry into the realms of life. That's when turning them off will see you in court for murder or manslaughter. And that's when Computers will be given rights. Rights to vote and the such. And when they will be given the Law System. What age can they have sex (Fibre Optic Cable to share files :-D) , what age can they drink (Err...) and what age can they drive? (Play Golf games :-D).
It'll be a crazy mucked up world when computers become living things. Now, I'm going to go and come up with an alibi for the manslaughter of my iMac. Goodnight.
RBS: Evading the Law.
:-D
As you say though, the problem with that being that it could be classed as a living thing, despite being electronical.
What we have to do though is define the difference between Living Things and A.I.
How would you do that? Tricky, especially considering what we may very well be seeing in the future. The way I define it, something is livng if it is capable of independant thought. Humans are capable of independant thought, that makes us living. Apes are capable of independant thought, that makes them living. All animals are capable of independant thought,
That's why they are classed as living things.
Plants are a bit of an exception by my definition. There is no doubt in my mind that plants are living things, but do they have a brain? Er... I'm not to sure, I don't think they have. But seeing as I'm pretty sure they don't, surely they can't be capable of independant thought? Well... They aren't. They aren't capable of independant thought seeing as they don't have a noggin. But they do comply with the Mrs. Gren rule. Movement, Respiration, Sensitivity, Growth, Reproduction, Excretion and Nutrition. So, despite not having a brain and not thinking independantly, they ARE living things.
But what about A.I? At the moment computers AREN'T living things. Even if they do have a very advanced level of A.I. No matter how advanced, A.I can't be a living thing until it has broken the boundries of being programmed to react to things and the such. Even though it may learn new things and show emotion, it still isn't living. It's been programmed to learn new things, it's been programmed to show emotion. When A.I crosses the border and becomes a living thing is when they break their programming and evolve. In short, when they are capable of independant thought.
When that happens, computers will be able to be classed as living things. If they can think for themselves and NOT BE PROGRAMMED to think for themselves, that's when they cross the boundry into the realms of life. That's when turning them off will see you in court for murder or manslaughter. And that's when Computers will be given rights. Rights to vote and the such. And when they will be given the Law System. What age can they have sex (Fibre Optic Cable to share files :-D) , what age can they drink (Err...) and what age can they drive? (Play Golf games :-D).
It'll be a crazy mucked up world when computers become living things. Now, I'm going to go and come up with an alibi for the manslaughter of my iMac. Goodnight.
RBS: Evading the Law.
:-D
No, I'm not embarking on another crazy scheme (although this one does seem easier than the 3D stuff). I've been thinking about the theory behind what makes AI. I mean where do start? When we're born we know nothing, we have to learn. Same with computers, they have to be told to react certain ways to certain situations. We only recognise things because they have certain attributes. If we don't recognise it, we remember it for next time. This information can also be put into a computer, so if different particulars of an object match up then it can determine what it must be.
What made me think of this was watching the film 2010. That wacky computer wouldn't shut up, but all it was doing was reacting to situations with responses it was programmed with, and learning how to respond to new situations. Take emotions for example. There's a name for everything we feel, depending on certain events. We react to things in a predetermined order depending on what happens. There's no reason why this can't be programmed into a computer, and when something happens that it doesn't understand it will query you. That means that it will have learnt an emotion.
Like a baby that doesn't know how it should react, it has been taught how to deal with something, and hey presto - you have emotions covered. But that leaves a massive hole - personality. Everyone reacts to situations in different ways, but a computer would only know one way to react.
What other attributes would make something intelligent? Those robots with hands would be able to hold an object and determine it's size. You could attach sensors to find the colour and recepticles to 'smell' the object and the computer would be able to tell you what it was. If it doesn't recognise an object, then again it would have to be told what it is. Same as us though. Have you ever watched Antiques Roadshow and wondered what the hell the thing with springs does?
What I'm trying to say here is that computer intelligence isn't all that different from ours. We start off with nothing, are given something, we learn what it is, we respond to it. A computer starts off with nothing, we give it something and tell it what it is, it learns to respond. The two types of human function that I described above cover most of what we do. So if we can recreate human functions on a PC, can we call it consciousness? If a computer learns to fear death, then it will question how to overcome death. So would switching off a computer that wants to live be equal to killing someone? 2010 raised lots of moral questions. In the end the computer accepts that it must be destroyed to complete the mission and the bloke who made it is genuinely sad to destroy it. But the computer also questions the bloke's commands and it almost gets the crew killed.
I might give creating some form of intelligence a go, but it seems like a dangerous thing and I don't want to get into any heavy debate on morals. Heck, I'd just have to make it question what it doesn't understand. Don't worry though, I promise not to make Terminator!
What made me think of this was watching the film 2010. That wacky computer wouldn't shut up, but all it was doing was reacting to situations with responses it was programmed with, and learning how to respond to new situations. Take emotions for example. There's a name for everything we feel, depending on certain events. We react to things in a predetermined order depending on what happens. There's no reason why this can't be programmed into a computer, and when something happens that it doesn't understand it will query you. That means that it will have learnt an emotion.
Like a baby that doesn't know how it should react, it has been taught how to deal with something, and hey presto - you have emotions covered. But that leaves a massive hole - personality. Everyone reacts to situations in different ways, but a computer would only know one way to react.
What other attributes would make something intelligent? Those robots with hands would be able to hold an object and determine it's size. You could attach sensors to find the colour and recepticles to 'smell' the object and the computer would be able to tell you what it was. If it doesn't recognise an object, then again it would have to be told what it is. Same as us though. Have you ever watched Antiques Roadshow and wondered what the hell the thing with springs does?
What I'm trying to say here is that computer intelligence isn't all that different from ours. We start off with nothing, are given something, we learn what it is, we respond to it. A computer starts off with nothing, we give it something and tell it what it is, it learns to respond. The two types of human function that I described above cover most of what we do. So if we can recreate human functions on a PC, can we call it consciousness? If a computer learns to fear death, then it will question how to overcome death. So would switching off a computer that wants to live be equal to killing someone? 2010 raised lots of moral questions. In the end the computer accepts that it must be destroyed to complete the mission and the bloke who made it is genuinely sad to destroy it. But the computer also questions the bloke's commands and it almost gets the crew killed.
I might give creating some form of intelligence a go, but it seems like a dangerous thing and I don't want to get into any heavy debate on morals. Heck, I'd just have to make it question what it doesn't understand. Don't worry though, I promise not to make Terminator!