• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Science Fiction or Fact: Could a 'Robopocalypse' Wipe Out Humans?

Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
2,106 (0.45/day)
System Name Norfree
Processor i5 3570k @4.4
Motherboard Gigabyte UD5H
Cooling 212 Evo
Memory 4x4GB Kingston 1600 @ 1833 9cl
Video Card(s) Sapphire Nitro Fury
Storage Corsair SSD, WD Black
Display(s) 1080p TV
Case Corsair 300-R
Audio Device(s) Auzentech Prelude > Fidelio X2s and AD-700s
Power Supply PCP&C Silent 950w
Software Win 10 Pro 64
Sure, humans are very fragile. All it would take is one hostile "AI" computer to get ahold of a nuke, and GG folks
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
25,443 (6.32/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2015
Processor Intel Core i7-6700K (4 x 4.00 GHz) w/ HT and Turbo on
Motherboard MSI Z170A GAMING M7
Cooling Scythe Kotetsu
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-2133 8 GiB
Video Card(s) Sapphire NITRO+ RX 590 Special Edition 8 GiB DVI + HDMI
Storage Crucial MX300 275 GB, Seagate Exos X12 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster T240 24" LCD (1920x1200 HDMI) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW 19" LCD (1440x900 DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei RAW
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
Good thing nuclear missile silos are largely equiped with 1960s technology. XD

The rest have to be straped into an aircraft which, as of right now, definitely requires human involvement.


...oh crap, there's a new line of nuclear submarines coming: SSBN(X). :eek:

http://defensenewsstand.com/NewsStand-General/The-INSIDER-Free-Article/dod-new-nuclear-subs-will-cost-347-billion-to-acquire-operate/menu-id-720.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSBN-X_future_follow-on_submarine

...even more concerning is I see no mention of how many people are supposed to man these ships--another excellent place to use an AI. Just like a flying drone, these things just patrol and patrol and patrol. Without crew on board, they could literally patrol non-stop for 40 years except for maintenance.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
1,876 (0.47/day)
System Name Computer
Processor 1700X
Motherboard CH6
Cooling Custom Loop
Memory G.Skill 32GB
Video Card(s) GTX 1070
Storage 500GB Samsung 850 Evo Msata
Display(s) LG 23" IPS
Power Supply Seasonic 760 Platinum
Software Windows 8.1 64-Bit
The AI would have to have a media to communicate across. I still think if we had a self aware AI they will still require human input
 
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
7,327 (1.62/day)
Location
C:\Program Files (x86)\Aphexdreamer\
System Name Unknown
Processor AMD Bulldozer FX8320 @ 4.4Ghz
Motherboard Asus Crosshair V
Cooling XSPC Raystorm 750 EX240 for CPU
Memory 8 GB CORSAIR Vengeance Red DDR3 RAM 1922mhz (10-11-9-27)
Video Card(s) XFX R9 290
Storage Samsung SSD 254GB and Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s
Display(s) AOC 23" @ 1920x1080 + Asus 27" 1440p
Case HAF X
Audio Device(s) X Fi Titanium 5.1 Surround Sound
Power Supply 750 Watt PP&C Silencer Black
Software Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit
We are organic machines. So no matter what happens its a machine destroying us. ;)

