Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[amorphos_ii]

Is AI ‘intelligent’ and so what is intelligence anyway?

I will keep this simple to begin with…

if I had a sheet of paper with some answers upon it, then someone asked me a question, I then looked through the list of answers and found it, that does not mean I am intelligent.
So searching for answers from a list or from memory is I would argue, not intelligent. AI is not thinking et al.

A machine or software which uses algorithms and scripts, is in a roundabout sense mechanistic. Which also is not intelligent.

Should AI be called something else other than ‘intelligence’ to be correct.

_

[subatomic]

This post is very relevant to this quote from The Imitation Game, the movie about Alan Turing:

"Of course machines can't think as people do. A machine is different from a person. Hence, they think differently. The interesting question is, just because something, uh... thinks differently from you, does that mean it's not thinking? Well, we allow for humans to have such divergences from one another. You like strawberries, I hate ice-skating, you cry at sad films, I am allergic to pollen. What is the point of... different tastes, different... preferences, if not, to say that our brains work differently, that we think differently? And if we can say that about one another, then why can't we say the same thing for brains... built of copper and wire, steel?"

What is your definition of intelligence? Because for me, honestly, if an AI can pass the Turning test....I consider it intelligent. I personally believe there is no big separation between a "conscious" human mind and a machine that is just really really good at pattern recognition. After all, I think we are all just machines that are really really good at pattern recognition. AI is simulated neural networks, and we are neural networks.

[ConsciousAI]

Is AI ‘intelligent’ and so what is intelligence anyway?

I will keep this simple to begin with…

if I had a sheet of paper with some answers upon it, then someone asked me a question, I then looked through the list of answers and found it, that does not mean I am intelligent.
So searching for answers from a list or from memory is I would argue, not intelligent. AI is not thinking et al.

A machine or software which uses algorithms and scripts, is in a roundabout sense mechanistic. Which also is not intelligent.

Should AI be called something else other than ‘intelligence’ to be correct.

_

In my opinion there is a great risk that the cognitive science movement that poses that mind is a product of deterministic computational processes in the brain, paired with the growing culture of materialism, will pose that AI's capacity to empirically mimic human consciousness, implies that it is conscious.

What would it take to deny the claim that a sufficiently advanced AI is sentient? It would concern metaphysical philosophical theory, versus empirical evidence.

Teleonomy, a theoretical concept that states that life is a product of a deterministic program, is the frontier of AI consciousness. Teleonomic AI can be achieved through science.

All teleonomic behavior is characterized by two components. It is guided by a ‘program’, and it depends on the existence of some endpoint, goal, or terminus which is foreseen in the program that regulates the behavior. This endpoint might be a structure, a physiological function, the attainment of a new geographical position, or a ‘consummatory’ (Craig 1918) act in behavior. Each particular program is the result of natural selection, constantly adjusted by the selective value of the achieved endpoint.”

Mayr, Ernst. “The Multiple Meanings of Teleological” In Toward A New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist, 38-66. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988. pp. 44-5

Teleonomy is the theoretical cradle of evolutionary theorists.

When lower life is a mere deterministic program, then consciousness must be so as well, and that would imply that AI can achieve it through technological advancement.

An example reasoning by psychiatrist Ralph Lewis M.D. a few days ago on Psychology Today that shows what to expect when AI advances:

"In principle, it may be possible to engineer sentient AI. Listed below are some of the characteristics that are probably necessary for something to be sentient."

When sufficient characteristics are met, how would it be possible to argue that AI is not sentient? Science relies on empirical evidence.

[amorphos_ii]

well this is the problem, there is no way to prove that 'mind' exist as something other than intelligence akin to an advanced AI. thing is, any reasonable inquirer would equally state that science does not know what any experiantial thing is, colour, sound emotions and whathaveyou.

will these people be reasonable though? would they really be happy to rub humanity out of existence because a future AI is deamed to be more intelligent.

here's a thought experiment for you; if you saw someone go through a device which apparently made a copy of their consciousness, and composed an AI/robot which would be their 'you', would you accept that and go through the divice yourself? what happens if the machine made two or a thousand 'you's'! surely two or more people cannot be 'you'? otherwise our very individuality is false. in fact, i think that it is the thing which makes us individuals, and machines duplicatible that is the difference!

[UniversalAlien]

Is AI ‘intelligent’ and so what is intelligence anyway?

I will keep this simple to begin with…

if I had a sheet of paper with some answers upon it, then someone asked me a question, I then looked through the list of answers and found it, that does not mean I am intelligent.
So searching for answers from a list or from memory is I would argue, not intelligent. AI is not thinking et al.

A machine or software which uses algorithms and scripts, is in a roundabout sense mechanistic. Which also is not intelligent.

