[tpaine]

But AI, I don't buy it. Just because you link up an astonishing amount of processing power does not mean it's going to eventually become self-aware.
Some very smart people seem to think that's how it works, as if once there's enough power, it just happens. Maybe if you're an atheist, you think it does.

Ultimately I don't know how you test for true self-awareness compared simply to well-mimicked self-awareness.
A very complex computer could very persuasively imitate human intelligence, sure.
But actually think for itself? I believe this would have to be an illusion.

Regardless of how intelligence begins -- whether spiritual or physical -- it seems to me there must be a spark, a jump-start, a something-else beyond computing ability. We're not the sum of our brain's computing power.

There's something mysterious going on in there, and until we can describe that mysteriousness, we're not going to be able to create it in machines.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Mirror Test

One benchmark for "self-awareness" in animals and people (and now robots as well) is whether they will perform self-directed actions when looking in a mirror. When a mark is placed on the forehead of a child, they will only begin to inspect it on their own forehead at the age of 3 or 4. Adult bottlenose dolphins perform similarly in equivalent tests designed for underwater use.

According to this discovery news article, Junichi Takeno and a team of researchers at Meiji University in Japan have observed similar behavior in a robot with a hierarchical neural network.


Developing Intelligence: Imitation vs Self-awareness: The Mirror Test

Address:http://develintel.blogspot.com/2005/12/imitation-vs-self-awareness-mirror.html

[JamesP81]

I think our worries would be much better spent worrying about 'dumb' computer systems under the control of wacked out humans, a la President Amhadi-nejad in Iran.

Another thing to consider: they're working on creating neural interfaces. If that's ever perfected, a human linked to a computer would have all the advantages of being human, plus the reaction time and computing capability of a modern computer. I submit to you that no AI would ever be superior to that. In fact, it would probably be a few grades inferior.

[Fitzcarraldo]

One benchmark for "self-awareness" in animals and people (and now robots as well) is whether they will perform self-directed actions when looking in a mirror.

I think this form of self-awareness is only operational as seen from the outside observer and doesn't prove the actual self-awareness of a robot in the human "I know I exist" sense.

[Jack Black]

We're not the sum of our brain's computing power.

Prove it. That's just an assertion on your part. It may be correct, or it may not be.

[NoStaplesPlease]

Very interesting, although that post does heap plenty of skepticism on it. Interesting as heck, though.

I would also like to add that JamesP81 is right... superintelligence isn't the issue nearly as much as what a "dumb" computer could do under the control of bad human beings.

[JamesP81]

Regardless of how intelligence begins -- whether spiritual or physical -- it seems to me there must be a spark, a jump-start, a something-else beyond computing ability. We're not the sum of our brain's computing power.

There are a small number of AI programmers and computer scientists that have the idea that true intelligence, of the human kind, is only possible because of a spiritual influence; the soul. I suppose I would count myself among them; I don't think a being the equal of a human can exist without a soul, because without he can never equal a man. The open question is if God is feeling like AI is a good thing and gives a soul to some AI we try to build or not.

This, of course, doesn't even qualify as educated guesswork. It's a way out there WAG and we won't know if it's right or wrong for a long time. We may never know.

[grey_whiskers]

One benchmark for "self-awareness" in animals and people (and now robots as well) is whether they will perform self-directed actions when looking in a mirror.

Circular reasoning.

By definition, you are "assuming" a "self" in the case of the robot.

I'll only accept that computers are self aware when they ask for oral sex.

Cheers!