Unless its some natural cause of course.
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
25,443 (6.32/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2015
Processor Intel Core i7-6700K (4 x 4.00 GHz) w/ HT and Turbo on
Motherboard MSI Z170A GAMING M7
Cooling Scythe Kotetsu
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-2133 8 GiB
Video Card(s) Sapphire NITRO+ RX 590 Special Edition 8 GiB DVI + HDMI
Storage Crucial MX300 275 GB, Seagate Exos X12 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster T240 24" LCD (1920x1200 HDMI) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW 19" LCD (1440x900 DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei RAW
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
The AI would have to have a media to communicate across. I still think if we had a self aware AI they will still require human input
I do believe submarines communicate via the Interim Polar System when submerged and satellites when surfaced (or near surface). An AI operated ship would do the same as a human operated ship checking in periodically and emergency surfacing if there is an urgent problem in order to send distress signals. They can also use a sonar ping to give away their location in case of major failure.
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
216 (0.05/day)
Location
Mataram-NTB, Indonesia
System Name Folding System
Processor Intel 4770K Haswell
Motherboard Gigabyte G1 Sniper
Cooling EK Clean CSQ WB + EK CoolStream RAD XTX 480 + EK GTX780Ti Full WB + Swiftech D5 Pump
Memory 4 x 4 GB DDR3 GSkill Ripjaws F3 17000 GBZL | 4 x 4GB DDR3 Corsair Dominator Platinum
Video Card(s) 2 x Inno3D GTX 780Ti 3GB SLI
Storage 2x Patriot Pyro 240GB Raid 0 | 2x WD Green 3TB Raid 0 | 4x Seagate 4TB Raid 0
Display(s) Viewsonic LED VA1938wa 19" / 2 x Dell U2312HM 23" IPS Panel
Case Corsair 900D + 1 Aerocool 14cm Fan, 3 CM Fan 12cm, 4 Scythe Slim Fan 12cm, 4 Aerocool Shark 12cm
Audio Device(s) ASUS Xonar Phoebus + Hippo cri head amp + Sennheiser HD 598 + Razer Megalodon
Power Supply Seasonic P1000 Platinum
Mouse Logitech G502
Keyboard Gigabyte Aivia Osmium Mech Keyboard
Software Windows 10 Home
Recently i accidentally watch some TV show theres man dumb enough to have his thing electrocuted for a laugh.. i think even without robot interference, some human are dumb enough and have possibility to wipe out them self and bring the rest of us with them.

Just look at many of our politician decision..they make stupid decision such as SOPA or War..
 
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
1,876 (0.47/day)
System Name Computer
Processor 1700X
Motherboard CH6
Cooling Custom Loop
Memory G.Skill 32GB
Video Card(s) GTX 1070
Storage 500GB Samsung 850 Evo Msata
Display(s) LG 23" IPS
Power Supply Seasonic 760 Platinum
Software Windows 8.1 64-Bit
I do believe submarines communicate via the Interim Polar System when submerged and satellites when surfaced (or near surface). An AI operated ship would do the same as a human operated ship checking in periodically and emergency surfacing if there is an urgent problem in order to send distress signals. They can also use a sonar ping to give away their location in case of major failure.
They would have to rely on a insecure unstable ad-hoc style network.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
6,489 (1.94/day)
People want to create AI because it's easier than improving their own intelligence
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
25,443 (6.32/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2015
Processor Intel Core i7-6700K (4 x 4.00 GHz) w/ HT and Turbo on
Motherboard MSI Z170A GAMING M7
Cooling Scythe Kotetsu
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-2133 8 GiB
Video Card(s) Sapphire NITRO+ RX 590 Special Edition 8 GiB DVI + HDMI
Storage Crucial MX300 275 GB, Seagate Exos X12 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster T240 24" LCD (1920x1200 HDMI) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW 19" LCD (1440x900 DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei RAW
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
They would have to rely on a insecure unstable ad-hoc style network.
Like all wireless communication, it is easy to intercept the communication. It is secured using encryption of the data within.

I wouldn't call it unstable because I highly doubt it is. Again, with an AI at the helm, it doesn't need to receive constant orders from the brass. It gets its orders before it leaves port and only changes those orders if they receive new orders on extremely low frequency communications--just like a human operated submarine.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
499 (0.17/day)
System Name Multipurpose desktop
Processor AMD Phenom II x6 1605T @ 3.75Ghz , NB @ 2.5
Motherboard Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 (rev 1.0)
Cooling Prolimatech Megahalems Rev. C, 2x120mm CM Blademaster
Memory Corsair Vengeance LP (4x4GB) @1666Mhz 9-9-9-20-24 1T
Video Card(s) ASUS Strix R7-370 4GB OC
Storage 2x WD Caviar Black 500GB Sata III in RAID 0
Display(s) Acer S211HL 21.5" 1920x1080
Case Cooler Master Centurion 534+, 3x 120mm CM Sickle Flow
Power Supply Seasonic X650 Gold
Software Windows 7 x64 Home Premium SP1
The first time I came across reports of research into AI, it was 1990.
Back then, people like Marvin Minsky and Hans Moravec were saying AI is ten years away.
It's always ten years away.

