Monte Carlo simulations do not address this question in any way. Being programmed is perfectly compatible with being unpredictable. Isn’t this your claim: we can program computers to be unpredictable? A computer is not unpredictable on its own. If we program it to be unpredictable, it is.

Intelligence IS an emergent phenomenon. And yes, the primitive operations are not that interesting. But isn’t this because the primitive operations have nothing to do with intelligence? What do primitive organic operations have to do with intelligence? We aren’t striving to create computers that can replicate the behavior of amoeba, even though amoeba may teach us a great deal about the “informational context” of primitive organic operations. It isn’t until we get to the highest order of organic beings and one in particular, man, that we see the intelligence we are striving to recreate. Yet all our attention is paid to the primitive operations! Since we assume that the key at this level is unpredictability, we are blind when it comes to the crucial transformation; the actual, eventual, emergence of intelligence.

I would suggest there is a much more relevant context than the informational context of the primitive operations, a context specific to the organic being(s) we should be most concerned with, since this is the intelligence by which we will measure our success in creating artificial intelligence. This is the context of our needs as we feel and express them. Will we create computers that feel pain or pleasure? Will we try to create a context in which a machine will fear death, or feel anger, shame, love, joy? Is our emerging experience of these things not crucial to the emergence of our intelligence? Do these needs, feelings and experiences tied to our organic existence not shape or channel, and limit our intelligence? Do they not provide it a goal and end? Can we supply computers with these needs? Will they have to first develop these so that they have the proper context for the emergence of the phenomenon of intelligence? But we don’t consider any of this because we look only at the “primitive operations” on the one hand and the end result, intelligence, on the other. And we forget about these absolutely crucial intermediate steps, which grow out of the context of our needs, presumably because it is beyond our control to shape or create such a context.

Isn’t the hidden presupposition of EVERY claim that we can program machines with HUMAN intelligence that there is a GOD responsible for ours? Demonstrate this God!

http://wfnt.com/why-fruit-fly-testes-matter-and-not-just-to-lady-fruit-flies/

The flawed argument is saying that simple rule statements directly implement intelligence. It was understood decades ago that complex adaptive systems in many layers of organization are required for complex behavior leading to intelligence. Physics is a simple (or not so simple) set of “rules” which implements humans. But so what? The informational structures in brains, etc. are not directly derivable from such physics and any more than they will be derivable from the primitive operations of the hardware implementing machine intelligence.

http://vimeo.com/42895938

I do believe that AI’s will one day write great symphonies, perform ballets and even write music that can bring us to tears; but it will all be done for us, not for themselves.

Someone might say that AI’s could be programed to have emotions, but if these machines really are intelligent, why would they do that? They would already be aware of an “organic machine” that was capable of learning about and appreciating life. They would just find some way to interface with us, because we have the one thing they are incapable of, appreciation.

I believe our next stage may be OI (Organic Intelligence). Who knows, maybe one day we can reprogram our own DNA by thought.

Regarding “intelligence” – people like Schmidhuber, myself as one of them, and I share his school of thought, define intelligence before using the word. They don’t talk about some random meaning that a random person walking down the street has believed it should mean.

Intelligence defined formally can be decided as “present” or “not” anywhere, and as defined by Schmidhuber it can be measured in a machine or not.

As of sentient beings, thinking machines could say the same thing to you. You doesn’t have intelligence and you’re not self-aware – you even don’t understand how elementary and mechanic creativity in fact is, you apparently believe your intelligence is “magic”, and besides – you’re so much slower than a computer in so trivial fields. Therefore, you’re neither intelligent, nor you have conscious. Sorry. :)

Humans also are “designed” and “programmed” to do what they do either, it’s all about defining “designed” and “programmed” and the details about. Every molecule or subsystem in human physiology can be assumed as “designed” to do what it does, and if it doesn’t work “correctly” (is not set “correctly” in some sense of “correctly” and some point of view), something breaks down and goes “wrong” in that POV – a neuronal signal, a cell, an organ, a behavior, or the existence of the entire organism ceases.

