Dr. Robert J. Marks’s new book, Non-Computable You: What You Do That Artificial Intelligence Never Will (Discovery Institute Press, 2022), comes out just as Google has placed an engineer on leave for claiming an AI chatbot he tends is a real person…
Using artificial intelligence (AI) for warfare has been the promise of science fiction and politicians for years, but new research argues only so much can be automated and shows the value of human judgment.
Wesley Smith talks with Dr. Elaina George about the new secular religion of Transhumanism or H+ — immortality without tears for atheists — if it’s even possible.
Curiously, we humans often invent things by design for a purpose and yet, when we find the same things in nature, some conclude that
Takehome: Curiously, we humans often invent things by design for a purpose and yet, when we find the same things in nature, some conclude that there is no design or purpose in nature…
One problem: Before life exists, there is nothing for purely natural selection to select. How the robots, themselves a product of design, can help is unclear.
What is actually remarkable is the sheer amount of processing power needed to bring computers up to the level of even the most basic human player! This indicates the human mind is doing something totally different and extraordinarily more efficient than the best AI algorithms we have today.
Holloway: There are hard, practical reasons why computers cannot understand concepts like “infinity” and “truth” and therefore cannot be conscious.
The GPT-3 program can get through grammatical issues on which others stumble, says Robert J. Marks. It is a simulation because the AI can perform the task but does not “understand” what the concepts mean: The classic test for AI common sense is resolution of Winograd schema. Winograd schema contain vague, ambiguous pronouns. Common sense Read More…
Calling these stem cells “self-reproducing robots” is like saying that humans create catbots when a pet cat produces a litter of kittens.
The friend who forwarded this story notes, “Even though we didn’t know maybe half of what’s in our cells, we somehow knew that most of the genome is junk?” Darwinism did that, of course. It was the Darwinians who needed the idea that most of the genome is junk.
Rees and colleagues assume that artificial intelligences can be creative thinkers. But the evidence so far is against that view. It’s not necessarily a matter of just ramping up the technology. By their very nature, computers compute but creative thinking is largely non-computational. We should keep that in mind when we encounter breathless media releases claiming to have overcome the problem.
The problem with getting AI to understand causation, as opposed to mere correlation, has led to many spurious correlations in data driven papers.
The Turing test, and the Lovelace test, are attempts to determine if computers can show human-like intelligence. Holloway asks, what happens if researchers succeed in creating lifelike machines? in the sense of “wanting” things? “If we create an all-powerful artificial intelligence, we cannot assume it will be friendly. Thus, we need a Terminator test.”
The next iterations of science fraud will employ machine learning trained on enough of the internet to avoid obvious goofs. We will need better, more sophisticated methods.
This is just a note for record on what monism is (as opposed to dualism, Creation by a Supreme and maximally great and good being, etc). A useful point of departure is a diagram from Wikipedia on dualism (and they give only one type) vs monism: Wikipedia notes, next to this: Different types of monism Read More…