Could a self aware machine ever be a possibility?

Could a self aware machine ever be a possibility?

Could an Android waifu with actually feelings for me ever exist?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=8CiuNMb24K0
youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo
youtu.be/nkcKaNqfykg
youtu.be/R-lcyYmQDyw)
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>Could a self aware machine ever be a possibility?
haha No.
>Could an Android waifu with actually feelings for me ever exist?
no, you lonely loser. Go outside and find another lonely loser.

Consciousness is just brain signals.

Why would it be an impossibility to recreate that?

>just brain signals

That's where you're wrong, kid. There's no way consciousness is a product of the brain. That's why AI will NEVER be self aware.

>No way consciousness is a product of the brain
Source?

But you can recreate consciousness by creating another human being ;)

>Could a self aware machine ever be a possibility?
Ask IBM, they're simulating macro structures within the brain for DARPA to see if consciousness emerges.

>Could a self aware machine ever be a possibility?
yes
>Will you be able to profit of it ?
not in your life time not in a 1000 years i'd say

Yeah but they won't let me fuck that fir a good number of years

On the most simple of basis, you can simulate the chemistry of the brain with any sufficiently powerful computer and sufficient understanding of the brain, so theoretically, obviously.
The question is more of if we can create a digital equivalent to how the brain works, that is greatly simplified and efficient.

In b4 retards who think things that don't interact with the four fundamental forces of the universe exist.

In after because one already popped by

>Could a self aware machine ever be a possibility?
We're just self aware machines after all, so obviously. Just probably not in our lifetimes.

>Could an Android waifu with actually feelings for me ever exist?
Don't be silly, user. If it had actual feelings, it'd choose someone better, like a real person would. What you looking for is a sex bot that ACTS like it has feelings.

>Could an Android waifu with actually feelings for me ever exist?
No, because if said ability existed she would have feelings for me, nerd.

This

>Consciousness is just brain signals.
Source?

>Could a self aware machine ever be a possibility?
Yes, just like our brains are nothing more than complex biological machinery. Consciousness is just a byproduct of it.

>Could an Android waifu with actually feelings for me ever exist?
WHY would you DO THAT?! Create self aware consciousness just to make it suffer?

Its already here.
youtube.com/watch?v=8CiuNMb24K0

10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.004

When it actually can be done, doing so would literally be slavery, as pointed out by:
Seriously, don't go creating life just to force it to some role or purpose. Make a soft AI at like, a dog's level if you want to be morally grey, but full on sentient, sapient machines as property (like in Star Wars) is full on, morally reprehensible.

Always thought the brain simulation project is bit dumb.

Its like trying to simulate a bird body for flight system. Kinda useless and dumb. Its better to simply study the mechanics/algorithms that make the brain. Fluid mechanics for flight. Pattern recognition for consciousness.

>but full on sentient, sapient machines as property (like in Star Wars)
This. I always found it fucked up, I understand the point of complex programming for self preservation by inducing pain, but it's just cruel, dumb AI would do just as well as drones.

That's the thing, we don't know shit about the brain, hence such experiments and projects help to expand our knowledge in the first place.
Obviously a good AI won't be a simulation of a brain, it's like running something with an emulator for a simple task, but instead make it fully optimized, but to get there, we first have to study things more, that's what we are doing.

>That's the thing, we don't know shit about the brain

What do you even mean, 'we don't know shit about the brain'

We know alot about the human brain

I don't remember the video where I saw this but basically the short response is that there's very little chance that machines can become truly human because our experience is based on more than the firing synapses in our brains. Our biology, our very body changes our perception so unless you can create a machine that has a body exactly like a human (and then one can argue it's not a machine anymore it's just bio-engineering) then it will never be like us.
But that doesn't mean machines can't be a different kind of intelligence entirely and that we'll somehow create a symbiosis with each other.

>because our experience is based on more than the firing synapses in our brains.

wtfamireading.jpg

What I was trying to say is that brains can't be compared to computers because they're fundamentally different. So it's not a matter of reaching greater compute powers in order to recreate a brain.

We, as a species, have very little knowledge and information about what makes the brain tick. Most of it is physical evidence and no actual arguments to why.
To know better, we have to create our own simulations, that's what we are doing.

