Artificial Intelligence

Will it ever be possible?

Discuss.

Indeed it shall

And it will be a lot smarter than the op!

But then again... what isn't

>>1
Haven't you heard of Conway's Automaton?
They're like sea monkeys.
Mine have developed religion by now.

We have it now.  Because artificial intelligence does't mean intelligence.  It's just a term that doesn't really mean what it sounds like it means.

I think you mean making an actual thinking object, right?  Maybe it's not possible with solid circuits and software.

You should say something like: Machines who are self aware; will it ever be possible. Because we already have what is generally called artificial intelligence now; things like programs that can recognize faces and chess programs.

>>2
John Searle would like to have a word with you...

...in the Chinese Room.

>>8
a total is more then the sum of its different parts!
maybe the "man with the room" knows!

>>6

Neuroeconomics suggest that human behavior works off of physical determinate processes and physical indeterminate processes (but predictable according to a probability).

While it may not be possible to create true probabilistic behavior using modern computer transistors it may be possible to do so with quantum computing, or a combination of both.

Furthermore, while it may be possible to synthesize natural intelligence  within the "computer brain", many people, especially the religious ones would not have any of it. It's the same reason that dualism was accepted arbitrarily for so long even though it had a lot of experimental data against it (they were either made into exceptions or ignored). Also, oscillations and reafferrence were added to compensate.

I think it is not only possible, but also an inevitability. Although people nowadays are simply not ready for it. I wonder if they ever will be. Perhaps this is one of those things that mankind will just have to accept.

>>8
Word, he pretty much puts this argument to bed

The problem with the Chinese Room is that it assumes that you could fool someone into thinking you could speak Chinese simply by looking up a phrase in a table and regurgitating a predetermined response. Real communication is a lot more complex than that; it involves subtleties like the speaker's mood & personality, knowledge of the other speaker, time of day, memory of previous conversations, and an incalculable list of other factors. A simple pattern-matcher would never pass something like the Turing Test.




Chinese Room:
Q: So, how's the weather outside?
A: Oh, you know, cloudy & miserable.
Q: So, how's the weather outside?
A: Oh, you know, cloudy & miserable.
Q: So, how's the weather outside?
A: Oh, you know, cloudy & miserable.
...



Real Communication:
Q: So, how's the weather outside?
A: Oh, you know, cloudy & miserable.
Q: So, how's the weather outside?
A: ...What? Didn't you hear me just now?
Q: So, how's the weather outside?
A: Is this a joke or something? Are you just fucking with me?
Q: So, how's the weather outside?
A: How about we change the subject...
...

Searle is an idiot.
(See also: >>9)

The word pirahna, is all I can think of that rhymes with marijuana

Marijuana MUST be legalized.