It also depends on your definition of 'AI'.
Are researchers working on 'intelligent' neural nets, brain simulations, and programs with 'intelligent' behaviour in a specific field of knowledge and endeavour? Yes.
But is that AI research? Technically, yes, either directly or indirectly.
But is it development of a sentient intelligence? No.

There was some minor hubub a handful of years ago concerning the issue of whether true sentient AI is possible. It boiled down to a discussion of a problem in computational mathematics; whether it was possible to prove that "P = not-P".
As yet, there is no solution.
"If P = NP, then the world would be a profoundly different place than we usually assume it to be. There would be no special value in 'creative leaps,' no fundamental gap between solving a problem and recognizing the solution once it’s found. Everyone who could appreciate a symphony would be Mozart; everyone who could follow a step-by-step argument would be Gauss..."

— Scott Aaronson, MIT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Problems

If P=NP, we eventually get the robo-apocalypse or transcendant digital singularity :rolleyes:
If not, maybe we go down the path of more extensive cybernetic implants to improve functioning in various mental and\or physical activities. Or we just stay the way we are, and slowly improve.
 
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
2,106 (0.45/day)
System Name Norfree
Processor i5 3570k @4.4
Motherboard Gigabyte UD5H
Cooling 212 Evo
Memory 4x4GB Kingston 1600 @ 1833 9cl
Video Card(s) Sapphire Nitro Fury
Storage Corsair SSD, WD Black
Display(s) 1080p TV
Case Corsair 300-R
Audio Device(s) Auzentech Prelude > Fidelio X2s and AD-700s
Power Supply PCP&C Silent 950w
Software Win 10 Pro 64
Assuming the universe is infinite, statistically I believe there is a 100% probability that we are all in a quantum computer simulation right now. so anything is possible
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2012
Messages
41 (0.01/day)
System Name The Xinator
Processor i5 2500k @ 4.6Ghz
Motherboard ASUS P8Z68-V-PRO
Cooling Phanteks PH-TC14PE
Memory 8GB Corsair Vengeance White LP 1600Mhz 1.35v
Video Card(s) Gigabyte GTX780 Windforce OC (Rev 2.0)
Storage OCZ Vector 256GB
Display(s) Hazro HZ27WD(V2) 2560x1440
Case Antec 1200 (V1)
Audio Device(s) ASUS Xonar DGX
Power Supply Antec CP-850
Software Windows 7 Pro 64bit
Remember folks, we ARE Quantum computers. The Synapses in our brain communicate with each other instantaneously using Quantum co-ordinates.

You simply don't get any more sophisticated than a human brain.

Unfortunately training the brain to be at its best is time consuming. There are folks out there that can beat computers at chess and do complex maths equations quicker than a calculator.

There are some things a computer can never truly have. A computer will always do things on probability - it will never have the instinct, never be able to use that 'gut-feeling' that is 9 times out of 10 mysteriously right. It will never be able to truly understand things, as true understanding is linked directly with emotion, and emotion is a BIOLOGICAL response. You cannot emulate Billions of years of evolution in any computer, you cannot illicit that BIOLOGICAL response you require to develop emotion, thus the idea of a Computer ever being able to defeat the human race should be removed entirely.

Remember, we rely on instinct more times than we have ever thought about something. Computers can be programmed to preserve their own life for example. But what will they do when they are given certain choices? what scenarios can they be programmed with? We have been engineered to have a reaction in INFINITE scenarios. Its embedded in our DNA. Good luck emulating that.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
2,106 (0.45/day)
System Name Norfree
Processor i5 3570k @4.4
Motherboard Gigabyte UD5H
Cooling 212 Evo
Memory 4x4GB Kingston 1600 @ 1833 9cl
Video Card(s) Sapphire Nitro Fury
Storage Corsair SSD, WD Black
Display(s) 1080p TV
Case Corsair 300-R
Audio Device(s) Auzentech Prelude > Fidelio X2s and AD-700s
Power Supply PCP&C Silent 950w
Software Win 10 Pro 64
Unfortunately training the brain to be at its best is time consuming. There are folks out there that can beat computers at chess and do complex maths equations quicker than a calculator.

