Re: Tthe New Leader

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:32:52 -0500, Matthew Scott
<scottm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


El Castor wrote:

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 00:59:30 -0500, Matthew Scott wrote:
The concept which I have the most trouble getting a handle on is
"self-programming" computers being more intelligent than a human mind.
How will the original (human) designers program in creativity,
invention, ideation, innovation, and so on? There's little doubt that
computers can tirelessly deal with repetitive, boring tasks with great
accuracy and relative rapidity, but I'm unconvinced that
human-equivalent AI will be able to replace the human mind, no matter
how complex or speedy (or "intelligent, whatever that means) a computer
may be in the future.

Matthew, I'm sorry to say that I believe that human intelligence will
without question be surpassed by either a computer, or some
combination of biological and machine intelligence. It's simply going
to happen -- not in our lifetimes, but in the not too distant future.
It's inevitable. Whether it takes 50 years or 500 is irrelevant. Look
at the span of human history. 50, 500, or 5,000 is the blink of an
eye. Fifty years ago there barely was such a thing as a computer. Now
the best human Grand Master is no match for a chess playing computer.
Read this -- very interesting.
http://www.singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity

Here is a portion of the overview you cited:

"[L]eave aside for the moment the question of how to build smarter
minds, and ask what "smarter-than-human" really means. And as the basic
definition of the Singularity points out, this is exactly the point at
which our ability to extrapolate breaks down. We don't know because
we're not that smart. We're trying to guess what it is to be a
better-than-human guesser. Could a gathering of apes have predicted the
rise of human intelligence, or understood it if it were explained? For
that matter, could the 15th century have predicted the 20th century, let
alone the 21st? Nothing has changed in the human brain since the 15th
century; if the people of the 15th century could not predict five
centuries ahead across constant minds, what makes us think we can
outguess genuinely smarter-than-human intelligence?"

To state my point again, I have great difficulty understanding how human
creativity can be replicated. Whether it's art, music, literature,
science, or any other area where creative thought is paramount, I just
don't see it. Certainly the engineers can devise faster and more complex
computer systems than the human mind, but can a computer paint a Mona
Lisa, or write a concerto, or create a novel, or independently invent
the replacement for the transistor? I don't know, and neither does
anyone else, but there's a huge difference between playing robotic chess
and creating something out of thin air.

That's because you are thinking in terms of the computer sitting on
your desk. The human brain is nothing more nor less than a computer.
Granted, it's a very sophisticated computer, that learns and repairs
itself, but there is nothing divine about it, and it has it's
limitations, both in terms of size and speed.

Just like the piece said, you can't imagine what's next any more than
a man of the 15th century could predict the 20th century -- and
neither can I. I am sure of this, we are one day going to produce
something that is better at improving itself than we are, and then in
some ways the jig will be up.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Tthe New Leader
    ... "self-programming" computers being more intelligent than a human mind. ... How will the original designers program in creativity, ... Nothing has changed in the human brain since the 15th ... engineers can devise faster and more complex computer systems than the ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Tthe New Leader
    ... How will the original designers program in creativity, invention, ideation, innovation, and so on? ... There's little doubt that computers can tirelessly deal with repetitive, boring tasks with great accuracy and relative rapidity, but I'm unconvinced that human-equivalent AI will be able to replace the human mind, no matter how complex or speedy a computer may be in the future. ... Nothing has changed in the human brain since the 15th century; if the people of the 15th century could not predict five centuries ahead across constant minds, what makes us think we can outguess genuinely smarter-than-human intelligence?" ... Certainly the engineers can devise faster and more complex computer systems than the human mind, but can a computer paint a Mona Lisa, or write a concerto, or create a novel, or independently invent the replacement for the transistor? ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: this post is not about bowling balls
    ... (as well as a lack of creativity). ... it's about how the human mind works. ... there angry and stiff at the end of a long polished lane. ... Perhaps "grace" was a poor word choice... ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Tthe New Leader
    ... There's little doubt that computers can tirelessly deal with repetitive, boring tasks with great accuracy and relative rapidity, but I'm unconvinced that human-equivalent AI will be able to replace the human mind, no matter how complex or speedy a computer may be in the future. ... the best human Grand Master is no match for a chess playing computer. ... Nothing has changed in the human brain since the 15th century; if the people of the 15th century could not predict five centuries ahead across constant minds, what makes us think we can outguess genuinely smarter-than-human intelligence?" ... I have great difficulty understanding how human creativity can be replicated. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: OT: Sam Harris on Francis Collins
    ... "He claims that the human mind cannot be the product of the ... human brain or the human brain the product of unguided evolution: ... mockery of whole fields of study?neuroscience, psychology, cognitive ... must look to religion to explain our moral sense, ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
Loading