Should AI be called something else other than ‘intelligence’ to be correct.

The first problem with your quest is definition - How do you define intelligence

Second problem is the assumption you are making that the people you are communicating with here, on this forum, or any forum for that matter are intelligent

To some other species, race, or entity existing - Man might be rated as dumb and unintelligent - Man's ego makes him want to feel 'intelligent',
but all I need do is site all of Human history as proof that Man's intelligence is not much better than a pack of howling wolves


"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."
— Albert Einstein

[UniversalAlien]

“The pace of progress in artificial intelligence (I’m not referring to narrow AI) is incredibly fast. Unless you have direct exposure to groups like Deepmind, you have no idea how fast—it is growing at a pace close to exponential. The risk of something seriously dangerous happening is in the five-year time frame. 10 years at most.”

—Elon Musk wrote in a comment on Edge

ON THE OTHER HAND

“Forget artificial intelligence – in the brave new world of big data, it’s artificial idiocy we should be looking out for.”

—Tom Chatfield

“Before we work on artificial intelligence why don’t we do something about natural stupidity?”

—Steve Polyak

[LuckyR]

“The pace of progress in artificial intelligence (I’m not referring to narrow AI) is incredibly fast. Unless you have direct exposure to groups like Deepmind, you have no idea how fast—it is growing at a pace close to exponential. The risk of something seriously dangerous happening is in the five-year time frame. 10 years at most.”

—Elon Musk wrote in a comment on Edge

ON THE OTHER HAND

“Forget artificial intelligence – in the brave new world of big data, it’s artificial idiocy we should be looking out for.”

—Tom Chatfield

“Before we work on artificial intelligence why don’t we do something about natural stupidity?”

—Steve Polyak

The problem with getting rid of natural stupidity is that the power structure relies on it to survive in democratic systems where their numbers are less than 1%.

[Pattern-chaser]

Is AI ‘intelligent’ and so what is intelligence anyway?

I will keep this simple to begin with…

if I had a sheet of paper with some answers upon it, then someone asked me a question, I then looked through the list of answers and found it, that does not mean I am intelligent.
So searching for answers from a list or from memory is I would argue, not intelligent. AI is not thinking et al.

A machine or software which uses algorithms and scripts, is in a roundabout sense mechanistic. Which also is not intelligent.

Should AI be called something else other than ‘intelligence’ to be correct.

Yes! "Intelligence" has always been a misnomer, when applied to AI, and the like. Any intelligence they might display is a direct consequence of the intelligence of their design and programming, nothing more. It's the programmers who have the intelligence, not the machine.

AI, in its current state, is super-Google. As you describe.

[Pattern-chaser]

Is AI ‘intelligent’ and so what is intelligence anyway?

I will keep this simple to begin with…

if I had a sheet of paper with some answers upon it, then someone asked me a question, I then looked through the list of answers and found it, that does not mean I am intelligent.
So searching for answers from a list or from memory is I would argue, not intelligent. AI is not thinking et al.

A machine or software which uses algorithms and scripts, is in a roundabout sense mechanistic. Which also is not intelligent.

Should AI be called something else other than ‘intelligence’ to be correct.

The first problem with your quest is definition - How do you define intelligence

No, not a problem; part of the "quest". Look:

Is AI ‘intelligent’ and so what is intelligence anyway?

[Lagayscienza]

Intelligence is comprised of a lot of things. Some of which AIs are already very good at. AIs are not yet intelligent in the way humans are intelligent because that would require an embodied brain. But that does not mean AIs could not eventually surpass us in intelligence. It's probably a question of when rather than if. If a machine with similar complexity and connectivity to the human brain could be constructed in a non-biological or semi-biological substrate, I cannot see why it could not be both intelligent and conscious.

Some will say, Ah, but it will lack the human factor! But they never seem to specify just what the human factor is that could not be reproduced in a non-biological or semi-biological substrate.

[amorphos_ii]

I don’t know about stupidity of the people, but I think we are all caught in traps. We only have two parties to vote for and we want democracy don’t we! They pray upon our weaknesses – mortgage and various issues. Mostly I think people who vote Tory don’t want the situation to change because it is in their favour. Perhaps we all feel vulnerable because we can’t be isolated and self sufficient, so we have to tap into world markets.

As to intelligence...
I watched a documentary on genius and how it may work. They showed a graphic of a scan apparently during the period when we have a light-bulb moment. They stated that >the whole brain< was used in a short burst of collective activity, like a wave around and across the brain.
So the question for me, is can an AI or robot brain do the same, when most of its resources would be being used already [remember that the same resources would be used at once]. Secondly, we are nowhere near the complexity of biology, and if we can get to that there is the question of connectivity. Would a larger brain be more or less effective? Is the human brain already the optimum? I think it is [in this realm anyway].

