Artificial Intelligence

[jackripped]

Again your missing the whole point, forget the hows, top scientists believe its possible, there smarter than all of you and me , so your attack on my programming knowledge is null and void, presume for the sake of the debate that it can be done.And is.
At that point there is no way of knowing how it will react to any stimuli, as its free thinking.
WAS MY POINT do you follow yet ?

[Asheekay]

Yes absolutely.
You know what, martians are making a machine that will make people disappear from here and appear in the third time dimension.
Whether martians exists and whether they're making this machine actually isnt debatable. Since Im saying they're making it, so they're making it. And obviously martians are smarter than me and you, so if you dont believe this news, youre a dumb pony.
O.o Im so terribly scared now. I guess Id start peeing in my bed from this day. Boo hoo. So spooky news!

[jackripped]

Your narrow minded if you think its impossible.
Theres millions of dollars being spent on this very thing.
200 years ago, if you told someone they are going to have computers that can do all the things they do now, they would basically call you a fool, sort of like what your implying above.
Tell me do you think that the scientists involved in this are stupid too ? And there degree vs yours ?

[Raz0r]

Originally Posted by jackripped

You're narrow minded if you think it's impossible.
There's millions of dollars being spent on this very thing.
200 years ago, if you told someone they are going to have computers that can do all the things they do now, they would basically call you a fool, sort of like what you're implying above.
Tell me, do you think that the scientists involved in this are stupid too ? And there their degree vs yours ?

Oh, that's what you meant. Well, allow me to retort.

Millions of dollars solely for artifical intelligence? Source please? because I believe there is millions of dollars being invested in potato gender.
The argument of telling someone 200 years ago about computers is totally irrelevant as proof of artificial intelligence, or the development of it.
A scientist having a degree does not mean we are oblivious to technology.

Did I miss anything? >_>

EDIT: Just thought I'd add, the discussion about AI programming, hyper-advanced computer technology, etc made my brain hurt. Please educate yourself in these fields before preaching.

[Asheekay]

Lolsss. I told him the same thing: to get a basic knowledge of computer working and programming if he wants to put up a serious argument. But he has a high degree of faith in sci-fi movies. And those are all he has good level of information about.
I mean, come on, computers and robots work on the principle of electronic paths and voltage fluctuations. How on earth (or any other planet) would any computer program not follow the hardcoded circuit it holds?
This is a simple, general science question which he has never answered yet.

[NuclearTurboPopeXVII]

Originally Posted by jackripped

Anti virus programs, the very best ones only detect 20 %, thats correct 20 % of viruses.That is a fact. Anyone who believes that its the users fault because they got a virus when they have the best anti virus program installed, is un-informed about the matter.

Care to back up that claim? You don't seem to know much about how computers work, let alone viruses, so you must have seen this supposed fact somewhere.

Oh, and I run linux, so I don't get viruses. Never have, never will. Now before you call that "arrogant" consider for a moment that I know how viruses operate, and you don't. So why don't you go level the playing field by educating yourself, mmkay?

Originally Posted by jackripped

You forget one thing with all that above post, if a computer becomes self aware, which is what the debate is really about, there is no way to predict what it will do.
Yes l was assuming that a program/computer will do it. Thats really what the topic and discussion evolved into.

I was responding to your comment about humans being merely "students" to computers because they can do calculations faster than we can.

Originally Posted by jackripped

But then in your post your assuming just as much when you say '' If an AI formed on the INTERNET it would most likely be rudimentary at first, and slowly increase in intelligence from there. Internet researchers would notice it long before it became a real threat, and counteract it.''
So what gives, shall we have an assumption war ?
You have utterly no way to know any of that.You assume as much as me did you say ? hahaha

True, it's an assumption, but I think it's a fairly safe assumption given how many hundreds of people are constantly looking for new botnets on the internet. A global AI suddenly appearing in the network would look an awful lot like... a strange new botnet. Or maybe not. But when they see data flying all over the place with no real objective, they'll know something's up.

Originally Posted by jackripped

And no game program has ever beaten you has it, never died once in any game have you, hahaha, what a bore games must be for you.....

I didn't say that, I was pointing out that computers beating humans at chess is irrelevant. Chess has very simple rules, and there are only so many possible game states. Once you program all of them into a giant IBM supercomputer, well, game over for humans. Does that really count as AI? If I program a computer to beat you at something dead-simple like tic-tac-toe, is the computer really outsmarting you, or am I? But how about something like, as I said, Starcraft II? Not only are the rules far more complicated than Chess, but the game takes place in real time, and computers just can't keep up. Most of the SCII bots out there are just collections of simple rules like "scout out the enemy base early in the game", and they don't really count as AI.
RTS games are the same way, the bots all follow a script and have perfect aim. But if I play a game of capture-the-flag against the best bots RTS games have to offer, they fail oh so miserably.
So yes, I've died in games before, but it's more accurate to say that the programmers outsmarted me than it is to say that the computer, which merely follows their explicit instructions, did.
Now of course, someday someone will make an AI that will beat humans at SCII but considering the current state of AI research, it'll be awhile.

Originally Posted by jackripped

And regardless of how clever you think you might be, there are some extremely smart scientists working on this, and they fully believe its a possibility, to create a self aware program/computer.

And I agree with them. So what's the problem here?

Originally Posted by jackripped

So clever one, since you cut n pasted me out of context on the first clip, lets see you do the calculations l was talking about, a weather super computer, go on, lets see them.
Whats the point of a human doing it if it takes 20 years. l would class that as in the not viable, not do-able bin, since we sorta want the answer tomorrow in relation to the weather. And whether a human would come to the same answer is highly debatable considering the human error factor, so it could be argued that in practice humans cannot do those calculations. But your right, if you want to wait 20 odd years theres a chance humans could do it.

Again, where do you draw the line? With an abacus, a human can do multiplication probably 10 times faster than I can on paper. Why does that matter? How about a pocket calculator. They don't even have a "real" CPU, but they can multiply 20-digit numbers that would take me hours. What is your point exactly?

[jackripped]

It was a science documentary that was all about programs and virus's, and the very top people researching it stated as fact that only 20% of virus's are actually detected, because basically there always a step behind the writers of virus's, l cant recall the name of the documentary it was a few months ago.

So sorry if l dont believe you when you say you have never had a virus, because like in the documentary, alot of virus's are not detected, thus you dont even know there running in the back round. Likely to be one in your PC right now, and mine and most other people in here.

But of coarse your the best programmer out there and never have had a virus have you ''coughbullshit''.......millionare are you ? Should be.........

[Asheekay]

Lolsssssss.
If you use some version of windows, that doesnt mean everyone uses the same os. Most malware are written in high level languages like vb6, c# etc which only target windows platforms.
And about the 20% malware detection assumption, maybe, just maybe you should also watch a documentary about heuristics. No?

[jackripped]

Its still arrogant to assume you have never been attacked by a virus.
Unless your a state of the art programmer/hacker/virus software writer, and very very rich fom it, its just plain arrogant to assume you are to good to ever get a virus.

So sorry l still dont believe him.........

[Raz0r]

Originally Posted by jackripped

Its still arrogant to assume you have never been attacked by a virus.
Unless your a state of the art programmer/hacker/virus software writer, and very very rich fom it, its just plain arrogant to assume you are to good to ever get a virus.

So sorry l still dont believe him.........

Because common sense, luck, and intelligent humans don't exist?
You sure do have a lot of faith (or hope?) in your electronic friends going rogue.