Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Artificial Intelligence

Jonathan Bartlett on why we can’t upload our brains to computers

The idea that we can upload our brains to computers to avoid death shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the differences between types of thinking. Read More ›

Jonathan Bartlett points out a key contradiction about “thinking robots” and “robot rights”

If we were able to make intelligent and sentient AIs, wouldn’t that mean we would have to stop programming them? It would be unethical for me to force you to do my will, so wouldn’t the same thing be true with AIs? [Not that it is ever going to happen, but... ] Read More ›

Test: If naturalists are right, totalitarian states should be just as creative as free ones

A Chinese university is dumping intellectual freedom from their charters yet China hopes to be the world’s top AI power. Is there a contradiction here? Read More ›

VIDEO: Digital unwrapping and reading of the En Gedi OT scroll

News has posted on this recent technological development. It is worth taking a couple of minutes to watch the video describing and imaging what was done using AI technologies: Fascinating, what 3-d scanning can do. It also of course corroborates the known result from the main Dead Sea Scroll finds, that the OT text was faithfully transmitted to posterity from remote times. END PS: Chain of custody for the NT message and by extension its texts: PPS: HT NewScientist, a case of Lead-based ink pigment detected in a papyrus manuscript written in Greek uncials:

Biblical archeology gets a boost from AI

As with the Dead Sea Scrolls, when they did decipher it, using AI, they found it was the same Scriptural texts as elsewhere. Which reinforces the fact that ancient peoples were not in the habit of simply rewriting the Scriptures now and then according to taste. Read More ›

Is a merger with machines nearer—or impossible?

As Robert J. Marks put it, Non-algorithmic things (things that cannot be calculated), “cannot be uploaded.” Human consciousness, little as we understand it, appears to be one of those non-algorithmic things. Read More ›

Is Mathematics falling under the sway of a computerised, AI-driven celebrity-authority culture?

Two recent remarks in VICE (a telling label, BTW) raise some significant concerns. First, Kevin Buzzard — no, this is not Babylon Bee [itself a sign when it is harder and harder to tell reality from satire] — Sept 26th: Number Theorist Fears All Published Math Is Wrong “I think there is a non-zero chance that some of our great castles are built on sand,” he said, arguing that we must begin to rely on AI to verify proofs. [ . . . ] Kevin Buzzard, a number theorist and professor of pure mathematics at Imperial College London, believes that it is time to create a new area of mathematics dedicated to the computerization of proofs. The greatest proofs have Read More ›

Talking to a computer? Marks and Montañez offer tips on how to tell

Robert J. Marks: It’s always easy to determine if you are talking to a computer or a human. You can just ask them to compute the square root of 30 or something because a human would take a while to get the square root of thirty … Read More ›

Does the Turing test help establish ID theory’s legitimacy?

The Turing test for design in computers relies on the same principles as the detection of design in nature. The materialist can have, in principle, no intelligence in either computers or nature or possible intelligence in both. But he can’t pick and choose. Read More ›

Before you turn it all over to AI: Why the Laws of Robotics fail

Jonathan Bartlett, Eric Holloway, and Brendan Dixon explain: Prolific science and science fiction writer Isaac Asimov (1920–1992) developed the Three Laws of Robotics, in the hope of guarding against potentially dangerous artificial intelligence. They first appeared in his 1942 short story Runaround: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. Asimov fans tell us that the laws were implicit in his earlier stories. A 0th law was added Read More ›