There are some things a computer can never truly have. A computer will always do things on probability - it will never have the instinct, never be able to use that 'gut-feeling' that is 9 times out of 10 mysteriously right. It will never be able to truly understand things, as true understanding is linked directly with emotion, and emotion is a BIOLOGICAL response. You cannot emulate Billions of years of evolution in any computer, you cannot illicit that BIOLOGICAL response you require to develop emotion, thus the idea of a Computer ever being able to defeat the human race should be removed entirely.

Remember, we rely on instinct more times than we have ever thought about something. Computers can be programmed to preserve their own life for example. But what will they do when they are given certain choices? what scenarios can they be programmed with? We have been engineered to have a reaction in INFINITE scenarios. Its embedded in our DNA. Good luck emulating that.
First of all, the best Chess player in the world is a computer.

Second, how do you know what the limits of computers are? They are practically in their 'fertilization' stage. For all we know, Humans exist to create a quantum artificial intelligence computer that can explore the stars and interact with things in ways no human can.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
499 (0.17/day)
System Name Multipurpose desktop
Processor AMD Phenom II x6 1605T @ 3.75Ghz , NB @ 2.5
Motherboard Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 (rev 1.0)
Cooling Prolimatech Megahalems Rev. C, 2x120mm CM Blademaster
Memory Corsair Vengeance LP (4x4GB) @1666Mhz 9-9-9-20-24 1T
Video Card(s) ASUS Strix R7-370 4GB OC
Storage 2x WD Caviar Black 500GB Sata III in RAID 0
Display(s) Acer S211HL 21.5" 1920x1080
Case Cooler Master Centurion 534+, 3x 120mm CM Sickle Flow
Power Supply Seasonic X650 Gold
Software Windows 7 x64 Home Premium SP1
First of all, the best Chess player in the world is a computer.
I'd say that the best human chessplayers vs the best computers is a 50/50 outcome right now; all other considerations set aside. As has been shown since 1997.
That Kasparov vs Deeper Blue match in 1997 (6 games), involved quite a bit of 'psyching-out' from the human IBM team.

Second, how do you know what the limits of computers are? They are practically in their 'fertilization' stage. For all we know, Humans exist to create a quantum artificial intelligence computer that can explore the stars and interact with things in ways no human can.
Only if P=NP.

If you like, we can assume that it does. Can the universe give us any evidence of that being true?:

1) Here we are, on a rock orbiting a star, which is orbiting the center of a large spiral galaxy. What do we see? Do we see (or hear) evidence of something out there? If 'quantum artificial intelligence computers' are possible, why hasn't some previous civilization produced them? They haven't because we would know about it, right now, here, because we would see evidence. Either direct or indirect evidence through electromagnetic emissions of some kind. We see nothing and hear nothing 'out of the ordinary' out there. Tentative conclusion: P does not equal NP

2) "Technically advanced civilizations are rare and spread out through the lifetime of a given galaxy"
The argument being that maybe there was a civilization that existed millions of years ago, so that we would not be able to know of it without detecting an 'artifact' of some kind. Well, if there were any previous civilizations in our galaxy that spawned intelligent, sentient, self-replicating machinery, those machines would likely still exist. We don't see evidence of them. Tentative conclusion: P does not equal NP

3) "We're the first technical civilization to arise in our galaxy"
We see no evidence of ultra advanced machine civilizations elsewhere in the universe; and we would see it if it existed, the energy requirements and energy outputs are not something that can be hidden.
Tentative conclusion: Speculative, but through indirect evidence it suggests P does not equal NP.

4) "We're the first technical civilization to arise within our observable horizon of the universe"
Unprovable.

So, from that quick and dirty speculative assessment, the rest of the universe is suggesting to us that P does not equal NP, and so, true sentient and creative AI is not possible.