But computers in robots solve problems they encounter. But how does a computer encounter a problem? AI encounters problems when carrying out directives. We may no longer have to direct in order to solve the problem. But our direction is what led it into the “problem.” Without our directives, or mission, no problem. And how does it solve it? By accessing information. By looking through folders. All computation is based on accessing the 1′s and the 0′s. The outcome is necessary. Every computation of how to solve the problem will result in the same most efficient solution, until the parameters are changed. If you look in the same file folder over and over, you find the same information. (A huge advantage in a tool.)

So creative thinking is a question. You avoid the question, ‘do machines only do what they are designed and programmed to do?’ by changing the terms. What does the difference between an organic and non-organic brain have to do with this? If organic brains give necessary, pre-programmed answers, they would also be incapable of creative thinking, would they not? Is that what organic brains do? Is that what non-organic brains do? Is an organic brain a tool, in the same what that non-organic brains are? If so, who or what uses that tool?

So your argument is “because I say so?” I am afraid it is not a good argument, you will have to do a bit better if you want to be taken seriously here.

Re “Machines do what they are designed and programmed to do, they will never think creatively,..”

Another non-argument. Can you explain why you say so, and what is the difference in-principle between an organic and a non-organic brain?

Have you seen Transcendent Man? It’s a documentary on Ray Kurzweil, and death is powerfully present in it from the opening. Death is no longer something to be resigned to; such resignation is no longer the only rational approach to death, according to Kurzweil. Death will be overcome through scientific progress. Thanks to the exponential growth of various technologies, we will conquer death in the near future. We read about advances in this direction all the time.

The reason I like Kurzweil so well is that he looks at the big picture of this development. But there are problems, it seems to me. He views technological advance as an extension of biological advance, i.e., evolution. He takes as given the pinnacle of biological evolution, human intelligence as a tool that aids our survival. Right now, human intelligence as a tool that has evolved for the sake of human survival, directs ALL technological advance toward the goal it has served since it emerged hundreds of thousands of years ago. It’s older than that, even. Survival is THE biological goal, and human intelligence is but a tool that has proven extraordinarily useful in the pursuit of this goal. Yes, I understand that computers now assist us enormously (and have for some time, and increasingly so) in all areas of technology creation. But they are no more than an extension of the original tool and model, human intelligence. This in no way replaces the goal for the sake of which we apply EITHER tool. The end for the sake of which we create technology creating technology remains the ancient goal of biological existence, survival, our survival, and even our individual survival. Will this change? In fictional dialogues with post singularity individuals, it is clear that the morality the developed for the sake of biological evolution somehow remains operative. But how can this be if it is divorced from the needs for the sake of which it developed?

If human intelligence emerged because of this need, and serves this need, how will an artificial intelligence emerge without need? Or what will this need be? Will we have to build the need as well? Will we try to engineer AI that feels pleasure and pain? That fears for its survival? That loves? If AI has no such motives, what will drive it? Right now, the most that Kurzweil envisions are machines that understand and respond to human emotions, i.e., that will be able to detect emotions, with whatever array of physiology reading sensors, and responding in a way we’ve programmed as appropriate given the emotion it detects. But I want to know if these machines will FEEL emotions? And if they don’t, how can they really be said to understand them?

Over at SciForums, Singularity thread, on a machine’s “need” for energy:

Yes, machines need energy to function. But do they need to function? Would a machine struggle to survive, e.g.? Would it fight for energy, if energy were scarce? Right now, we use machines to help us do things that we need or desire to do. The machine needs energy to fulfill this task. But we supply it with the task. The originating source of motion is OUR need.

