On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 09:15:54PM +0000, Frank Leonhardt via cctalk wrote:
> On 19/01/2025 15:37, ben via cctalk wrote:
> > On 2025-01-19 6:12 a.m., Adrian Godwin via cctalk wrote:
> >
> > > I like to parse the 'artificial' differently. It's not AN artificial
> > > intelligence - a manufactured entity that exhibits intelligence -
> > > it's JUST
> > > artificial intelligence - something that appears to be intelligence but
> > > isn't, like artificial turf.
> > >
> > > I hope that one day we will have machine intelligences. But I'm
> > > unsure that
> > > merely imitating how they might look is a path to that.
> >
> > I thought that all was covered on the movie, Metropolis.
> > Ask HAL 9000 for real answers. I think self aware is needed 1st
> > and a body, other wise it all just text word games.
>
> Now define "self-awareness"!
There are theories which speculate that self-awareness is not needed for
intelligence, but that is diving into philosophy ...
> But we're absolutely seeing word games and
> probability right now. Like the mechanical Turk, there's nothing intelligent
> in the machine.
But there sure is a lot clever marketing around it.
> While we're at it, biological science had clearly been unable to create
> life. Not even a single cell. And I've no reason to believe we're about to
> see a breakthrough it that either.
There have been various "simulate early (theoretical) earth conditions
in the lab to see what happens" and while at least some got all the way
to some interesting organic molecules, none of them reached even the most
primitive life forms - maybe they just need to refine their experiments
and run them for a billion years? ;-)
Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