They are fundamentally different now, but that is changing rapidly with neural networks and machine learning

Actually we know a lot about what makes the brain tick. Not all, not the most, but a lot. Brainlets don't know shit about how the brains work.

The real problem is communicating what we know about the brain to the brainlets who believe in something magical. Almost 3/4 of the US population believe a magical thing exist in our body that controls it. Its useless to communicate with them and tell them otherwise.

>no actual arguments to why.
What do you mean why?

Yes and no, we could put your brain in a vat and connect sensory devices to it, you would still be you as far as your consciousness goes and you will still perceive the world, just differently, so could artificially created consciousness.
Our architectures are fundamentally different, but the basics is the same, but we are working on developing hardware that isn't.

>we could put your brain in a vat and connect sensory devices to it

This is purely science fiction and wild speculation.

Nope, we don't.
We don't know what makes consciousness conscious, like I said , consciousness is probably a byproduct of our complex brains, not and direct evolutionary trait, like sharp teeth.

Don't even start talking about mambo jambo shit.

>We don't know what makes consciousness conscious

Can you metafaggots fuck off

You can connect a human brain to a computer interface and one could argue that we're already doing a primitive version of that via mice and monitors.
But to claim that being able to do that will somehow give computers consciousness is quite the leap. We don't even know what consciousness IS.

How come? Sure, we don't have the technology right now for it to be of any good.
We could however extract a brain and keep it alive for a limited period, we have also successfully implanted ICs into the vision or hearing sectors of the brain that are connected to digital sensory devices giving basic vision or hearing aids.

What's your problem? Can't think out of the box? Ironic calling someone a metafaggot for that.

>source?

His anus.

>1000 years i'd say
We are at the dawn of quantum computing, it's certainly closer than you think for AI.

>There's no way consciousness is a product of the brain.
[citation needed]

>2017
>godfags

> Can't think out of the box

You're not thinking 'outside of the box' you're just making a bunch of philosophical claims that add up to 'Dude we don't shit about the brain lmaaooo"

>But to claim that being able to do that will somehow give computers consciousness is quite the leap.
We live in a physical world, there is nothing we can't do that we know very well works, it's just a matter of getting there.

People with consciousness exist, don't they? We just have to recreate it.
Transistor based silicon logic or biomechanical engineering, one way or the other. Both seem pretty viable options, second one is proven by you posting here.

>We don't even know what consciousness IS.
Didn't I just say that?

You're a brainlet. That's my basic reply.

Consciousness is a byproduct of information, pattern recognition, meta pattern recognition, memory etc.

So thats what we need, not something mystical. There is nothing meta about consciousness is just awareness of patterns.

But we really don't, we know how to influence it with drugs, cut parts out of it, connect basic electrodes to it, even how to influence a person's identity, yet we have no clue what creates a conscious, self aware being, except a bunch of neurons, wiring between them and electrical signals.

If you do, please give me the source, I'm interested. I haven't heard of such breakthrough though.

Everyone's a fucking philosopher.

>its a biology question
>muh religion/muh philosophy

Why are you moving the goalpost now?
I've been explaining the byproduct of consciousness as a complexity byproduct of the evolution of the brain for several posts, now you just agree with me?

So your argument is agreeing with others so you can use their opinions and call them brainlets? Cool.

The interesting thing that Always comes to my mind when I think about AI is that most people look forward to a point where AI would 'match' humans and that people think that is where it would end. Like you would have a talking robot with feelings and that would be it.

I can't help but think it won't be like that at all though, the AI would be so fucking far ahead of humans in almost every single way.

I think the earlier versions will be more like say Data from Star Trek TNG. Vastly superior in intellect and strength. But unlike data also continously improving themselves over time making the gap with humans wider and wider.

I see no reason why AI would stop at just being a 'smarter human', which is what most people expect from AI. Unless we specifically program them to be like that.

If they will be truly like us though they will seek to improve themselves, with the difference being that the room for improvement is huge compared to us who are stuck to slow biological evolution.

An intermediate step ofcourse would be augmented humans. But It seems more likely we create super AI before that happens with the way things are going now.

OK this was the video.
youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo

I don't see any religion or philosophy talk here. For the most part, people agree it's just a bunch of wires.

> yet we have no clue what creates a conscious, self aware being, except a bunch of neurons, wiring between them and electrical signals

So what exactly is wrong with that explanation?