In “The Singularity is Near,” Kurzweil talks about how complex it is to reverse engineer the brain and then with this knowledge, design a machine that will “understand and respond to emotion,” which is also very complex and will require a vast expansion of computational power. I don’t doubt that such a machine is coming, and soon. But the question is whether or not the machine that can understand and RESPOND to emotion will FEEL emotion? If it doesn’t, then the only reason to make a machine that can understand and respond to emotion will be for the sake of biological human beings, who do FEEL emotion. We understand and respond to emotion with far less computational power than computers BECAUSE we feel them. If a machine does not feel emotion, if a machine cannot be elated or dejected, head-over-heels in love or heart-broken, proud or ashamed, confident or fearful, etc., how can it be said to UNDERSTAND these emotions? I have no doubt we will build machines that will get better and better at calculating how to respond to the emotions it detects human beings experiencing, through voice analysis, brain scanning, etc. But human beings are much more efficient, require FAR LESS computational power to understand and respond to emotion, BECAUSE we FEEL emotions. From an engineering perspective then, it would seem to make sense to engineer machines that feel pleasure and pain, and everything else we feel and need them to respond to, based on the principle: no superfluous complexity. Only as complex as needed to solve the problem. Is it more complex to build a machine that FEELS emotion? Is it even possible? Or, is this a benefit to have intelligence that does not truly experience emotion, pain, pleasure…? We only need machines that respond to emotion in the mean time, until we move beyond them ourselves. Is that it?

“Creative machines invent their own self-generated tasks to achieve wow-effects by figuring out how the world works and what can be done within it. Currently, we just have little case studies. But in a few decades, such machines will have more computational power than human brains.”

But my question is, will creative machines experience “wow effects” AS wow effects? Humans experience wow effects AS wow effects, which is WHY we are able to detect and create them. Will creative machines not require “more computational power than human brains” to get to wow effects, precisely because for these machines there are NO wow effects as we experience them?

A similar question presents itself regarding this statement:

“Now you say: OK, computers will be faster than brains, but they lack the general problem-solving software of humans, who apparently can learn to solve all kinds of problems!”

I would say the question is NOT about the problem-solving “software,” or ability. The question is about experiencing a problem AS a problem. Humans have problems, and machines help us solve them. But will machines ever have their OWN problems? Problems as we experience them. Problems that grow out needs, needs tied to biology. Will machines have needs? That is the question. Not whether machines will ever be capable of meeting needs that needy creatures experience, for problem solving or creativity. What will machines NEED? Intelligence grows out of need, and does not equal computation.

http://wfnt.com/singularity-and-the-new-600-man/

Just today, Jane Goodall was interviewed in New York and observed that the 90 degree temperatures were the result of Global Warming. Such sophistry highlights the true nature of Global Warming politics.

But this function may very well be unnecessary in the future and therefore this functionality may be removed.

Can’t find a way to happiness? Happiness is in the brain. The brain can be altered. Therefore you literally build your own happiness.

I have never lived in paradise. Maybe I will like having whatever I want and never being sick or afraid.

That sounds like a line from The Matrix Revolutions. I would like to try it the other way for a while.

The human urge for self-preservation comes from billions of years of struggling to survive and reproduce. It does not come from being self-aware. We are so accustomed to this urge that we cannot separate it from our conscious experience. We view it as being a priori.

Machines need not have this urge. They could be completely altruistic. We could design them to be smarter than us, but act only on our human needs.

The fundamental mistake most scientists make is to ignore the interruptive power of consciousness. Sentience causes self-preservation instinct in ever wider ways. The very fact that you can perceive yourself gives you the ability to control your direction, and ensure your longevity, if you choose. Just because our “offspring” (the machines) will have a greater capacity for doing this, too, doesn’t negate our ability to do it. As sentient, self-aware beings, intelligent AI will have morality and “sense of life” as we do. We want to live and explore as long as we can, and that won’t change just because our “kids” are smarter than us. Also, they won’t wipe us out just because we’re “less capable” than them.

I imagine our future looks a lot like the lives of our pets, but with an infinite playground. We’ll be taken care of by our stronger-faster-smarter AI, and left free to play as we like. Or, if we choose to, we’ll integrate with the technology we have created and remain peers to our heirs.

When viewed in this way, AI becomes a relatively simple problem. I can see a clear path from here to his Omega Point. Curiously, it may involve very little gain in understanding of how the human brain processes information.