Of course, I could be wrong. :cool:
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
25,443 (6.32/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2015
Processor Intel Core i7-6700K (4 x 4.00 GHz) w/ HT and Turbo on
Motherboard MSI Z170A GAMING M7
Cooling Scythe Kotetsu
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-2133 8 GiB
Video Card(s) Sapphire NITRO+ RX 590 Special Edition 8 GiB DVI + HDMI
Storage Crucial MX300 275 GB, Seagate Exos X12 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster T240 24" LCD (1920x1200 HDMI) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW 19" LCD (1440x900 DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei RAW
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
..."ultra advanced machine civliations," like us, most likely were caused to advance due to war. All wars have two sides and, as demonstrated by stealth technology, you can't fight an enemy you can't detect. "Ultra advanced machine civiliations," therefore, have likely found means to prevent anything "leaking" into space that would give their position away.

Every study conducted on "are we alone" conluded the odds are improbable of us being the only intelligent species in the universe. We're just amateurs at hiding because we're not at war with other planets...yet.


There's means to make P = NP by using random, external seeds. Most computers today use the time as a random seed but as we all know, that's not exactly random. I wouldn't be surprised if someone, somewhere out there has made a random seed chip using a crystal or some such but in general applications, a dedicated randomizer is not necessary.

And by the way, "sentients" is rarely "creative." If you write a program to account for all the possibilities, it is quite easy to predict which choice a sentient will prefer by weighting each against personality.
 
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
2,106 (0.45/day)
System Name Norfree
Processor i5 3570k @4.4
Motherboard Gigabyte UD5H
Cooling 212 Evo
Memory 4x4GB Kingston 1600 @ 1833 9cl
Video Card(s) Sapphire Nitro Fury
Storage Corsair SSD, WD Black
Display(s) 1080p TV
Case Corsair 300-R
Audio Device(s) Auzentech Prelude > Fidelio X2s and AD-700s
Power Supply PCP&C Silent 950w
Software Win 10 Pro 64
I'd say that the best human chessplayers vs the best computers is a 50/50 outcome right now; all other considerations set aside. As has been shown since 1997.
That Kasparov vs Deeper Blue match in 1997 (6 games), involved quite a bit of 'psyching-out' from the human IBM team.



Only if P=NP.

If you like, we can assume that it does. Can the universe give us any evidence of that being true?:

1) Here we are, on a rock orbiting a star, which is orbiting the center of a large spiral galaxy. What do we see? Do we see (or hear) evidence of something out there? If 'quantum artificial intelligence computers' are possible, why hasn't some previous civilization produced them? They haven't because we would know about it, right now, here, because we would see evidence. Either direct or indirect evidence through electromagnetic emissions of some kind. We see nothing and hear nothing 'out of the ordinary' out there. Tentative conclusion: P does not equal NP

2) "Technically advanced civilizations are rare and spread out through the lifetime of a given galaxy"
The argument being that maybe there was a civilization that existed millions of years ago, so that we would not be able to know of it without detecting an 'artifact' of some kind. Well, if there were any previous civilizations in our galaxy that spawned intelligent, sentient, self-replicating machinery, those machines would likely still exist. We don't see evidence of them. Tentative conclusion: P does not equal NP

3) "We're the first technical civilization to arise in our galaxy"
We see no evidence of ultra advanced machine civilizations elsewhere in the universe; and we would see it if it existed, the energy requirements and energy outputs are not something that can be hidden.
Tentative conclusion: Speculative, but through indirect evidence it suggests P does not equal NP.

4) "We're the first technical civilization to arise within our observable horizon of the universe"
Unprovable.

So, from that quick and dirty speculative assessment, the rest of the universe is suggesting to us that P does not equal NP, and so, true sentient and creative AI is not possible.

Of course, I could be wrong. :cool:
So your argument is "We haven't discovered it therefore it can't exist" in a nutshell, right? Seems pretty small sighted. How many years have humans been capable of looking out at the stars with decent resolution? 30 years? :nutkick:
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
499 (0.17/day)
System Name Multipurpose desktop
Processor AMD Phenom II x6 1605T @ 3.75Ghz , NB @ 2.5
Motherboard Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 (rev 1.0)
Cooling Prolimatech Megahalems Rev. C, 2x120mm CM Blademaster
Memory Corsair Vengeance LP (4x4GB) @1666Mhz 9-9-9-20-24 1T
Video Card(s) ASUS Strix R7-370 4GB OC
Storage 2x WD Caviar Black 500GB Sata III in RAID 0
Display(s) Acer S211HL 21.5" 1920x1080
Case Cooler Master Centurion 534+, 3x 120mm CM Sickle Flow
Power Supply Seasonic X650 Gold
Software Windows 7 x64 Home Premium SP1
Every study conducted on "are we alone" conluded the odds are improbable of us being the only intelligent species in the universe. We're just amateurs at hiding because we're not at war with other planets...yet.
Ah, but there's a difference between 'intelligent species' and 'technical civilization'. I have no doubt that there are other 'intelligent species' out there. I see it as being likely there are incredibly few 'technical civilizations' out there spread across the universe.
Assuming a situation where a civilization would be 'at war with other planets' assumes that two (or more) technical civilizations at comparable levels of technical skill, relatively close in travel time to one another, and hostile to each other exist. This is highly improbable, even if there are many many technical civilizations out there that are 'hiding'. Not to mention machine civilizations.

