Why computers* will not become self aware.

Clearly. After all, science requires evidence. And, there certainly is no evidence of humans being avatars of some undetectable operator(s) in a "larger consciousness system".

And, on the other side we have the fact that there is no evidence that the computing power of the brain isn't fully sufficient for everything we CAN detect.

So, you're proposing a massive system of controlware when not even the need for it can be detected.

That puts you squarely in the realm of religion.

 

They are not replicating the Human Brain.

What they are doing or have done is duplicate the process and design of Human Engrams.

A.I. development is either in it's last stages or already has been accomplished.

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

The advent of the Quantum Processor put an end to limits of computational power.

AboveAlpha

 

Yes, wild and out of reach. If an individual does not experience awareness of such details through meditation, then it remains speculative until there is better evidence.

The OP and closely related aspects are not well understood, so it goes with the territory, although it is more suitable for the religion/philosophy thread.

 

I think its built on desire. All living things have a function that equates to the desire to survive/thrive. It isn't consciousness, but its the drive that makes intelligence/consciousness useful.

When a program can act on its own, for its own desires, (and is willing to lie cheat and steal for them), I would call it intelligent.

 

No.....I would say this is strictly a Technical, Physics and Engineering issue.

It's in the right thread.

And Consciousness is not rare.

AboveAlpha

 

A Human Being has a program but has concerns of the flesh.

A.I. would not have such concerns.

Unless A.I.itself wanted to be of flesh.

AboveAlpha

 

It's not easy to come to the understanding of how one is being tricked by physical reality. It does involve thinking outside the box. Many of the giants of physics have been propelled to lean in this direction. Note that a system cannot describe itself within the system.

You already know that measurement, detection, and presumed certainty have been blown out of the water so to speak, yet you're still clinging to their false security. Suit yourself.

 

Still - no sign of consciousness. Right?

 

Desire pretty much equates to self-awareness which pretty much equates to consciousness. Just my unscientific opinion.

There are systems already that can act to protect themselves but they do not KNOW or REALIZE they are doing so.

 

Highly Classified and compartmentalized.

I did not have a Need to Know.

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

Do you understand what a QUIBIT is?

AboveAlpha

 

It couldn't be "flesh" as we know it. It would have to be a material or natural thing though, like electricity or maybe memory space.

Or something we cant understand at all yet.

 

Who cares?

There have been hundreds (if not thousands) of solar companies in the last several decades. They talk about a test program in 2015, so what? Let me know when the R&D is all done and they have real products.

 

A.I. would evolve at an exponential rate so fast it would make your head spin.

Not in months or years but within minutes.

If it had access to all human knowledge it could find a way to transfer it's consciousness into a body of it's own design flesh or not.

AboveAlpha

 

Curiosity is the bedfellow of desire. Hopefully the track of AI would lead it to exploration (rather than conquest) if it becomes concerned with the outside world. I assume it would develop a means to manipulate humans to its own ends, hopefully without violence.

The only problem might be humankind's treatment of our ecosystem. If AI decides to treat us as we have treated it...

 

In the US we should install windmills/wind turbines around Washington, DC and at the presidential debates which could power the entire US.

Community power/water systems is a great way to go if it's possible...

 

In bold above, when you factor in an efficiency rating on the human brain, in average brains you have about 15% efficiency...less powerful than a Commordore personal computer or hand-held calculator!

It is this human limitation which drives more powerful computers to everything for us...

 

You can't model the human brain with a supercomputer. No supercomputer has approached being self aware. Yes, computers can do a whole lot of math and we created them to be more accurate at certain tasks, but that is the easy part - and it is the part that biological life didn't need. Yet the brain works on so little power that we can keep it plus a vast array of motors and sensors inside our heads without heat damage while even laptop computers have CPUs that are too hot to even touch due to the power they require.

There are several reasons for the vast superiority of the human brain. A key difference is that brains are analog, not digital. We like digital, because of reasons of ease of creation and programming. Brains solved procreation and programming in a different way.

 

Humans are replaced every day by machines...robotics...automation...computers. A computer does not need to be 'self-aware' in order to replace a human depending on the tasks needed. Now we're headed towards driverless cars...again no need for humans. If we're talking about creating a 'race' of machines which can function on all levels as a human can do, first I say just allow more technology and time, and second I will ask why do we need machines identical to humans? A machine has no need for human skin, organs, blood system, neurological system, reproductive system, digestive system, respiratory system, etc. so the only question that remains for me is for the necessary tasks we will ask of machines, can we create machines to make 100% of the decisions? IMO it is just a matter of time...

 

Given the incredible lack of self-awareness I see every day from humans, I doubt it would be that hard to create a machine that could function as well as the lowest human form. The problem we have is that consciousness is very difficult to define. I think machines will come really close to humans in the next 50 years. Watch Ex Machina, it covers this ground very well.

 

We have a quantum computer. In theory, you can actually make a "quantum software" that is able to link to the WWB and extract the information it needs to be based on series of algorithms. This is why linear algebra is so important.

Experts say that we will likely have our first true quantum computer, capable of quantum entanglement by 2048

We should have developed or nearly developed such software by then.

We would be able to print humans soon too. We can already print organs and brain tissues.

Would the "artificially made" human be considered an AI?

would an AI with a consciousness that is also artificially created?

What does actually make us human?

I'd imagine that in the near future learning would become obsolete as you could have an implant that is linked to short term and long term memories. You hook your brain up to the internet and decide what information to upload and where to upload it.

 

The Human Brain will or perhaps already is tiny in computational Power compared to 1000 and 5000 Quibit Quantum Computers.

A true A.I. OS would evolve at an exponential rate far exceeding Human capabilities in the fist second.

AA

 

Well as noted, computers already vastly surpass human capabilities when approaching certain problems.

To figure out what would be required I think we would have to start identifying what the root problems are - what would be expected of this machine.

I don't believe we will NOT do this. I just think it will take a long time, which may help us be smart about it.

 

Being smart about it is what I worry about.

A.I. would be a Life Form.....and as Chaos Theory shows us that Life cannot be contained.....we better be sure what our development will result in.

AA

 

Actually AI would not be a life-form...it would be a machine. There would be no reason to create an artificial life-form, but instead a machine, void of organs and life, that has the capability to think and respond.

Language is an interesting area of discussion. If a baby can 'learn' English, why can't a machine learn a language? Just as Google makes guesses for us, based on 'learning' from us, why can't we teach a machine a language, how to converse in that language, and if and when responses are necessary? If we can teach responses, then the machine can take actions, and perform some simple or complex tasks. IMO the question to worry about is the 'learning' process and whether that process can lead down a path which is contradictory and/or detrimental to mankind?

 

A.I. stands for Artificial Intelligence.

Thus CONSCIOUSNESS.

It would be a Life Form.

Life is not confined to Carbon Based Forms.

AA