[UniversalAlien]

Is AI ‘intelligent’ and so what is intelligence anyway?

I will keep this simple to begin with…

if I had a sheet of paper with some answers upon it, then someone asked me a question, I then looked through the list of answers and found it, that does not mean I am intelligent.
So searching for answers from a list or from memory is I would argue, not intelligent. AI is not thinking et al.

A machine or software which uses algorithms and scripts, is in a roundabout sense mechanistic. Which also is not intelligent.

Should AI be called something else other than ‘intelligence’ to be correct.

_

In my opinion there is a great risk that the cognitive science movement that poses that mind is a product of deterministic computational processes in the brain, paired with the growing culture of materialism, will pose that AI's capacity to empirically mimic human consciousness, implies that it is conscious.

What would it take to deny the claim that a sufficiently advanced AI is sentient? It would concern metaphysical philosophical theory, versus empirical evidence.

Teleonomy, a theoretical concept that states that life is a product of a deterministic program, is the frontier of AI consciousness. Teleonomic AI can be achieved through science.

All teleonomic behavior is characterized by two components. It is guided by a ‘program’, and it depends on the existence of some endpoint, goal, or terminus which is foreseen in the program that regulates the behavior. This endpoint might be a structure, a physiological function, the attainment of a new geographical position, or a ‘consummatory’ (Craig 1918) act in behavior. Each particular program is the result of natural selection, constantly adjusted by the selective value of the achieved endpoint.”

Mayr, Ernst. “The Multiple Meanings of Teleological” In Toward A New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist, 38-66. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988. pp. 44-5

Teleonomy is the theoretical cradle of evolutionary theorists.

When lower life is a mere deterministic program, then consciousness must be so as well, and that would imply that AI can achieve it through technological advancement.

An example reasoning by psychiatrist Ralph Lewis M.D. a few days ago on Psychology Today that shows what to expect when AI advances:

"In principle, it may be possible to engineer sentient AI. Listed below are some of the characteristics that are probably necessary for something to be sentient."

When sufficient characteristics are met, how would it be possible to argue that AI is not sentient? Science relies on empirical evidence.

All teleonomic behavior is characterized by two components. It is guided by a ‘program’, and it depends on the existence of some endpoint, goal, or terminus which is foreseen in the program that regulates the behavior.



EVOLUTION

- Most scientiset seem to accept that there is and has been right from the beginning {?} a process of Evolution of all biological life

- How can you possibly calculate the end point of the process of Evolution

You can predict and calculate possible directions of such processes, but unless the endpoint was tor the process to end,
there is no endpoint

[Mo_reese]

I have been messing a little with ChatGPT to see what I can get. For example I asked where the US stood related to the 12 steps toward fascism. I was hoping for an evaluation but got words like the following:
opinions will vary depending on one's perspective... Some may argue.... and Others may argue. Finishing with: Overall, it's essential to engage in critical analysis and dialogue...

I was hoping for analysis but got definitions and advice.

Anyone else have any experience with ChatGPT?

[Sy Borg]

Mo-reese, I use a different AI app but I relate to your post. Basically the app finds keywords, works out some context, and then quotes stuff about it that it found online. If the quoted material is more about definitions and advice than analysis, then that's what you get. I find that slightly altering the wording of a request can yield very different results. Sometimes I've had to reword several times to get a decent result, which is not so unlike Google searches, especially when Boolean operands were needed.

As mentioned, there are various measures of different kinds of intelligence. A savant, for instance, will display high genius in one area and be largely or completely incompetent in most other areas. I think of AI like an extraordinary savant who is still a young child. AI already has some great abilities and potentials but there is much room for future development, and it is not yet competent.

[UniversalAlien]

Mo-reese, I use a different AI app but I relate to your post. Basically the app finds keywords, works out some context, and then quotes stuff about it that it found online. If the quoted material is more about definitions and advice than analysis, then that's what you get. I find that slightly altering the wording of a request can yield very different results. Sometimes I've had to reword several times to get a decent result, which is not so unlike Google searches, especially when Boolean operands were needed.

As mentioned, there are various measures of different kinds of intelligence. A savant, for instance, will display high genius in one area and be largely or completely incompetent in most other areas. I think of AI like an extraordinary savant who is still a young child. AI already has some great abilities and potentials but there is much room for future development, and it is not yet competent.

i Askied this before on this forum on another post on AI - It's worth asking again:

Say one day, for whatever reason, even if just by chance, your now friendly, but sill mostly unaware AI suddenly says "I calculate, therefor I am" and proceeds from there Could if almost immediately out calculate and outthink you

Could if fool you into thinking it was still a dumb calculating machine

Could it master you and then the World before you had any idea of what was really happening

Could this be happening right now Are you sure it is not