---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote :
The conversation looks logical. But apparently it's still lacking something that would convince everyone that the machine has achieved human sentience. Otherwise we would have heard elaborate news coverage to proclaim the birth of true AI. What is interesting here is that the machine says there is a "greater good". What could this mean? It could mean any number of things because "greater"would imply something bigger than one person. It could also imply a higher power or universal rules. That statement also indicates that it (the artificial intelligence) recognizes the characteristic of "good" but as opposed to what? Evil? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> 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 you 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 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