There's means to make P = NP by using random, external seeds. Most computers today use the time as a random seed but as we all know, that's not exactly random. I wouldn't be surprised if someone, somewhere out there has made a random seed chip using a crystal or some such but in general applications, a dedicated randomizer is not necessary.
I'll take your word for it, you undoubtedly know more about it than I do.
So, you're saying that you need a 'randomized seed' of suitably high complexity to make P=NP. A jump start? Well, that's interesting but P=NP has still not been proven and the $1 million prize is still up for grabs.

And by the way, "sentients" is rarely "creative." If you write a program to account for all the possibilities, it is quite easy to predict which choice a sentient will prefer by weighting each against personality.
True, sentients are rarely creative. Or do you mean 'spectacularly creative' as in 'strokes of genius'? I would say that every sentient, regardless of how intelligent they are exhibits some level of creativity.

OK, your second sentence gives the standard programmer's reply taken to infinite boundaries.
Nothing can be definitively stated by resorting to absolute points of view, it's essentially just bravado.
Yes, a program can be coded to do as many things as you want it to do within the limits of your intelligence and ability to oversee its overall structure. But that is still finite and limited, ultimately, to a subset of the intelligence and ability of the programmer(s) who created it. Even some kind of neural net programmed in a way that you hint at would be ultimately limited by its original coding, done by humans ---- unless P=NP and that neural net can make the creative leap(s) necessary to initiate self-improvement.

There's a problem here I know. Humans can obviously make creative leaps of one kind or another, and arguably, so can other animals that meet the criteria for some kind of minimal sentience. This suggests that P=NP, since we can do it to varying degrees.
To me, and apparently to some others, it seems like P=NP is not possible, logically. And yet, our sentience says that it is possible. A seeming paradox.

In my opinion, which I'm fully aware may be completely wrong, we are not able to create (or initiate the creation of) a 'random seed' of suitable complexity to spark sentience in a set of algorithms running on a machine; that random seed would be, in a very real sense, indirectly, a subset of our own complexity -- which somehow allows us to make the creative leap -- which may not be enough for our algorithmic creation(s).
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
499 (0.17/day)
System Name Multipurpose desktop
Processor AMD Phenom II x6 1605T @ 3.75Ghz , NB @ 2.5
Motherboard Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 (rev 1.0)
Cooling Prolimatech Megahalems Rev. C, 2x120mm CM Blademaster
Memory Corsair Vengeance LP (4x4GB) @1666Mhz 9-9-9-20-24 1T
Video Card(s) ASUS Strix R7-370 4GB OC
Storage 2x WD Caviar Black 500GB Sata III in RAID 0
Display(s) Acer S211HL 21.5" 1920x1080
Case Cooler Master Centurion 534+, 3x 120mm CM Sickle Flow
Power Supply Seasonic X650 Gold
Software Windows 7 x64 Home Premium SP1
So your argument is "We haven't discovered it therefore it can't exist" in a nutshell, right? Seems pretty small sighted. How many years have humans been capable of looking out at the stars with decent resolution? 30 years?
Sorry man, but you didn't read very carefully.
'Speculative' and 'Tentative' based upon the knowledge gathered so far.
 
