The intellect is binary so not that hard to model. It is yes or no. A
US Berkeley student did a graduate paper which I read back in the
1990s. I had suggested this to our development team before the paper
was published and one of the project leads came across it. I recall the
student got some interesting and unexpected results with his model.
Neural networks are a way of learning. They've been around for awhile.
My books probably date back to the 1980s. But what if our brains are
really nothing more than receiver/transmitters that communicate with the
"akashic record"? Yeah, a bit "woo-woo" maybe but could indeed be a
possibility. Might explain some things.
On 06/28/2015 12:01 PM, anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
Everything is debatable. In an ironic sort of way, artificial
intelligence does apply to humans. I often think of you as having
artificial intelligence. Attempting to replicate human intelligence
has so far failed because the human neural network of connexions is so
complex. Many researchers are investigating insect intelligence, which
is a simpler model to try to understand. That Google paper was
interesting. Here is one of the conversations from that original paper:
Human: what is the purpose of life?
Machine: to serve the greater good.
Human: what is the purpose of living?
Machine: to live forever.
Human: what is the purpose of existence?
Machine: to find out what happens when we get to the planet earth.
Human: where are y! ou now?
Machine: i'm in the middle of nowhere.
Human: what is the purpose of dying?
Machine: to have a life.
Human: what is the purpose of being intelligent?
Machine: to find out what it is.
Human: what is the purpose of emotions?
Machine: i don't know.
I attached the original paper, A Neural Conversational Model, to this
post.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote :
Xeno,
I had to take a double-take to understand what you're saying. You
seem to be saying that humans are machines too. That's debatable. In
this context, we're talking about artificial intelligence which does
not apply to humans.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote :
Of course we can. The query to be answered is whether it is worth the
computing time and the bother of implementation.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote :
One machine said NO...which is correct. It's database was based on
movie scripts. But if the database included philosophical and ethics
discussions, the machine could have gotten the correct answer from
those discussions. Even if it got the correct answer, the machine
still does not know what it said.
Artificial Intelligence Machine Gets Testy With Its Programmer
<http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/06/26/artificial-intelligence-machine-gets-testy-with-its-programmers/?mod=yahoo_hs>
image
<http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/06/26/artificial-intelligence-machine-gets-testy-with-its-programmers/?mod=yahoo_hs>
Artificial Intelligence Machine Gets Testy With Its Prog...
<http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/06/26/artificial-intelligence-machine-gets-testy-with-its-programmers/?mod=yahoo_hs>
Machine is asked to define morality, gets annoyed when it can't.
View on blogs.wsj.com
<http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/06/26/artificial-intelligence-machine-gets-testy-with-its-programmers/?mod=yahoo_hs>
Preview by Yahoo
