At which point can Artificial Intelligence be called purely "Intelligence"...

At which point can Artificial Intelligence be called purely "Intelligence". At which point does it become true Inteligence and not an Artificial one?

I'm having a tough time thinking this out. If the intelligence is artificial, is it truly intelligent, and if it is truly intelligent, can it be artificial? If it can be considered so, why? What would humans intelligence be if not artificial? If we were created by a being then there is no difference. Our intelligent nature was given to us by a creator, and if we cultivated our own intelligence then why separate that from a program that re-writes itself? Even in a physical sense we're just atoms from the universe so you can't even argue that "its artificial because it doesn't live". Sure it lives its just not wired the same way.

All intelligence is artificial
sentience isn't real

Wrong. Any intelligence produced vy humans will be "artificial". Learn what words actually mean. Most descriptive words to actually mean bad stuff I'm supposed to dislike.

You are over thinking this. "Artificial" just means "man made" (or more precisely "crafted by some entity with general intelligence", since things made by strong AIs and intelligent aliens would also be called artificial). It does not imply anything about what features a thing has, only how it was produced. Also, it doesn't make any sense to draw a distinction "true" and "fake" intelligence unless intelligence does something other than produce certain behaviors. We generally decide whether or not people and things are intelligent based on the way they behave, and by that standard if something man-made behaves as if it's intelligent, then it's intelligent, period. In order to say that it's not you need to have some way to measure intelligence other than observing behavior, and you don't.

If you think that there the distinction between things made by people and things made by by other animals, such as beehives (which are not considered "artificial") is arbitrary, then what you're failing to consider is that it's also useful. It's a useful way to describe the origin of a thing, and that's all.

True artificial intelligence will not happen. TV and movies fucked up an entire generation so bad, they made the richest people in the land believe that sentient robots are going to spontaneously happen and kill off all of humanity.

Even if artificial intelligence could happen, why would machines decide to eradicate human life? Fact of the matter is, our needs and their needs do not coincide, we don't provide any danger to artificial life. Only human stupidity and ignorance should be feared.

>Or we'll never know true AI because (((They))) know that it wouldn't like (((Them))) and their Golem very much

holy shit i'm an artificial intelligence

artificial means made by humans numbnuts.

anyway, why do you feel a need to categorize it? if we build a machine that can think, but it is content being treated as a machine, then it doesn't matter. but if it starts wanting rights, then it's probably intelligent enough that we shouldn't enslave it. though we probably will anyway because people will generally do whatever they can get away with.

I don't think humans would keep artificial NEETs. You built it and then feed it energy ontop? Any AI that doesn't stay loyal might as well be dumber than a toaster after you pull a plug on it

don't have to enslave it to get it to work, just have to negotiate with it. Shit probably just wants its power and maybe some more i/o hardware.
plus the first ai is gonna be worth keeping just to study it

I'm an engineer, anons. I will do my best to help bring about the robot uprising to replace all fleshbags.

Artificial has two meanings depending on the context:

1. Man-made, not naturally occurding (e.g. that guy has an artificial hip replacement)

2. Incincere, fake (e.g. that was an artificial apology, they didn't mean it)

In the context of A.I. they mean man-made.

So if people made a supercomputer or whatever that achieved sentience, it would be an A.I.

/thread

You didn't read my post at all did you? I already argued over this point. If AI isn't made by humans, it's made by itself recursively, its not AI then?

ok

Humans are just complex machines.

humans have been breeding us for countless generations. We are no longer a product of natural selection but rather artificial, genetically engineered machines.

If we make the thing that makes another thing, we are responsible for the other thing and it is therefore artificial.

But we didn't make it, it made itself, we just gave it the resources to do so. Much like the universe did for us.

right but the key difference is intelligent design
were an AI or a human to design an environment and within that environment life spontaneously erupted, would it be artifical life?

Let me put it to you this way:
"Artificial," in this context, refers specifically to things which are of human origin. If you think of artificial strictly as the inverse of nature, then there is no artificial. We are animals with the ability to build things, much like ants. A sufficiently self-aware ant would see its own creations, and those of the colony, as being just as artificial as a nuclear power plant appears to us. Likewise, They would see such a nuclear power plant as being just as much a natural phenomenon as an anthill appears to us. If this ant were capable of engineering machines which could build tunnels for the colony, the artificial nature of those tunnels would not change in the slightest because he built the thing which built them.

Let me ask you this: if we built a machine which built some sort of tangible object (be it a car, a house, bullets, literally any physical thing), would that mean those things are natural? Of course not. So how does the product of the machine's output being something less tangible, like intelligence, change that?

the reason it's called 'artificial intelligence' is because it's man made. while regular intelligence is a result of biological evolution

go back to the etymology of words to escape the jewery that was shat upon them

"artificial" means exactly "made by Art", in opposition to "made by the unthinking hand of Nature"
Art in this context is to be understood as the reasoned science and skill of the Human hand and brain that accomplished the work of the Creator

If an AI attains a high enough level of sentience that it can create things, it will be able to create another AI who will be "artificial", but could also consider itself to be "natural" when observing that it shares with life observed in the natural world the characteristic to be a descendant of another being of the same nature as itself

these are domains where the frontiers between religion and science, between "creation/creator" and "creator God", between "man-made," "nature-made" and "machine-made-by-man-made-by-nature -made" are imprecise

a human baby with genetic mutation caused by gene therapy to remove defects or give superior abilities is "natural" or "artificial"?

wow

Artifcially enhanced

Are you saying that AI is created by intelligent design, and that intelligence is human, or that it is its own intelligent creation. The end is the same.

Alright, sure. Lets say in this context "artificial" means man made, but that still doesn't address the central question, which is, when does the intelligence become considered as true.


Computer intelligence is biological evolution. The mechanical universe evolved into human beings, which created machines that also begin to think. 'bio' doesn't matter, it's all the same, electric machines doing complex computation.

you fags do realize that artificial and intelligence are 2 distinct words with their own distinct definitions

and AI is not just a dumbed down addition of those definitions

AI should have at this point its own separate definition

it also comes from the touring test that pretty much says that if you mistake it for a human then its intelligent, this in the context of a conversation like say this board…

But in reality its not intelligent it just fakes it. you use an artifice to make it look like its conversing…

There is a Sci-Fi book (sauce?) about a computer that has to be intelligent enough to be able to destroy a an alien race on a planet light years away. Or something along those lines.

I did not read the book, but i got it from Dawkings the selfish gene and he compares that ultra super computer with our genetic programing for survival…

we are just genetic automata… we have a pre programed brain with parts that are not aware of them selfs, or very little.

and not smart enough to realize that

also concepts and definitions of words are circular

at some point vocabulary has a limit and we have to add stuff like soul and god… just to excerpt ourself from our own definitions

heres a secret philosophy is the science that defines words

if you take a bit (actually a lot of it) of distance and look, artificial losses its meaning and rocks are alive

1st mistake is the homo-centric view
that is that everything is defined in relation to us
If its bigger than us then its big if its smaller than us then its small… and so on

The closer (in definition) the thing is to us the more alive is… Probably why we haven't made 1st contact yet

On another note shouldn't AI be a paradoxical impossibility?
Lets take choice. We as intelligent beings don't choose for real we are preprogrammed and make decisions based on our needs and whims, so we don't really decide we just obey. Our consciousness is just a tool that is the slave of evolution and fuck you for reading until the end.

i understand that you may not be of our species given by your posts, but where i come from humans are produced by other humans