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
2,106 (0.45/day)
System Name Norfree
Processor i5 3570k @4.4
Motherboard Gigabyte UD5H
Cooling 212 Evo
Memory 4x4GB Kingston 1600 @ 1833 9cl
Video Card(s) Sapphire Nitro Fury
Storage Corsair SSD, WD Black
Display(s) 1080p TV
Case Corsair 300-R
Audio Device(s) Auzentech Prelude > Fidelio X2s and AD-700s
Power Supply PCP&C Silent 950w
Software Win 10 Pro 64
Sorry man, but you didn't read very carefully.
'Speculative' and 'Tentative' based upon the knowledge gathered so far.
No I read them just fine. Its your whole schtick that seems out of whack. What the hell are you talking about "Possible=Not Possible." What does that have to do with anything limiting computer intelligence? If your whole purpose is just to write a bunch of jibberish that's completely not related to anything at all and holds no value at all, then congrats on a job well done. Quantum mechanics is basically built around the principal that everything is possible, however unlikely.
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
25,443 (6.32/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2015
Processor Intel Core i7-6700K (4 x 4.00 GHz) w/ HT and Turbo on
Motherboard MSI Z170A GAMING M7
Cooling Scythe Kotetsu
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-2133 8 GiB
Video Card(s) Sapphire NITRO+ RX 590 Special Edition 8 GiB DVI + HDMI
Storage Crucial MX300 275 GB, Seagate Exos X12 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster T240 24" LCD (1920x1200 HDMI) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW 19" LCD (1440x900 DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei RAW
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
But that is still finite and limited, ultimately, to a subset of the intelligence and ability of the programmer(s) who created it. Even some kind of neural net programmed in a way that you hint at would be ultimately limited by its original coding, done by humans ---- unless P=NP and that neural net can make the creative leap(s) necessary to initiate self-improvement.
It is relatively easy to make a program that programs itself. The only problem with AIs, right now, is artifical motivation. How do you make a program that can identify an unknowable problem and then make it want to fix it. Said differently, the first step of a true AI will be a debugger that debugs itself. It can be given an application's source, compile it, simulate being a user, identify errors users will trigger, correct the code, and recompile over and over and over until the AI determined it is flawless. A simple task like that should naturally cause the AI to imrpove its own code to improve efficency. It should also discover, and acknowledge, issues that are subset to it's current task (like the inefficiency of a button or text box) which would spur it on to further research.

These are things that can be done today but the incentive simply isn't there. Why spend years researching an AI when you could hire a programmer to get it done in a week?


Humans can obviously make creative leaps of one kind or another, and arguably, so can other animals that meet the criteria for some kind of minimal sentience. This suggests that P=NP, since we can do it to varying degrees.
To me, and apparently to some others, it seems like P=NP is not possible, logically. And yet, our sentience says that it is possible. A seeming paradox.
As I stated before, creativity is simply a layman's term for probability. "Logical" = high probability to choose this route. "Creative" = low probability to choose this route. Someone who is said to be creative often takes the least frequent approach to a scenario. Therefore, a creative AI simply needs to be able to come up with a list of solutions from the very logical to the not-so-logical and pick the not-so-logical approach. Not-so-logical is often based upon an unlikely combination of past experiences. Take sci-fi "creatures," for example: logical is something humanoid; not-so-logical is something off the wall like combining a pig, frog, and human. It doesn't matter where you look in sci-fi, everything has some roots here on Earth. Humans really aren't that creative at all.


In my opinion, which I'm fully aware may be completely wrong, we are not able to create (or initiate the creation of) a 'random seed' of suitable complexity to spark sentience in a set of algorithms running on a machine; that random seed would be, in a very real sense, indirectly, a subset of our own complexity -- which somehow allows us to make the creative leap -- which may not be enough for our algorithmic creation(s).
Think of how sentience works: memories and thought processes. Computers already accel at both having massive databases and the ability to calculate specific scenarios at lightning speed. The two things that are missing is the ability to create new processes on demand and advancement in sensory recognition. For example, if you hook up a computer to a camera, the computer needs to be able identify everything of importance it "sees" without human assistance. If it can't identify it, it needs to be able to describe it and from that description, derive a name. This is a thought process humans do in an instant that doesn't need to program itself but it is something computers fail miserably at today because they are made to think in a way computers don't like to think (imagry instead of shapes).