Not him, but I assume he means what are the algorithms that make said neurons do meaningful work, and what information do the signals between them encode.

AI already exceeds humans expert performance in basically all fields it's being used.

there is no question that a sentient AI would surpass humans pretty quickly.

Nothing, only the fact that you don't understand it.
You probably also know that CPUs are a bunch of metals, silicon and a bunch of connections, yet I'm pretty sure you have no idea what makes it "tick" or can you design a CPU from scratch with just knowing that and nothing else?

Augmentation is the only feasable way in short term to keep up with AI.

They're already superhuman in their capabilities, the decisions/choices of DEEP learning are open but we cannot connect the dots properly due to our own biological limitation. Its why some people call it a "blackbox" when it comes to decision making done by DEEP learning programs.

But we do have an understanding about it.

Conciousness is created through the interplay of the different parts of the brain.

Damage or remove certain parts of the brain and a person is no longer conscious.

It's also easy to see why conscious lifeforms would have an advantage over non conscious lifeforms. As without consciousness one cannot learn and adapt to the enviroment. So it makes sense that conscious life spread through the genepool and is so widespread across this planet.

I just don't understand why people have so much trouble accepting that consciousness isn't some magical mystical thing but simply an experience created by our brain and perceptory organs which makes perfect sense from an evolutionary standpoint

Why does it matter? You'd be long dead before android waifus are sold on the market

The one on the right is disgusted and uncomfortable. The one on the right is wondering if they make boy versions of it.

>The two on the right.

Calm down, deep-thinker.

>Damage or remove certain parts of the brain and a person is no longer conscious.

How do you know if the person is conscious if they are not conscious enough to tell you? Are you conscious when you are sleeping? Do you cease to exist?

IMO it is possible to create consciousness, however the only way we will be able to do it is by complete random chance, there is no way we will understand it. In fact there are doubts as to whether we understand anything.

Yes, working on the first draft release desu.
9/23/17 Timeline

>>Could speaking to people thousands of miles away in real time ever be a possibility?
>haha No.
That's also what faggots said 30 years ago.

It isn't real time, though, dipshit.

Except it is

>How do you know if the person is conscious if they are not conscious enough to tell you

By monitoring their brain activity and observing their actions.

Except it's not. We've had speed of light communication for almost 350 years. REAL TIME is a buzzword, asshole.

>buzzword

>implying free will exists
>implying conscioussness exists, apart from being a particular configuration of electrical signals and neurons

>however the only way we will be able to do it is by complete random chance, there is no way we will understand it

Such an empty statement.

Claiming we will never understand something implies that you actualy know what something is, or how complex it is, else you can't make that claim. It's a self defeating argument.

Real Time is a proper engineering expression, and it doesn't mean what you think it means.

All this arguing about something that's already in the making. Calm down anons. There's no reason to argue about this anymore. It's coming. So, get your asses ready.. and no, it's nothing like you could imagine.

>what you think it means.
You have no idea what I think it means, just like you have no idea what consciousness is.

>calling me a shit poster
>in a thread about pretending

>self defeating

yes parodoxical, like something that understands, understanding itself.

The only pretending fag is you.
OP was making an assumption and asked for backup arguments. No pretention.

What makes you so sure?
Does your dad work at Tesla?

>something that understands, understanding itself.
That's not paradoxial

> Tesla? Elon... Weak AI
No desu. None of the names you're familiar with.
Think of a new Google entering the scene.
It's been long enough and is one aspect of this timeline.

The same tired debates have happened for long enough.
So, someone decided to just make it.
You'll hear about it soon.

>no u

The thread is full of pretentiousness, ``fag''.

...

no, but phillipinos will upload their consciousness for a quick and easy buck

>you mad

lol,

Yeah you mad

People who are in a coma have a working brain. The difference between a coma patient and a normal person is that one of them is conscious and the other one isn't. The brain doesn't stop working until it dies so even if computers could be wired like brains, they will never be conscious. The brain is just a tool to be used and experienced by conciseness.

Sure, why not?
Feelings aren't problem, even now you can have personal assistant who loves you(youtu.be/nkcKaNqfykg youtu.be/R-lcyYmQDyw)
The intelligence is the only real problem here, but it's just matter of time.
Also android might be very expensive for end user, but you should be fine with purely virtual assistant, like Gatebox but with strong AI.

