Illwinter is ahead of the Computer Science Field by CENTURIES

[Omnirizon]

with human-machine interaction, the traditional limitations of AI become softened, and the lines between the human and AI become blurred.

For example, in an experiment where a population of AI agents 'converse' and build a language, if there are humans to give and teach them words, the AI will develop a very sophisticated and expressive language.

To believe that this is 'cheating' somehow because humans have intervened assumes that humans are somehow special and can without outside influence build a language.

did not the material world intervene upon humans to essentially teach them words and meaning? with no material world and no constraints we have no need for language. we can, actually, model the material world as an agent which actively interacts with the human just as the human interacted with the material world in the experiments with language and AI.

maybe we're much closer to AI than we though. The problem is assuming humans are independent from the material world when they are, in fact, not; and assuming the material world has no agency when it, in fact, may have just that. If these things are the case, then the AI from the human-machine interaction language experiment isn't all that far off from 'human intelligence'

[vfb]

Originally Posted by AdmiralZhao

Ray Fuller invented Prozac, and with the help of Eli Lilly is manipulating millions of human thought processes each day. Ditto with caffeine, E, alcohol, etc. etc. where we use chemicals to achieve very specific effects. More immediately, see the experiments where we use magnetic fields or direct electrical stimulation to trigger different parts of the brain. More scientifically, see the IBM's BlueBrain project to create a full, neuron-level on up map of the human brain. They should be done in a decade or so (though as with the human genome, having the data is still a long way from full understanding).

I think Jim meant "intelligent beings other than humans who have at least once directly manipulated human thought processes". So, no dice on Ray Fuller or the minions rabbiting away at Eli Lilly.

Getting kicked in the head by a moose doesn't count either.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by vfb

I think Jim meant "intelligent beings other than humans who have at least once directly manipulated human thought processes". So, no dice on Ray Fuller or the minions rabbiting away at Eli Lilly.

Getting kicked in the head by a moose doesn't count either.

Indeed. Humans manipulating human thought processes is exactly evidence of intelligence (or determination), and not the other way around.


Omni- Your example is interesting, but still - it resides in that gray area I mentioned, where a computer is able to simulate a "function of" intelligence, but still only does so within the precise framework allotted to it, and does not portray any evidence of conscious understanding of what it has developed - nor does it ever deviate from the format of the programming.

Now, if the computer one day synthesized speech through speakers that were installed, with no provided software, and said "hey doc, I can talk!", well then, we'd have something.