an artifical intelligence will run on different hardware

no shit

but if the algorithm is a FUNCTION of specific hardware

it's can't self-seed

NNs will also not have the empathy mechanism like we do

bio-neurons have a workaround for that to achieve prioritization, but in an atomized sense yeah.

NNs lack the gut bacteria influencing its decisions with serotonine

that is a meta detail, way out of scope

please define self-seed

of course it won't have empathy

what is nns

nanodes?

Neural Networks

o

What if the next step in AI is to make it run on human bodies and brains?

@Irreversal Neural Networks. A simulated neuron network of an actual brain function

neural networks could have empathy, it depends on how we seed them

heard of it before i think

self-seeding means that a mechanism or algorithm for evolving intelligence lacks the boundary elements and convention to evolve that algorithm

to split hair on that an say it is illusory empathy is an odd choice because you could do the exact same thing with humans

@Kealor the underlying rason for that empathy though will be a set of rules in a file, not the complicated instinct that needs an interplay between a lymbic system, several other glands and gut bacteria giving you extra chemicals...

the boundry elements and convention for intelligence is simply an extention of the brain's need to organize and compress stimulus information without increasing O^n with every new input

do you mean "a lack of self-seeding --"?

Damnit, I'm trying to hold on, but need to shut down for at least a few hours. >.<; Cheers.

@ManAnimal you can make NN that is self-crorrecting, and/or self--evolving

@Uksio yes but it could be manifested still without chemical imballances. the mechanism would be different but it would result in a behaviour pattern that is rather similar to empathy

self-seeding involves two factors: 1) optimization criteria and their selection and 2) the ability of any algorithm to self-organize new input which lacks and initial schema

Poor lauci. I feel bad for a person that is left out because of ignorance on the topic

in the same way that other animals engage in hierarchies but lack a system for serotonin

True

and it is conceptually possible for machines to achieve that phenomena

But that is not an impossibility, merely systems are not there yet

Hahaha. No. But even though you brought up a good counterpoint, MMI has the risk of overtaxing the biological components.

it is far easier to optimize a specific task however, it is another thing entirely to select a goal and then decide what task to pursuit

Anyhow, now I actually sleep.

Sweet dreams.

it's a mathematically limitation though

Let your brain sort your memories in peace

but do you acknowledge that you are essentially claiming that because we dont know how to make true AI now, true AI is impossible

do you know Big-O notation in regards to relating number of inputs to processing time?

It is a mathematical limit for your *current* hardware

that is not what i am implying at all

yes

it isn't a limitation

New and much more capable hardware will not be affected by said limit

it's a design decision

evolution suffers from the phrase, "you cannot get there from here"

Google recently made and proven a freaking quantum chip

a NN models and intermideate step

It did 10 000 computational years of work in few minutes

yes computational self-development will be much more powerful when it is achieved

preselected optimized criteria

i havent actualyl looked into that yet

has google actually proven it sufficiently?

10 000 years. Nigger chip can crack your high security encryptions by brute force

we can ALREADY process discrete info in superior fashion to the human brain

further pursuing the route won't arrive at intelligence; only faster computation of pre-selected criteria

It is a very specialised set of tasks for the computers

Our brains are the opposite

intelligence is the SELECTION of criteria

Very generalised

not application

the human mind "can" process discrete information in an efficient manner, we just dont have nearly as direct an access to those mechanisms as a computer does

sure

it manifests in how autists "visualize" mathematic phenomenal

but a computer can't come CLOSE to the parallel processing ability of the human brain

no contest

a neural network is the result of intelligence

the parts of the brain wired for optical calculations are extremely sophisticated and its suspected that their brains are bypassing the normal mental methods to work through mathematics usign those same processes

not the source

thats is a massive assertion

and that's the disagreement

my fucking god this _name in winders kills me

most see the brain as being like a computer, each portion having specific hardware

The machine just does not do searches with normal spaces and blaNAMEbla formats

rather than the brain being like a memory register

winders is dumb this way

where the hardware is the same, but the parts of memory which handle certain functions are because of a running kernel

that is an empirically defined system though

there is no way to tell these apart empirically

bridging that with the constructed system of computational processing is likely what will lead to the development of ai, rather than sohpisticated illusions

agreed

singularity

just because it hasnt been bridged yet doesnt mean a bridge is impossible as you seem to be claiming

why can't NN be the source and a result of intelligence?
That's literally a description of an evolutionary lööp

which is one of the key reasons i think they are greatly exaggerating

because a NN doesn't self-seed nor can it handle selection of optimzation criteria

or atleast by virtue of them being different, to assert that they fundamentally cannot be merged requires more than just the assertion

how does it not self-seed?
There are NNs that create other NNs and evaluate them

oh 100% everytime any company uses the term "AI" they are full of shit

Neural networking is a phenomena relatively detatched from its namesake

Constantly improving NNs that do a better version of self is literally what Amazon spends billions on

because these are two seperate processes and the input schema is always pre-defined

the brain doesn't require you to know what you are looking for when you first encounter an instance

btw Amazon throws out algorythms that are starting to make too many decisions

lol

you create a representation in it's mind and until you associate that with a definition, you only have it's identity

Imagine a poor algyrythm being "I am self-sentien"
Amazon: delet

machines are capeable of the same behaviour

behaviour?