>What you looking for is a sex bot that ACTS like it has feelings.
There is no difference between robot that was programmed to have feelings and robot that was programmed to act like it has feelings, assuming it acts well enough. Only final output matters. If you can't distinguish fake from real then it's the same.
I think you meant robot that was programmed to search for best partner, but who would want that.

It won't suffer if it gets pleasure from being with you.

It is, but they know no better way.
Top-Down AI would be much better anyway.

But no one needs that precision. Every human differs at this level of detail, so if AI would be different no one would even notice.

Of course they can. Computer in principle can compute anything computable. Just because brain wetware is more suitable for consciousness, doesn't mean we can't brute force emulate whole brain.

Yea, the AI might keep advancing, but who cares if I get AI of my waifu that is just a little less inteligent than I am and prevent it's advancing.

>The brain doesn't stop working until it dies so even if computers could be wired like brains, they will never be conscious.
False

this desu
materialism is simply incomplete

>current year
>an argument

You yourself are a machine so yes.
Consciousness is just an attribution.

ahuman is pretty much a machine
>Could an Android waifu with actually feelings for me ever exist?
it could, i doubt you even live by then
even if so i doubt they would love you

>You yourself are a machine so yes.
Nope.

>ever be a possibility

"Ever" is a really big word, and "possibility" is at least as big. So, Yes.

My personal estimate is about 100 years from now, assuming the world doesn't nuke itself or some other major disaster run us off the rails we're currently riding. It won't surprise me if I see it in my lifetime, like maybe as soon as 50 years. By 200 years out (given same assumptions as above), I consider it virtually a certainty.

One thing to remember: the word "machine" in terms of cognitive capacity will undergo a vast change in concept & use very rapidly in the coming decades. "Machines" will be grown like biological entities before much longer, so a self-aware machine is likely to be just another organic/biological entity. It may even be programmed by constructing DNA-like base code as a blueprint for the design that will be grown from base materials/nutrients.

It could but it'd take more than ones and zeros to produce a brainlike process capacity, to be honest we use a very primitive programming form

...

No, but we can fake it.

Inevitably we'll have a simulation that's indistinguishable even if it isn't genuinely self-aware, it'll think that it is.

At that point, what's the difference?

Laws of physics govern all reality
> :) mmm.
We're life forms based on most common substances in the universe
> :) mmmm.
Your body obeys the same laws that anything else obeys in nature, by treating your body as a mechanism medicine was able to develop and cure multiple diseases.
> :) mmmmmmm.
Your brain too
> :O WHHHAT no, fuck off kid - the divine principle resides there, it's sacred as fuck don't even bother.. it's a mystery - consciousness is a mystery, your soul is your consciousness brain is just paranormal shit a type of radio receptor for consciousness - doesn't matter that your brain matter is made of ordinary stuff, arguments and proof are irrelevant in face of the divine spark that all brains have.

Nothing special was found in brain and all the atomic interactions that take place between the elements that constitute brain matter are already known and most likely won't change in millions of years from now, they're fundamental knowledge.

Feelings for you? No, not if it's self aware.

Can't believe it took this long for someone to make this comment.

I was expecting it in the first post.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Go back to you brainlet dualist, so you can be together with the other retards in your special needs room

What user says.

Consciousness is different from self-awareness. Simulating intelligent behaviour, human feelings and reactions is completely doable now (enhanced Lisa or any chatbot). We got compact sensors for any needed feedback. We have IA systems able to learn and adapt on their own. We have mastered robotic walking and grasping. Vision camera systems are able to extract info from complex views in real time (cuting edge robocars.). Electric battery capacity progress, gigantic databases, loads of CPU power in frugal packages, etc. etc. We got all the hardware, the problem is just the money.

Self conciousness is another can of worms. As for now, nobody can explain how it works, we can't reproduce it. Some scientist are trying to recreate a brain silicon copy with its mindboogling number or connections, but even if they succede, nobody knows if self conciousness will emerge as a byproduct.

It literally is though, all babies are born the same but it's how their brain develops as they grow that shape their consciousness.

>There's no way consciousness is a product of the brain.
Well it's certainly not coming from your heart or liver. Care to explain where in your body it's coming from, if not the only part of the body responsible for thinking anything?