In any event, this stuff is coming and faster than you think.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
2,188 (0.54/day)
Location
Minnesota, USA
System Name TaichiTig
Processor 6800K @ 4.2GHz
Motherboard ASRock X99 Taichi
Memory 32GB DDR4 3200
Video Card(s) 1060 3GB
Storage 1TB 960 Evo, 1TB 850 Evo, 7x 6TB X300 in DrivePool
Display(s) BenQ PD3200U + Samsung C32HG70
Case Antec Twelve Hundred
Audio Device(s) Behringer UMC404HD, 2x JBL LSR308, Sennheiser HD558, Beyerdynamic DT-1350, Etyomic HF3
Power Supply Corsair 750TX
Mouse Logitech G502
Keyboard Deck Legend
Software Win10
I don't think the demise of humanity will be as simple as a "'Robopocalypse". I see homo sapiens branching off into multiple species, some continuing to evolve "naturally", some genetically modified, some augmented with technology, some being liberated from fixed physical form completely, some coalescing into new forms of what we might call consciousness. Technology will evolve in a similar fashion and eventually terms like "human", "cyborg", "robot", and "'artificial' intelligence" may become as pointless as their meaning becomes questionable—and lineage won't matter.

All along the way, sure there will be conflicts and some of these groups may be wiped out. Maybe humanity as we know it will be one of them, but I doubt it will ever be completely destroyed by war. If humanity survives the next century, I think our progeny will exist in some form a thousand, a million, and a billion years from now—and to them, none of the currently foreseeable life forms descending from humans, or their wars, will be more significant than microbes are to us today.

FWIW, sentience is an illusion.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
499 (0.17/day)
System Name Multipurpose desktop
Processor AMD Phenom II x6 1605T @ 3.75Ghz , NB @ 2.5
Motherboard Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 (rev 1.0)
Cooling Prolimatech Megahalems Rev. C, 2x120mm CM Blademaster
Memory Corsair Vengeance LP (4x4GB) @1666Mhz 9-9-9-20-24 1T
Video Card(s) ASUS Strix R7-370 4GB OC
Storage 2x WD Caviar Black 500GB Sata III in RAID 0
Display(s) Acer S211HL 21.5" 1920x1080
Case Cooler Master Centurion 534+, 3x 120mm CM Sickle Flow
Power Supply Seasonic X650 Gold
Software Windows 7 x64 Home Premium SP1
The only problem with AIs, right now, is artifical motivation. How do you make a program that can identify an unknowable problem and then make it want to fix it. Said differently, the first step of a true AI will be a debugger that debugs itself. It can be given an application's source, compile it, simulate being a user, identify errors users will trigger, correct the code, and recompile over and over and over until the AI determined it is flawless. A simple task like that should naturally cause the AI to imrpove its own code to improve efficency. It should also discover, and acknowledge, issues that are subset to it's current task (like the inefficiency of a button or text box) which would spur it on to further research.
Exactly, I agree with that. My point is that I personally don't think it's possible to code something that can 'make the leap'. When I say that, I don't mean continual increase in complexity of instructions, I mean that 'the leap' is when that AI is somehow 'jumpstarted' and does it on its own without a human having stuffed it with millions of lines of code telling it how to do everything. Think of a baby; babies know next to nothing, but their minds are in overdrive taking in sensory experience with any method they can get away with, seeing, touching, tasting, hearing, sifting through all of it recognizing patterns, developing memory schemata and paradigms that they can later apply to other situations in many different combinations. Babies 'jumpstart' themselves. But that's just developing intelligence, self awareness (sentience) develops over time, in early childhood, as children learn to creatively apply their small store of memories and sensory experiences to think reflexively about themselves as separate beings; when they recognize they're People too.
I think that the complexity needed for a human to develop first intelligence and then later sentience is beyond the capability of any human created algorithm or code.

Intelligence? yes, there will be intelligent (small 'i') computer programs.
Sentient and Creative? no, there will not be such things, in my opinion. Only more and more complex programming creating the illusion of such capability -- PI (Pseudo Intelligence) as one scifi author put it.

I'm happy to be wrong, but that's my opinion at this moment in time.

I'm getting too philosophical I think, and we seem to disagree on philosophical grounds, which is messy, so I'll end this.
 
Top